The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The UK should send a military task force to the South Atlantic to deter Argentinean aggression

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,852 times Debate No: 20198
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Clearly the Argentinean government's memories of their country's failed attempt to seize the Falkland Islands in 1982 (1) have faded because, once again, Argentina has turned its beady little eyes to the islands, this time no doubt with the intention of getting their grubby hands on the oil reserves that have recently been discovered off the coast of this British Overseas Territory. (2,3)

This treacherous bunch of tango-dancing greasers has belligerently laid siege to the Falklands by instigating a ban on all Falkland Island vessels docking in any Mercosur bloc port (4) – meaning that Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay are all off-limits to ships flying the Falkland Islands' flag.

The former First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy, Lord Alan West, recently suggested Britain should send a nuclear submarine to the Falklands and also undertake military exercises in response to the these antagonistic Argentinean autocrats' "aggressive" decision. (5)

Lord West is right, a show of strength in the South Atlantic would send these bellicose bureaucrats in Buenos Aires the message that any more funny business from them will be dealt with swiftly and surely.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.falklandislands.com...
(2) http://www.sharecast.com...
(3) https://www.cia.gov...
(4) http://www.mercosur.int...
(5) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
ConservativePolitico

Con

I thank my opponent for starting an interesting debate.

Points

1)
The banning of ships flying under a certain flag is not an action of military aggression therefore should not warrant a military response. [1] The issue at hand is obviously territorial and economic in nature and there is no reason for either side to employ military tactics. Nations have a right to free trade and trade agreements and this is just a form of trade agreement where countries have agreed not to trade with the Falkland Isles also known as an embargo. Trade agreements do not constitute military show of force.

embargo - the partial or complete prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country, in order to isolate it. [2, line one]

While embargoes are treated as strong diplomatic measures [3, line two] they are still just that, diplomatic and should stay as such.

2) Aggression begets aggression. Sending a military force to the Falkland's is sure to just inflame the situation even more and sends a poor message. They will be responding to aggression (economic) with aggression (military), not only does it seem unbalanced but it also has a tinge of hypocrisy to it.

Also note that it is not singularly Argentina who is on board with this particular embargo but it consists of the entire Mercosur Bloc meaning that the United Kingdom will be potentially getting involved with three nations, not just one.

Brazil has the largest Navy in South America and in possession of its own air craft carrier and submarine force. [4]

Aggression begets aggression.

3) Alternatively: Most Falkland registered ships are fishing vessels and can avoid docking in South American ports. Merchants can try to ship their goods on ships registered to countries other than the Falkland Island's or can export to neighboring countries to avoid the embargo.

Conclusion

While an embargo on ships bearing a Falkland Island flag seems extreme it does not constitute a showing of military strength but should instead be resolved diplomatically. There are alternatives to aggression and should be pursued first.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and for taking such an interest in what, for most members of this site, might seem an obscure and irrelevant topic. However, to British and South America members, it is a very important issue and it could have much wider significance in the future if Argentina continues to behave in a bellicose and aggressive manner and thus provokes a military response from Britain, as they did in the early eighties.

Now, I would like to address each of my opponent's points in turn as follows:

1) Trade embargoes, such as the one placed on the Falklands by Argentina and her accomplices, do not in themselves represent acts of military aggression, but they can and do represent provocations to a military response – and countries that impose such unwarranted economic sanctions must understand that.

2) It is not always true that aggression begets aggression – the human instinct is to make a choice: fight or flight; and a shot across the bows is often enough to make an economic aggressor reconsider their position and to realise that further bellicose sanctions will not be tolerated.

It is true that the combined armed forces of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay are significant, at least in terms of numbers of military personnel – but unlike Britain's, their equipment is not state of the art and their troops are not combat veterans. Where were the Brazilian, Paraguayan, Uruguayan and Argentinian forces when the Libyan people needed help to overthrow Gadhafi's regime last year? Where were they when an international coalition was built to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq? Where were they when the US needed allies to root out the Taleban in Afghanistan? That' right, they were sitting in their barracks dancing the flamenco and playing the castanets. In fact, the last time any of these countries contributed to any military campaign was when Argentina sent a handful of engineers over to the Balkans in the nineties – and even then they were embedded within an Italian brigade. (1)

On the other hand, after the US, Britain has made the largest military contribution of any nation in all the major international conflicts of recent times – and all that from a country that's smaller than the state of Oregon. (2)

But here's the clincher: Britain is a nuclear power and has nuclear submarines at her disposal. As the Argentineans know all too well, the only time any nuclear submarine has launched its torpedoes in anger was in 1982 off the coast of the Falkland Islands when the British hunter-killer nuclear submarine Conqueror sank the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano. The Argentine escort ships gave chase but "were all out of ideas within five miles". After this incident, the entire Argentine fleet returned to port and stayed there for the remainder of the conflict. (3) And, of course, the British subs are equipped with nuclear missiles which are ultimately capable of ending any conflict with the Argentines in Britain's favour.

3) The Argentinean-led trade embargo trade does, indeed, mainly affect fishing and other commercial vessels. These cowardly economic sanctions are putting the livelihoods of decent, hardworking people at risk – people who have never done anything to upset the Argentinean people, but as a result, are now forced to either round the notoriously dangerous Cape of Good Hope to put ashore in Chile or sail over 5,000 nautical miles north to Guyana in order to unload their cargoes. It is not fair that innocent Falkland Islanders should suffer to bolster the egos of politicians in Buenos Aeries.

In conclusion, trade embargoes only hurt innocent people on both sides of the argument and are likely to have little effect on the Argentinean politicians' actions. No, the only language the Argentinean leaders are likely to listen to is the threat of losing power as the result of a military conflict with Britain, which was the fate of the former Argentinean leader General Galtieri in 1982.

Thank you.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) https://www.cia.gov...
(3) http://books.google.co.uk...
ConservativePolitico

Con

I find this subject fascinating as all global events hold significance for everyone involved.

1) "do not in themselves represent acts of military aggression"

Since Argentina did not engage in a military activity against Britain it does not warrant a military response. You claim that the sanctions are "unwarranted" when you yourself have already pointed out a history fraught with tension between Britain and Argentina. So while this may seem "unwarranted" these recent "economic sanctions" are indeed just a continuation of a conflict that has been spanning for decades and a military response is only sure to extend and inflame an already tense situation. [1, note on Falklands War].

2) While it is not always true that aggression begets aggression, since we should never make statements in absolutes, I made the point about the latest coalition in order to point out the fact that with support from neighbors, in this case, aggression is more likely to lead to more aggression. With it's neighbors and closer than ever allies backing them up I am making a point that Argentina will not so easily back down and that aggression in this point will lead to aggression. Also aggression does not always mean military aggression but such an action by the British could further economic and diplomatic aggression as well and lead to similar events in the future.

Once again you make the point that economic aggression should be dealt with militarily when there are other options. Especially in such a long, deep seated rivalry.

Here is where my opponent starts to get off track a little bit. I do not see how the recent military history of the nations involved has anything to do with the resolution at hand. There is no doubt that the UK can respond militarily to Argentina. In fact they are more than capable of such a feat but the resolution is whether or not they should react in this manner. The military history has nothing to do with this resolution.

Then my opponent makes the comment that since Britain is a military power with nuclear weapons they deserve to use this to lord over a non-nuclear opponent and even claims that they would be able to use a nuke to end any conflict. Such responses from British nationalists no doubt is what leads to such tension between countries such as these. Just because a country is militarily superior to another does not permit them to use this power to further their own ends, this sort of neo-imperialism is outdated and inefficient.

3) While I agree that these sanctions hurt innocent economic ventures I do not believe that it warrants a response by the British military. There are other ways to solve such an economic dispute and instead of jumping to "mast raising" by nuclear submarines the two sides should sit down.

Also there are alternatives, not easy or cheap alternatives but alternatives. They could charter non-Falkland ships to carry Falkland cargo into the ports in question or double up on the non-Falkland registered ships.

In conclusion, this actions shown by Buenos Aires does not deserve to be responded to by the military. There are peaceful opportunities that can be exploited by the British in order to try to diffuse the situation instead of scaring the belligerent side into submission which is sure to only postpone the tension until Argentina can actually respond militarily. A military action can only put off tension while other options are more feasible to solving the current situation. They should work to end the conflict permanently instead of inflaming them with military action.

So the UK should not send a military force to deal with Argentinean aggression.

Thanks for a great debate.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
there was no vote bomb atheist intelligence
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
He does apparently. Don't insult.
Posted by UnStupendousMan 5 years ago
UnStupendousMan
Who cares about the Falklands?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
brian_egglestonConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering russianfish99's vote.
Vote Placed by RussianFish99 5 years ago
RussianFish99
brian_egglestonConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
brian_egglestonConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: counter-counter vote bomb. Also, conduct goes to ConservativePolitico. Ironically, this is one of those cases that brian has shown me a line of reasoning that I thought was stronger, but his line was refuted.
Vote Placed by youngpolitic 5 years ago
youngpolitic
brian_egglestonConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's repeated use of offensive language against South Americans...
Vote Placed by TheAtheistAllegiance 5 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
brian_egglestonConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Counteracting vote bomb.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
brian_egglestonConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con proved there is no point. Also who cares about the Falklands?