Shares in a U.K. oil company with interests in the Falklands have slumped

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Gonzalez, Mar 30, 2016.

  1. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Aug 21, 2004
    Sadly no, but it's really good news to our claim, and could end up with the loss of Britains sea territory if not land. Of course that would also depend on them respecting UN rulings, but you know, they are the UK, so they don't really have to, since it's not a security council ruling, plus if it were to get to the security council they can just veto any decision that doesn't pleases them.

    Just one example: The UN has ruled that self-determination cannot be applied to the inhabitants of Port Stanley, but the main and only reason the UK refuses to negotiate is preserving the self-determination of the inhabitants. (DAFAQ? Rigth?)
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  2. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Tell me about it ... see, that's even what I never understand. It's not that I don't see their point, what ever if we talk about the Falklands or Russia. But when ever such emotional topics come up, it's always "they vs us!", it's always like live or death! And I am like, com on? There is no possible room for a bit of midle ground here? Or at least SOME gray areas? All nations are made up of humans after all. And in the end, we can all do the same mistakes. I learned that lesson from the history of my own roots, in Serbia, a nation that has been both, in the role of the criminals and victims. Situations like the tensions between Russia - Poland, the Yugoslavian civil, Kosovo or the Falklands are usually never so easy that you can just simply blame one side as the absolute evil and the other one as saints.
    What I always find interesting how some veterans, two people who fought in 1945 in Berlin, a Russian and a German, could later come together, and call each other friends, and both agree, wars are shit. But no, we normal people who sit comfortabily in our chairs as google generals and forum soldiers ... have always to get in those extremes.
     
  3. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Aug 21, 2004


    This is from the guy on the left of the picture. As you can undestand he had a first row view of the war. And this is a video from after the war:



    Translation:

    I also met first hand the first Argentine of the war to go into a dogfigth with a Harrier. He was furious he broke his foot landing when he ejected and was not allowed to go back into the figth.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  4. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dogmeat

    Nov 22, 2009
    Don't want to escalate the crap storm here any more but I will say that personally I'm not a fan of the regimes of either nation of that time. Me being quite leftist in many political issues, Thatcher to me is one of those 'legendary evil' leaders of world history. Having said that the Argentinian leadership of the time wasn't much better, with the Dirty War coming to close during that time etc. The Dirty War was similar in scale and one sidedness to something like Srebrenica massacre. So difficult for me to see much good with either of those regimes.

    Having said that IMO Argentina might have a better claim to the islands based on all that I've read about the issue. UK seems to be eager to allow companies to start sucking the oil out of the region, their claim to the region really doesn't seem to be any loftier then that. Not sure if Argentina would be any more righteous, like I said if they took care of the ecology of the islands I wouldn't have a problem with their ownership. The occupants of Stanley could choose to go on living there or move out if they so wish.

    Crni Vuk mentioned something about Argentina giving some land to the natives, not necessarily a bad idea either. Argentina could use the oil it gets from the islands and put it in a fund that would be used to improve life for natives and poor folks in the region. Similar to what Norway has done with their oil wealth.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  5. Tremer

    Tremer It Wandered In From the Wastes

    150
    Apr 5, 2010
    Defend your nation is something nobody should regret, thats a fact. But to me, someone from Argentina, i feel kind of ashamed of your idea to fight the british a second time. I realy dont undertand how you suggest something like, when in other post you put atension in the life we lose with that stupid
    maneuver. If you value their sacrifice you should not ask for a second war.:?

    What is worse is that you are not corecting the people that say that all the people of Argentina are at fault, even when the goberment that we have in that time was a dictatorship that overthrew a democratic goverment. So the decision of start the war was no make for the interest of the people, even if some of the population were in favor of it.

    But dont think for a minute that i dont want the Malvinas back, the diferent is i wanted by the way of diplomacy. Ah, and I dont wanted for the land or the resources but for the equality that we
    deserve for being a democratic and peaceful country, even if we dont have the economy or military of Britain.

    Off: Sorry for my bad english, i should practice more often. :-?
     
  6. Izak

    Izak I Shot The ALBATROSS

    Jan 29, 2016
    I don't think you mean what you said about the Argentinian government at the time being (slightly) better than Thatcher, Thatcher was a dick but Galtieri was systematically exterminating political opponents and dissenters.
     
  7. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dogmeat

    Nov 22, 2009
    I didn't say that the Argentinian regime was any better than Thatcher's regime, although Thatcher was responsible for all kinds of evil stuff as well in UK and around the world due to further reach of the UK through it's alliance with the US etc.
     
  8. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Aug 21, 2004
    Galtieri was a NATO puppet who got out of line and actually believed the US would support him and the British let them have the islands, but even when that blew up on his face Argentine heroes fought to the death to deffend them against their former allies.

    So who is worse, the murderer or the murderer's master?

    Galtieri actually believed the British wouldn't bother with the islands as long as no British got hurt, that's why they had specific orders to get a surrender without British casualties. But then someone who was also unpopular wanted to win an ellection.
     
  9. Izak

    Izak I Shot The ALBATROSS

    Jan 29, 2016
    Yeah Thatcher was partly responsible for all the shit that went on in the Middle East but at least her crimes were made to keep the UK a power player, Galtieri's crimes were made to protect his corrupt dictatorship.
    I thought the dirty war was aimed at Galtieri's political opponents as well as the leftists (sort of like an Argentinian night of the long knives), was I wrong?
     
  10. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dogmeat

    Nov 22, 2009
    Thatcher was also responsible for much of the evil stuff that went on in the IRA vs. UK - troubles. A lot of civilians were killed by pro-UK forces in that conflict too. So no, I don't consider Thatcher morally superior to the Argentinian regime of the time. I think both of those regimes should be in a war crimes tribunal or something.
     
  11. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Aug 21, 2004
    Galtieri's dictatorship was sponsored and supported by NATO specifically because they hunted down, tortured, and muredered comunists and leftists. CIA even trained South American dictators in torture and murder techniques. Google "School of the Americas".

    But that's beside the point, I would have cheered a communist hippie if he tried to recover the Malvinas.

    Malvinas is a unifying cause for Argentina, those from far left and far rigth rigth come together and agree on it in spite of all their differences.

    I'll even go further, after what the UK and US did I would had cut ties with NATO and turned Argentina into a communist nation supporting the USSR.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  12. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dogmeat

    Nov 22, 2009
    Another thing, I mentioned ecology but also what needs to be mentioned is economy. Argentina's economy has been kind of all over the place, similar to Greece. I don't know if that's one of the things that makes them want the islands, that by getting the oil they'll magically fix their economy.

    I hope that Argentina would get it's economy in order first, not sure how bad the situation is right now. After that some plan could be made in regards to the islands. And like I said above it would be good if the proceeds from the oil would go to a fund used to benefit the poor and also the natives of the region and also used for education and other beneficial things like that. If the money would go to some shady bank account of who ever happens to be the leader of Argentina at the time then that's not good.
     
  13. Izak

    Izak I Shot The ALBATROSS

    Jan 29, 2016
    The Falkland Islands barely produce any money, the only thing the region has going for it is it's natural resources and, those are hard as shit to extract at that. That's one of the more confusing parts of the whole thing, the Falklands are basically useless, as best I can tell the UK wants to keep them out of national pride and Argentina wants them out of national pride, it's an utterly stupid conflict.
     
  14. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dogmeat

    Nov 22, 2009
    Yea I know that getting the oil is actually quite challenging. Could be that in the future, 10 - 20 years, they would find a way, since other sources for oil are drying up they would eventually come around to the Falklands. But yea, national pride on both sides seems to be a big part of it.

    I spoke to one Brit about it and he was quite adamant that the oil is actually a big reason for holding on to the islands. Now that getting the oil has turned out to be more difficult, maybe UK would be more willing to negotiate about the islands.

    Maintaining the islands is also a net cost for the UK, I guess they also have to patrol the territorial waters as well. There is the thing about Antarctic access but I'm not sure if that's enough to cover the costs.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/falkland-islands-cost-2012-2?IR=T
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  15. Greentoast11

    Greentoast11 Seasoned Vault Dweller

    94
    Jul 3, 2015
    They might as well, it would be shooting practice for the brits. A few Argentinians trying to gain the land.

    Britian could even invade Argentina mainland if they wanted and probably get a good result. Argentina taking the Falklands through war is impossible, and the decision to try doing so would be a huge failure. Britian would no doubt take some Argentinian land , perhaps Ushuaia as repercussions for the second attack, Unless your are dillusional there is no way for Argentina to win.

    Outclassed and out gunned.


    If Argentina want the islands so much come get them and stop whining. Pathetic.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  16. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dogmeat

    Nov 22, 2009
  17. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Aug 21, 2004
    Hey, those islands are expensive to keep. If you want to keep them you'll need at least a warship, a submarine, an entire figther wing and at least 2.000 troops constantly assigned. No expense is too high for defending the choice of the 2.000 villagers of Stanley to remain British. And all of that deployed weeks of travel away from Britain at all times. And don't forget subsidizing all of the otherwise deficient economy of the islands with government money. But the UK are rich, they can afford it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  18. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    So it's going to be fun for you to hold them.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  19. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Aug 21, 2004
    Just as fun as the rest of our nation and territorial seas, they are rigth next to us, remember? Our entire military will be defending it along with the rest of our territory. The British have to permantly assign resources they could be assigning to defend Britain instead. Such are the expenses of being a colonial power.
     
  20. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    From what? This isn't a bond movie man ... where Argentina owns a giant solar powered Laser in Space, like in Die Another Day.
    Maybe someone forgot you to tell this, but WW2 is over, and the Sowjetunion collapsed in the 1990s. Germany, Britain and France are friends now, and only spying nice things about each other. You know how much the defense of the Falklands cost Britain? They royal wedding and patroling the Seychelles probably costs more. So I wouldn't hold my breath on Britain collapsing any time soon, on the Immeasurable costs of holding the Falklands, which, of course, can be only afforded by Argentina.
    I would even argue, if the Falklands changed hands, right now, it would cost Argentina in the end more to keep those save from the Brits, as it does the Brits to keep it from Argentina. Simply because the Brits are well, some of the most powerfull military machines, with subs, tanks and a powerfull navy. And we havn't even talked about their nuclear potential. Argentina would have to really spend A LOT of their resources in all kinds of branches to catch up.

    You know, to be honest, I really like you, no I do! It's funny to have some Argetinian nationalist here for a change. It was getting boring with all the Murica-saves-the-motherf***-day-yeah! and muslims-are-an-allem-schuld posters.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016