Oil and Malvinagar

Plechazunga · 17th February 2010, 17:12

Argentina is insisting on written permission for British ships crossing its waters, now that they reckon there might be 60bn barrels of oil around it.

Reports of an oil tanker being 'shadowed' by a warplane too, though I can't find a press link to that, I heard it on 5 Live.

Sorry, that title doesn't really work at all.. too late to change it now

mjs020294 · 17th February 2010, 17:25

They are full of hot air, wankers. The oil in the region will be very expensive to extract, and the people that live on the Islands want to remain British.

Anyone with any doubt about the UK's intentions of keeping the Falklands British should google/satellite the base Airbase SW of Stanley.

SCM · 17th February 2010, 17:26

More information here as well BBC Link with a map showing just how cheeky they are being over things. Most countries agree international waters only go so far off the coast and they respect this, the Argies are trying to claim all the water from their coast out to the South Georgia Islands is infact theirs. They need to get over it and just accept the Islands are British because they want to be.

Edit - another BBC Link 2 explaining their 'claim' over the territorial waters which even then is a con job as the Islands would still be outwith the extension they are trying to claim for.

Sir Matt · 17th February 2010, 17:49

If the Argentines get too frisky, Brown might decide that it's worth pulling a Thatcher to protect the Falklands and help him politically.

MikeUpNorth · 17th February 2010, 18:00

Not again.

EZee · 17th February 2010, 18:03

nuke em... and make messi play for england

Team Brian GB · 17th February 2010, 18:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Matt

If the Argentines get too frisky, Brown might decide that it's worth pulling a Thatcher to protect the Falklands and help him politically.

Back in 1982 we had a few dozen marines down there, now we have RAF Mount Pleasant with a Typhoon squadron and across the forces something like 2,000 personnel - what were for all intents and purposes undefended islands are now fortified and are taken very seriously by Whitehall.

The underlying problem is that the matter of the Falklands remains a highly charged political issue amongst the masses in Argentina who obviously have nothing better to focus upon despite the fact their economy likes to completely crash every few years or so. Whilst that remains the case and more importantly Argentina maintains a claim to sovereignty there will not be long lasting stability in the south atlantic. If I were Brown I would delegate it to a spokesman at MoD to drop into a press briefing that a trident missile carrying vanguard submarine is southbound out of Devonport- that would shut them up, how much of an idiot country do you have to be to invade the sovereign soil of a nuclear weapons state?

mjs020294 · 17th February 2010, 19:04

I think the numbers in the Falklands are a little higher right now. The islands are used for training during the British winter.

marcosdeto · 17th February 2010, 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

Back in 1982 we had a few dozen marines down there, now we have RAF Mount Pleasant with a Typhoon squadron and across the forces something like 2,000 personnel - what were for all intents and purposes undefended islands are now fortified and are taken very seriously by Whitehall.

The underlying problem is that the matter of the Falklands remains a highly charged political issue amongst the masses in Argentina who obviously have nothing better to focus upon despite the fact their economy likes to completely crash every few years or so. Whilst that remains the case and more importantly Argentina maintains a claim to sovereignty there will not be long lasting stability in the south atlantic. If I were Brown I would delegate it to a spokesman at MoD to drop into a press briefing that a trident missile carrying vanguard submarine is southbound out of Devonport- that would shut them up, how much of an idiot country do you have to be to invade the sovereign soil of a nuclear weapons state?

that's the spirit, fuck them because you can

right or wrong are not important at all

Plechazunga · 17th February 2010, 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Matt

If the Argentines get too frisky, Brown might decide that it's worth pulling a Thatcher to protect the Falklands and help him politically.

Interesting point. I believe Thatcher's ratings were the lowest since polling began when she made the decision to go to war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

If I were Brown I would delegate it to a spokesman at MoD to drop into a press briefing that a trident missile carrying vanguard submarine is southbound out of Devonport- that would shut them up, how much of an idiot country do you have to be to invade the sovereign soil of a nuclear weapons state?

Yes, escalating what's currently a bout of diplomatic handbags to the level of nuclear brinkmanship would be excellent statesmanship.

hungrywing · 17th February 2010, 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

Yes, escalating what's currently a bout of diplomatic handbags to the level of nuclear brinkmanship would be excellent statesmanship.

Sir, I recommend we surface to verify whether or not that last transmission was sarcastic or not.

EZee · 17th February 2010, 19:43

can we swap them the falklands for messi?

rednev · 17th February 2010, 19:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

Back in 1982 we had a few dozen marines down there, now we have RAF Mount Pleasant with a Typhoon squadron and across the forces something like 2,000 personnel - what were for all intents and purposes undefended islands are now fortified and are taken very seriously by Whitehall.

The underlying problem is that the matter of the Falklands remains a highly charged political issue amongst the masses in Argentina who obviously have nothing better to focus upon despite the fact their economy likes to completely crash every few years or so. Whilst that remains the case and more importantly Argentina maintains a claim to sovereignty there will not be long lasting stability in the south atlantic. If I were Brown I would delegate it to a spokesman at MoD to drop into a press briefing that a trident missile carrying vanguard submarine is southbound out of Devonport- that would shut them up, how much of an idiot country do you have to be to invade the sovereign soil of a nuclear weapons state?

The UK's nuclear capabilities are not even a factor when it comes to the Falklands dispute. There's not a chance in hell that the UK would even consider using them in the conflict, unless mainland UK was to be attacked (which is not practically possible). To wave them about will do nothing but cause a diplomatic row, and we'd come off worse for it.

I don't even think our heavy military presence on the islands is the main factor in keeping them from invading. We could have zero military presence down there whatsoever and it would take an insane president of Argenina to give the order for an invasion.

Plechazunga · 17th February 2010, 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungrywing

Sir, I recommend we surface to verify whether or not that last transmission was sarcastic or not.

marcosdeto · 17th February 2010, 19:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by rednev

The UK's nuclear capabilities are not even a factor when it comes to the Falklands dispute. There's not a chance in hell that the UK would even consider using them in the conflict, unless mainland UK was to be attacked (which is not practically possible). To wave them about will do nothing but cause a diplomatic row, and we'd come off worse for it.

I don't even think our heavy military presence on the islands is the main factor in keeping them from invading. We could have zero military presence down there whatsoever and it would take an insane president of Argenina to give the order for an invasion.

insane, and stupid, and retrograd, and a president that would last two hours

in fact, argentinian military has less gun power than bolivian boyscouts

so don't worry world, there's not a chance on earth that we would try a military action

but i also think that we have the right to say a word or two about it

Team Brian GB · 17th February 2010, 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

Yes, escalating what's currently a bout of diplomatic handbags to the level of nuclear brinkmanship would be excellent statesmanship.

Indeed it would!

I was never suggesting whatsoever that the United Kingdom should use nuclear weapons in this present scenario as it would be mindblowingly OTT, I'm noting the sanity of a country threatening and before invading the sovereignty of a nuclear weapons state - surely I can't be the only one who thinks that Buenos Aires is idiotic for such actions.

In the scenario of a successful Argentine invasion attempt I would advocate the use of nuclear weapons however. How we lost only 250 men in 1982 down there was a miracle, the fact that half the 40,000 strong taskforce had their vessels breached and penetrated by missiles that failed to detonate speaks to that - I'd rather fire a missile from Portsmouth than see at least hundreds if not thousands of British personnel dying to take them back again.

EZee · 17th February 2010, 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

Indeed it would!

I was never suggesting whatsoever that the United Kingdom should use nuclear weapons in this present scenario as it would be mindblowingly OTT, I'm noting the sanity of a country threatening and before invading the sovereignty of a nuclear weapons state - surely I can't be the only one who thinks that Buenos Aires is idiotic for such actions.

In the scenario of a successful Argentine invasion attempt I would advocate the use of nuclear weapons however. How we lost only 250 men in 1982 down there was a miracle, the fact that half the 40,000 strong taskforce had their vessels breached and penetrated by missiles that failed to detonate speaks to that - I'd rather fire a missile from Portsmouth than see at least hundreds if not thousands of British personnel dying to take them back again.

yeah but think of all that beautiful argentinian steak that would be contaminated... that got to be worth a boat full of sailors or three

Team Brian GB · 17th February 2010, 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by EZee

yeah but think of all that beautiful argentinian steak that would be contaminated... that got to be worth a boat full of sailors or three

Or on the contrary imagine a three legged Messi.

rednev · 17th February 2010, 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

Indeed it would!

I was never suggesting whatsoever that the United Kingdom should use nuclear weapons in this present scenario as it would be mindblowingly OTT, I'm noting the sanity of a country threatening and before invading the sovereignty of a nuclear weapons state - surely I can't be the only one who thinks that Buenos Aires is idiotic for such actions.

In the scenario of a successful Argentine invasion attempt I would advocate the use of nuclear weapons however. How we lost only 250 men in 1982 down there was a miracle, the fact that half the 40,000 strong taskforce had their vessels breached and penetrated by missiles that failed to detonate speaks to that - I'd rather fire a missile from Portsmouth than see at least hundreds if not thousands of British personnel dying to take them back again.

Good lord. You would seriously advocate using nuclear weapons on innocent Argentine citizens if the Falklands were invaded?

1. Morally, that would be fucked up beyond belief

2. It would be plain stupid. The UK's reputation would be in tatters for generations. The reputation of the US as a nation is still besmirched with the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that decision was taken on the basis of ending a world war that had been going on for 6 years at the cost of millions of lives. We would have no justification at all for using nuclear weapons unless many, many of our civilian lives were at risk.

EZee · 17th February 2010, 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

Or on the contrary imagine a three legged Messi.

hummm... you make a good point...

heads we nuke them and take a 3 legged messi and keep the falclands...

tails we give them the falklands, take the steak and messi...

crappycraperson · 17th February 2010, 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

In the scenario of a successful Argentine invasion attempt I would advocate the use of nuclear weapons however.

Plechazunga · 17th February 2010, 20:20

Either you're joking Brian, or you're a major imbecile. Those are the only two options.

mjs020294 · 17th February 2010, 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

In the scenario of a successful Argentine invasion attempt I would advocate the use of nuclear weapons however.

There are only two scenarios the British would ever use nuclear weapons: If mainland UK was under threat of a fascist like Hitler or in response to a nuclear strike on British forces.

Team Brian GB · 17th February 2010, 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by rednev

Good lord. You would seriously advocate using nuclear weapons on innocent Argentine citizens if the Falklands were invaded?

1. Morally, that would be fucked up beyond belief

2. It would be plain stupid. The UK's reputation would be in tatters for generations. The reputation of the US as a nation is still besmirched with the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that decision was taken on the basis of ending a world war that had been going on for 6 years at the cost of millions of lives. We would have no justification at all for using nuclear weapons unless many, many of our civilian lives were at risk.

We have a duty to maintain our territorial integrity and protect our citizens near and afar, we also have a duty to our military not to send them into a massacre - the mere presence of a vanguard submarine ought to do the trick but if not start using Argentine waters for target practice within the 12 mile limit increasing in severity until they yield is the way I'd go. There is no doubt whatsoever that if any other nuclear weapon possessing state had it's soil invaded they'd break out the big weapons, especially if a conventional solution could be far from assured. Saying you support the use of nuclear weapons in certain scenarios is not tantamount to suggesting the ordering of a nuclear abomination of major metropolitan centres.

The added benefit would be that no one would threaten British sovereignty for the rest of time, if nuclear weapons are to be the ultimate guarantor then you have to show that if such a scenario arises. Especially as it would be a case of deja vu, and would be again unless Argentina had the fight took to them.

EZee · 17th February 2010, 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjs020294

There are only two scenarios the British would ever use nuclear weapons: If mainland UK was under threat of a fascist like Hitler or in response to a nuclear strike on British forces.

you forgot reason 3 which is america tells us we should

marcosdeto · 17th February 2010, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

We have a duty to maintain our territorial integrity and protect our citizens near and afar, we also have a duty to our military not to send them into a massacre - the mere presence of a vanguard submarine ought to do the trick but if not start using Argentine waters for target practice within the 12 mile limit increasing in severity until they yield is the way I'd go. There is no doubt whatsoever that if any other nuclear weapon possessing state had it's soil invaded they'd break out the big weapons, especially if a conventional solution could be far from assured. Saying you support the use of nuclear weapons in certain scenarios is not tantamount to suggesting the ordering of a nuclear abomination of major metropolitan centres.

The added benefit would be that no one would threaten British sovereignty for the rest of time, if nuclear weapons are to be the ultimate guarantor then you have to show that if such a scenario arises. Especially as it would be a case of deja vu, and would be again unless Argentina had the fight took to them.

Mate, you are taking this as if was a football game

i can assure you that theres nothing to win in modern wars, they are all of them decided over economics

if there's a war -which i know there's not going to be one, because as i said argentina has no fire power at all, the only ones that can earn something are the owners of the oil company that wants to start extracting oil

either if you win it in one minute, one day or one month, the result will be that you are going to pay with your taxes, the cost of a war started only to protect the interest of oil mongers that, for all we know, can be russian, american, british or even argentinian

so do as i do, try to convince everyone that there's nothing more stupid than a war

Team Brian GB · 17th February 2010, 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

Either you're joking Brain, or you're a major imbecile. Those are the only two options.

If it is a choice between these three in the event of a successful invasion.

A) A British invasion attempt that would see deaths regardless of success or failure from the hundeds to the thousands.

B) Do nothing, and ignore the loss of British sovereignty and the right to self-determination of thousands of British subjects, and be seen to do nothing.

C) Bring nuclear weapons into the equation, to the loss of no British military lives, introducing a vanguard submarine into the threatre raising the stakes stage by stage until Argentina surrenders.

I pick C.

Team Brian GB · 17th February 2010, 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcosdeto

if there's a war -which i know there's not going to be one, because as i said argentina has no fire power at all

That I'm aware of, I'm talking in what ifs and hypotheticals.

mjs020294 · 17th February 2010, 20:39

There is no way Argentina have the military power, expertise or resolve to retake the Falklands and hold onto them. The existing forces have the firepower to hold off any invasion until reinforcements arrived, which would be a matter of days. Normally there are around 2,000 personnel on the Island but that doesn't include the two warships in the immediate area or the subs that regularly patrol the southern oceans.

Add the 2,000-4,000 that are on exercises down there right now, and there is more than enough firepower to keep the Argentinian military busy for a few weeks.

Plechazunga · 17th February 2010, 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

If it is a choice between these three in the event of a successful invasion.

A) A British invasion attempt that would see deaths regardless of success or failure from the hundeds to the thousands.

B) Do nothing, and ignore the loss of British sovereignty and the right to self-determination of thousands of British subjects, and be seen to do nothing.

C) Bring nuclear weapons into the equation, to the loss of no British military lives, introducing a vanguard submarine into the threatre raising the stakes stage by stage until Argentina surrenders.

I pick C.

Well I'm glad that neither you nor anyone like you is ever likely to be in power in this country.

rednev · 17th February 2010, 20:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

If it is a choice between these three in the event of a successful invasion.

A) A British invasion attempt that would see deaths regardless of success or failure from the hundeds to the thousands.

B) Do nothing, and ignore the loss of British sovereignty and the right to self-determination of thousands of British subjects, and be seen to do nothing.

C) Bring nuclear weapons into the equation, to the loss of no British military lives, introducing a vanguard submarine into the threatre raising the stakes stage by stage until Argentina surrenders.

I pick C.

You missed out option D - which is the same as option C, only Argentina don't surrender.

What do you do then? Wipe a small Argentine city off the face of the Earth every 48 hours until they surrender?

marcosdeto · 17th February 2010, 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

Well I'm glad that neither you nor anyone like you is ever likely to be in power in this country.

where's maggie?

Plechazunga · 17th February 2010, 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcosdeto

where's maggie?

To be fair to the mad old cow, she didn't nuke you!

Team Brian GB · 17th February 2010, 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by rednev

You missed out option D - which is the same as option C, only Argentina don't surrender.

What do you do then? Wipe a small Argentine city off the face of the Earth every 48 hours until they surrender?

Argentina is a democracy and her people would force her to come to terms, if WWII era Japan of all countries lost the will to fight then Argentina would, but that is the fault in the line of logic I admit.

What I find more disturbing however is that there are individuals here who in principle would rather see Britons succumb to an invasion and live under foreign occupation for eternity rather than do or we can to save them. It is the first duty of any government to protect her citizens forever and always, and if nuclear weapons are required to carry that through then so be it. There are many parallels between such a scenario with that of West Berlin, except there would be no nuclear counterstrike.

marcosdeto · 17th February 2010, 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

To be fair to the mad old cow, she didn't nuke you!

yes, that's right

she sent nuclear submarines though

but, about the war, we had it coming

marcosdeto · 17th February 2010, 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

Argentina is a democracy and her people would force her to come to terms, if WWII era Japan of all countries lost the will to fight then Argentina would, but that is the fault in the line of logic I admit.

What I find more disturbing however is that there are individuals here who in principle would rather see Britons succumb to an invasion and live under foreign occupation for eternity rather than do or we can to save them. It is the first duty of any government to protect her citizens forever and always, and if nuclear weapons are required to carry that through then so be it. There are many parallels between such a scenario with that of West Berlin, except there would be no nuclear counterstrike.

you can't wait to nuke some arab countries, don you?

EZee · 17th February 2010, 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

To be fair to the mad old cow, she didn't nuke you!

she was saving them for the miners... just in case like

marcosdeto · 17th February 2010, 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by EZee

she was saving them for the miners... just in case like

didn't have to, just changed the labour laws

Team Brian GB · 17th February 2010, 21:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcosdeto

you can't wait to nuke some arab countries, don you?

The last time I checked, there are no Arab countries who claim lands under British sovereignty and have a record of using military force trying to take said lands, no country of any nature whatsoever apart from Argentina. Over the Falklands is the only plausible scenario with any hint of realism where Britain would need to break into the stocks at Faslane - if you have weapons that can ensure your security then use them.

Plechazunga · 17th February 2010, 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcosdeto

but, about the war, we had it coming

You did, although we had been trying to get you to take those hideously expensive rocks off our hands for about fifty years. I think the last thing your generals expected was the British Army to hove into view. They made a big mistake pulling that stunt at a point when it was politically expedient for our government to take on a patriotic war.

17th February 2010, 17:12	#1 (permalink)
Plechazunga Phones, soup, paint, chairs and computers are troubling. Join Date: May 2003 Location: Where Albert Stubbins scored a diving header Posts: 47,728	Oil and Malvinagar Argentina is insisting on written permission for British ships crossing its waters, now that they reckon there might be 60bn barrels of oil around it. Reports of an oil tanker being 'shadowed' by a warplane too, though I can't find a press link to that, I heard it on 5 Live. Sorry, that title doesn't really work at all.. too late to change it now

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

Oil and Malvinagar

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

17th February 2010, 17:25	#2 (permalink)
mjs020294 First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ex-Pat in Florida Posts: 14,985	They are full of hot air, wankers. The oil in the region will be very expensive to extract, and the people that live on the Islands want to remain British. Anyone with any doubt about the UK's intentions of keeping the Falklands British should google/satellite the base Airbase SW of Stanley.

17th February 2010, 17:26	#3 (permalink)
SCM Reserve Team Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Inverkeithing, Scotland Posts: 2,089	More information here as well BBC Link with a map showing just how cheeky they are being over things. Most countries agree international waters only go so far off the coast and they respect this, the Argies are trying to claim all the water from their coast out to the South Georgia Islands is infact theirs. They need to get over it and just accept the Islands are British because they want to be. Edit - another BBC Link 2 explaining their 'claim' over the territorial waters which even then is a con job as the Islands would still be outwith the extension they are trying to claim for.

17th February 2010, 17:49	#4 (permalink)
Sir Matt First Team Sub Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: LUHG Posts: 9,289	If the Argentines get too frisky, Brown might decide that it's worth pulling a Thatcher to protect the Falklands and help him politically.

17th February 2010, 18:00	#5 (permalink)
MikeUpNorth Wobbles like a massive pair of tits Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 13,227	Not again.

17th February 2010, 18:03	#6 (permalink)
EZee First Team Regular Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Where Angels Play Posts: 10,516	nuke em... and make messi play for england

17th February 2010, 19:04	#8 (permalink)
mjs020294 First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ex-Pat in Florida Posts: 14,985	I think the numbers in the Falklands are a little higher right now. The islands are used for training during the British winter.

17th February 2010, 19:43	#12 (permalink)
EZee First Team Regular Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Where Angels Play Posts: 10,516	can we swap them the falklands for messi?

17th February 2010, 20:20	#22 (permalink)
Plechazunga Phones, soup, paint, chairs and computers are troubling. Join Date: May 2003 Location: Where Albert Stubbins scored a diving header Posts: 47,728	Either you're joking Brian, or you're a major imbecile. Those are the only two options.

17th February 2010, 20:39	#29 (permalink)
mjs020294 First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ex-Pat in Florida Posts: 14,985	There is no way Argentina have the military power, expertise or resolve to retake the Falklands and hold onto them. The existing forces have the firepower to hold off any invasion until reinforcements arrived, which would be a matter of days. Normally there are around 2,000 personnel on the Island but that doesn't include the two warships in the immediate area or the subs that regularly patrol the southern oceans. Add the 2,000-4,000 that are on exercises down there right now, and there is more than enough firepower to keep the Argentinian military busy for a few weeks.