Falkland islands dispute?

Question

Falkland islands dispute?

Answer 1

The Spanish never occupied the Falklands and they have never belonged to the Argentine (Argentina). The dispute about ownership of the Falklands is all about three things. OIL, GAS & FISH. All three are worth billions.



Let me explain a bit of the history.



The Falkland Islands have been occupied by the British as both a whaling station and for sheep farming for many generations.



Falkland Islands Oil and Gas Limited

http://www.fogl.com/fogl/en/home

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail%3Fcode%3Dcotn:FOGL.L%26it%3Dle



Stanley airport is no longer just an air strip with a few battered huts. It can now take 747 Jumbo Jets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DwWjAwZ118



The British have spent a lot of money in the Falklands, bringing the Islands into the 21stC. The Falklands now get about 91,000 visitors a year, some by sea others by air.



The Falkland Islands Company is a very profitable enterprise, now having more than just sheep and penguins to work with - it also has a booming deep fishing business and the tourist trade too. And, if you want to go somewhere wild, then head for the Falklands.



http://www.falklands.gov.fk/Trout_Fishing.html



Now let's go back to the time of the Falklands War and then step back about 100 years earlier than that to about the late 1870s. The Falklands were then under investigation by the Argentine for possibly taking possession, even though there were British citizens living there and working there, doing fishing and sheep farming and the then whaling industry.



The United States sent the warship, USS Lexington to Falklands waters and destroyed the Argentine Navy.



Although in the present age (21stC) the Americans are not going to say anything much, it should be clearly understood that the USA has an investment in the Falklands and that concerns any oil - which even at this early stage is estimated to be equal to Q8 in terms of barrels per etc.



But don't all rush at once. . .it's early days yet. The revenue from the Falklands will boost the UK economy big time.



On the question of nearness. Actually the Channel Islands are nearer to France than they are to UK - there is no dispute about ownership. But should oil be discovered off Jersey, there might be.



Take it from this expert screen watcher, the Argentinians want the oil and that's all there is to it.



They have no legal claim to the islands and never occupied them either as Spanish or later as the Argentine.



My advice to them - take a running jump - get lost.



There is a British Garrison of some 1,000 troops at/near Stanley including Gurkha's. Also a squadron of RAF Tornadoes etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuj05L_jbGo&feature=related

Answer 2

After the Argentineans did a sneak attack on the Islands back in the 1980's, the time for negotiations came and went. Now it is an emotional thing. The British cannot cede the Islands without dishonoring their war dead.

Answer 3

Dude, use punctuation.



If anyone should say who should govern the Falklands, it should be the people who live there. By this I mean they should hold a referendum to decide. Do they want to be British, Argentinian or Neither.

Answer 4

The UK has the islands, so now it is time to quit b*tching and go back to bed.

Answer 5

They wouldn't be in the slightest bit interested were it not for the discovery of a massive deposit of oil. The people of the Falklands have the right to determine their nationality and are British. The revenue from the oil will be a boost to their economy.

Answer 6

No country has any claim or right to the Falkland Islands. The residents of the Islands have voted (I think even more than once) to remain part of the United Kingdom. Argentina has never had any legitimate claim to the Island and their motivation has always been that their failing country, failing economy or failing government needed a boost at home with the voters so, claiming the Islands or attacking them in the 1980s has often been seen as a way to look better to the public. Spain has no claim to the Island as no one, other than the United Kingdom, has ever had any success trying to colonize the Islands. No people were ever living there before European colonists.



Therefore, Argentina has no claim and they continue to be full of hot air.

Answer 7

It is all about the OIL that has been discovered off the the Falklands. Nothing else.

Answer 8

There are plenty of geographical anomalies scattered around the globe, where for historical reasons, little pockets of land belong to a nation far away from what seems logical.



Greece owns many islands far closer to Turkey than they are to Greece. The UK has the Channel Islands, which are only a stone's throw from France. What on earth possesses the USA to have one of their states miles from anywhere in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? Russia lays claim to one of the collection of islands that logically make up Japan. My first girlfriend's brother has settled in Reunion, part of France, but happens to lie somewhere East of Madagascar. There is a little nonsense going on with the International Date Line, which goes haywire around Samoa, because one part of it has allegiances to New Zealand, and another to the USA. There are funny little ruritanias like Monaco, San Marino, Andorra and Liechtenstein, landlocked by much larger and more powerful countries, which somehow stand their ground as independent nations. Denmark has a huge colony somewhere north of Canada inhabited mostly by polar bears.



It seems utterly preposterous that the UK should go to the trouble and expense of defending a few square miles on the far side of the world, but British resolve was put to the test in 1982, and endorsed at a general election a year later. If Argentina had a grand old Duke of York fighting for them, perhaps the outcome would have been different? I suppose the British like their penguins even more than they like their dogs.



I myself am arguing the case to cede Worcestershire to Scotland, if only because I prefer the SNP's policies to anything found in England. Could a Sassenach really represent Scotland though, any more than Idi Amin?

Answer 9

There is another level to Argentina's 'lust' for the Falklands to take account of. There is considerable depth to this so I will just give the thread and if your are interested you will have to do the research.



Who really pulls the strings in Argentina? Argentina was considered part of what was known as the 'informal' British empire and from the early 1800's British investment, imports and exports were very substantial, with vast wealth produced. For at least the last 185 years the international bankers have manipulated and bankrupted the country numerously and have been squeezing it ever since.



By 1930 the GDP per-capita was the 4th highest in the world.



From the 30's onwards, following decades of economic depression, political struggle and revolution, the CIA have been active, eventually training and backing the Junta. It was a test-bed for a controlled economic police state, a template for wider implementation.



So now you understand why the US government were not able to assist the British defend the Argentinian invasion - there were forces with power and authority within the US government who were controlling the very heart of the Argentinian Junta, pulling in the opposite direction.



Why did they want the island? Well it looks like it was just, long term, for the oil and gas wealth, perhaps bleeding the people of Argentina dry was just not enough. And there was a substantial amount of political bravado involved too - a distraction and unifying tactic between the Junta and the Argentinian people - perhaps the Junta were not even 'given to understand' such an action was to result in real military conflict with the UK.



Of cause the Falklands was the making of Thatcher's government so do not discount the concoction of the whole event as a staged political spectacular. The 'Argentinian' scrap merchants who's actions were used to instigate the conflict appears to have been usurped into being the justification for a 'false-flag' operation. (A grey-opps joke).

.

Answer 10

Well explained Yorrik im with you on all points

Answer 11

France was the first settler on the islands, so was the first legal owner.

Britain tried to settle after France, but it was illegal because the islands were already settled, so it gives no right and no claim to Britain.



France transferred the islands, including the colony, to Spain by a treaty, and Spain assigned the islands to Buenos Aires, so Buenos Aires is the one, and only legal owner of the islands, being Britain the only country without any legal claim over the islands. The only colony was property of Buenos Aires before Argentine independence.



Worse, after it, Britain signed the Nookta Convention treaty with Spain, recognizing the Spanish ownership of the islands. So it cancels any potential British claim.



After Argentina independence, the island colony was depopulated, and Argentina sent a new population, and designed Luis Vernet as governor.



England invaded the islands many years after recognizing Argentine independence and after Argentina sent a governor to his legally acquired and owned territory.



England attacked and expelled any Argentine inhabitant and authority, so it was an illegal invasion, and it gives no right to Britain, British occupiers and British descendents. Squatters don’t have ownership rights. Squatters don’t own property, and can’t decide for it.

Answer 12

Hi Krisa 49

The problem stems from the possibility that "oil could be found in the Territorial waters" around the falkland isles.

and as you say the close proximity of argentina to the islands, some may not also realise that spain did discover south america and yes they would be the natural country to have sovereignty of these islands.

but some british settlers found this island paradise some century or more ago basically a rock in the southern at Atlantic ocean. then before OIL was a big item in peoples lives.

No one was interested but islanders who felt for the home land joined up in both world wars on the allies side so we being what we are as nation do try to protect the under Dog in most circumstances.

It is only Now in the late 20th and now the 21st century when Oil and mineral deposits are so important that a country like Argentina is interested.

so we protect out own, but the manner it was used back in the 1980's was a distraction by the then conservative government, to an economic crisis which was making life difficult for the then government . so a bit of moral indignation against a forgone power was just the ticket. hence the falklands war

like Tony Blair did with iraq, i wonder what other conflicts we could get into now to take the economic pressure off the present government, so a bit of sabre rattling usually is used to take peoples eyes off the real problems on the home front.

Answer 13

The International Legal position is that Britain owned the Islands fair and square when Argentina invaded in 1982. Fair enough, Britain took the islands when Argentina broke with Spain in the 19th Century (and tried to take Argentina as well) but that was considered normal practise way back then. Today, the British Establishment are the focus of Argentinian Nationalism and Political Debate, every nation needs a Bogeyman, and London is Argentina's. Britain's real problem is that if it withdraws from the Falklands it is 'goodbye' to all of it's shares in any Oil Drilling Rights in the Region. And there is plenty of Oil to Drill.

Answer 14

politics aside .... when the Argentineans invaded the island the people who live there were honoured that the british came to remove the Argentineans, and the british army were honoured to fight for them they consider themselves british and the people of britain consider them british

Answer 15

Really, someone that uses 89 words in one sentence shouldn't call others retarded. Argentina claimed that the Falklands was their territory before the British ever came.

Answer 16

Dog training is always quite a trial for puppy owners, however it isn't as hard as it seems. Learn here http://OnlineDogTraining.enle.info/?Gqfq



First I suggest that you use a crate which the puppy can't see through. A plastic crate is great for crate training as it gives puppies a feeling of comfort in a den-like atmosphere.



Second, it is best for you to make sure that your puppy is tired before you put her into a crate. Exercise and play with her until she is well worn out before you put her into the crate. Most tired puppies would just whine for a while and then settle down and go to sleep.



Third, make sure that the crate is comfortable for the puppy. Putting her favorite toy, bedding, or even a shirt with your scent helps young puppies a lot.



Fourth, treat going to the crate as a relaxing experience. After exercising and playing with her, just say, "Go crate." Lead her to the crate, saying cheerfully but gently, "Go crate," all the time. Then gently encourage her to go into the crate of her own accord. Wait till she's fully inside, then shut the door quietly. Don't make a fuss. Don't excite her. Just let the whole process be simple and calm.



If she whines, you should ignore it, but if she persists, you can try to stop it by shaking a can of stones, banging on the table, or even bringing up the volume of the radio. This isn't cruel - it is just teaching her that her whining brings these unpleasant sounds to her. Just remember that you should stop the punishment as soon as she stops whining.



And if she doesn't whine in just half a minute, take her out of the crate quietly, wait for a few seconds, and then praise her until her tail wags.



Just remember, crate training is a process which requires patience and time.



And don't keep your puppy crated for too long otherwise she might go inside the crate!

Answer 17

There is nothing to negotiate .

Answer 18

Go check your history, Maggy Thatcher tried to GIVE them to Argentina.



Actually Britain didn't have munch of a claim, until they put a bunch of people there to populate it.