Because there was one already at Stanley (they’d actually built it)
They (argentines) don’t believe they have a tenuous claim. The wikipedia articles paint a fair picture of the state of play for the various claims.
The reason for the constant brainwashing of the islands being Argentine, as far as I can work out, is purely for politicians to point to when matters at home are a little uncomfortable. Got some inflation or a scandal, you are always close to some significant date in the Islands history or another veteran suicide, so one can point at that and hope to distract from the real problems at home.
When did England own Denmark?
So, how much of England’s army is tied up in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other sundry Stans? For the forseeable future.
How much of her navy is tied up around the Arabian Peninsula, enforcing some embargo or other? For the forseeable future.
Do they have enough left to take on Argentina?
Yes, if it is accurate, it appears that after attaining independence from Spain in 1816, Argentina kept control of the islands until 1833, when Britain invaded them. So the situation isn’t the same as with Canada and Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. (Of course, the fact that the current population is almost entirely British does imply that Britain has a stronger claim.)
Probably never, but Greenland is closer to Canada than to any other independent country.
On edit, I believe England used to be under the Danish crown. So Denmark owned England, as it were. So there, do you need any more proof that Greenland belongs to us? 
You make a point. But the good news of the UK is that their forces are veterans, and the Argentinians are not. Veterans are worth something like 5-1 over combat greenies.
Franco revived the Spanish claim to Gibraltar after something like 300 years and made a big hoo-haa about it, presumably to distract attention from some of the pecadillos inherent in a Fascist dictatorship. I’m guessing it was taught about in much the same way Taiwan is discussed in Chinese schools nowadays. Things have mellowed somewhat (what with Spain being a mature democracy nowadays) but I’d think there is still a fair amount of heat over the issue, since these things are more easily stirred up than calmed down.
Gibraltar is still up for discussion despite the fact that this would make every single European peace treaty since, I think, the Treaty of Utrecht ‘renegotiable’, so Argentina’s claim is rock-solid by comparison. Although the neighbours (specifically Chile) would probably not be too happy about reopening territorial claims dating back to the middle of the 19th Century.
Absolutely right. And the political climate in Argentina is now so different, I think it’s extremely unlikely that they’d have another go at it.
The Falkland islanders were and are British, and consider themselves such. I think it was a British FCO staffer who said pre-1982 that they’d “welcome a seduction, but oppose a rape” when it came to Argentine claims on the islands. But Argentina attempted rape, and it’ll be a long time - if ever - before the Falklanders and the British public forget that.
25th anniversary memorial commemorations are now underway in the Falklands: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/06/14/falklands.anniversary.reut/index.html
It is my understanding that the Falklands generates a few million per year in fishing rights and that they are doing exploratory drilling for oil. I doubt the British would be likely to let it go. Besides, while the fighting might be done by the British, I bet the US would let them use airbases in South America and might even supply a few fuel planes.
The Argentine claim on the Falklnads is, at best, unclear.
France had the first settlement, however the British claim, based only in discovery dates back to 1690, it depends if you interpret settlement as true claim or not.
At any rate, the British did settle on one half of the islands, the French on the other.
The French sold out to Spain, and booted the British off, who returned a few years later in 1771.
The British decided to leave for a time, but retained their claim on the islands.
All this is long before Argentina existed, and the settlement that Argentina later made was hardly much more than a pirate operation which was duly punished by the US. At this time the US did not recognise the Argentine claim to the islands.
British worries that the US might make some claim themselves led them to return and make a much more permanent mark.
It is so easy to select a particular date in history and make a territroial claim based upon some historical convenience, and also conveniently ignore less convenient dates.
This is simply what Argentina has done, but it does not make their claim any more or less valid, it is just a historical curiosity.
How far do we proposed to roll back territorial claims, because half of Europe could change hands depending upon when you choose a year, you only need look at the Balkans to see that, and a goodly chunk of the mess in the middle east, from palestine through to Iran and Iraq is simply because variuos groups will not leave history alone and carry on their arguments.
Realistically, Argentina does not have any valid claim, but if they had used more diplomacy and patience, the UK would probably have let them have the islands anyway. Some maturity on the part of the Argentine would have been expedient, in recognising that no democracy would simply allow allow their citizens to be transferred against their will to be citizens of another country, particularly to a dictatorship.
Prior to 1982 the UK had pretty much demonstrated this by showing only slight interest in the islands, had there been anything approaching a democracy in Argentina I doubt that transfer of sovereignty would have been much of an issue.
Its only the stupid petty nationalisms of an extremist Argentine regime that got in the way, and until this is acknowledged and the lie of the ‘Malvinas’ is put to rest that there is any real hope that the UK will cede these islands.
What airbases does the US have in South America?
If Argentina turned to political means, is there much they could do given the value (in terms of fishing and oil deposits) the UK has attached to the islands?
I could be wrong, but I am unaware of any South American US Air Force bases. And even if they exist, the US can’t unilaterally offer them for another country to use in a war.
Back in post 45 Severus links to the wikipedia article which gives a somewhat different summary of the claims. I am not sure that they are as tenuous as you make out. Argentina probably has a much a claim over the islands as the UK does, which I guess is why the UN asked them to try and sort it out nicely.
That said I agree with the rest of your post, there is no way the UK would or should have handed over the islands to a dictatorship who was too busy chucking its own people out of aeroplanes, to do anything useful for the economy.
Now post war, all claims are at best irrelevant.
NBC
The Argentine claim over the Falklands has no basis in any international law or precedent.
Claims based upon so-called inherited interests have no precedent, and that is almost the entirity of the Argentine claim.
The UK claimed the Falkland before Argentina existed, and had a settlement there before Argentina existed. The British chose to leave but still maintained their right of possession, in an age where this right was enforced by those who had the means, and if those means were lacking, then the loser got booted out.
You can argue all you like about the rights and wrongs of this, but this was a matter of fact back then, and there is plenty of other territory around the world that was held in this way, it is not constructive to rewrite history.
The British position on the Argentine 1830 settlement was that it was not a legal occupation as it was already a British possession, the US kicked the Argentine butts after US ships were seized, and the British recolonised the islands, taking up where they left off.
Think of it like this, you have a house where you lived, but now you live somewhere else, someone else then moves in, does that mean the house belongs to the squatter ? Of course not.
The fact that it was wrested from Spain, does not make the claim by Argentina any more valid.
There has never been a long term settlement of Argentines on the Falklands, 13 years in the totality of history is not long at all,there is simply nothing on the Falkland that is identifiably Argentine, in terms of structures, graveyards etc.There is no native Argentine people prior to the British, or indeed any other visiting nationality, these island were uninhabited, it not like there was some tribal Argentine based ancestry.
Most of ther claim appears to be that it is the largest country that is near to the Falklands, but that is not a condition for posession.
As I have already stated, if we want to pick a convenient point in history and award possession of territory based on that, the world would be in flames, and in those places where this is currently happening, those places are often areas of conflict.
As for Wiki, it has plenty of critics, and often falls into the trap of trying to be all things to all people, in an attempt not to offend, esepcially when it comes to politics.
The one I was thinking of was a proposed base in Paraguay. I guess I was mistaken on that one.
England was once under the Danish crown, in the first half of the 11th century. 1013 to about 1042 when Harthacanute’s Saxon half-brother Edward the Confessor took the crown, with a couple of very short breaks. This is what Canute the Great’s northern empire looked like at the time.
American whalers occupied settlemets on the Falklands in the 1820’s-see Slacum vs. Gov. of Argentina.
The USA also had title toseveral areas on the islands.
Take that!
Thanks, casdave, for the link to the British FCO website. An excellent and concise overview.