Chavez vows revenge for Falklands war

Yes, absolutely. Being 300 miles away means you have no claims on the islands whereas being 8000 miles away gives you absolute ownership.

I'm afraid once your 12 miles out to sea you are in international waters. They are much closer to France than Britain though take a look:




[edit on 2/9/07 by Phil123]

It means nobody has a claim except the people who live in the Falklands, and they want to remain under British control.

reply to post by Phil123

---

Then France has no claim on them either since they are 30 miles away. The channel islands are not a valid comparison to the falklands in any way. The falklands are almost literally on the other side of the world.

Colonistation is not a valid method of determining territorial ownership.

So what are we arguing about then by the same logic the Falklands shouldn't be claimed by either Britain or Argentina but as I keep saying the people of the Falklands want to be British.

That was your argument, not mine . I'm saying that the Argentines have a far greater claim to the islands than we do.

Why?

Argentina has NO valid claim to the Falklands whatsoever. As someone pointed out earlier, they were uninhabited before they were discovered by John Davis in 1592.

Why is it that you believe that governments should reign over only those lands closest to their capitals?

The people on the Falklands are British, therefore their government is British.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by Tuning Spork]

Exactly, I think it's because people don't see small Islands as countries, people would think it ridiculous if Britain claimed France just because it's close to Britain. There are lots of Islands close to countries that don't own them. The Canaries are owned by Spain but are close to Morocco, Madeira is owned by Portugal but close to Morocco but the people there are Spanish/Portuguese so they remain under their control.

I would also point out that Argentina wasn't even an independant country until 1816.

en.wikipedia.org...

The reason for not giving the Falklands up and handing them over to Argentina is probably down to the fact that experts believe there's a small amount of oil under there estimated to be about 60billion barrels worth and the fact that was posted earlier that there's a army garrison, navy port and RAF base.

on the account of the people that live there, they have been there for generation's, its there homes and land and they want to be British, So why shouldn't they be allowed there lives.

Hahaha, Chavez is always talking crap but hes like a small kid talking crap to someone older and bigger than he is Just like a kid his thinking that they wont hit me because im so small and insignificant and other Nations will get mad if the Big Bad Britain's or the US picks on me.
He obviously doesnt know that we just dont care

reply to post by u4ria

---

I have read the very same about the prospedct of oil however I believe that has now been proven there is none or at least there is none in the areas they have tested to date.

Back in 2004 there were claims the oil could be in the Billons of barrels, but again todate no wells that I am aware of have hit oil.

Source


You know if one stops and thinks about this and puts two and two together it gives Chavez a motive for wanting the Islands so he can have more oil that is assuming he could gain control of Argentina, Brazil etc.

[edit on 9/2/2007 by shots]

The Falklands war was nothing but a popularity boost for thatcher and her 'party'. The country was falling apart and her ratings were at an all time low. Nothing better than a good old war to rally the country around the flag. She was voted in office for a 2nd term.

maybe disinfo shots, bleed the Easts oil dry whilst sitting on a tidy amount ready to export when every where else runs dry for a price!, same with the coal mines in the UK, i come from st.helens which was a major mining town and remember the strikes and picket lines vaguely, maybe Maggie had the same idea regarding coal.

I watched the program and as usual MSM exagerate everything.
He said that if South America was united the UK would have been defeated during the war. He did not threaten anyone.

I type to you from a small 30x100 city parcel that I own deed to, am taxed $1200 annually on, with a small wood house on brick foundation, in gridded Pensacola, FL.

1000 miles away I also own, and am taxed twenty eight dollars annually upon, a 10 acre parcel (4 city blocks) in the US state of Missouri. It is uninhabited without paved access; I grow hickory and white oak there... habitat for fauna. I've developed an artesian well.

Food for thought... Both are in "my empire" and my legal responsibility should something happen there.

That said... I have drawn no blood but my own in securing the premisis.

Some more food for thought:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



Very middle eastern. Palestine/Israel.

Also...

en.wikipedia.org...



I am,

Sri Oracle

You may also enjoy:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Laws of Nature
Book 1 Chapter 4
Of The Sovereign
Emerich de Vattel

www.lonang.com...

]

The Oil and Gas Habitats of the South Atlantic (Geological Society Special Publication)

If you want you can buy the article for $200. You might also look in to the nearby islands that are also under UK government protection and the amount of potential revenue that will bring.

Now how much of a fight do you expect with that kind of money invovled?