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

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...