Increasing Tension Between the UK and Argentina over the Falkland Islands

That's the story-the the UK is defending the Falklands to protect the rights of the Falkland Islanders who want to remain British, and to that end soldiers are stationed on the islands and the most advanced ship in the UK navy has been sent, as well as probably nuclear submarines. How noble, to go to all that trouble and expense to defend the rights of a relatively tiny number of British subjects-and of course it's nothing to do with the potential 180 billion pounds expected tax revenue from oil produced in the 200 mile exclusion zone declared around the islands.

That's the story-the the UK is defending the Falklands to protect the rights of the Falkland Islanders who want to remain British, and to that end soldiers are stationed on the islands and the most advanced ship in the UK navy has been sent, as well as probably nuclear submarines. How noble, to go to all that trouble and expense to defend the rights of a relatively tiny number of British subjects-and of course it's nothing to do with the potential 180 billion pounds expected tax revenue from oil produced in the 200 mile exclusion zone declared around the islands.

x

First of all, if oil is all Argentina is interested in, it would help its case rather by coming out and saying that it doesn't want sovereignty over the islands, just oil rights in their surrounding waters. That would at least set their claim out on a more reasonable basis, and make them look a little less imperialist.

Secondly, there have been several treaties and agreements between Britain and Argentina regarding the exploitation of oil and other resources in the region, most of which were abandoned by Argentina, either when they tried to invade, or more recently.

Thirdly, I'd say that if you take things to the next level and start a war, you ought to live with the consequences. Had Argentina taken control of the Islands in 1982, I doubt it would now be offering compensation to the victims of the attack, and starting sovereignty negotiations with the UK. It chose to fight, and it lost.

Also, your quote didn't work, so the guy probably won't respond unless you change it.

I'm making the point that the UK isn't spending millions of pounds every year just to defend a small number of Falkland Islanders. Maybe you can argue it was in 1982, if you think the war had nothing to do with distraction from the recession, but today there is definitely a potential massive tax revenue income to the UK from oil.

Seismic surveys for oil were first done there in the late 1970's.
"You need to get your facts right moron."

And?

After the seismic surveys there was no indication that there were commercial amounts initially. That was only discovered after the war.

So wrong again

I think it is. The primary reasons are the idea that the islanders have a right to self-determination, and electoral issues. Why would Cameron care about oil resources which probably won't be exploited properly for many years to come (large-scale operation is only just beginning)? The Falklanders are British and they want to remain that way: that's the view of most British people, and I don't see why it can't be our politicians' view too. And it ties in nicely with electioneering as well. Everyone loves to cite "oil" as the reason for each and every international conflict, but usually the effect on prices and supply isn't felt for many years.

Mercosur, a body of South American nations comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, has imposed a ban on ships flying the Falklands flag docking in their ports. Argentina have put pressure on this bloc to stop trading with the Falklands. This renewed interest on the Argentine side is due to nearby oil reserves. Also, when the Argentines invaded in '83, the military junta received an unprecedented popularity boost, which Kirchner now wants (but doesn't need). Argentines believe the "Royal" in Royal Family translates to the Spanish "Royale", which means angelic/God-like. Consequently they view Prince William as a genetically enhanced supersoldier, and oppose his posting on the Islands vehemently (they even said he had "nuclear capabilities&quot.

A big worry for the British government is that Argentina will pressure Chile (a vital ally in the '83 conflict and regarded as "traidores chilenos" by the Argentines) into stopping the only civilian connection with the islands, essentially cutting them off from the mainland. Chileans actually make up around 100 of the 3000 on the island, so for this reason and others, they are reluctant to do so.

In '83 nobody thought Argentina would invade, so we are guarding against future, quite possible, eventualities. It's a joke that they think the British are the aggressors. They use rhetoric and play dirty (see: invasion of South Georgia, invasion of Falkland Islands, employment of hospital boat in combat situation, in violation of GC).

Well, another war is not on the cards which is the most important thing I guess. Argentina simply does not have the resources on it's own, to invade and hold the Falklands. The island has more than defense to prevent any offense that the Argies have to offer.

To put it short, Argentina is acting like a petulant little child that can't get their own way.

Are there people in this thread seriously denying the existence of commercial oil in the Falklands?

http://www.rockhopperexploration.co.uk/pdf/End_of_Drilling-Campaign_FINAL.pdf

Sorry to disillusion all you!

Appraisal well means a well/wells drilled to map out the full extent of the discovered field.

No one is denying it, merely challenging the assertion that oil is the sole reason for our defence of the Islands

Try reading this to give yourself some insight into the issue:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9076530/Falklands-oilfields-could-yield-176bn-tax-windfall.html

Would the UK itself actually benefit that much from the oil anyway? Wouldn't the tax money from it go to the Falkland's government? Do they pay any taxes back to the UK?

Would the UK itself actually benefit that much from the oil anyway? Wouldn't the tax money from it go to the Falkland's government? Do they pay any taxes back to the UK?

No one is denying it, merely challenging the assertion that oil is the sole reason for our defence of the Islands