Forums - General Discussion - Falklands Oil......

NiKKoM said:

I would try to screw the British too if I were Argentina..

Cause the falkland borders are made just for the resources in the ground

The islands are at 36 37 and 38.. So I too would try to screw the british..

yeah... that was known when the Islands became British in the 1830's....  do me a favour.  The argentinins need to get their demoestic situation in order and stop deflecting....



I'm not really here!

Link: Shipment History Since 1995


Around the Network
NJ5 said:
60 billion barrels of oil I heard... for that amount, I'm pretty sure the UK will wage war if necessary.

60Bln barrels doesn't mean shit compared to 3000 Brits.

 

 

Argentina should have it made very clear to them that if British soil is attacked again then Argentinian soil will be attacked in response. Maybe their leaders will be less likely to sabre rattle if the homeland was at threat. Perhaps Chile would like a little extra living room.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Pyro as Bill said:
NJ5 said:
60 billion barrels of oil I heard... for that amount, I'm pretty sure the UK will wage war if necessary.

60Bln barrels doesn't mean shit compared to 3000 Brits.

 

 

Argentina should have it made very clear to them that if British soil is attacked again then Argentinian soil will be attacked in response. Maybe their leaders will be less likely to sabre rattle if the homeland was at threat. Perhaps Chile would like a little extra living room.


Yes, there was no prosect or knowledge of oil when we had to take back the islands in the 80's . 

It was about British territory being illegaly invaded by a hostile invader and defending British citizens.



I'm not really here!

Link: Shipment History Since 1995


FootballFan said:
gurglesletch said:
FootballFan said:
gurglesletch said:
FootballFan said:
MrBubbles said:
argentina is a bitch country of spanish colonials that doesnt have any navy that can actually enforce their threats and has no logical claim on the islands.
i hope they start shit again and you guys give them hell.


If that did happen USA would be dragged into it.

US wasn't during the first incident.


Ye but since then US/UK bonds have developed somewhat. And considering we have sacraficed nearly 300 troops in Afganistan/Iraq over 8 years in your war we would expect US forces to be in support of the British.

Uh huh. So your saying that there were no bonds after WW2 and during the cold war? And somehow now they are stronger currently than they were during that time period?  

Obviously there were bonds. However i think that the relationship has turned into more of an alliance now than ever. I mean Britain is virtually an allie of Israel now lol

I disagree. Undoubtedly strong when Blair was in power, but we currently have Brown, whose relationship with Obama is non-existent. Reagan and Thatcher were infinitely closer.

Add to that our defeat-in-all-but-name in Southern Iraq and our reticence towards Afghanistan, neither of which have endeared us towards the American forces, and I would wager that the alliance was much stronger then than it is now, the Northern Ireland terrorism issue aside. If there were to be another Falklands War it would probably be a repeat of the first with regards American involvement.



Machina said:
FootballFan said:
gurglesletch said:
FootballFan said:
gurglesletch said:
FootballFan said:
MrBubbles said:
argentina is a bitch country of spanish colonials that doesnt have any navy that can actually enforce their threats and has no logical claim on the islands.
i hope they start shit again and you guys give them hell.


If that did happen USA would be dragged into it.

US wasn't during the first incident.


Ye but since then US/UK bonds have developed somewhat. And considering we have sacraficed nearly 300 troops in Afganistan/Iraq over 8 years in your war we would expect US forces to be in support of the British.

Uh huh. So your saying that there were no bonds after WW2 and during the cold war? And somehow now they are stronger currently than they were during that time period?  

Obviously there were bonds. However i think that the relationship has turned into more of an alliance now than ever. I mean Britain is virtually an allie of Israel now lol

I disagree. Undoubtedly strong when Blair was in power, but we currently have Brown, whose relationship with Obama is non-existent. Reagan and Thatcher were infinitely closer.

Add to that our defeat-in-all-but-name in Southern Iraq and our reticence towards Afghanistan, neither of which have endeared us towards the American forces, and I would wager that the alliance was much stronger then than it is now, the Northern Ireland terrorism issue aside. If there were to be another Falklands War it would probably be a repeat of the first with regards American involvement.

i agree



I'm not really here!

Link: Shipment History Since 1995


Around the Network
Machina said:
FootballFan said:
gurglesletch said:
FootballFan said:
gurglesletch said:
FootballFan said:
MrBubbles said:
argentina is a bitch country of spanish colonials that doesnt have any navy that can actually enforce their threats and has no logical claim on the islands.
i hope they start shit again and you guys give them hell.


If that did happen USA would be dragged into it.

US wasn't during the first incident.


Ye but since then US/UK bonds have developed somewhat. And considering we have sacraficed nearly 300 troops in Afganistan/Iraq over 8 years in your war we would expect US forces to be in support of the British.

Uh huh. So your saying that there were no bonds after WW2 and during the cold war? And somehow now they are stronger currently than they were during that time period?  

Obviously there were bonds. However i think that the relationship has turned into more of an alliance now than ever. I mean Britain is virtually an allie of Israel now lol

I disagree. Undoubtedly strong when Blair was in power, but we currently have Brown, whose relationship with Obama is non-existent. Reagan and Thatcher were infinitely closer.

Add to that our defeat-in-all-but-name in Southern Iraq and our reticence towards Afghanistan, neither of which have endeared us towards the American forces, and I would wager that the alliance was much stronger then than it is now, the Northern Ireland terrorism issue aside. If there were to be another Falklands War it would probably be a repeat of the first with regards American involvement.

It hardly matters, as British forces are undoubtedly capable of defending the Falklands without U.S. assistance.



In Memoriam RVW Jr.

SSBB Friend Code = 5455-9050-8670 (PM me if you add so I can add you!) 

Tetris Party Friend Code = 116129046416 (ditto)

Well the Falklands are now well defended so its a non issue of assistance.

The strange thing is that I would have thought Argentina would have quite well out of any cooperation deals, ie Refining, storage etc. Guess thats off the cards now.



Pyro as Bill said:
NJ5 said:
60 billion barrels of oil I heard... for that amount, I'm pretty sure the UK will wage war if necessary.

60Bln barrels doesn't mean shit compared to 3000 Brits.

 

 

Argentina should have it made very clear to them that if British soil is attacked again then Argentinian soil will be attacked in response. Maybe their leaders will be less likely to sabre rattle if the homeland was at threat. Perhaps Chile would like a little extra living room.


Our actual goverment would not accept that and probably just try to make argentina not do anything, there isnt a good image here on when we "betrayed" Argentina in their last fight with the British, only some adherents of Pinochet and antiargentinians here, which arent a mayority, liked the move and are proud of it, but intelligent people arent.

But, our new elected President is on the side that supported Pinochet, even though he says he isnt, but many people in his goverment did, so maybe then we could turn our backs on Argentina.

Anyway, to get territory from Argentina at this point would unbalance us, and it doesnt seem viable and we would surely turn it back in a few years, the only things we have with argentina now are some water deposits in which its not clear who is the owner, but that will surely not lead to a war anytime soon.

Anyway, people are talking about the region like if it was Iraq or something like that. A war would only bring bad things so I hope nothing will happen, and thats what it seems likely.



Reading over this, I just had to mention that the US would really not be there in any major form if it hit the fan again. DEVGRU and MARSOC would likely be there but the ops would be covert. Unless of course it spills over into Chile.



FootballFan said:
gurglesletch said:
FootballFan said:
gurglesletch said:
FootballFan said:
MrBubbles said:
argentina is a bitch country of spanish colonials that doesnt have any navy that can actually enforce their threats and has no logical claim on the islands.
i hope they start shit again and you guys give them hell.


If that did happen USA would be dragged into it.

US wasn't during the first incident.


Ye but since then US/UK bonds have developed somewhat. And considering we have sacraficed nearly 300 troops in Afganistan/Iraq over 8 years in your war we would expect US forces to be in support of the British.

Uh huh. So your saying that there were no bonds after WW2 and during the cold war? And somehow now they are stronger currently than they were during that time period?  

Obviously there were bonds. However i think that the relationship has turned into more of an alliance now than ever. I mean Britain is virtually an allie of Israel now lol

So it wasn't an alliance at all before the current day? The US isin't going to get involved in The UK's affairs against a country that is not even First world.