And someday the noble Charrúa will drive the Spanish invaders into the sea! These historical injustices must be rectified!
Estilicon
What we can do (without the crazy “war measures” that are, as i said, a purely intellectual exercise) is make things difficult economically, assuming the recent climate of union between south american nations continue, we could:
-
Stop all ships going/coming from the islands from docking in any south american port. (the Chileans may not agree to that, just to be bug us, but they are in the wrong coast, I don’t know how much would it cost to cross around cape horn for everything).
-
Trade sanctions against the UK.
-
Fines against any company that sells anything to the Islands, especially supplies needed for oil extraction/processing.
-
Im sure there are more things we can do if we put our minds to it.
Martini Enfield:
We are not discussing annexing the islands to Argentina, I agree with you, the islanders don’t want to be Argentinians (cant blame them 
).
What we are talking about is whether or not Argentina can extract some concessions from the UK on economic matters.
The islanders do not want to be Argentinian, so that is settled.
However the Islands where first settled by the French, then by the Spanish, then by the English, then by the Argentinians…, my case is that Argentina has ***some *** rights over them, so the issue can be settled by just agreeing to share some oil revenues and things like that.
Sorry Frodo thats like saying that someone is a little bit pregnant.
An nation either has sovereign rights, or does not, there is no middle ground.
The word sovereignty means exclusive rights to rule, any shared administration is, by defninition, not sovereignty.
France has long left its claims to drop, and is not a player - so it can only be tween Britain and Spain, and since it was claimed by Britain in the first place, all we can debate is what conditions confer sovereignty, does protested settlements count? Maybe, maybe not, there are many historical precedents and exceptions, for one argument, there is a counter.
Spain, and Argentina have not claimed sovereignty continously, which is allegedly a condition for maintaining any claim, there have been breaks in these claims amounting to as much as 40 years or more at a stretch, and in all that time these islands have been in British possession.
The whole thing is a political charade to invoke feelings of nationalism by various politicians for their own ends, the current round of claims dates back to the Argentine Nazi sympathisers just prior to WW2, the claim had been renewed after a hiatus going back to the end of the 19thC. In some ways it can be seen as an attempt to spread the message of nazism in the run up to WW2.
I’ve got a crazy idea; why don’t we ask the people of the Falkland Islands what they want? I’m just throwing it out there as an idea.
If they vote and say they want to be part of the UK, then Argentina should shut the fuck up about it. If they vote and say they want to be part of Argentina, then the UK should hand them over.
Who’s with me on this wild idea? Anyone? Probably not the Argentinians, huh?
sigh…
perhaps I wasn’t clear enough…
Well, it’s a good idea in principle, but it’s not as though Her Majesty is going to give up Northern Ireland if the next poll shows that a majority of residents are no longer in favor of remaining part of the Union.
Now, the combination of self-determination, general international recognition of British sovereignty in the Falklands and the whole war thing taken together are a pretty convincing argument.
Quite the contrary. The Royal Navy of today is far better equipped to fight that sort of war than the Royal Navy of the early eighties was.
Back then, the entire fleet was essentially designed for anti-submarine* operations in the North Atlantic. The Invincible-class carriers carried more anti-submarine helicopters (10ish) than fixed-wing aircraft (4-5, Harriers then and now).
Nowadays the RN’s carrier air wings are designed to fight a Falklands scenario almost to the letter, thanks both to the FW and the various Gulf and Eastern European engagements. They carry 15-odd fighter/bombers and five helicopters, at least one of which is an airborne early warning craft rather than an anti-submarine torpedo launch platform.
As far as the RN is concerned, the only problem with fighting another Falklands is that its two remaining carriers are scheduled to be decommissioned in the next few years once the much bigger QEII class is deployed, so presumably they haven’t planned on spending much on refits and the like.
Anyway, there’s now a runway at Port Stanley and the RAF is much better equipped to launch sorties from the UK than in 1982 thanks to in-flight refueling.
*against the Soviets, obviously.
But that to me means more resources used to keep an arcane model of imperialism. The point is that empires eventually find overseas territory expensive to maintain and that cost is not only reflected in military expenses, but it also affects business.
I have to clarify here that I have to thank GB for showing how stupid the Argentinean dictators were, it was IMO the beginning of the end of having superpowers supporting right wing dictators like if that would had no consequences.
However, once dictators are out, the issue still remains. If GB wants to continue to use the Falklands as an excuse to claim the use of resources in the continental shelf then I see no problem with Latin America uniting with Argentina in making an example out of companies like BP by restricting their business in Latin America.
When has that ever been a problem? In any case, oil revenues from the Falklands would go to the Falklands themselves, rather than the general UK Treasury.
It’s likely, of course, that British petrogas companies would get first dibs on exploration and drilling, though.
I do realize that noting much will change regarding the drilling, but more British business in Latin America would be affected in the future if unity is maintained regarding the Argentinian petition.
I understand what you’re saying, but I just can’t see why the UK should share oil revenues from a British Overseas Territory with a nearby(ish) country that has a tenuous claim-by-proxy dating back 170 years and has already lost one war over the matter.
You don’t see Holland demanding that Indonesia share their oil extraction efforts with Shell, nor do you see the British demanding that Singapore let BP run all the refineries there, after all.
The majority of Falkland Islanders are British thus wouldn’t it make sense to use the revenue from oil resources their to fund Britain anymore than Alaskan oil revenues go to the American treasury?
Well, that’s not quite the same thing. Alaska is an integral part of the United States of America which just happens to be noncontiguous. It is represented in the US legislature like any other state.
By contrast, the Falklands are an overseas possession and are not represented in Parliament.
You mean, like Puerto Rico? Or many American States before they became States?
How about St Pierre et Miguelon vis-a-vis France?
How about the Isle of Man? The Channel Islands?
Yes, just like those places. The point is that the revenues go to the Falklanders, rather than HM’s Treasury, rather than oil revenues from, say, Scottish North Sea waters, which do go straight to the Treasury.
Apparently SecState Clinton has now called for talks on the future of the Falklands, although she seems to have rejected the idea of mediation by the US.
She called for talks, but Britain immediately rejected the idea:
Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant told MPs on Tuesday: “We have made absolutely clear that we do not believe that there is any need for a negotiation or discussion because there is nothing to discuss in terms of the sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, which should be a self-determined issue and solely a self-determined issue.”
As I said upthread, this isn’t going anywhere. There is no compromise possible, just things that have to be said, for appearances’ sake.
Falkland Oil&Gas share prices have plunged!:mad:
And I think its because Hillary Clinton and that Argentine president (forget her name) have cut some kind of deal.
This is a disaster-given the Argentine’s record of incompetence in managing anything.
British dopers…don’t trust Obama…he is setting you up for a royal screwing.
O rly? :dubious:
This doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. What, if anything, has Obama (who. last I checked, has no jurisdiction over the UK) promised the British to begin with?
I thought only Parliament could set up a royal screwing.