Falkland Islands - your view

[Deleted]

Another opportunity for David Cameron to play the populist card, and presumably Mrs. Kirchner too. Conservatives and Nationalists have a fetish about this in the media, but often try to hide this behind pride in the armed forces - so noone can argue with them. Obviously, I am proud of the armed forces but I don't like it when people try to conflate the Prime Minister (footage of Margaret Thatcher taking the Queen's salute in the Falklands Victory Parade springs to mind) with them. The military frequently suffer the consequences of the governments decisions and I don't like governments using them to boost their own popularity.

As to the actual issue? I don't really feel very strongly about it. It should be down to the few occupants to decide as far as I can see.

[Elodeon]

What an utterly bullshit and hypocritical proposal. Why should Britain let Argentina exploit the natural resources within British territory? All that belongs to the Falkland Islanders.

That's a funny thing to say.

Next in the news: all 2,841 Falkland Islanders become billionaires, as they split trillions of dollars worth of oil revenue between them.

Not going to happen. Ever. Unless Falkland Islands becomes a sovereign state. Which is not going to happen either, because they number 2,841.

That oil is either going to benefit Britain or Argentina. The Falkland Islanders are pawns.

[Hyve]

They started a war for it, and lost. If they want it back, they're more then welcome to start another war, and lose again.

To the victor goes the spoils. We won, they lost.

[Deleted]

That's a funny thing to say.

Next in the news: all 2,841 Falkland Islanders become billionaires, as they split trillions of dollars worth of oil revenue between them.

Not going to happen. Ever. Unless Falkland Islands becomes a sovereign state. Which is not going to happen either, because they number 2,841.

That oil is either going to benefit Britain or Argentina. The Falkland Islanders are pawns.

Yet the British are saying "Let the Falkland islanders decide" and the Argentinians are saying "OUR ISLANDS! GIMME GIMME GIMME!!!1"

[yetgdhfgh]

To folks who think this disagreement has anything to do with the settlers living on the island, consider:

- The total population of the islands is 2,841.

- The amount of oil buried under them is estimated at up to 60 billion barrels, which may be worth several trillion USD.

The oil is vastly more significant than the settlers. The settlers are just being used as a distraction - as if the presence of 2,841 folks that came from Britain gives Britain the right to trillions of dollars worth of oil that's right in front of Argentina, and as far away from Britain as could be.

Well, it turns out Britain has the better navy, so heh, it does.

So what im sure norway would love the trillions of dollars of oil in the north sea but cant have it cause it aint near there territorial waters

At the end of the day why should argentina have anything there human rights history is atrocious they hid nazi war criminals and still do so they illegally invaded a soveign nation they constantly lie to the IMF

I dont care if every citizen on the falklands becomes bill gates bottom line is the resources are theres not argentinas!

[semaphore]

That's a funny thing to say.

Next in the news: all 2,841 Falkland Islanders become billionaires, as they split trillions of dollars worth of oil revenue between them.

Yes because everyone knows that oil spontaneously funnels themselves into barrels and magically teleports from deep below the ocean onto dry land. Nope, no need for billions of dollars of investment in equipment, billions more in operating the venture, and decades to actually exploit the resource. According to MMO-C's own Elodeon, that oil will miraculously convert itself into immediate profit to be shared the very next day!

Yeah that would be news indeed.

Meanwhile back in reality, it will cost $2-3 billion just to get to the oil.

[Hyve]

That's a funny thing to say.

Next in the news: all 2,841 Falkland Islanders become billionaires, as they split trillions of dollars worth of oil revenue between them.

Not going to happen. Ever. Unless Falkland Islands becomes a sovereign state. Which is not going to happen either, because they number 2,841.

That oil is either going to benefit Britain or Argentina. The Falkland Islanders are pawns.

The Falkland Islanders are British, and have said many many times that they wish to remain British.

There is tons of oil under there, we (The UK) should already have an armed force there, protecting it and start drilling immediately. It'll cut our energy bills and generate a massive income for our indebted nation. Screw Argentina, they lost!

[PACOX]

Argentina has been saber rattling with this nonsense since the early 80's. I'm certain the discovery of oil has absolutely nothing to do with this at all...

Oil you say?

Time for the US to deliver some Freedom to the islands.

[Elodeon]

I'm assuming those spouting that one will be in favor of a UN-backed Swedish invasion of Åland?

You guys keep coming up with these ridiculous examples where the situation is completely turned around.

Falkland Islands: insignificant population, huge natural resources. Dispute is over natural resources, so therefore that should be the center of the argument. Where the small population votes to be is a distraction. Islands are very far from Britain, so Britain's claim to these resources, by virtue of 2,841 British people settled there, is rather tenuous.

Aland islands: right smack in between Sweden and Finland, so who's more entitled to them is a toss-up, really. No significant resources to fight over. Might as well have the population decide.

Someone actually compared the Falkland situation with France claiming the British Isles, because they're in front of them. What... on... Earth? Britain: huge population, few major natural resources. Of course the population decides their sovereignty, when there's so many of them, compared to resources to fight over.

[Cybran]

What an utterly bullshit and hypocritical proposal. Why should Britain let Argentina exploit the natural resources within British territory? All that belongs to the Falkland Islanders.

Didn't Britain exploit a shit ton of resources in the Middle east, India and Africa before the revolutions there? Britain claimed those lands just because they could. I don't see why Argentina shouldn't be able to take control of them like Egypt did with the Suez canal.

[yetgdhfgh]

I get upset over this cause my dad served in the royal navy during the falklands war he had friends that was lost during the conflict

I have no wish to see another war over these islands but Argentina needs to take a step back and work with the islanders and maybe they will help become apart of them through friendship and cooperation and not through saber rattling and political point scoring

[Deleted]

It should be up to the people living there, and I'm sure they are quite happy to count themselves as British. My view of the islands is that I couldn't give 2 shits about the island if there wasn't people there, it's far enough away from Argentina to be outside territorial waters, so saying its close doesn't mean much? And saying we owned it for a short time in 1850 is pretty silly aswell, or should Mexico have a claim to southern United States aswell?

[Elodeon]

Meanwhile back in reality, it will cost $2-3 billion just to get to the oil.

My gosh, billions of dollars to start extracting trillions worth of oil. That's such a powerful argument, it topples my entire hypothesis.

Err... Not.

You're making an obvious statement that impacts my argument in no way. At all.

[Hyve]

Didn't Britain exploit a shit ton of resources in the Middle east, India and Africa before the revolutions there? Britain claimed those lands just because they could. I don't see why Argentina shouldn't be able to take control of them like Egypt did with the Suez canal.

But you see, they did try, and failed.

They attacked the Falklands and started a War. A war which they went on to lose. Tough shit, we won it is our land.

[yetgdhfgh]

Didn't Britain exploit a shit ton of resources in the Middle east, India and Africa before the revolutions there?

Which country hasnt!
Every Country has exploited another for gain

[Elodeon]

I don't see why Argentina shouldn't be able to take control of them like Egypt did with the Suez canal.

Because they tried, and they're weak, and they can't, and now they'll have to look on as Britain prepares to extract that oil, right in front of them.

[semaphore]

You guys keep coming up with these ridiculous examples where the situation is completely turned around.

No, the situation is completely, exactly the same. You don't get to go on a land grab just because that resource looks nice to you.

Falkland Islands: insignificant population, huge natural resources. Dispute is over natural resources, so therefore that should be the center of the argument. Where the small population votes to be is a distraction. Islands are very far from Britain, so Britain's claim to these resources, by virtue of 2,841 inhabitants, is rather tenuous.

Well spoken like someone who don't have a clue about international law. You want those islands for the resources? Fine. Everybody knows that. But you don't get to have oil just because you cry and whine and kick up a fuss about it. You have to present a credible, legitimate claim to the land. "I'm greedy" does not cut it.

Britain's claim to these islands are based on continuous historical ownership since it's discovery as terra nullis. It is rock solid. Where's your Argentinian claim? All you've done all thread is pretend Britain doesn't have a legitimate claim and, in your ignorance of international law, act as though that means the Falklands default to Argentina. It does not.

Title to the land (and all its resources) goes to the state with the best claim.

[Deleted]

Yet the British are saying "Let the Falkland islanders decide" and the Argentinians are saying "OUR ISLANDS! GIMME GIMME GIMME!!!1"

Becuase honestly most people here don't care, most probably couldn't even point falkland on a map.

[semaphore]

My gosh, billions of dollars to start extracting trillions worth of oil. That's such a powerful argument, it topples my entire hypothesis.

Yes because everyone knows that oil spontaneously funnels themselves into barrels and magically teleports from deep below the ocean onto dry land. Nope, no need for billions of dollars of investment in equipment, billions more in operating the venture, and decades to actually exploit the resource. According to MMO-C's own Elodeon, that oil will miraculously convert itself into immediate profit to be shared the very next day!

You're making an obvious statement that impacts my argument in no way. At all.

Obviously, because you think oil extraction is pure magic and that the 8 billion barrels there will magically materialise and turn into hard cash overnight without significant expenses as well as decades.

[Deleted]

You guys keep coming up with these ridiculous examples where the situation is completely turned around.

Falkland Islands: insignificant population, huge natural resources. Dispute is over natural resources, so therefore that should be the center of the argument. Where the small population votes to be is a distraction. Islands are very far from Britain, so Britain's claim to these resources, by virtue of 2,841 British people settled there, is rather tenuous.

Aland islands: right smack in between Sweden and Finland, so who's more entitled to them is a toss-up, really. No significant resources to fight over. Might as well have the population decide.

Someone actually compared the Falkland situation with France claiming the British Isles, because they're in front of them. What... on... Earth? Britain: huge population, few major natural resources. Of course the population decides their sovereignty, when there's so many of them, compared to resources to fight over.

Except there would be a more solid argument in favor of Åland being Swedish than Finnish by the standards put forth by you and a few others.

The main island, where most of the population resides, is approximately 40 km from the Swedish mainland and approximately 70 km from the Finnish mainland and on top of this most of the population speak Swedish and a lot of them identify themselves as Swedish.

By comparison, the Falkland islands were for all intents and purposes uninhabited when the British claimed them and the population there speaks English and almost all of them identify as British.

So, if the Falklands should clearly belong to Argentina then Åland should belong to Sweden.