2y ago

Falkland's sovereignty 'not up for discussion' Britain warns after new Argentinian president vows to 'get them back'

www.lbc.co.uk Falkland's sovereignty 'not up for discussion' Britain warns after new Argentinian president vows to 'get them back'

Rishi Sunak has ruled out any new negotiations over the Falkland Islands and Argentina's new President pledged to "get them back".

World News @lemmit.online

www.lbc.co.uk /news/falklands-sovereignty-not-up-for-discussion-britain-warns/

2 0

Europe @feddit.de

Falkland's sovereignty 'not up for discussion' Britain warns after new Argentinian president vows to 'get them back'

www.lbc.co.uk /news/falklands-sovereignty-not-up-for-discussion-britain-warns/

63 20

You're viewing a single thread.

310 comments

On a differrent note: What would anybody want of the Falkland Islands? I mean, it is a lousy island with 3000 inhabitants and half a million sheep, and they live of fishing, wool, and day tourism from cruise ships.
On the one hand, maintaining a military presence equivalent to more than half the number of native inhabitants costs the British a shitload of money. On the other hand, starting another bloody war with the UK in the middle of an economic catastrophe over a piece of rock with sheep does not make any sense for Argentina, either.
- On a differrent note: What would anybody want of the Falkland Islands?
  Oil in the nearby ocean ownership is the reason why.
  Its the way international treaties work as far as claiming ownership of resources in the ocean.
- It's about the territorial waters that come with them
- Falklands nascent oil industry + giving the population a rallying cry to distract from poor economic conditions.
  
  OK, oil could be an incentive, but I doubt that it is much or one would have heard of them.
  I should have excluded pure rhetorics as a reason. The Chinese at least had a good economic reason to get Hong Kong into their hands.
  
  OK, oil could be an incentive, but I doubt that it is much or one would have heard of them.
  Don't mean to be rude, but you could also just not have been educated on the matter, and its actually more important than you think, especially to those who claim ownership for the oil rights reasons.
  Usually world politics, when it comes to oil access/ownership, is not something that is discussed in the open, often. We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil, not that news stations will ever report on that fact.
  
  OK, looks like there is actually serious amounts of oil there. But quite deep and under water. Still, worth more than all of the island wrapped up as a present ;-) TIL.
  
  Its really crazy how that stuff works. I read an article once about how nations try to claim even the smallest piece of rock in places just so that they can have claim over the resources not on land itself but in the ocean around it. Has to do with some UN treaties/rules about resource availability/ownership.
  
  Either a 100km or 200km radius around land, if I'm not mistaken. Leads to some very.... "interesting" situations in Greece/Turkey.
  
  We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil, not that new stations will ever report on that fact.
  Oh everybody knows that
  
  Oh everybody knows that
  But they never say it in public, if they can help it.
  
  We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil,
  While a common conspiracy theory, this is never borne out by evidence.
  
  We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil,
  While a common conspiracy theory, this is never borne out by evidence
  It's actually been stated officially during reporter questioning actually, multiple times throughout the years. It's just not something you see discussed much on CNN directly.
  Don't mean to be rude (in case you're not a bot) but it takes a special kind of ignorance to believe that oil has nothing to do with what's going on in the Middle East. It's not the only factor, but it's definitely a factor.
  
  Oil dictates our relationship with Saudi Arabia, but is not tied to overall ME policy, and there is 0 evidence to the contrary.
  Not only am I not a bot, im old enough to remember "no blood for oil" protests and how dumb and distracting they were from legitimate reasons not to engage in ME war.
  Your conspiracy theory has gotten people killed
  
  and there is 0 evidence to the contrary.
  As I've mentioned previously, during official news conferences officials have stated the need to protect the oil supply and the access to it.
  Not only am I not a bot, im old enough to remember “no blood for oil” protests and how dumb and distracting they were from legitimate reasons not to engage in ME war.
  As someone who is also old enough to remember those kind of protests, and the embargos, etc., I agree. Fighting over resources is not healthy, and that resources should be shared instead.
  Your conspiracy theory has gotten people killed
  Its not a conspiracy theory, its what drives the politics in the ME, on multiple levels. And its not my theory, its what the majority of people have decided on (the importance of oil).
  
  Fighting over resources is not healthy
  This is quite false, but the US generally uses soft power for oil.
- On a differrent note: What would anybody want of the Falkland Islands? I mean, it is a lousy island with 3000 inhabitants and half a million sheep
  So it's a Scotland in the southern hemisphere.
  
  Bagpipes, anyone?
  
  Someone jam some oats in a sheep's stomach. I'm fucking starving.
- Nationalist Kvetch entirely, those are Brits on the island, not just British citizens, full on ethnically British Islanders who've lived there almost since anyone knew the islands were there to begin with.
  When polled they overwhelmingly voted in favor of remaining with the UK
  Falklands are as British as black pudding and the royal corgis. Argentina just keeps pressing the claim because it makes a good nationalist distraction whenever right wing nutcases inevitably prove to be completely incompetent.
  Also, any attempt to link it with some overarching notion of decolonization is complete bunk, the islands were uninhabited before they were discovered it's only colonialism if you think the very concept of an exclave is colonialist because that's in effect what they are, a very far removed exclave.
  
  those are Brits on the island, not just British citizens, full on ethnically British Islanders
  Why are you mentioning this? Does that mean they're worth saving more than a citizen who isn't "ethnically British"?
  What is that anyway? The UK is a collection of countries: England, Scotland, etc. Is there a hierarchy of British ethnicities in your mind? You implied that there is some separation between certain groups, so you must have thought about it. Right?
  
  They were very very clearly mentioning it to show that Argentina has no legitimate claim or argument using any traditional reasoning. You had to work very hard to purposefully misinterpret that statement. Pathetically so.
  
  I was pointing out that they aren't an indigenous people under British colonial rule, they are themselves Brits who identify solidly with Britain.

310 comments