← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Blond Knight
Thread ID: 18793 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2005-06-23
2005-06-23 19:02 | User Profile
Ever wonder why the Argentines & Brits got in that knock down drag out battle back in 1982? Hint: They were not fighting over sheep grazing rights.
As mentioned, however, the Falkland Islands is believed to have massive amounts of oil and gas reserves within its territorial waters. The United Kingdom now controls these oil areas, since winning the war between itself and Argentina in 1982. According to the British Geological Survey (BGS), approximately half of the 420,000 square kilometer of Falkland Islands waters contain sedimentary basins, holding concentrated areas of Cenozoic and Mesozoic infills.1 "The shallower water Malvinas basin lies to the west of the islands in 200-500 m of water and extends westward into the Argentine area, where there has already been some exploratory success." 14
In 1993, Britain established a 200-mile oil exploration zone around the islands and that oil estimates in this region could produce 500,000 barrels per day. If this occurred, the Falkland/Malvinas Islands would be the largest oil producing region in the world for the next decade.
Complete Article: [url]http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/FALK.htm[/url]
2005-06-26 03:56 | User Profile
Actually, Blond Knight, I don't think it had anything to do with oil reserves. By your own resources, the survey was not performed until 1993, and as you are aware, the Falklands War was in 1982. The knowledge existed in 82, but it wasn't the factor The factor was the bereft British Empire, in it's final death throes. Making one last final attempt to usurp itself upon the population of the land.
2005-06-26 12:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]The factor was the bereft British Empire, in it's final death throes. Making one last final attempt to usurp itself upon the population of the land.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't explain why Argentina attacked & invaded the Falklands (and New South Georgia).
2005-06-26 18:00 | User Profile
Yes this was known at the time, and was a major cause of the war
The possibility that there may also be oil under Antarctica was certainly also a factor
2005-06-26 22:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]That doesn't explain why Argentina attacked & invaded the Falklands (and New South Georgia).[/QUOTE] Argentina attacked the Falklands because they thought that the territory was theirs. It's as simple as that - it was a grab for additional territory.
2005-06-26 22:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]Actually, Blond Knight, I don't think it had anything to do with oil reserves. The factor was the bereft British Empire, in it's final death throes. Making one last final attempt to usurp itself upon the population of the land.[/QUOTE]
[U][I][B]Horse Hockey![/B][/I][/U] The Falklands were/are British territory and the Brits reacted the same way we would if some foreign power attempted to annex American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico or any other American possession.Your argument is very weak and you obviously didn't do any considerable thinking about your position.
2005-06-26 22:53 | User Profile
There is another reason for the invasion. Argentina was having major economic problems and there was a need to unite the country after having to put down a Marxist insurgency. The Junta was simply doing what other nations have done.
2005-06-26 23:45 | User Profile
As far as I am concern that place is a hell of a lot closer to Argentina than it is to England.
The US could use it as a power military base when they open up their third front against the war on "terror", any oil in that area?
Depending on how much there is depends in how soon we will "liberate" them.
2005-06-27 03:06 | User Profile
The Junta thought likewise. The people who lived there, however, were all Brits. What is your point? That Japan should be part of Russia, because it is an Island close to Russia?
[QUOTE=Ponce]As far as I am concern that place is a hell of a lot closer to Argentina than it is to England.
The US could use it as a power military base when they open up their third front against the war on "terror", any oil in that area?
Depending on how much there is depends in how soon we will "liberate" them.[/QUOTE]
2005-06-27 03:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo] The factor was the bereft British Empire, in it's final death throes. Making one last final attempt to usurp itself upon the population of the land.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]As far as I am concern that place is a hell of a lot closer to Argentina than it is to England.
The US could use it as a power military base when they open up their third front against the war on "terror", any oil in that area?
Depending on how much there is depends in how soon we will "liberate" them[/QUOTE]
The vast majority of the population prefers to stay a British territory. Same as Gibraltar, really, another case of misguided outrage against British oppression when the people want to stay in what is left of the empire.
2005-06-27 05:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]The Junta thought likewise. The people who lived there, however, were all Brits. What is your point? That Japan should be part of Russia, because it is an Island close to Russia?[/QUOTE]
Well Angel three of the Japanese islands are already in the hands of Russia, one island at the time.
2005-06-27 05:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96][U][I][B]Horse Hockey![/B][/I][/U] The Falklands were/are British territory and the Brits reacted the same way we would if some foreign power attempted to annex American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico or any other American possession.Your argument is very weak[/QUOTE]
I'm inclined to agree, if only more strongly. American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico are not really authentic parts of the USA, but rather imperialist possessions that rightfully belong to the native inhabitants, rather than to us. I fully support the Puerto Rican Independence Party (as does Pat Buchanan, interestingly enough). But as long as they are ostensibly our territory, we would of course fight like tigers to reclaim them from foreign conquerors. The Falklands, however, are more like Alaska than Guam, i.e. the 5,000-10,000 people, I believe, who inhabit the Falklands are English-speakers almost entirely of English, Scottish, Welsh and/or Irish descent, who universally identify as loyal British subjects. That makes the Falklands about as British as the Shetlands or Guernsey, in my humble opinion. They had every right, reason and indeed, duty to rollback the Argentine aggression, irrespective of what might seem like reasonable territorial claims to the "Malvinas" on the part of Buenos Aires, petroleum reserves, or any other consideration. Stanleyville (the capital of the Falklands, if I remember correctly) is [I]BRITISH[/I], not Latin American, and it was the Argentines who were engaged in aggressive, imperialist gamesmanship, not the British, who were merely defending the lives, homes, and property of some of their sheep-ranching brethren. The British, along with the Greeks of the ancient world, are the most maritime people in history. Any island in the Atlantic not previously inhabited was going to fall under their domain, and rightly so, as a more dynamic society deserves to reap the rewards of its productive inclinations.
2005-06-27 05:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Well Angel three of the Japanese islands are already in the hands of Russia, one island at the time.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but eventually the wily Vladimir Putin is going to get a Japanese PM with natonalist tendencies (such as Koizumi) to cough up some ludicrous sum of billions of dollars to re-purchase those three little fishing stations (and would have done so already, were it not for Japan's intractable recession). Pride can be expensive, and the Russians could surely use the cash.