Hello Bob,   
      
    LL>>>> example, the Falkland Islands.  Nobody really cared about   
    LL>>>> the few sheepherders who were living on the main islands.   
    LL>>>> That war was really about oil.   
      
    BK>>> No, it really wasn't. They can't find any significant oil in   
    BK>>> that area last I heard.   
      
    LL>> The area encompassed the entire South Atlantic, not just   
    LL>> the small islands themselves.  Oil companies have long been   
    LL>> aware of the oil deposits, but the cost of drilling was too   
    LL>> prohibitive to make it economically viable.  But today's   
    LL>> technologies do make it profitable.   
      
    BK> Two points. Those Islands really don't have that much range. The   
    BK> mainland would extend their limits, and the islands will have   
    BK> limited reach.   
      
   The islands that are populated do not have much range.  But   
   the entire chain encompasses a much larger area than you think.   
   Cruise ships travel to the populated islands, bringing tourists   
   (including Argentinians).  The populated islands are cold and   
   damp, nothing there really worth seeing.  But a British nuclear   
   submarine patrols the area, and makes sure the Argentinians   
   do not make a second invasion.   
      
    BK> From what I read, it's not the new technology that's making it   
    BK> profitable, but the high price of oil. Just like back in the   
    BK> '70s old low production wells suddenly became more valuable.   
      
   Oil companies can make it profitable.  That is not the problem.   
   But can they make it safe?  That is where oil companies have real   
   problems.  Kind of like fracking.  Oil companies can make fracking   
   profitable.  And have done so in some experimental drilling.   
   However, oil companies have never been able to make fracking safe,   
   as such methods cause too much harm to the environment.   
      
    BK>>> It was about the Argentine Generals took over the government and   
    BK>>> it was going very badly. So they decided to distract the people   
    BK>>> and become popular by taking the islands away from the mighty   
    BK>>> British.   
      
    LL>> A war is one way of getting a people for forget about   
    LL>> economic troubles.  The generals probably thought they   
    LL>> could get a negotiated settlement with the UK, and probably   
    LL>> would have had Maggie Thatcher not been the PM.  Do note   
      
    BK> Funny you should mention this. The National Security Archives at   
    BK> George Washinton U have posted recently released papers showing   
    BK> the Reagan Administration thought Maggie might have pushed it a   
    BK> bit close. And that she did not try enough diplomacy.   
      
   Maggie Thatcher wanted an armed confrontation, as she knew   
   such a conflict would push her up in the British polls.   
      
   Ronald Reagan did much the same thing in regards to Grenada.   
   The Iran/Contra scandal was bringing his poll numbers down, so   
   Ronnie Rayguns decided to invade the tiny island of Grenada,   
   which was threatening to become the next U.S.S.R. (or at least   
   the next Cuba).   
      
    LL>> that the US remained "neutral" throughout the conflict,   
    LL>> although the Argentines tried mightily to get US President   
    LL>> Ronald Reagan to invoke the Monroe Doctrine on their behalf.   
      
    BK> Those same papers showed the Reagan administration supported the   
    BK> British with intel and logistics. The told Maggie they were   
    BK> supporting her.   
      
   Officially, the U.S. was "neutral".  But everybody knew who   
   the U.S. was really siding with.   
      
    BK> The Monroe doctrine in that case would be trumped by the NATO   
    BK> obligations, since British territory had been attacked.   
      
   Argentina actually had a valid point.  The U.S. was obligated   
   by the Monroe Doctrine, which trumps NATO and all others in reference   
   to protecting the countries in this hemisphere.   
      
    BK>>> Unfortunately for the generals, when you lose the war your   
    BK>>> popularity tends to drop precipitously.   
      
    LL>> It was the women.  Women who had lost their sons.  And   
    LL>> daughters. And those women blamed the generals.  The women   
    LL>> blamed the generals for having lost their sons and   
    LL>> daughters.  And you know as well as I do that women are   
    LL>> always right.   
      
    BK> Now that last line is certainly true.   
      
   Some folks have to learn the hard way.   
   Probably most folks.  If not all.  :)   
      
    LL>>>> The United Nations voted to create *two* Palestinian states   
    LL>>>> - one for the Jews, and one for the Arabs.  Both sides   
      
    BK>>> Which they never had the authority to do in the first place.   
      
    LL>> What authority did the Turks have to occupy Palestine?   
    LL>> What authority did the British have to occupy Palestine?   
    LL>> What authority does any foreign power have to occupy   
    LL>> Palestine?  Palestine is for Palestinians. Regardless of   
    LL>> what religion those Palestinians might be.   
      
    BK> None to all the above.   
      
   Then who, pray tell, has authority to own land (or anything   
   else of value)?  If the Jew says, "This is my land because God   
   gave it to me!" how can we know the Arab so says, "This is my   
   land because God gave it to me!" is not also right?  And who   
   is to say who was there first?  Maybe somebody else's God was   
   there first and forgot to tell us...   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)