As I said, there's nothing to talk about.

The great irony is that the only support that Britain has in its claim is from the French. Not even the US, with its "special relationship" with Britain, takes one position or the other. Pretty much all of South America has sided with Argentina.

If one wishes to be technical about the whole thing, the islands belong to Spain. After all, they never really surrendered sovereignty since they legally took over sovereignty of the islands from the French before the British ousted them. They were governed from what is now Argentina by the viceroy acting on behalf of Carlos III, but it was still a sovereign Spanish colony.

Don't make me laugh, Argentina bullied the rest of the Mercosur block a few months ago to block ships from the Falklands from entering our harbours. It's been only a few months and pretty much everyone is getting pissed off over here, mostly Brazil and Chile. I live a stone's throw away from Brazil and the general mood over there is "hope the Brits fuck them over a barrel"

Argentina doesn't have any friends right now, they are mostly trying to draw attention away from their internal problems.

Spain only claimed 1 island the UK claimed the rest, Spain supposedly gave them to Argentina (which they didn't actually you know govern) then when Argentina tried to found a colony on one of the islands the UK claimed the navy came in and pushed them all off and reopened our colonies there. Soooo by conquest, prior claim, current populations wish etc etc etc it's British and even the UN officially recognises that.
Argentina only pulls out the Falklands when they are broke and need to make their people distracted from a failing economy. The current president is relying on the fact we no longer have an aircraft carrier in the fleet (forgetting we built and armed an RAF base on the islands) might mean we won't go to war with them again. She's calling our government names and making short term deals (which are destroying more of her economy) to try and starve out the Falklands again hoping we'll give them sovereignty without taking it to international court (for the 4/5th time in 60 years).

That pretty much sums it up. They're trying to divert people's attention from the real problems. But then that's a common political strategy.

Exactly, why else would the story be playing so well over here? DC - "Oh, the economy's still screwed, what was that thing that worked for Thatcher?"

Yeah struggling conservative party looking to be ousted in the next GE has minor war with Argentina... where have I heard that before....

Heh. I hope it happens. We can't afford another decade of Labour so soon...

If the government had the first clue about how to run a country, rather than appease some American credit company (that in turn is also trying to divert attention away from gigantic domestic problems) then I doubt we'd be hearing about the Falklands, given that all it tells us is that nothing has changed.

We can't afford condem either and the cons really aren't gonna manage a solo majority this GE I'd say we'll have 5-10 more years of 2-4 party governments (SDP and friends will likely get to choose who governs if Salmond is smart enough to forget his dreams of independence and settle for DV+ and more control in the commons...)

Actually, the US has consistently managed to piss off everybody by sitting on both sides of the fence, siding with Argentina in repeatedly calling for negotiations (most recently at last year's OAS) while continuing to recognize British sovereignty.

And it was a long time ago, but it was actually the US that ousted the only viable Argentine settlement in the 1830's and set it up for the British to regain control.

Strictly speaking it wasn't a fully Argentinian settlement - it was more a private venture run by one French-German with a Brit second in command who asked both Britain and Argentina for permission to colonize the island. Also the Americans in the 1830s weren't trying to do anyone -Brit or Argentine - any favors during their raids. If anything the Brits were supportive of the Vernet venture.

That said, you are right that the official U.S. position has indeed been to consistently side with no-one in the dispute - claiming that it supports British rule, but that there should be "negotiations" without ever uttering - even in generalities - what the conclusion of such negotiations should be or why we should have them in the first place. This position is not new to the Obama Whitehouse, but one that has been in place since the Falklands war and probably before that.

Not really. Reagan's administration did provide covert help in the form of Real-Time Satellite imagery and Radio/Comms intercepts on the Argentine military....

It was released on a FOI request some years ago now, but still remains little-known...

Edit : You know...maybe that's what Penn is up to...? "A B-Movie actor got elected to president, so why can't a D-movie one like me?"

>.<

But that was not what the US's official position was (that's why it remains little known and was covert). The US has always tried to have its cake and eat it too when it came to the Falkland question.