OTH - your just mad because Finland can't get to any resources there...

The islands have been a source of discontent for ages between these two countries. I really don't understand why the UK, in completing the last Falklands war, didn't require Argentina to recognize in perpetuity the British claim to the island as the cost to stop the war. Had they done so, while the Argentinians may have not liked it, it would have meant that as time passed, generations would have moved PAST the issue of the island, and it would be less of an issue. Not to mention it would have legally resolved the ownership question.

Yes because the UK is not really a part of EU in any way so UK wealth will not be a part of any kind of common EU budget so yes, Finns will not benefit from that oil in any way.

And neither will the Argentinians.

Okay, the islands are British territory, does not matter what they want to do with it, it is theirs to do with as they please.Argentina invaded them which started the war and then LOST, so they and everyone else need to get over it and quit claiming them and whatever resources they have etc.Again, they LOST the war and that is what happens when you lose a war.

This reminds of how in children's ball games and the winners get the prize but the losers get participation trophies etc I am 23 now and this started around the time I was a kid and always hated it, such Liberal BS.There are winners and losers, when you win you call the shots.The loser can always challenge them to another "game" but still they lost.Basically Argentina with it's demands are asking for a participation/losers trophy.Argentina is basically saying "yea we lost but we still want to feel like we run the show so will make demands and whine" No! Argentina you lost, deal with it and if you want to roll the dice and challenge the Brit's to another "game" then go ahead, maybe you will learn a lesson this time.

I just think it's funny how US and UK pretend at least some of the time to be the goody-goody guys of the planet. Like, when the Balkan wars were raging they were all "Stop fighting! Don't you know that fighting wars is really, REALLY wrong!"

And then some presidential aide whispers to the US president's ear "Mr President, there's this poor little country that might have lots and lots of oil." and the president is like "WHAT!? Sound the trumpets, we're going in!" :haha:

That is a rather well, ignorant view of US and UK policy Herring and honestly one of the most offensive to me, esp when I hear our own citizens talk that way because they are just WRONG.The US said Balkans was bad because it was due to the ethnic cleansing and such and it was awful.Your comment about oil, I assume its a dig at the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Well while no G.W. Bush fan(he set real conservatism back many years) anyone whoe honestly believes he went in for ulterior motives such as oil or revenge, is just wrong.Sadam had WMD's before and they had intel and evidence suggesting he had them and instead of waiting around for Americans to die, he launched the war.Now, Sadam had plenty of warning, pretty sure he figured Bush was bluffing because he had nothing but bluffs from Clinton in the 90's.Would be money what weapons Sadam did have, he hid in the desert of sent them elsewhere knowing in unlikely event it did happen, it would be a great source of embarassment.

Now, we went in to Iraq, things were bad but have greatly improved(taking this from people in the military I know who have been there before and after, early days and now) We are in Afghanistan because their brutal and opressive government (Taliban) made sure the country was a training ground for terrorist.Now, it took a backseat to Iraq and was mismanaged and one area I will give Obama points for is he's trying to work that mess out, it can be done, not easy but nothing worth while is easy.Afghanistan is a craphole of a country, we had nothing to gain by invading other than to prevent Bin Laden and his ilk from having their own little Terrorist Chuck-E-Cheese.Going in, we had nothing to gain from Iraq than getting Sadam out of the way and stopping his weapons program, well we didnt find any weapons but on bright side, we did free an opressed people.As far as the oil goes, pretty sure the profits from it are used to help rebuild that country and bring them out of the friggin dark ages.If the do give us a low price etc, so what? Allies do that Does not mean we invaded oil.

I suspect you may bring up the Desert Storm back in early 90's so will go ahead explain the truth of that.Iraq invaded a country for no other reason than what you wrongly alleged the US did.Iraq wanted Kuwait's oil and invaded and from what I have heard, they were rather brutal.Coudl you imagine if Sadam controled that much oil? After multiple warnings to leave, half the damn world joined together and sent Sadam packing, once his Army was back in Iraq, we didn't push to Bagdad, we showed restraint.We could taken the country, which is what many Iraqis wanted because they started an uprising thinking that was what was coming.

Now, the Falklands are long time territories of the Brits.Argentina invaded them and then lost the ensuing war that THEY started.So now here they are 30 years later whining and moaning about things when they have no rightto.They lost the war so frankly it is none of their business what the Brits do there.Now, if they do not like it they can roll the dice and try to fight for them again or they can just shut the hell up about it.

Oh joy... another "The US invaded Iraq for Oil...."

Once again - facts prove that the accusation is blatently untrue.

When did Iraq provide the MOST oil to the US? Answer - the year 2001. Thats right - the year OF 9/11 - Iraq provided a WHOPPING 4.5% of the total oil imports to the US. That amounted to 298 Million barrels imported to the US. In 2002 the US imported 165 Million barrels from Iraq.

Conspiracy theorists will point out that the amount of crude oil imported from Iraq dropped in 2002 and 2003, thus pushing the U.S. government to invade Iraq to get more oil. But Iraq was not holding oil from the U.S. In fact, all oil production in Iraq dropped in 2002 and 2003. (Source: Iraq Energy Profile: 10 Year Energy Data Series published by Energy Information Association.)

Now - the Second Gulf War started in March of 2003. How many barrels of Iraqi oil did the US get in 2003? About 175 Million barrels.

2004? 240 Million barrels
2005? 195 Million barrels
2006? 202 Million barrels
2007? 175 Million barrels

(Source: U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from Iraq published by Energy Information Association)

From 1999 to 2002 - the average imports to the US from Iraq averaged 261 Million barrels. Even factoring in the years of 2002 and 2003 (where production in Iraq overall dipped by about 20%) - the average import still equals 224.6 Million barrels. From 2004 to 2007? Average is 203 Million barrels of oil. A drop of almost 10% - or 21.6 Million barrels of oil.

If the Iraq War is all about oil, then the U.S. has spent a lot of money and resources to topple Saddam, run elections, and train the military/police to get less oil from Iraq.

The reality is that the Iraq was has never been about oil. A quick google search will show you that - if you actually care about stuff like facts and truth.

But then again - some people would rather throw out what are known as "red" Herrings..... isn't that right OTH?

What OTH said...

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/6650/malvlands.png

please excuse silly paint skills, but this is basically why this issue is not as simple as "the islands are theirs, they should do whatever the f**k they want"

on the left the Argentine portion of the sea, on the right, United Kingdom's part of the sea, plus a ship taking oil... from a single reservoir that crosses over to the other side.



*disclaimer: aparent depth compared to the ship on the picture does not represent real life proportions. oil reservoir might not be so close to the surface, size might differ and it might not even be there. The amount of the reservoir on each side of the picture might not correlate truthfully to the actuall location of said oil reservoir. Also, the picture does not portray the correct method to drill for oil at sea *

Nickolas,

Actually the paint skills were better than mine - but there is a valid point there. However, what stops Argentina from doing the exact same thing?

To be fair - stick a ship on the Argentinian side of the shelp and start sucking up that oil too. After all - half of its yours. Then either both sides in their respective waters get to exploit the resources - or they can decide to both stop being petty and pool the efforts to figure out roughly how big the deposit is (if its there at all) and then based on how much exists where (which can be determined by mapping) - figure out how much each side is entitled to.

While your picture does present a valid point - the reality is that a ship - or even fleet of tankers, cannot empty the suspected deposit - if it exists as the experts think. The exploitation of the field will take many years, during which both sides have ample time to make use of what is there. The premise that just because the Falklands exist means that the UK is going to drain a deposit dry before Argentina can do anything about it is simply propaganda.

I don't dispute that if a resource exists that Argentina may have a claim to it depending on the location. But current treaties accepted by Argentina defines boundaries for where those claims terminate. Argentina is a signatory state of the 1982 Montego Bay Convention. The treaty defines territorial waters as those extending 12 nautical mi (22 km) beyond a country's coast and gives to each country exclusive fishing and mining rights in waters extending to 200 nautical mi (370 km) from its coast. Coastal nations are granted exclusive rights to the fish and marine life in waters extending 200 nautical miles from shore. Every nation that has a continental shelf is granted exclusive rights to the oil, gas, and other resources in the shelf up to 200 miles from shore. Any legal disputes concerning the treaty and its provisions may be adjudicated by the new Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, by arbitration, or by the ICoJ.

Before you get all excited however, the SAME benefits per the treaty would be granted to the UK because of their ownership of the Falklands - so you would have a "shared shelf" where both countries have a legal claim to the rights in the shelf. Thus, the matter would require adjudication.

I say WOULD - because the UK is NOT a signatory of the treaty in question. While I see both reasons for and against acceptance of the treaty (which the US is also not a signatory - along with 28 other countries) - the fact remains that Argentina cannot expect the UK to abide by a treaty it has refused to sign.

Instead of worrying about the UK exploiting the resources - Argentina needs to get moving and make use of them itself. I mean - lets face it - if a deposit exists - who has the logistical ability CLOSE BY to make use of it????

the point is... that every single drum of oil removed from the reservoir, regardless of wich side it was pumped out of... is X% argentine and x% british.

I'm not saying "bu bu bu bu bu, they should let us drill";)

exactly, so it's both not fair for the UK to just go and drill (being that they could "potentially steal our oil"*), but it also wrong for our... <sarcasm> beloved </sarcasm> president to act as if the argentine flag was flown on the islands.

anywho, i don't think any inversion will be made from the mainland to drill on our part of the continental shelf, there are more pressing matters for the president and her staff, like choosing who's next in line to be "charged" of being "pro coup d'etats"...

we dont know how much is ours, it could be less than 1%, or it could be close to 80%, sadly, we lack both the technology and the capital to go out there and "do it ourselves".


*they will drink our milkshake... they will drink it up!
just adding some tension breaking humor :rotfl2:

Drill it or lose it Argentina.
It's not yours under any law The UK recognises.

If you must insist it is yours, then think of it as payback. Although you owe blood, not oil.

if it lays outside of the 200 mile radious then it IS ours, whether you like it or not.

also, i though that for certain nations blood and oil were worth the same
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4218/nowar.jpg
i think you forget that argentine youth died there too.

also, unless british law can void physics laws (as in... some form of magic barrier holding the oil on OUR continental shelf spilling to your side when you remove yours)*, you may very well "drink our milkshake" (refer to the doodle posted earlier).

*or is Patagonia part of the falklands? maybe you'd like Buenos Aire too? if you do, you could take the regimental color that Lt. General John Whitelocke forgot over here in 1806


-------------------
i'm also done reading this thread, nothing good will ever come of this, and i wont force myself to read posts from people that instead of gentlemanly discussion want to sink in a "my country is better than yours" flame war. we have enough of that over here already.

I think a quote in the movie "There will be blood" sums it up

"Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8529605.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...h-Britain.html

So Argentina realises the military futility of trying for a re-match of '82.
What has it been promising to these other Nations?

1. The Islanders are British
2. The Islands were British before the Republic of Argentina even existed.

These are not disputed facts.

Britain will not be sharing or surrendering in any hurry at all.
No matter who else gets invited to the party.

I saw that crappy movie. I kept waiting for someone to put a bullet in that horrible man.

Ok some points made by a documentary i saw, the islands have been in british hands since 1883 before then they have been in spanish, argentine and french hands.

Also if you do the math falklands islands acctually lie aproximatly 320 miles away from the coast of argentina, and if argentina is a signatory to the 200 mile economic exclusion zone then the flaklands and its oil remains firmly british. (the UK never signed the argrement).

Operating on those perameters it doesnt matter how much the argentines can protest thier nearest land point is well over the 200 miles set by the UN and is out side thier zone so tuff luck argentina.

Our millitary although smaller than in 1982 comprises of far newer ships and more capible ones at that, our navy is better equiped than that of the 1980's for example:

We didnt have a helicopter carrier in 1982 and thus relied on merchant vessels to ferry the choppers to the war zone, today we have HMS ocean which can carry sea king merlin apache and chinhooks, and with that combination it means the apaches can deliver air support to ground forces and the others can operate in EAW ASW and also logistic support.

Our fleet of auxilaries are better equiped and newer faster than the older ships and thus can also aid in refueling at sea more effectivly than the older vessels, and also comprises of four large landing platform docks which are twice the size of the old ones (round table class we have two of these in reserve also)

In 1982 we sent down the type 42 which was new then we now have type 45 ok not in any great number at the moment but when operational would give a close air support advantage to us in the escort role.

We have 2 operational carriers and one carrier that is in reserve so giving us 3 capible carriers in which to operate aircraft spare harriers can be carried on ocean and also to a point the bay class ships.

We have bulwark and albion also large landing docks capible like the bay class, the UK is rated the 2nd most capible country in the world to launch an amphibious assualt the only other nation above us is the USA.
Given the merchant fleet has 600 ships we would probably only take around 5 or 6 to ferry troops and stores with supplies giving us a much more flexable time in which to complete the war.

In all i think todays fleet although small is fully capible of taking out any threat argentina tries to impose on the falklands, given that they are trying to blockade the islands britian could see this as an act of war because a forign country is trying to blockade a soverign part of the UK over seas terratories and effectivly emposing an unoffical and illigal sanction not to mention running the risk of entering british waters which would be an act of war.

argentina maintains a small fleet herself and an airforce that is still a threat the navy would most likely like last time not venture out again they dont have much in the way of combatting a nuclear submarine whats more the etandard fleet has been grounded (apparently only from what ive read this isnt gospel) since the 25 of may was decomissioned, the argentines will still have the same issue as before.

The aircraft would have to fly over 300 miles to get to target have minuets in the zone then out with our AWACs planes already on station in the assencion islands and given they can fly for atleast 10 hours we wouldnt have a problem trying to pick them upand pre warn the fleet of thier pressence.

If argentina is going to try and re take the islands i dont think they know exactly what they bargain for our troops are more experianced in warfare and most have atleast one tour in afghanistan already.

The UK learnt alot from the 1982 conflict the number of troops on station is alot more we have a permanant gaurd ship in the area and also some aircraft that could delay the argentine landings basically we wont be as easy the second time round.