I have.... NORTH SEA OIL PRODUCTION IS REDUCING BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER TO BUY FROM ELSEWHERE THAN TO PRODUCE IN THE UK!!
Brent (and WTI crude, as seen in the US of A) is more expensive than oil offer by OPEC countries.. significantly more expensive, as it contains less sulfur. Also, development and maintenance of oil fields in the inhospitable sea is not easy or cheap. Its quite simple really! Heres a little info for you, as requested:- http://www.energyandcapital.com/resources/brent-vs-wti The north seas oil reserves are still strong, as reported here. Of course, reserves are just estimates but 20/30/40 billion seems to be the most qouted figures around:- http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/18/north-sea-oil-reserve-sti_n_1101059.html Theres plenty of info out there, if you wish to learn more. try this site:- www.google.com
And you don't think that is MOTIVE. The North Sea producers were genuinely spooked by the disaster of Deepwater Horizon.
So, if that is your reasoning, then why would looking for off-shore oil near the Falklands be attractive to North Sea oil producers? And, why did we protect the islands in the 80's, when there was no oil in the equation? I really don't think you have thought your argument through, to be honest.
I think most people here know that a conflict is highly unlikely, but I must wonder why they don't hold a referendum now to decide clearly what the people on the island wish, eg Independence, British overseas territory or to Join Argentina, then using this result that can be independently verified , go to the UN and ask them to protect the people of the Falklands as per the right of self determination.
Yep sound good, I wonder why the UK doesn't just have talks with Argentina, then we can say we have talked, but couldn't make a deal. And the UK news never says anything about what Falklanders want, rightwing says that are British, leftwing says we should give them to Argentina, and the Falklanders are left in the middle. I think independence is a good idea, but the UK would still need to defend them, that is why they are a British overseas territory we do there foreign affaires and defence, they do everything else. That's why Bermuda is a BOT, dispite it being one of the top 5 economies in the world.
You can load a lot of missiles on a C-130. And trust me, you will need a lot more of them then you think. I know, I spent a year on an Air Force Base in the Middle East not to long ago. We had cargo aircraft comming and going all the time. It all goes right back to logistics. Argentina can make a lot of it's own military hardware, it has done so for decades. England on the other hand would have to bring them all the way down there themselves. And it is a mightly long flight for an aircraft to do, go from the UK all the way to the Falklands. But if you think I am fighting the last war, in a way I am. Because Argentina has been training for that exact same mission. To try and attack ships before they even reach the area of conflict. And the ships will have to sail there. The aircraft can't take them to the Falklands, and they will not magically appear. You keep bouncing around on your idea of the conflict though. How is it starting this time? Is the UK attacking Argentina, or is Argentina attacking the UK? Because there is not much the UK can do to stop Argentina from attacking and taking over the islands again. And what makes you so sure the EU would give the UK any support? There is nothing saying they have to do that, and they sure did not do that last time.
Don't think much of either Argentine or UK actions here. If Argentina wants these Islands She should make more of an offer. She should do this before taking any more actions to try to isolate the islands from South America. I think an offer to pay $1,000,000 US to each Islander which would be exempt from Argentine and British taxes wold be about right; allow any who wish to move to the UK to leave and grant Argentine citizenship to any who stay. They could also keep UK citizenship and move to the UK anytime they wish. The Islanders should get fishing rights in all Argentine waters but not the right to grant licenses to fishing boats from other countries. If accepted this would cost Argentina about $3,000,000,000. Britain's military response isn't the right response to what's occured either. All that has happened is diplomatic requests plus very mild economic presure. According to what I have read about polls only about 3% of Argentines support invasion. Also I don't think Argentina has a strong enough military to do so. However I do think Argentina has a reasonably strong claim based upon its settlement of the vacant Islands 200 miles off its coast in the 1820's-1833 period. They were wrongfuly kicked off by Britain. I don't think the Islands have a big enough a population for self-determination to apply. Given what's happened so far the US policy of encouraging negotiations and remaining neutral on the sovereignty issue is about right.
Also don't think Venezuela is going to make much of a difference here but Chavez likes to talk. She is too far away from the Falklands/Malvinas to matter. If Argentina can get the backing of Brazil, Uraguey (sp), Chile for a trade embargo, they can bring substantial economic presure on the Islands since these are the only mainland countries with a port/airport close to these Islands. If one of them doesn't cooperate they won't be able to do that. Chile is the most likely to not cooperate. I understand they don't really like Argentina but might feel they have to go along to show South American unity or if there is enough diplomatic/economic presure to cause them to do so.
It's not just missiles, but everything else. It would take weeks for Venezeula to move everything it needs to Argentina, the UK would know this and move more forces to the Falklands and south Georgia. So on the one hand you are saying Venezuela could get enough equipment to Argentina with just 3 planes, but the UK couldn't get enough equipment to the Falklands and south Georgia with 30 planes. Yes Argentina can make many of it's weapons in Argentina, but how many weapons can they make for Venezeula? That is what this thread is about what Venezeula can do, not Argentina. The fact is Venezeula can't do that much. Also how is Argentina going to get enough troops to the Falklands to take them? The UK using there transport planes can air drop in the Para's, Argentina can do that, but not in the same numbers, only having 8 planes. It's not from the UK to the Falklands, it's from Ascension to the Falklands cutting the flight time by 60%, the UK would also send HMS Clyde and HMS Protector to defend south Georgia. So, the UK plans to make all that training Argentina has done, pointless because the UK will not send ships like we did last time. Why do ship have to sail their? The UK will keep there airbase and fly in supplies and send a supply ship from south Georgia. Argentina would be attacking the Falklands, forcing the UK to defend them. Argentina would need atleast 3,000 troops landing on the Falklands at them same time, to take the Falklands. But Argentina doesn't have the ability to do that, without full control of the sky and sea around the Falklands, with the UK having the ability to shoot down their whole air force, using 3-4 layers of defence, being able to see planes coming and get the missiles on, fighters in the air and type 45 ready, plus sending messages to the UK government and other ships in the region. The UK rapid reaction force will already be on it's way to the Falklands and south Georgia, by the time the first Argentine air attack is over. The UK doesn't need military support just diplomatic, and that's what the UK has been getting over the last month, with the EU say the Falklands are a territory of the EU. With that Brazil couldn't get involved for economic and political reasons, Chile and Uruguay will not help Argentina. If Venezeula tryed then the EU and US would put sanctions on Venezeula, if not a blockade. The EU is much different from 30 years ago and the UK is it's most important member in foreign policy terms.
Argentina doesn't have 3 billion to give. How is it a military response, we are changing a frigate for a destroyer, and moving a nuclear sub down there, that's all, as for the future king going there, it's his job, but it's a political stunt by the government, and the wrong thing to have done. The UK didn't kick them off.
No Uruguay is the least likely no to cooperate, as the Falklands does over 300 million in trade with them every year.
Got facts to back that up? http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Uruguay-FOREIGN-TRADE.html Because doing a little research, I find that the Uruguay trade ballence with all of the UK is only 72 million. Quite a bit lower then the 300 million you claim. In fact, the countries that are closest to your figure are Brazil ($530 million) and Argentina ($411 million). The UK is a distant 6th. And what on earth would they be spending $300 million a year on? Meat, Rice and cars? You are trying to tell us that a small island of just over 3,000 people importes from Uruguay 150% what the US imports all by itself? Please, give us some validation of your figures. Because all of the figures I see are nothing like what you are giving us. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c3550.html http://www.worldportsource.com/trade/URY.php And you may have missed this little bit of information. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ing-bloc-bans-ships-with-Falklands-flags.html In a new row with Britain, the Mercosur bloc, which includes Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, agreed on Tuesday to close ports throughout the region to ships flying the flag of the disputed Islands. The presidents of the countries agreed ships flying the Falklands flag "should not dock in Mercosur ports, and if that were to happen, they should not be accepted in another Mercosur port". Wow, so they would not dare interrupt the large flow of goods to the Falklands? Guess what bubba, they already have. Almost 2 months ago. Please, please, please, do some research. I mean, even the Iranian Press has been talking about this for months. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/217455.html
Distance for aircraft from Venezuela to Argentina: 3,159 miles. Distance for aircraft from England to Falklands: 7,877 miles That is over twice the distance. Assuming equal flight times, a similar aircraft can make 2 round trips from Venezuela to Argentina before the UK can run a single load. Logistics my friend, logistics. You do not understand it at all. And who says anything about 3 planes? This is their cargo aircraft inventory: C-130: 6 B-707: 2 B-737: 1 Il-76: 2 (to be delivered this year) And the Il-76 is a monster. Even the US military sometimes contracts them to carry stuff for them overseas. And do not forget, Argentina has an air force as well: C-130: 10 Saab-340: 4 Plus others that belong to the Governments. Aerolíneas Argentinas is primarily owned by the Argentine Government. And it owns 10 Airbus A340s, 31 B-737s, 1 MD-83 and 1 MD-88. These could easily be nationalized and converted to military use within days. They are an importer of weapons from Russia. Are you saying that Russia will no longer sell them equipment? And I imagine if they were threatened, Cuba would suddenly be sending a big part of it's military south to help "their close friend Hugo". After all, their newest subs are all among the best that Russia has ever exported. By ship and air. You seem to forget, it is a fraction of the distance from BA to Port Stanley (1,182 miles to be exact). They could make around 3.5 round trips before the UK could get it's first shipment down there. As far as "8 planes" (which you earlier said was 3), there is a lot more then that. Heck, you need to go back once again, and do some research. Look up "Escuadrón Fénix". During the 1982 war, Argentina called into service their national airlines, and most of the pilots of these airlines volunteered to fly for the government. Many of them flew cargo and medical flights. Others brought in more troops. Others flew rather dangerous missions. Like the Learjets flying decoy missions, so that the UK defenders would be in the wrong place when the A-4s made their attacks. And is there a giant base on Ascension, with 80% of your armed forces sitting on it right now? No, did not think so. So a 2 stage trip, or a single long trip. It is all still the exact same distance. Having a stopping point at Ascension does absolutely nothing to shorten the distance from the UK to the Falklands. So unless you can show that there is some massive base at Ascencion, with all the men and equipment needed to take back the Falklands sitting on it at this time, this is effectively out of the picture. Verification? References? Treaties? Anything to back these claims up?
I will say it again, the UK will not lose the Falklands in the first place. How is Argentina goig to take them without full air and sea control? Last time round Argentina's best troops were beaten by UK troops in there first battle. Still it will take weeks for Venezeula to move all the equipment needed to Argentina, and days for Argentina to change it's planes to military use. By that time the UK will have sent in another 1,000 elite troops Para's and SAS, and set up a forward base at south Georgia, along with more fighter jets and supply ship. If they do move befor that start of the war, the UK will know and send more assets there, the UK has been planning for this, and has enough in the region to take care of any Argentina attack, plus forces to be sent their. I am say the EU and US would block the Russians selling weapons to Venezeula. The UK wouldn't need 80% of it's military, only 50% at most, 24 fighters, 30 transports, 6 ships, 3,000 troops, 15 105 mm guns, we have part of this already in the Falklands. What I am saying is in Logistical terms the UK will win in those 3 days. I think you know this to, so you aren't saying Argentina could win. Also something I haven't said as yet is the FIDF is trained to fight a long hit and run war with Argentina, if they do take part of the Falklands. Something that has changed from last time, the Falklanders will defend themselves.
Repair and fish, simple. It's closer to 150 million, I just wanted to show the Falklands do matter to some at least 1 nation in south America.
Yes it is. There are people on that island who look to us for defence. How do you think they feel? This is not a political game. This not something that we can look at from the sidelines. This is about the people on the islands; their needs and their wants. Argentina invaded before. Although it was under very different circumstance's, it still happened. We talk about the Uk and Argentina, who did what, who was right.. but it was the islanders who bore the fear and uncertainty. Not only should our actions be accepted they should be commended. If the islanders want us there, we will be there.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjCoNMv6kvI"]Insight into life on the Falklands 06.02.12 - YouTube[/ame] Long Live The British Empire.
If Argentina can't come up with $3 billion then they certainly can't do anything at all except diplomatic talk. I think that they could borrow the money from Brazil. If Brazil had to they could borrow it from their primary trade partner, China. Brazil doesn't like foreign military bases anywhere in or close to South America. Brazil is also a better led country than Argentina (or the UK). Even diplomatic presure/trade embargo would probably cost more to maintain than $3 billion over a few years. Other countries probably won't support them for free for very long. Don't think it would be that effective, USA has had a trade embargo on Cuba for 50 years and while an economic problem to Cuba it hasn't brought the Cuban government down yet. I don't see any problem with sending Prince William there as a helicopter rescue pilot. Someone has to do that, so why not a prince? It's a silly objection by Argentina. From what I've heard Venezuela is actually pretty weak. I have heard that they have a weaker military than Peru. They just talk a lot and Peru doesn't. Obama's policy seems about right for US policy. Two countries are behaving slightly badly but neither bad enough to harm US interests, so neutrality seems fine to me.
Is it? Wow. You seem to know something everyone else doesn't! Please, enlighten me as to how Brazil is "better led" than the UK? You sound extremely patronising. You should get of your pedestal, before you fall off. The UK is not "behaving slightly badly". It is honouring its commitments to the Falklanders. If they wish to discuss their sovereignty, it is up to them to do so -Not the UK.
Closer, but let's be honest here. I already showed you the references. The entire trade ballance between UK and Uruguay is... $72 million exported to the UK, $64 million imported from. And that is the entire UK, including the Falklands. So yes, that is closer to the real figure, but it is still over double the real figure. So please, give us proof of your figures. OMG, really? Really? You think so? WRONG. If you think otherwise, please provide us evidence in the text of the agreement. In fact, I will make it easy for you, here it is. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union The only things specified in regards to the military in the Lisbon Treaty is that the individual nations will give military assistance in the event of a terrorist strike, or a natural or man made disaster. That's it. It is not a mutual defense treaty. It is not any kind of military alliance. We have discussed this over and over and over again. But let me say it, yet agian. The EU is an economic alliance, not a military alliance. There is no mutual defense treaty as part of the EU. Individual member states are free to join other nations in military actions, or not. It is their choice. They are even allowed to leave the military part (which the UK has been considering for years). We have talked about this ad nauseam. You can continue to throw out BS all day long, and I will counter it every time with verified and referenced facts. Are you not tired of all of this yet?
