Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am sure that the British and the Agrentines can come to a reasonable agreement on the mineral rights to the area without a bunch of us outsider stickubg our nose into the arrair.
My only gripe is that during the last conflict the US government took the side of the UK. Of course for many Americans in the US, Great Britain is still the "mother country" no matter how much we attempt to deny it. None the less our government has preached the Monroe Doctrine for 200 years yet if something involves the UK all that Monroe Doctrine posturing goes out the window and we look like hypocrites. The easiest think to do is to keep our nose out of these types of affairs but it seems our government has to stick its nose in everywhere and continue to have the world wonder just what we really do believe. My government and my aged aunt are very similar. I love her dearly but she is really too much of a busybody.
reagan and thatcher were extremley close so the u.s was always going to back britain despite having close relations with argentina going back a long time
northern ireland is also subsidised heavily by london yet a far small percentage of people there wish to remain part of the uk , i think by any measure the falklands is british ( for now ) and the argentinian goverment should focus on more important matters domestically , while in argentina in 2004 , i spoke to people who were opposed to the invasion in 1982 and met no one who was overly passionate about the issue , ive no doubt that most argentines would like to see los malvinas being part of argentina but i think most of them have much bigger prioritys
Northern Ireland is PART of the United Kingdom and we will not be leaving anytime soon.
i wasnt defending the status quo in northern ireland , just making the point that the percentage of people on the falklands - los malvinas who wish to remain british dwarfs the percentage who wish to continue part of the union in ulster
if both the uk and argentina want the place for its oil , how does that make argentinas possition anymore legit ?
Almost 1 million people would want to stay in the UK.
reagan and thatcher were extremley close so the u.s was always going to back britain despite having close relations with argentina going back a long time
Bob
It's not about Argentina . It's about the Monroe Doctrine which is one of the most important documents in American History after the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence . It is actually the document on which our philosophy of isolationism is founded. You may say that isolationism is a bad thing but not all Americans would agree on that.
Reagan was in power for 8 years (half of it asleep) and he is far down the list of favorites (near 20) Monroe is around number 5. Notthat that makes any difference. The relationship between Reagan and Thatcher is also a no issue point here.
i wasnt defending the status quo in northern ireland , just making the point that the percentage of people on the falklands - los malvinas who wish to remain british dwarfs the percentage who wish to continue part of the union in ulster
if both the uk and argentina want the place for its oil , how does that make argentinas possition anymore legit ?
I certainly don't believe the Argentinean claim is as weak as is constantly portrayed in British tabloids. What is also true is that the vast majority of South America backs Argentina's claim.
Not just that but even America will not commit itself on this issue. The legal arguments and technicalities culled from decades of subtle variations of interpretations of international law and scrutiny of reports into this issue would probably be enough to fill a rain forests worth of papers.
But what any reasonable person will surmise from the evidence of those representatives whose nations are neutral in this affair is that this issue isn't as cut and dry as the breast thumping Benny's who inhabit the island would have us believe.
Britain simply has to show a more pragmatic approach. The only thing that is the deciding factor in this dispute is not morality but the sway of military power. Such a remit for supreme control of sovereignty is always going to be a tenuous one that will mean volatile tensions persist until there is serious resolve to reach a compromise on this issue.
As for oil the extraction could be some distance off. Right now it isn't economically viable. And to those thinking this oil will provide a cash bonanza for Britain bear in mind that the companies who will be extrapolating the oil will also receive the vast majority of the profits. Just like BP or any oil company their only allegiance will be to their annual profit surplus.
So the net gain of Britain's military presence will most likely not be balanced by oil revenue to any great extent and to any extent oil revenues do provide economic benefit to Britain (if they ever do) could arguably be offset by political isolation from the South American region. The whole region is set to grow and grow in economic significance. Isolation will be costly if not evident right now (and it matters today) certainly 10, 20 years from now.
I certainly don't believe the Argentinean claim is as weak as is constantly portrayed in British tabloids. What is also true is that the vast majority of South America backs Argentina's claim.
Not just that but even America will not commit itself on this issue. The legal arguments and technicalities culled from decades of subtle variations of interpretations of international law and scrutiny of reports into this issue would probably be enough to fill a rain forests worth of papers.
But what any reasonable person will surmise from the evidence of those representatives whose nations are neutral in this affair is that this issue isn't as cut and dry as the breast thumping Benny's who inhabit the island would have us believe.
Britain simply has to show a more pragmatic approach. The only thing that is the deciding factor in this dispute is not morality but the sway of military power. Such a remit for supreme control of sovereignty is always going to be a tenuous one that will mean volatile tensions persist until there is serious resolve to reach a compromise on this issue.
As for oil the extraction could be some distance off. Right now it isn't economically viable. And to those thinking this oil will provide a cash bonanza for Britain bear in mind that the companies who will be extrapolating the oil will also receive the vast majority of the profits. Just like BP or any oil company their only allegiance will be to their annual profit surplus.
So the net gain of Britain's military presence will most likely not be balanced by oil revenue to any great extent and to any extent oil revenues do provide economic benefit to Britain (if they ever do) could arguably be offset by political isolation from the South American region. The whole region is set to grow and grow in economic significance. Isolation will be costly if not evident right now (and it matters today) certainly 10, 20 years from now.
your clearly well informed on the matter , i did not know that america were foggy on the issue of ownership , i just assumed they were completley behind the uk , i think its to be expected that the rest of south america would back argentina on this issue , what have they to gain by backing britain , i refer to my earlier point however , if its a quest for oil , how is argentina any less grubby , its not as if the falklands - las malvinas are as close to argentina as the isle of man is to the uk or the aran islands are to ireland , its a foreign adventure for them aswell
your clearly well informed on the matter , i did not know that america were foggy on the issue of ownership , i just assumed they were completley behind the uk , i think its to be expected that the rest of south america would back argentina on this issue , what have they to gain by backing britain , i refer to my earlier point however , if its a quest for oil , how is argentina any less grubby , its not as if the falklands - las malvinas are as close to argentina as the isle of man is to the uk or the aran islands are to ireland , its a foreign adventure for them aswell
The USA is just hedging its bets and trying to keep both the UK and Latin America onside at the same time.
During the Falkland's war, the USA was publicly even-handed but, in private, was supplying the latest Sidewinder missiles and other technology to the RAF and even offered up a full-sized aircraft carrier (offer was declined).
It was my understanding that the UK and Argentina had an agreement to share any oil found in the area but when Kirchener was elected she unilateraly withdrew from the agreement and started to crank up the chest thumping patriotism that some people seem to blame the UK for espousing.
I understand that she is tapping up the new Pope now! Not sure what influence he has with Britain; I guess he could send over the Sistine chapel choir to warble at us until we beg for forgiveness, give away the Falklands and disband the Anglican church........
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
