Originally posted by Phil123
They are also clearly not part of Argentina as they are 300 miles away, if we used Argentina's logic we would own half of Europe.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Yes, absolutely. Being 300 miles away means you have no claims on the islands whereas being 8000 miles away gives you absolute ownership.

Originally posted by Phil123
It means nobody has a claim except the people who live in the Falklands, and they want to remain under British control.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Then France has no claim on them either since they are 30 miles away. The channel islands are not a valid comparison to the falklands in any way. The falklands are almost literally on the other side of the world.

Originally posted by Phil123
So what are we arguing about then by the same logic the Falklands shouldn't be claimed by either Britain or Argentina but as I keep saying the people of the Falklands want to be British.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I'm saying that the Argentines have a far greater claim to the islands than we do.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
That was your argument, not mine . I'm saying that the Argentines have a far greater claim to the islands than we do.

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Argentina has NO valid claim to the Falklands whatsoever. As someone pointed out earlier, they were uninhabited before they were discovered by European explorers.

Why is it that you believe that governments should reign over only those lands closest to their capitals?

The people on the Falklands are British, therefore their government is British.