http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7031163.ece Escalating tensions, 60 billion barrels of oil. When it happens it'll probably be like thatcher's falklands but for cameron.
If Argentina doesn't read their history, they will run the danger of repeating it and getting (another) bloody nose.
It is infact estimated at 60 billion barrels of 90% certain reserves. Hence sending a drilling rig that way, why do ya think we held on to it so tightly in the last 50 years.
well how odd in 1982 we gave Argentina a kicking, shortly followed by the first gulf war in 1990, we are sorta coming off the back of the second gulf war, and soon to go back to the Falklands! lol! Although i hate war, if things get heated in the Falklands again, I am behind it because the nationals on the Falklands isle want to be british, so its defending home ground no matter how far away it is. No doubt some body will burn me for my view on it, but everyone is entitled to there own view.
I miss the days when war was about standing up for what you believed in, not about gaining control of natural resources.
Relatives fought and died for the Falklands. they saw the state of it after the Argentine invasion. I would be the first person to say, withdraw from iraq, and extend an invitation to our ass-kicking American colleagues to go hand their arse back to them on a plate. We helped with iraq, now help us with the Falklands, and I can assure you there will be no ieds from the local populous.
It's like I'm 10 again. Talk of tension with Argentina, calls for Naval task forces and lots of sabre rattling. Thank God we've got a XH558 up and running again. Of course this will be all diplomatic this time - in '82 the Argentinian Junta wanted a short victorious war to bolster their image at home... It didn't work, and the Junta was toppled and democracy was restored.
Right let me see. 1982: Falklands part of the British Overseas Territories. The populace of the Falklands wish to remain as such. Argentina's Junta invade, British military go down and defend the populace, wiping the floor with the invaders. All is restored to normal. 2010: Oil platform being sent down, Argentina starts to get snippy about stuff. Perhaps Argentina needs to be reminded the Falklands is not theirs and they can bitch and moan all they want, but it will achieve nothing. Of course to play the nice diplomacy game any oil that is gotten from the Falklands, some could be sold at a cheaper rate to the Argentinan goverment, you know, just to show no hard feelings?
Or you have a pipeline to Argentina, and revenue share - They take a cut of the profits from landing it on the mainland, which keeps them happy.
You're not giving oil away - the oil is still ours (if it exists in the first place). You'd be paying a percentage of the oil revenue to Argentina for hosting the deep water terminals required to load the stuff onto oil tankers, and for acting as the pipeline destination on the mainland. It's just like the North Sea oil fields - most (if not all of it) comes ashore in the Shetlands, regardless of the country that owns the fields that the oil comes from, is it's easier to land it there than on their own mainlands.
It's all posturing.... Whenever the Argentinian government is suffering they talk tough about the falklands and they rattle a few sabres. They have zero chance of gaining the islands or the oil. They could have a good chance of hosting a number of refineries and a fleet of tankers... if the oil companies had any confidence that they weren't going to cause trouble. In fact it is the only way they could ever gain out of the situation...
When was war actually about standing up for what you believed in, rather than gaining control over natural resources? World Wars I & II - Land, Natural resources Korean War - Land (+ Ideology) Gulf Wars I & II - Oil Iran - Iraq War - Oil Falklands War - Land 1948 War Of Independence, Six Day War, Yom Kippur War, Lebanon Wars I & II, Palestinian Intifada - Land Darfurian War - Land, Natural resources Niger Conflict - Oil Back in the days of annexation (Hundred Years War, Thirty Years War, Greco-Roman Wars of Empire) it was much more up front - you have something we want, and we're coming to take it. Most of the time, when war is sold as something you ought to believe in, it's the defenders standing up for their belief in not being invaded. The only wars that have been primarily about 'beliefs' have been the worst wars of all, I think. You know, the kind where you're picking severed limbs and secret torture camps out of your newscasts for months; Bosnian War - Religion, Ethnicity Rwandan Civil War - Religion, Ethnicity Chinese Civil War, Cultural Revolution - Ideology Vietnam War, South American Dirty Wars - Ideology Cambodian Civil War - Ideology Holocaust - Religion, Ethnicity European Colonization Wars (South America, Africa, Asia) - Religion, Ethnicity Crusades - Religion Even these wars, which are primarily famous for being ideologically motivated, could also be construed more as grabs for natural resources dressed up. Anyway, to get back on topic, the Falklands are now home to a rather significant military presence. Argentina would have to think extremely carefully before attempting an invasion now...
The UK had an agreement with Argentina to share all oil revenues but the Argies pulled out of the agreement in 2007. Besides this is all speculation until they find anything as Shell did some drilling in the past and found nothing to get excited about. GOO is correct that you really need somewhere on the mainland to build refineries and export from. Argentina is completely bankrupt so they cant do any more than sabre rattle anyway.
Go further back than another has gone on here. 19th century: American -indian wars land boer wars land french-sino war land Anglo zulu war- land opium wars- control of trade Franco prussian war- land and european power Austro prussian war- power and land American civil war- Land (ie holding the union together), power through federalisation (the north had fairly good intentions however was mainly a method to restrict the south) Mexican-american war- battle for south western united states (land and oil) napoleonic wars- LAND
This. Except that I'd add "politicians' greed" - such as in WWII, when they didn't want Germany to become a big political power in Europe again. It's sad to hear afterwards, from proles even, why "we" fought the war. For liberty. For freedom. For justice. Except that, after millions and millions of dead bodies, no single person is any better off. It's like this short (Flemish?) "story". After the 'liberation', an Allied soldier asks a peasant: "aren't you glad you're liberated now?". And the peasant goes "so I'm not poor anymore?". Stupid story, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who rules the people: any ruler will f--- them. Anyway, on-topic: I think any new conflict regarding the Falklands would be a great test for my new War Theory(C)(TM)(R) (patent pending): whenever a politician wants to start ****, they - and a politician of the country they want to fight with - meet up in Switzerland (neutral, accessible, chocolate) and have it out between the two of them. The winner wins, the loser loses, and everything goes back to normal. Dick-measuring contest completed and no proles have to die and/or see their houses and schools demolished. Profits of the ticket sales to watch the event could go to help victims of previous wars (after I get my cut). You reckon our ever-so-wise political overlords could stop killing us over goddamn oil if they'd just look into alternative energy sources? Or is that too simple, and is killing us better than pissing off their friends in the oil (or whatever other) industry?
