Obama refuses to support UK sovereignty over Falklands

[Barrister]

Britain doesn't really need to do anything.  The status quo works in the favour, and a single SSN could easily balk any military solution that Argentina might attempt.

Maybe. But what Argentina is doing now is denying the use of its ports to Britain. What this means is that all the gear and supplies for oil drilling operations now have to come from areas considerably to the North of the Falklands, and that makes an eventual extraction of oil more expensive, thus less appealing.

And if all nations in the area agree that Britain should not be down there, then the British companies will have to get their gear from Europe, which basically means no oil for London until it gets to $200+ a barrel.

Actually, Chile has no problem with ships to and from the Falklands.

[Duque de Bragança]

Britain doesn't really need to do anything.  The status quo works in the favour, and a single SSN could easily balk any military solution that Argentina might attempt.

Maybe. But what Argentina is doing now is denying the use of its ports to Britain. What this means is that all the gear and supplies for oil drilling operations now have to come from areas considerably to the North of the Falklands, and that makes an eventual extraction of oil more expensive, thus less appealing.

And if all nations in the area agree that Britain should not be down there, then the British companies will have to get their gear from Europe, which basically means no oil for London until it gets to $200+ a barrel.

Actually, Chile has no problem with ships to and from the Falklands.

Chile was and would be a problem for an Argentina at war but supplying the Falklands/Malvinas for oil wouldn't be practical given the geography.

[Barrister]

Britain doesn't really need to do anything.  The status quo works in the favour, and a single SSN could easily balk any military solution that Argentina might attempt.

Maybe. But what Argentina is doing now is denying the use of its ports to Britain. What this means is that all the gear and supplies for oil drilling operations now have to come from areas considerably to the North of the Falklands, and that makes an eventual extraction of oil more expensive, thus less appealing.

And if all nations in the area agree that Britain should not be down there, then the British companies will have to get their gear from Europe, which basically means no oil for London until it gets to $200+ a barrel.

Actually, Chile has no problem with ships to and from the Falklands.

Chile was and would be a problem for an Argentina at war but supplying the Falklands/Malvinas for oil wouldn't be practical given the geography.

There's no question that Argentina would be more convenient, but support from Chile is certainly practical.

[Richard Hakluyt]

via Cape Horn? Maybe that doesn't matter so much with modern vessels 

Argentine diplomacy re the Falklands is completely hamfisted of course, their behaviour guaranteed to irritate the British and make them intransigent. They should cooperate with us and maximise trade and cultural links with the islands. It would be a long game, but after 50 years or so they'd probably be given them.

[Duque de Bragança]

Actually, Chile has no problem with ships to and from the Falklands.

Chile was and would be a problem for an Argentina at war but supplying the Falklands/Malvinas for oil wouldn't be practical given the geography.
[/quote]

There's no question that Argentina would be more convenient, but support from Chile is certainly practical.
[/quote]

As in better than nothing in the area, sure

[Warspite]

And if all nations in the area agree that Britain should not be down there, then the British companies will have to get their gear from Europe, which basically means no oil for London until it gets to $200+ a barrel.

Oh no. We will have to gear from Europe? You mean we will be denied the vast stocks of advanced equipment and expertise sitting in the oil-rich Latin American states?

If only there were British companies that had some kind of expertise in oil exploration. 

[The Larch]

Britain doesn't really need to do anything.  The status quo works in the favour, and a single SSN could easily balk any military solution that Argentina might attempt.

Maybe. But what Argentina is doing now is denying the use of its ports to Britain. What this means is that all the gear and supplies for oil drilling operations now have to come from areas considerably to the North of the Falklands, and that makes an eventual extraction of oil more expensive, thus less appealing.

And if all nations in the area agree that Britain should not be down there, then the British companies will have to get their gear from Europe, which basically means no oil for London until it gets to $200+ a barrel.

Actually, Chile has no problem with ships to and from the Falklands.

Nor has Uruguay. AFAIK, for fishing operations Montevideo is the port of choice in continental South America for fleets operating in the Falklands, so I guess that for O&G exploration it'd be the same.

[Hansmeister]

via Cape Horn? Maybe that doesn't matter so much with modern vessels 

Argentine diplomacy re the Falklands is completely hamfisted of course, their behaviour guaranteed to irritate the British and make them intransigent. They should cooperate with us and maximise trade and cultural links with the islands. It would be a long game, but after 50 years or so they'd probably be given them.

Why would the island be "given" to them after 50 years?  The British citizens of the islands have no interest joining that banana republic and Argentina has no legitimate claim on the islands.  "Hey, those islands are pretty close to us" isn't really a serious claim.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Britain has given away about a quarter of the world in the past 70 years, all we need is a good excuse 

[Tamas]

Isn't it against the Monroe Doctrine to confirm that the island belongs to Britain? 

[Neil]

Isn't it against the Monroe Doctrine to confirm that the island belongs to Britain? 

The Monroe doctrine is a dead letter.

[Neil]

via Cape Horn? Maybe that doesn't matter so much with modern vessels 

Argentine diplomacy re the Falklands is completely hamfisted of course, their behaviour guaranteed to irritate the British and make them intransigent. They should cooperate with us and maximise trade and cultural links with the islands. It would be a long game, but after 50 years or so they'd probably be given them.

Why would the island be "given" to them after 50 years?  The British citizens of the islands have no interest joining that banana republic and Argentina has no legitimate claim on the islands.  "Hey, those islands are pretty close to us" isn't really a serious claim.

The inhabitants of Hong Kong didn't have much interest in joining a brutal murder-state either, but they did when the lease was up.  Self-determination doesn't much matter for small groups of people.

[Martinus]

This is outrageous. I hope he tries to make up for this by recognizing the UK sovereignty over all the UK North American colonies instead.

[Martinus]

via Cape Horn? Maybe that doesn't matter so much with modern vessels 

Argentine diplomacy re the Falklands is completely hamfisted of course, their behaviour guaranteed to irritate the British and make them intransigent. They should cooperate with us and maximise trade and cultural links with the islands. It would be a long game, but after 50 years or so they'd probably be given them.

Why would the island be "given" to them after 50 years?  The British citizens of the islands have no interest joining that banana republic and Argentina has no legitimate claim on the islands.  "Hey, those islands are pretty close to us" isn't really a serious claim.

It's funny, considering all US territorial gains EVER were based on that "illegitimate claim". 

[Razgovory]

Stop being stupid Marty.