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

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...