The Headline Should Read, "First it was oil. It still is."

[Steve_A]

Hi Everybody,

I think we must come to a rapid conclusion here. Governments are not nice. The people behind them are definately not nice.

Whenever a government of a country spends $$billions to help save a piece of land with a sparse population, it has nothing to do with doing a good deed. There is ALWAYS some alternative reason.

We can see that clearly with the hundreds of $$millions of dollars going to Haiti, which has a population of 10 million people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...4-billion.html


Did you know that Haitians are paid only $5 a day to dig the rubble where their poorly built houses once stood? What does Haiti have that is so valuable?
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news...idden-oil.html

So this brings me to Las Malvinas (err the Falkland Islands) which, at the time of the conflict between Great Britain and Argentina had a population of only 1 800 (10 000 if you include the sheep).

There were more than 1 000 lives lost during the conflict, including the crew of HMS Sheffield and defensless Argentine youngsters all in the name of 'Right to Sovereignty'.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/preface.html

Why would a government spend $$billions when they could solve the problem by offering $$millions to the British people living there to move? It really just doesn't make economical sense.... or does it?

Suprise, suprise Haiti has massive oil reserves which the US has known about for around 15 years and was 'saving' for when the Midlle Eastern oil has run out and just a coincidence, there have been massive oil reserves found of the coast of Las Malvinas (err the Falkland Islands).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...l-1903003.html

But honestly, why is anybody suprised?

Best regards,

Steve

[Ross H]

Steve, you got that right my friend.


1950 New Zealand, American oil exploration team found huge reserves off the South Island, It was made public, My Dad told me about this story when I was a young fellow. Tho it made the headlines and with great hope abound as to the talk of riches coming forth, it all went quiet. 2 years later it was announced that the oil was to deep and to expensive to extract. Many spoke up with data about the North sea wells and how NZ was an easier task. It slowly faded into ablivion and I have never heard more since.

I have always thought this about many regions in the world, that they are just sitting on. I have never bought the 'its running out soon' bs.

Peace

[morguana]

i agree, however america (texas in particular) is running out hence why they big oil corporations are trying to get there greedy mitts on oil in other folks countries and places of beauty such as alaska.
m x

[aroundthetable]

Good points and well made Steve. I was listening to radio just yesterday about new tensions between Argentina and UK over, lets just say that island, i was in the Royal Navy at the time of the 'Falklands war', fortunately for me i was not serving on a ship that went there but i did lose some good friends and thousands of familys were destroyed. So i really hope this does not develop into another conflict (yes it is over oil and also sovereignty). It need not develop in this way, rather their is a mutually beneficial and practical solution. That oil need refining, and the best and only way to do this and remain profitable is to refine the oil in Argentina. I like this solution, it does not lead to war and more murder of the disposable fodder, the 'useless eaters' as someone once said.

[Steve_A]

Hi morguana,

It isn't exactly as you put it. When oil was discovered in the US back in the good old days and the Texans became rich, oil was indeed drilled for, and to some extent still is, however, the Americans decided to do something dastardly (as Dick Dastardly would do!). They dolarized international trade. What did this mean? Well it is far more easy to print US$ than to actually drill for oil, so they printed and gave the paper notes in exchange for oil that was taken from the ground in other countries. Remember in the 1970s' when the Arabs became millionaires over night?

The US has massive oil reserves in Alaska and off the south eastern coast, but is not wanting to drill for oil just yet. If it did, the price of oil would go down and make the venture more expensive as the US would have to invest in material and labour. So the US is waiting for the rest of the world to go dry and then command the worlds' oil market with its' 'strategic reserves' ie. off the coast of Cuba and Haiti and finally in Alaska.

There is an interesting article which goes into the matter much more at the following link: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ir...r_vs_euro.html

Best regards,

Steve

Originally Posted by morguana

i agree, however america (texas in particular) is running out hence why they big oil corporations are trying to get there greedy mitts on oil in other folks countries and places of beauty such as alaska.
m x

[lisa]

Thanks for the links! Time for free clean energy!!

[Xeon]

Originally Posted by lisa

Thanks for the links! Time for free clean energy!!

That's the dream. It will change everything.

But it can only happen when the ones behind this oil control are dismantled from power. In the book of Revelations it is already written, but whether it will happen in my lifetime is the question

[Steve_A]

Hi Everybody,

Here is a classic example of politics at play: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...l-dispute.html

Everybody knows why the UK is sniffing around Las Malvinas (err Falkland Islands), it's for oil exploration.

So Gordon Brown(nose) states that he is protecting the Falkland Islanders! "We maintain the security of the Falklands and there are routine patrols continuing," Mr Brown said. "I think you will find that we have made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure the Falkland Islanders are properly protected."

Yeah, right.

An MOD spokesman got it right, "The warships are there to protect the UK interests in the South Atlantic." In future people, read OIL in the place of 'interests'.

Best regards,

Steve

[Majorion]

Originally Posted by Steve_A

But honestly, why is anybody suprised?

It was obvious that you were gonna conclude the reason being 'resources', its what governments love most. I also think it's the same deal with the Yemen affair about "pirates" a while ago -- oil. You're right, no power in this world helps another just in good deed, there's always an ulterior motive.

Great research Steve.

[Phoenix]

Why would a government spend $$billions when they could solve the problem by offering $$millions to the British people living there to move? It really just doesn't make economical sense.... or does it?

Obvioulsy you have a dog in this fight and thats fair enough but these "people" are British by passport alone, they are Falkland Islanders and have been for nearly two hundred years.

How would anyone here feel if a government offered them money to leave their homes, yes, the Falkland Islands are their home. They are self governing and by overwhelming majority choose to remain a part of Britain.

And my personal feeling as a British citizen and taxpayer is if they want to remain British and a forgein entity violently invades their home and they ask for help, they come under the protection of the British Government elected by the British people and they should get it.

Sure there may be oil there but his is not about oil directly, it is about the people. Thats why the British sent its military forces, not to liberate the Islands but to liberate the people. I support PM Brown stand on this, I dont believe any other elected PM would be different.

[aroundthetable]

I agree with phoenix in what he says, it has been a british colony for over two hundred years and they certainly didnt know about the oil then. But again, this should be good for BOTH countries with no need for war, the oil can be refined in Argentina, everybody benefits. Infact this seems to be the line the british government are trying to pursue.

[morguana]

Originally Posted by Steve_A

Hi morguana,

It isn't exactly as you put it. When oil was discovered in the US back in the good old days and the Texans became rich, oil was indeed drilled for, and to some extent still is, however, the Americans decided to do something dastardly (as Dick Dastardly would do!). They dolarized international trade. What did this mean? Well it is far more easy to print US$ than to actually drill for oil, so they printed and gave the paper notes in exchange for oil that was taken from the ground in other countries. Remember in the 1970s' when the Arabs became millionaires over night?

The US has massive oil reserves in Alaska and off the south eastern coast, but is not wanting to drill for oil just yet. If it did, the price of oil would go down and make the venture more expensive as the US would have to invest in material and labour. So the US is waiting for the rest of the world to go dry and then command the worlds' oil market with its' 'strategic reserves' ie. off the coast of Cuba and Haiti and finally in Alaska.

There is an interesting article which goes into the matter much more at the following link: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ir...r_vs_euro.html

Best regards,

Steve

i know its much more complex than my very simple answere , the only things i have to go on is chit-chat from a coulpe of geologists and a person whom worked within the oil biz (which is about 7 years out of date ), and reading around the peak oil theory, so not an awful lot really, thanks for your time though and the link .

also thanks folks for all of your imput too, i always enjoy learning new things
love m x

[SteveX]

Oil around the FALKLAND ISLANDS is old news. As is oil in the Antarctic.... covered by the Antarctic treaty.

The handy thing about the FALKLANDS ISLANDS is that, not only are they BRITISH, they make a good staging post for the extraction and conveyance of oil. LONG standing BRITISH administration is set to reap the rewards for having the longest and largest settlements there.

Until the BRITISH on the BRITISH FALKLAND ISLANDS are bought off or vote themselves off, then the legalised ISO name of the FALKLAND ISLANDS will remain.

[Steve_A]

Hi SteveX,

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. The object of the post was not to declare that the area around the south eastern tip of Argentina has recently struck oil, but to state that governments don't rally round and 'save' people just to save them. The governments only intervene if there are bigger fish to fry.

By the way, I can see a little patriotism seeping through in your post. Or could I be wrong? Although There is nothing wrong with that, I am all for it actually, governments are not too excited about the principle, just look around you and you will see.

Best regards,

Steve

Originally Posted by SteveX

Oil around the FALKLAND ISLANDS is old news. As is oil in the Antarctic.... covered by the Antarctic treaty.

The handy thing about the FALKLANDS ISLANDS is that, not only are they BRITISH, they make a good staging post for the extraction and conveyance of oil. LONG standing BRITISH administration is set to reap the rewards for having the longest and largest settlements there.

Until the BRITISH on the BRITISH FALKLAND ISLANDS are bought off or vote themselves off, then the legalised ISO name of the FALKLAND ISLANDS will remain.

[SteveX]

Your deliberate use of "(err Falklands)" was indeed pointed. It deliberately expressed an underlining statement. A statement that needed correcting.

As I said in the reply, oil is old news in and around the Falkland Islands. As well as that covered under the Antarctic treaties.

You imply the main reason for British interest in the Falklands is due to oil. I will concede there is SOME truth in that. However, it is a British Colonial Island inhabited overwhelmingly by British citizens and has been for over 200 years. Why anyone wants to live in such an inhospitable place is beside the point but it is and has been.

Now...In compliance with their job description my cousin and a couple of my friends paid a visit to the Falklands some time ago. Stopping of at Tumble down and Goose Green. Unfortunately they had to leave some of their friends, a piece of England, behind on a permanent basis. We can of cause postulate as to why that happened. Oil? National pride? Desperate Junta?

As far as my patriotism is concerned it's like this...British by birth and English by the grace of god.

[Steve_A]

Hi Everybody,

Just a little update from the question of the protection of the British population / huge oil fields off the coast of Argentina: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7036764.ece

It seems that the tide is beginning to turn as 'poorer' nations become to be more corageous and put the traditionally powerful nations on their guard.

If a type of conflict breaks out, the UK doesn't even have the funds to carry it out. All the Latin American countries as do the enemies of the US, just need to lay in wait and say, "Boo" every now and then to make these nations keep their guard up spending a fortune that they don't have.

If we make a parallel with Iraq and Afghanistan it appears that a group of nomads are spending cents against the US' $100.00. Power won't come from a gun there, it will come because the US will go, if it hasen't already, bankrupt.

Neither the US nor the British want to see or admit this.

At the end of the day, when the times get tough, it's the people that will suffer.

Best regards,

Steve

[Phoenix]

Bottom line is, it will always be the Fakland Islands and the islanders will always be protected by the UK, that will not change. You can speculate the motives as much as you like but this has been the case for nearly 200 years, long before anyone knew what oil was. You seem to forget the the people living there are self governing and make their own decisions, I think they are due a bit more credit than is given.

[Steve_A]

Hi Phoenix,

I'm not criticizing who has the right or who doesn't, but the reason why the UK is all too happy to defend, as you put it, a "self governing" population who make their "own decisions".

My personal interest is null as to who gets sovereignty, or who gets the oil as for me I know for a fact that I will get neither. That isn't the question here.

If you look at some posts in this thread you will notice that there are some people from South America who think there might be another conflict. What do they have to do with the rights to sovereignty or oil? Nothing either, but it's these people (as well as I, as I'm here in Brazil also) that will pay the price, as it always is.

The politicians don't go into battle as did our ancient Kings once did, on the front lines crying out the battle charge leading their men. On the contrary they sit safely in their offices moving the pieces around on a table top, just as a child would playing the game of 'War', only in this case real lives are being lost and not little plastic figures. Why? It isn't to save a people. In this case, it's to have access to oil.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...l-dispute.html

Once again read "oil" when a government uses the words "national interests". As for 'speculation' as to the UKs' actions, the politicians and top brass of the UK are telling us in clear terms why they are there.

Of course the British will fight for sovereignty of the group of islands, otherwise taking the oil would be just plain plundering from a foreign nation. And we wouldn't want that now, would we?

In the conflict in 1982 over 1,000 lives were lost to save a population of 1,800, who incidentally took no part in the war!

The point of the thread is that we, the people, are not really all that important to governments, in fact we are considered a burden, unless of course we are worth $billions, as oil is.

Best regards,

Steve

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Bottom line is, it will always be the Fakland Islands and the islanders will always be protected by the UK, that will not change. You can speculate the motives as much as you like but this has been the case for nearly 200 years, long before anyone knew what oil was. You seem to forget the the people living there are self governing and make their own decisions, I think they are due a bit more credit than is given.

[SteveX]

Hugo Chávez is either dumb, miss informed or is miss leading his people. If he has no clue as to the Queen's role in the British and commonwealth constitutions... he best find new council.

You are quite right Steve.... it’ll be the common mans blood spilt. As it has always been. Certain conflicts the common man feels justifiable in taking arms... without coercion to do so. These conflicts often favour support from their allies, as seen in the report above. The support of Allies is a concept open to both parties.

Chest beating and posturing is one thing. Good council to face down good allies is quite another.