The Falklands should be
British
77.5% (155)
77.5% (155)
Argentine
3.5% (7)
3.5% (7)
Independent
7.5% (15)
7.5% (15)
part of the US
2.5% (5)
2.5% (5)
owned by Notch
5.5% (11)
5.5% (11)
other (post and explain!)
2.5% (5)
2.5% (5)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The Falklands

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Nickolai77:
I havn't found any evidence to say that it's not economically viable to drill for oil in the south atlantic without selling to the South American market. I'm sure without South American co-operation it will make things difficult, but so far i havn't heard anyone from the oil industry saying that this isn't economically viable without Argentina's support.

it takes literally months to even get there.

if you're not selling the oil into a reasonably local market preferably via pipeline all those shipping costs have to added to the price of the extracted oil plus although there is oil there is not actually that much oil (not enough to justify pouring billions into the Falkland islands itself and creating a viable industry "hub" from scratch) especially when you factor in the natural (and expensive to operate in) inhospitality of the South Atlantic.

Sleekit:

Nickolai77:
I havn't found any evidence to say that it's not economically viable to drill for oil in the south atlantic without selling to the South American market. I'm sure without South American co-operation it will make things difficult, but so far i havn't heard anyone from the oil industry saying that this isn't economically viable without Argentina's support.

it takes literally months to even get there.

if you're not selling the oil into a reasonably local market preferably via pipeline all those shipping costs have to added to the price of the extracted oil plus although there is oil there is not actually that much oil (not enough to justify pouring billions into the Falkland islands itself) especially when you factor in the natural (and expensive to operate in) inhospitality of the South Atlantic.

Well, i'm not going to argue against you on that point since i'm not an expert on logistics in the oil industry- but i'm going to wait until an authoritative source tells me it's going to a problem before believing it.

Daverson:
I noticed there wasn't a thread on this (well, there was about 8 months ago, but that's 20 years in internet time!), though it's becoming a pretty big issue right now, so I guess it's about time there was one!

For those not in the know, the Falklands:
image
Are a chain of Islands about 500km from the east coast of South America. A British colony has existed there since 1833, and is currently home to over 3,000 people. They're famous for penguins and egg shortages. The majority of people on the Falklands are either British or of British decent, and wish to remain part of the UK.

They're also sat on what could potentially be one of the largest reserves of crude oil in the world [source].

Argentina doesn't like this. 30 years ago the Military Junta in Argentina invaded the Falklands, in an attempt to claim the islands as their own, and the Argentine constitution states the Islands (which they call "Malvinas") belongs to them. (Argentina also claims it should own South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, both of which also currently belong to the UK, but no one really cares about them because there's only about 30 people there and no resources of interest, aside from more penguins).

The Argentine claim to the Falklands stems from the Colonial era, when the Islands were contested between the British and Spanish Empire. The Spanish maintained a claim to the Island after loosing it to the British in 1771, and handed this claim to Argentina when it gained independence in 1816. Argentina attempted to colonize the islands between 1820 and 1833, though all their attempts failed (and ultimately lead the British Empire establishing their own colony there, viewing the Argentine attempts as a threat to it's claims over the islands)

Though other nations arguably have a claim to the Falklands, none of them are willing to attempt to exercise them. The French established the first port on the islands in 1762, Spain brought the islands from France in 1766 and the USA "conquered" (and I use the term very loosely) an Argentine settlement on islands in 1831. (Which was abandoned prior to the establishment of the current British settlement)

The UN claims the Falklands can't be independent due to it's (relatively) small population. Personally, I think they're just saying that to troll everyone.

So, what's everyone else's thoughts on the Falklands?

Argentina or independent. The English have no more of a right to be there than they did in Hong Kong.

Nickolai77:
Well, i'm not going to argue against you on that point since i'm not an expert on logistics in the oil industry- but i'm going to wait until an authoritative source tells me it's going to a problem before believing it.

fair enough.

i don't have any links i can readily supply but i have actually read reports that downplay the viability of conducting further exploration and exploiting the finds and without mainland support that if i remembered correctly also contained complaints about how the Falklands are used by those in Britian (ie as a poster boy for British jingoism) by some of the indigenous Falklanders themselves who would far rather be on friendlier terms with their neighbour (although that may have been another separate report).

this is obviously not the line taken in the majority of the mainstream British press (or for that matter by successive British Governments) whenever the Falklands is mentioned but then they don't live in a situation where the nearest accessible town centre you might be able to do some decent shopping in is 8000 miles away.

Argentina or independent. The English have no more of a right to be there than they did in Hong Kong.[/quote]

Aren't you overlooking the fact that the inhabitants want to remain British?

Argentinian claim is based on BS. If we were to do stuff geographically then will Canada acquire Alaska? No, as the Alaskans want to be American.

Argentinian claim is based on BS. If we were to do stuff geographically then will Canada acquire Alaska? No, as the Alaskans want to be American.

Sorry for the multiposts.

Volf99:

Daverson:
-snip-

Argentina or independent. The English have no more of a right to be there than they did in Hong Kong.

How so? The Falklands Islanders settled there peacefully, and wish to remain part of the UK.

Comparing it to Hong Kong is pretty iffy, the circumstances were a lot different. There were never any indigenous people in the Falklands (unless you count the penguins), and it was abandoned when the British Colony was established. Hong Kong was already settled and temporarily handed to the British Empire as part of a peace agreement.

If you want to get mad at evil imperialists who steal other people's land, you might want to look up the history of Argentina some day, there's a reason the indigenous Amerindian people make up less than 2% of the population.

Batou667:
Think of the Falklands as Britain's Hawaii.

That would be such a better analogy... if Hawaii was 100 miles south of Japan xD

(and today was 1940)

They want to be British, let them be. The Argentines have absolutely no claim to islands. Just because they are close doesn't mean they should get to have them(and the oil beneath).

Volf99:

Argentina or independent. The English have no more of a right to be there than they did in Hong Kong.

Do you suggest throwing all the current inhabitants off the islands, or should Argentina be given control of the British population?

Volf99:

Argentina or independent. The English have no more of a right to be there than they did in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong they were given in a peace settlement, and more importantly they were given it despite their already being inhabinets there.

The Falklands were uninhabited when the British were there, and more to hte point Argentina has no claim on those islands; at no point in their history did they ever poses them.

As for independent, the inhabinants almost universally want to remain British. So giving them to Argentina is no different than the UK owning Hong Kong.

They want to be British, let them be British.

However, the U.N. saying they can't be independent because of their population is just beyond stupid. There are MANY smaller islands in terms of population size, island size, and even GDP (smallest nation on the Earth by GDP only has 10 million to it's name, which I don't doubt at least ONE person on the Falklands is worth more than that) and the world's smallest nation (Vatican City) has only 783 people living in it.

My aunt is from Argentina, and she thinks it should belong to the Argentinians. She's a smart lady and all (she's a doctor, an Epidemiologist to be precise), but I couldn't help but laugh when she said that she thought that Argentina had a viable claim.

I say that if they wish to remain British, and the British government wants to keep them around, they have that right, and I think its clear that they wish to be British due to the many times they have voted to remain part of the Empire.

"voted to remain part of the Empire" ?...that's so...i can't wrap my head around that at this time in the morning so i'm not even going to bother...

truth is if there hadn't been a stupid war (followed by massive investment in the islands militarily to make sure Britains government wasn't internationally embarrassed again) the British government would have told the them to GTF and find a new place to live years ago and no one would have batted an eyelid.

you can't plant yourself on a rock in the middle of the sea and expect the government to pay your way. not nowadays. i'm a Scotsman. i know. we have loads of rocks in the sea idiots want to live on. the majority of those who do are a very special breed of hardcore pseudo-isolationist fucktards who's primary demands tend revolve around always having access to a sub post office so they can collect welfare benefits and buy drink (this obviously does not include the few larger islands who actually have viable functioning communities and economies).

but pre 1982 the Falklands was a non-economically viable shithole on the verge of being "wound up" by the very same British government that ultimately made so much political capital back home from the war.

Volf99:

Argentina or independent. The English have no more of a right to be there than they did in Hong Kong.

Clearly not.

Hong Kong was an inhabited part of China the British (not English) specifically leased from China on by treaty. The Falkland Islands were uninhabited with no internationally recognised owner when the British colonised them.

Daverson:

Volf99:

Daverson:
-snip-

Argentina or independent. The English have no more of a right to be there than they did in Hong Kong.

How so? The Falklands Islanders settled there peacefully, and wish to remain part of the UK.

Comparing it to Hong Kong is pretty iffy, the circumstances were a lot different. There were never any indigenous people in the Falklands (unless you count the penguins), and it was abandoned when the British Colony was established. Hong Kong was already settled and temporarily handed to the British Empire as part of a peace agreement.

If you want to get mad at evil imperialists who steal other people's land, you might want to look up the history of Argentina some day, there's a reason the indigenous Amerindian people make up less than 2% of the population.

The only thing I would be mad about is England acting like their still an empire and that they can be imperialist where ever they want, its not the 1800's anymore

The Falklands should be British-no question about it. However it would be a nice gesture if the British shared any profits from natural resources in the vicinity with the Argentinians-and probably the fairest solution.

Volf99:

Daverson:

Volf99:

Argentina or independent. The English have no more of a right to be there than they did in Hong Kong.

How so? The Falklands Islanders settled there peacefully, and wish to remain part of the UK.

Comparing it to Hong Kong is pretty iffy, the circumstances were a lot different. There were never any indigenous people in the Falklands (unless you count the penguins), and it was abandoned when the British Colony was established. Hong Kong was already settled and temporarily handed to the British Empire as part of a peace agreement.

If you want to get mad at evil imperialists who steal other people's land, you might want to look up the history of Argentina some day, there's a reason the indigenous Amerindian people make up less than 2% of the population.

The only thing I would be mad about is England acting like their still an empire and that they can be imperialist where ever they want, its not the 1800's anymore

It's not Imperialism. Like people have previously said, we didn't mount a land invasion of the Falklands and oppress the natives, there never were any natives on the islands (unless the French are keeping some very big secrets!) and they were abandoned when the colony was established.

Would you consider Newt Gingrich an Imperialist for trying to establish a colony on the moon?

Imperialism would be invading foreign territory and forcing it's people to adhere to your law and your way of life, you know, exactly what Argentina is trying to do with the Falklands.

(British, not English. They're two very different terms. If you want to accuse England of imperialism, you should be talking about Scotland, not the Falklands!)

Gashad:
The Falklands should be British-no question about it. However it would be a nice gesture if the British shared any profits from natural resources in the vicinity with the Argentinians-and probably the fairest solution.

Why though? Argentinia has no claim on the islands, and have already tried to forcibly steal them from the British in the past, and insist to this day that the island should belong to them and them alone. Why do they deserve anything? It'd be like saying North Korea deserves some of the profits from an oil find off the coast off South Korea, despite the North attacking Sth Korea ships and shelling Sth Korean territory.

There's a difference between "Fair" and rewarding bullying behavour.

Volf99:
The only thing I would be mad about is England acting like their still an empire and that they can be imperialist where ever they want, its not the 1800's anymore

Err, how? They let any former colony that wanted indpendence take it, they don't exercise any control over any commonwealth country, in short they haven't acted like an empire for longer than you've been alive.

If you're going to bash them, at least pick something they're actually guilty of.

Daverson:
(British, not English. They're two very different terms. If you want to accuse England of imperialism, you should be talking about Scotland, not the Falklands!)

its OT but the English did not conquer Scotland mmmkay.

i know some English and indeed some Scots might think they did but that's not what happened.

Sleekit:

Daverson:
(British, not English. They're two very different terms. If you want to accuse England of imperialism, you should be talking about Scotland, not the Falklands!)

its OT but the English did not conquer Scotland mmmkay.

i know some English and indeed some Scots might think they did but that's not what happened.

I'm Welsh so I (erroneously, as you've pointed out) thought they're in the same boat as we are. =p It's a better point than saying Wales because there's more support for Scottish independence than there is for Welsh independence.

Seekster:
BTW the flap over the Falklands lately is just more of what the issue as always been, something for Argentine politicians to talk about when they want to distract from how bad they are doing.

Oh, make no mistake, while the Falklanders want to remain British, that's what the Falklands are for the British government too, moral high ground or not.

Heck, that's what the Falklands War was for the then-Tory gov't as well.

Oirish_Martin:

Seekster:
BTW the flap over the Falklands lately is just more of what the issue as always been, something for Argentine politicians to talk about when they want to distract from how bad they are doing.

Oh, make no mistake, while the Falklanders want to remain British, that's what the Falklands are for the British government too, moral high ground or not.

Heck, that's what the Falklands War was for the then-Tory gov't as well.

Are you implying that the Falklands (the islands) are Argentine but the Falklanders (the people who live there) are British?

Seekster:

Oirish_Martin:

Seekster:
BTW the flap over the Falklands lately is just more of what the issue as always been, something for Argentine politicians to talk about when they want to distract from how bad they are doing.

Oh, make no mistake, while the Falklanders want to remain British, that's what the Falklands are for the British government too, moral high ground or not.

Heck, that's what the Falklands War was for the then-Tory gov't as well.

Are you implying that the Falklands (the islands) are Argentine but the Falklanders (the people who live there) are British?

No, my point was that shit kicking off over the Falklands - regardless of whether or not the British gov't are in the "right" (i.e the Falklanders want to be British) - is frequently used as a distraction from shitty gov't performance by British gov'ts too.

That's what this is, to some degree, as was the original Falklands War, though I suspect few people are buying it anymore.

Oirish_Martin:

Seekster:

Oirish_Martin:

Oh, make no mistake, while the Falklanders want to remain British, that's what the Falklands are for the British government too, moral high ground or not.

Heck, that's what the Falklands War was for the then-Tory gov't as well.

Are you implying that the Falklands (the islands) are Argentine but the Falklanders (the people who live there) are British?

No, my point was that shit kicking off over the Falklands - regardless of whether or not the British gov't are in the "right" (i.e the Falklanders want to be British) - is frequently used as a distraction from shitty gov't performance by British gov'ts too.

That's what this is, to some degree, as was the original Falklands War, though I suspect few people are buying it anymore.

Whether it was a political boost to Thatcher or not is immaterial (why to the British dislike all their awesome PMs?), Argentina invaded what was and is sovereign British territory. I would hope that any British government would step in to protect their own territory. From Britain's point of you the Falklands War was a just and defensive war. If this were the late 1800s we may even call it a "splendid little war" but its not so I wont call it that...still gonna think it though ^_^ (references).

It should decide for itself. As far as I'm aware, the people currently living on that island mostly wish to remain part of the UK - so they should.

The island itself isn't that valuable - not in terms of resources or in terms of military use - come on, the UK isn't plotting to invade South America and no other nation that would fight Argentina would even bother going the naval route due to the huge distances involved and the fact that if you border on them, you can use a land force.

I understand Argentina's traditional claim to the islands, but it's more important to give the actual people on the Falkland islands a say in the matter - they've been there for many generations after all. Maybe the UK should never have taken the Falkland islands, but the fact remains that they did and you can't undo a historical injustice by committing a modern counter injustice. It doesn't work that way.

In the end it doesn't matter - Argentina and England are not about to go to war again over this. They've already had that war, and it was bloody and relatively pointless for both sides. There's no need to repeat that over some relatively worthless islands.

Shaoken:
[quote="Gashad" post="528.351037.13890577"]The Falklands should be British-no question about it. However it would be a nice gesture if the British shared any profits from natural resources in the vicinity with the Argentinians-and probably the fairest solution.

Mainly due to Britains claim of the surrounding waters being somewhat weak. It is a quirk of international law that the economic zone you gain from your holdings is unrelated to the population of said holdings. So basically owning an sparsely inhabited rock gives you the same rights to resources in neighboring waters as you would get from having a metropolis in the vicinity. Ultimately it makes more sense to me that Argentina have the right to resources in its vicinity of Argentina rather then the British.

However the law is quite clear in that the British have the right to the resources within the Falklands economic zone and admittedly Argentina has done little to deserve the resources-ultimatly I would however feel that sharing them would be the fairest solution.

Seekster:

Oirish_Martin:

Seekster:

Are you implying that the Falklands (the islands) are Argentine but the Falklanders (the people who live there) are British?

No, my point was that shit kicking off over the Falklands - regardless of whether or not the British gov't are in the "right" (i.e the Falklanders want to be British) - is frequently used as a distraction from shitty gov't performance by British gov'ts too.

That's what this is, to some degree, as was the original Falklands War, though I suspect few people are buying it anymore.

Whether it was a political boost to Thatcher or not is immaterial

Not at all. It just means that we can't accuse the Argentinians of one thing while ignoring that it has applied just as much in the past to Britain.

(why to the British dislike all their awesome PMs?)

Because we don't think many of them were particularly awesome.

Argentina invaded what was and is sovereign British territory. I would hope that any British government would step in to protect their own territory. From Britain's point of you the Falklands War was a just and defensive war. If this were the late 1800s we may even call it a "splendid little war" but its not so I wont call it that...still gonna think it though ^_^ (references).

Again, I'm not saying that they were necessarily wrong to go to war - but the matter nonetheless still gets used a shield to deflect attention from problems on the home front - as Argentina does. There were a lot of problems for Thatcher at that point that somehow became less important once the jingoism was stirred.

Only way to end this retarded despute is to give them to neutral third party. A.K.A me. I need an island base from which to plot my eventual world domination.

Is there a map somewhere with everything British controlled shown? It seems like they have their finger everywhere.

Ot- No originial inhabitants, been British for nearly 200 years. Yeah british.

Thomas Guy:
Is there a map somewhere with everything British controlled shown? It seems like they have their finger everywhere.

They really don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories

Empire's not what it used to be, dontcha know.

Oirish_Martin:

Thomas Guy:
Is there a map somewhere with everything British controlled shown? It seems like they have their finger everywhere.

They really don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories

Empire's not what it used to be, dontcha know.

Hmmm you're right. Also Antarctica? Why the fuck would anyone want a piece of the frozen asshole of the world.

Thomas Guy:

Oirish_Martin:

Thomas Guy:
Is there a map somewhere with everything British controlled shown? It seems like they have their finger everywhere.

They really don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories

Empire's not what it used to be, dontcha know.

Hmmm you're right. Also Antarctica? Why the fuck would anyone want a piece of the frozen asshole of the world.

Probably for the same reason Britain wants to hang on to the Falklands (the welfare of their inhabitants notwithstanding) - access to offshore resources. Then again, the rules for national jurisdiction over Antarctica seem to be somewhat unique so maybe that doesn't apply.

Thomas Guy:

Oirish_Martin:

Thomas Guy:
Is there a map somewhere with everything British controlled shown? It seems like they have their finger everywhere.

They really don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories

Empire's not what it used to be, dontcha know.

Hmmm you're right. Also Antarctica? Why the fuck would anyone want a piece of the frozen asshole of the world.

Bwahaha, oh priceless.

You just reminded me of something that I saw briefly in the news.

So....yeah...turns out that (somehow) Westminster devolved authority of the British Antarctic Territory to Scotland by mistake.

http://www.scottishtimes.org/anglo_scottish_talks_over_antarctica

Fuck me sideways, this country's hilarious sometimes.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked