User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:31:17 PM EST
[#1]
Argentina did not make a full commitment in this war either.
They kept a lot of their best people and equipment out of the fight. Some of it because of potential conflicts with Chile, and their carrier close because of British subs. if they gambled on a full commitment, I think they would had won until someone saved the UK's ass again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:33:24 PM EST
[#2]
Quoted:
fuck argentina! No. Fuck the UK. Fuck the Queen. And fuck the FSA colonizing Las Islas Malvinas. I'm serious. The UK never gave a shit about any of their other colonies no matter how they voted. Why were the Falklands different? It's because the sea around the islands is like the Gulf of Mexico. Tons of oil down there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:36:00 PM EST
[#3]
did the US provide any support?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:37:55 PM EST
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Obama wants to force the UK to give the Falklands to Argentina. 2. The Gen. Belgrano was formerly the USS Phoenix, an American cruiser that survived Pearl Harbor and WWII. Well let's see Argentina to Falkland Islands = 900+ miles, London Uk to Falkland Islands 7900+ miles. I don't know any of the history but that sure makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Because political boundaries should be drawn up based solely on distance from a given capital. I take it the United States will be handing Texas over to Mexico immediately. After all, Mexico City is 935 miles away from Austin, where as DC is 1523 miles. Self determination? Who needs it? Yes but of course Texas is a part of the US not Mexico. Your argument would work a whole lot better with maybe Hawaii but really it makes more sense for Hawaii to be a part of the US than it does The Falklands to be a part of the UK, geographicaly anyway. By your logic we should give Guam to Japan and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands to Cuba. We should also hand over American Samoa and the Northern Marianas to whoever wants them as long as they live closer  and while we're talking about UK overseas Territories how about they give Diego Garcia (that the US leases as a base) to the nearest country - Iran.
Whatever I was just talking geography not politics but can you explain me the reasoning for the UK to own islands not near the continent or even in the same hemisphere. I don't really care about it it just seems logical that it would be part of South America and not the UK. the UK doesn't own the Falklands. The Falkland Islands are a self governing outlying territory of the UK. They pay the UK aprrox. $230 million a year to maintain a military presence on the island. to the queen? what the fuck does she do with the money? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:38:58 PM EST
[#5]
Quoted:
did the US provide any support? Upgraded sidewinders Various intelligence assets Regan also offered to lend/lease an entire carrier, but it was mostly symbolic as there was no practical way for the RN to crew and operate it in the short term. we were still under the monroe doctrine |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:39:13 PM EST
[#6]
Quoted:
to the queen? what the fuck does she do with the money? hookers and blow, man....hookers and blow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:40:53 PM EST
[#7]
Just a quick comment on your second pic:
Note the Snoopy lashed to the rear sight of the FN MAG GPMG. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:44:30 PM EST
[#8]
Was that a makeshift aircraft carrier ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:49:45 PM EST
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
fuck argentina! No. Fuck the UK. Fuck the Queen. And fuck the FSA colonizing Las Islas Malvinas. I'm serious. The UK never gave a shit about any of their other colonies no matter how they voted. Why were the Falklands different? It's because the sea around the islands is like the Gulf of Mexico. Tons of oil down there. Yeah the Brits totally went to war in '82 over oil they didn't know about. Also the oil they know about now will be a stone cold fucking bitch to recover. And may not be recoverable with current tech at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:50:36 PM EST
[#10]
Metric FAL vs Inch FAL gotta love it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:50:47 PM EST
[#11]
Quoted:
Good pics thanks for sharing |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:54:02 PM EST
[#12]
Quoted:
All those fals!  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:58:21 PM EST
[#13]
I herd England had the early laser guided munitions (US supplied) and after blowing a few certain things up, gave an ultimatum to Argentina that they would be used on strategic mainland buildings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:58:40 PM EST
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
fuck argentina! No. Fuck the UK. Fuck the Queen. And fuck the FSA colonizing Las Islas Malvinas. I'm serious. The UK never gave a shit about any of their other colonies no matter how they voted. Why were the Falklands different? It's because the sea around the islands is like the Gulf of Mexico. Tons of oil down there. And Click! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:58:42 PM EST
[#15]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:58:47 PM EST
[#16]
Quoted:
Argentina did not make a full commitment in this war either. They kept a lot of their best people and equipment out of the fight. Some of it because of potential conflicts with Chile, and their carrier close because of British subs. if they gambled on a full commitment, I think they would had won until someone saved the UK's ass again. I have a buddy who fought in the Falklands War. He states that they were ready to go mainland and destroy all the argie's military assets if they did not submit the islands within 2 months of the start of the battle. Apparently it was just a few days difference that Argentina was about to get royally fucked up. He states that they they knew it and folded. Pretty cool guy, and I take his word for it. Thanks for the thread OP. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:59:24 PM EST
[#17]
Quoted:
did the US provide any support? Logistical |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:08:55 PM EST
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
fuck argentina! No. Fuck the UK. Fuck the Queen. And fuck the FSA colonizing Las Islas Malvinas. I'm serious. The UK never gave a shit about any of their other colonies no matter how they voted. Why were the Falklands different? It's because the sea around the islands is like the Gulf of Mexico. Tons of oil down there. Yeah the Brits totally went to war in '82 over oil they didn't know about. Also the oil they know about now will be a stone cold fucking bitch to recover. And may not be recoverable with current tech at all. They knew about the oil. The idea that the oil was only discovered afterwards is part myth, part misrepresentation of the facts. You are partially correct that it wasn't recoverable. It was not economically recoverable yet, but they knew that eventually it would be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:10:06 PM EST
[#19]
Quoted:
I herd England had the early laser guided munitions (US supplied) and after blowing a few certain things up, gave an ultimatum to Argentina that they would be used on strategic mainland buildings. How would they reach Buenos Aries? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:10:20 PM EST
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Argentina did not make a full commitment in this war either. They kept a lot of their best people and equipment out of the fight. Some of it because of potential conflicts with Chile, and their carrier close because of British subs. if they gambled on a full commitment, I think they would had won until someone saved the UK's ass again. And Click! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:11:26 PM EST
[#21]
Quoted: You trolling hard tonight bru. Quoted: Quoted: Argentina did not make a full commitment in this war either. They kept a lot of their best people and equipment out of the fight. Some of it because of potential conflicts with Chile, and their carrier close because of British subs. if they gambled on a full commitment, I think they would had won until someone saved the UK's ass again. And Click!  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:14:44 PM EST
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
fuck argentina! No. Fuck the UK. Fuck the Queen. And fuck the FSA colonizing Las Islas Malvinas. I'm serious. The UK never gave a shit about any of their other colonies no matter how they voted. Why were the Falklands different? It's because the sea around the islands is like the Gulf of Mexico. Tons of oil down there. Wow.
You don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about. I assume you are either trolling for fun, or you hit your head or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:19:10 PM EST
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
You trolling hard tonight bru. Quoted:
Quoted:
Argentina did not make a full commitment in this war either. They kept a lot of their best people and equipment out of the fight. Some of it because of potential conflicts with Chile, and their carrier close because of British subs. if they gambled on a full commitment, I think they would had won until someone saved the UK's ass again. And Click!
No. I really think the British have successfully twisted the stories of their current and former colonies to best suit their resources and interests and have not been equitable at all about the disposition or treatment of these realms. My conclusion is that the only reason they give two shits about sheephearders on welfare out in the south atlantic is for petroleum reserves. You certainly should be able to see how transparent all of this is. And yes, if one of those exocets had hit the invincible or hermes, it would had easily changed the outcome. What would be left for the British to do? Nuclear strike on BA? Sorry, thats a little heavy-handed in anyones' eyes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:19:12 PM EST
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Obama wants to force the UK to give the Falklands to Argentina. 2. The Gen. Belgrano was formerly the USS Phoenix, an American cruiser that survived Pearl Harbor and WWII. Well let's see Argentina to Falkland Islands = 900+ miles, London Uk to Falkland Islands 7900+ miles. I don't know any of the history but that sure makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Because political boundaries should be drawn up based solely on distance from a given capital. I take it the United States will be handing Texas over to Mexico immediately. After all, Mexico City is 935 miles away from Austin, where as DC is 1523 miles. Self determination? Who needs it? Yes but of course Texas is a part of the US not Mexico. Your argument would work a whole lot better with maybe Hawaii but really it makes more sense for Hawaii to be a part of the US than it does The Falklands to be a part of the UK, geographicaly anyway. By your logic we should give Guam to Japan and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands to Cuba. We should also hand over American Samoa and the Northern Marianas to whoever wants them as long as they live closer and while we're talking about UK overseas Territories how about they give Diego Garcia (that the US leases as a base) to the nearest country - Iran.
Whatever I was just talking geography not politics but can you explain me the reasoning for the UK to own islands not near the continent or even in the same hemisphere. I don't really care about it it just seems logical that it would be part of South America and not the UK. the UK doesn't own the Falklands. The Falkland Islands are a self governing outlying territory of the UK. They pay the UK aprrox. $230 million a year to maintain a military presence on the island. So each Falkland Islander pays $100,000 a year? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:19:48 PM EST
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
fuck argentina! No. Fuck the UK. Fuck the Queen. And fuck the FSA colonizing Las Islas Malvinas. I'm serious. The UK never gave a shit about any of their other colonies no matter how they voted. Why were the Falklands different? It's because the sea around the islands is like the Gulf of Mexico. Tons of oil down there. Wow.
You don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about. I assume you are either trolling for fun, or you hit your head or something. Am I really? When did BP know about the oil resources around South Georgia? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:20:06 PM EST
[#26]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You trolling hard tonight bru. Quoted: Quoted: Argentina did not make a full commitment in this war either. They kept a lot of their best people and equipment out of the fight. Some of it because of potential conflicts with Chile, and their carrier close because of British subs. if they gambled on a full commitment, I think they would had won until someone saved the UK's ass again. And Click! No. I really think the British have successfully twisted the stories of their current and former colonies to best suit their resources and interests and have not been equitable at all about the disposition or treatment of these realms. My conclusion is that the only reason they give two shits about sheephearders on welfare out in the south atlantic is for petroleum reserves. You certainly should be able to see how transparent all of this is. And yes, if one of those exocets had hit the invincible or hermes, it would had easily changed the outcome. What would be left for the British to do? Nuclear strike on BA? Sorry, thats a little heavy-handed in anyones' eyes. So maybe the UK should thank the French for the cut off of Exocet missiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:21:48 PM EST
[#27]
Quoted:
No. I really think the British have successfully twisted the stories of their current and former colonies to best suit their resources and interests and have not been equitable at all about the disposition or treatment of these realms. My conclusion is that the only reason they give two shits about sheephearders on welfare out in the south atlantic is for petroleum reserves. You certainly should be able to see how transparent all of this is. lol You and Obama should have a beer summit about the evils of colonialism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:21:50 PM EST
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
fuck argentina! No. Fuck the UK. Fuck the Queen. And fuck the FSA colonizing Las Islas Malvinas. I'm serious. The UK never gave a shit about any of their other colonies no matter how they voted. Why were the Falklands different? It's because the sea around the islands is like the Gulf of Mexico. Tons of oil down there. Wow.
You don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about. I assume you are either trolling for fun, or you hit your head or something. Never discount the possibility of both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:21:57 PM EST
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You trolling hard tonight bru. Quoted:
Quoted:
Argentina did not make a full commitment in this war either. They kept a lot of their best people and equipment out of the fight. Some of it because of potential conflicts with Chile, and their carrier close because of British subs. if they gambled on a full commitment, I think they would had won until someone saved the UK's ass again. And Click!
No. I really think the British have successfully twisted the stories of their current and former colonies to best suit their resources and interests and have not been equitable at all about the disposition or treatment of these realms. My conclusion is that the only reason they give two shits about sheephearders on welfare out in the south atlantic is for petroleum reserves. You certainly should be able to see how transparent all of this is. And yes, if one of those exocets had hit the invincible or hermes, it would had easily changed the outcome. What would be left for the British to do? Nuclear strike on BA? Sorry, thats a little heavy-handed in anyones' eyes. So maybe the UK should thank the French for the cut off of Exocet missiles. Actually, yes they should. The French cooperated not only in cutting off the supply, but also in making it difficult for the Argentinians to program missiles acquired from third parties like Iraq or whoever else was using the Exocet back then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:22:44 PM EST
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Obama wants to force the UK to give the Falklands to Argentina. 2. The Gen. Belgrano was formerly the USS Phoenix, an American cruiser that survived Pearl Harbor and WWII. Well let's see Argentina to Falkland Islands = 900+ miles, London Uk to Falkland Islands 7900+ miles. I don't know any of the history but that sure makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Because political boundaries should be drawn up based solely on distance from a given capital. I take it the United States will be handing Texas over to Mexico immediately. After all, Mexico City is 935 miles away from Austin, where as DC is 1523 miles. Self determination? Who needs it? Yes but of course Texas is a part of the US not Mexico. Your argument would work a whole lot better with maybe Hawaii but really it makes more sense for Hawaii to be a part of the US than it does The Falklands to be a part of the UK, geographicaly anyway. By your logic we should give Guam to Japan and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands to Cuba. We should also hand over American Samoa and the Northern Marianas to whoever wants them as long as they live closer and while we're talking about UK overseas Territories how about they give Diego Garcia (that the US leases as a base) to the nearest country - Iran.
Whatever I was just talking geography not politics but can you explain me the reasoning for the UK to own islands not near the continent or even in the same hemisphere. I don't really care about it it just seems logical that it would be part of South America and not the UK. the UK doesn't own the Falklands. The Falkland Islands are a self governing outlying territory of the UK. They pay the UK aprrox. $230 million a year to maintain a military presence on the island. to the queen? what the fuck does she do with the money? Um.....maybe to pay for the troops salaries and pay for the equipment, like the Eurofighters, Typhoon aircraft, nuke sub and destroyer that are stationed there. Maybe if you toned down your ignorant hate for a minute you might be able to read what people are typing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:24:19 PM EST
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:25:09 PM EST
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. I really think the British have successfully twisted the stories of their current and former colonies to best suit their resources and interests and have not been equitable at all about the disposition or treatment of these realms. My conclusion is that the only reason they give two shits about sheephearders on welfare out in the south atlantic is for petroleum reserves. You certainly should be able to see how transparent all of this is. lol You and Obama should have a beer summit about the evils of colonialism. I like colonialism. I don't like neocolonialism. And I don't like a mix of both for the means of convenience to international policy. I just don't like that the British destroyed the actual "colonial" aspects of any colony that was prospering on their own, and replaced them with regimes that simply funneled money into London firms while destroying the actual cultural and social base that had been built up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:26:03 PM EST
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Obama wants to force the UK to give the Falklands to Argentina. 2. The Gen. Belgrano was formerly the USS Phoenix, an American cruiser that survived Pearl Harbor and WWII. Well let's see Argentina to Falkland Islands = 900+ miles, London Uk to Falkland Islands 7900+ miles. I don't know any of the history but that sure makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Because political boundaries should be drawn up based solely on distance from a given capital. I take it the United States will be handing Texas over to Mexico immediately. After all, Mexico City is 935 miles away from Austin, where as DC is 1523 miles. Self determination? Who needs it? Yes but of course Texas is a part of the US not Mexico. Your argument would work a whole lot better with maybe Hawaii but really it makes more sense for Hawaii to be a part of the US than it does The Falklands to be a part of the UK, geographicaly anyway. By your logic we should give Guam to Japan and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands to Cuba. We should also hand over American Samoa and the Northern Marianas to whoever wants them as long as they live closer and while we're talking about UK overseas Territories how about they give Diego Garcia (that the US leases as a base) to the nearest country - Iran.
Whatever I was just talking geography not politics but can you explain me the reasoning for the UK to own islands not near the continent or even in the same hemisphere. I don't really care about it it just seems logical that it would be part of South America and not the UK. the UK doesn't own the Falklands. The Falkland Islands are a self governing outlying territory of the UK. They pay the UK aprrox. $230 million a year to maintain a military presence on the island. to the queen? what the fuck does she do with the money? Um.....maybe to pay for the troops salaries and pay for the equipment, like the Eurofighters, Typhoon aircraft, nuke sub and destroyer that are stationed there. Maybe if you toned down your ignorant hate for a minute you might be able to read what people are typing. The Falklanders must be the most heavily guarded FSA members in the entire Kingdom. THE SHEEP SPICE MUST FLOW! All that for a little patriotism? Balogny. There is much more to it. Nations only gear up like that for oil. They don't even gear up like that for access to trade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:29:42 PM EST
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No. I really think the British have successfully twisted the stories of their current and former colonies to best suit their resources and interests and have not been equitable at all about the disposition or treatment of these realms. My conclusion is that the only reason they give two shits about sheephearders on welfare out in the south atlantic is for petroleum reserves. You certainly should be able to see how transparent all of this is. lol You and Obama should have a beer summit about the evils of colonialism. I like colonialism. I don't like neocolonialism. And I don't like a mix of both for the means of convenience to international policy. I just don't like that the British destroyed the actual "colonial" aspects of any colony that was prospering on their own, and replaced them with regimes that simply funneled money into London firms while destroying the actual cultural and social base that had been built up. And US?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:31:58 PM EST
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. I really think the British have successfully twisted the stories of their current and former colonies to best suit their resources and interests and have not been equitable at all about the disposition or treatment of these realms. My conclusion is that the only reason they give two shits about sheephearders on welfare out in the south atlantic is for petroleum reserves. You certainly should be able to see how transparent all of this is. lol You and Obama should have a beer summit about the evils of colonialism. I like colonialism. I don't like neocolonialism. And I don't like a mix of both for the means of convenience to international policy. I just don't like that the British destroyed the actual "colonial" aspects of any colony that was prospering on their own, and replaced them with regimes that simply funneled money into London firms while destroying the actual cultural and social base that had been built up. And US? WE determined our independence. NOT the British. My bitch is with the colonies that the British said "guess what, you guys are on your own! BYE! but lol we still own all the wealth structure dance puppet dance!" The Falklanders have voted twice in refferendum to remain British. Total independence was on the ballot both times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:37:19 PM EST
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No. I really think the British have successfully twisted the stories of their current and former colonies to best suit their resources and interests and have not been equitable at all about the disposition or treatment of these realms. My conclusion is that the only reason they give two shits about sheephearders on welfare out in the south atlantic is for petroleum reserves. You certainly should be able to see how transparent all of this is. lol You and Obama should have a beer summit about the evils of colonialism. I like colonialism. I don't like neocolonialism. And I don't like a mix of both for the means of convenience to international policy. I just don't like that the British destroyed the actual "colonial" aspects of any colony that was prospering on their own, and replaced them with regimes that simply funneled money into London firms while destroying the actual cultural and social base that had been built up. And US? WE determined our independence. NOT the British. My bitch is with the colonies that the British said "guess what, you guys are on your own! BYE! but lol we still own all the wealth structure dance puppet dance!" The Falklanders have voted twice in refferendum to remain British. Total independence was on the ballot both times. Well Rhodesia told Britain we will make our own destiny....So in fact not all of them  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:39:48 PM EST
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. I really think the British have successfully twisted the stories of their current and former colonies to best suit their resources and interests and have not been equitable at all about the disposition or treatment of these realms. My conclusion is that the only reason they give two shits about sheephearders on welfare out in the south atlantic is for petroleum reserves. You certainly should be able to see how transparent all of this is. lol You and Obama should have a beer summit about the evils of colonialism. I like colonialism. I don't like neocolonialism. And I don't like a mix of both for the means of convenience to international policy. I just don't like that the British destroyed the actual "colonial" aspects of any colony that was prospering on their own, and replaced them with regimes that simply funneled money into London firms while destroying the actual cultural and social base that had been built up. And US? WE determined our independence. NOT the British. My bitch is with the colonies that the British said "guess what, you guys are on your own! BYE! but lol we still own all the wealth structure dance puppet dance!" The Falklanders have voted twice in refferendum to remain British. Total independence was on the ballot both times. Well Rhodesia told Britain we will make our own destiny....So in fact not all of them Which is why I find a fondness in my heart for their willingness to step out on their own. True independence. Not a neocolonial nation of tribal criminals and thieves dancing to the tune of Royal criminals and thieves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:42:41 PM EST
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Obama wants to force the UK to give the Falklands to Argentina. 2. The Gen. Belgrano was formerly the USS Phoenix, an American cruiser that survived Pearl Harbor and WWII. Well let's see Argentina to Falkland Islands = 900+ miles, London Uk to Falkland Islands 7900+ miles. I don't know any of the history but that sure makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Because political boundaries should be drawn up based solely on distance from a given capital. I take it the United States will be handing Texas over to Mexico immediately. After all, Mexico City is 935 miles away from Austin, where as DC is 1523 miles. Self determination? Who needs it? Yes but of course Texas is a part of the US not Mexico. Your argument would work a whole lot better with maybe Hawaii but really it makes more sense for Hawaii to be a part of the US than it does The Falklands to be a part of the UK, geographicaly anyway. By your logic we should give Guam to Japan and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands to Cuba. We should also hand over American Samoa and the Northern Marianas to whoever wants them as long as they live closer and while we're talking about UK overseas Territories how about they give Diego Garcia (that the US leases as a base) to the nearest country - Iran.
Whatever I was just talking geography not politics but can you explain me the reasoning for the UK to own islands not near the continent or even in the same hemisphere. I don't really care about it it just seems logical that it would be part of South America and not the UK. the UK doesn't own the Falklands. The Falkland Islands are a self governing outlying territory of the UK. They pay the UK aprrox. $230 million a year to maintain a military presence on the island. to the queen? what the fuck does she do with the money? Um.....maybe to pay for the troops salaries and pay for the equipment, like the Eurofighters, Typhoon aircraft, nuke sub and destroyer that are stationed there. Maybe if you toned down your ignorant hate for a minute you might be able to read what people are typing. The Falklanders must be the most heavily guarded FSA members in the entire Kingdom. THE SHEEP SPICE MUST FLOW! All that for a little patriotism? Balogny. There is much more to it. Nations only gear up like that for oil. They don't even gear up like that for access to trade. Why do you call them the FSA? They maintain their own economy, and their own currency. Do you have something to back up your claim of the Falkland residents being members of the FSA? Just because they want to remain british subjects isn't grounds for an FSA label. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:47:38 PM EST
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Obama wants to force the UK to give the Falklands to Argentina. 2. The Gen. Belgrano was formerly the USS Phoenix, an American cruiser that survived Pearl Harbor and WWII. Well let's see Argentina to Falkland Islands = 900+ miles, London Uk to Falkland Islands 7900+ miles. I don't know any of the history but that sure makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Because political boundaries should be drawn up based solely on distance from a given capital. I take it the United States will be handing Texas over to Mexico immediately. After all, Mexico City is 935 miles away from Austin, where as DC is 1523 miles. Self determination? Who needs it? Yes but of course Texas is a part of the US not Mexico. Your argument would work a whole lot better with maybe Hawaii but really it makes more sense for Hawaii to be a part of the US than it does The Falklands to be a part of the UK, geographicaly anyway. By your logic we should give Guam to Japan and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands to Cuba. We should also hand over American Samoa and the Northern Marianas to whoever wants them as long as they live closer and while we're talking about UK overseas Territories how about they give Diego Garcia (that the US leases as a base) to the nearest country - Iran.
Whatever I was just talking geography not politics but can you explain me the reasoning for the UK to own islands not near the continent or even in the same hemisphere. I don't really care about it it just seems logical that it would be part of South America and not the UK. the UK doesn't own the Falklands. The Falkland Islands are a self governing outlying territory of the UK. They pay the UK aprrox. $230 million a year to maintain a military presence on the island. to the queen? what the fuck does she do with the money? Um.....maybe to pay for the troops salaries and pay for the equipment, like the Eurofighters, Typhoon aircraft, nuke sub and destroyer that are stationed there. Maybe if you toned down your ignorant hate for a minute you might be able to read what people are typing. The Falklanders must be the most heavily guarded FSA members in the entire Kingdom. THE SHEEP SPICE MUST FLOW! All that for a little patriotism? Balogny. There is much more to it. Nations only gear up like that for oil. They don't even gear up like that for access to trade. Why do you call them the FSA? They maintain their own economy, and their own currency. Do you have something to back up your claim of the Falkland residents being members of the FSA? You think they pay for their infrastructure and defense by selling woolen sweaters? Maybe the Pictairan islanders pay their way by selling little wooden trinkets to the world..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:48:32 PM EST
[#40]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1. Obama wants to force the UK to give the Falklands to Argentina. 2. The Gen. Belgrano was formerly the USS Phoenix, an American cruiser that survived Pearl Harbor and WWII. Well let's see Argentina to Falkland Islands = 900+ miles, London Uk to Falkland Islands 7900+ miles. I don't know any of the history but that sure makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Because political boundaries should be drawn up based solely on distance from a given capital. I take it the United States will be handing Texas over to Mexico immediately. After all, Mexico City is 935 miles away from Austin, where as DC is 1523 miles. Self determination? Who needs it? Yes but of course Texas is a part of the US not Mexico. Your argument would work a whole lot better with maybe Hawaii but really it makes more sense for Hawaii to be a part of the US than it does The Falklands to be a part of the UK, geographicaly anyway. By your logic we should give Guam to Japan and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands to Cuba. We should also hand over American Samoa and the Northern Marianas to whoever wants them as long as they live closer and while we're talking about UK overseas Territories how about they give Diego Garcia (that the US leases as a base) to the nearest country - Iran. Whatever I was just talking geography not politics but can you explain me the reasoning for the UK to own islands not near the continent or even in the same hemisphere. I don't really care about it it just seems logical that it would be part of South America and not the UK. the UK doesn't own the Falklands. The Falkland Islands are a self governing outlying territory of the UK. They pay the UK aprrox. $230 million a year to maintain a military presence on the island. to the queen? what the fuck does she do with the money? Um.....maybe to pay for the troops salaries and pay for the equipment, like the Eurofighters, Typhoon aircraft, nuke sub and destroyer that are stationed there. Maybe if you toned down your ignorant hate for a minute you might be able to read what people are typing. The Falklanders must be the most heavily guarded FSA members in the entire Kingdom. THE SHEEP SPICE MUST FLOW! All that for a little patriotism? Balogny. There is much more to it. Nations only gear up like that for oil. They don't even gear up like that for access to trade. Why do you call them the FSA? They maintain their own economy, and their own currency. Do you have something to back up your claim of the Falkland residents being members of the FSA? Just because they want to remain british subjects isn't grounds for an FSA label. One could say the same thing about Northern Ireland. You have a ton of unionists in N Ireland as well as those who wanted independence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:50:56 PM EST
[#41]
I wouldn't call NI a colony....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 11:16:07 PM EST
[#42]
A couple of points... (and I am not going to quote everything and try and get the thread locked!)
The UK was seriously considering turning over the Falklands to Argentina before the conflict. So serious in fact that a delegation from the Islands felt the need to fly to London to lobby politicians to NOT turn it over. Had the Argies waited, they may well have got the Islands in the long run. Unfortunately the Junta were in serious trouble at home and invaded to avoid being overthrown due to their economic problems; believing that the British wouldn't do anything in response. As history shows, this was a mistake. Had they waited until the Hermes and Invincible had been decommissioned, then they would have had a much better chance. The reason the Argentinians withheld their navy after the sinking of the Belgrano was because of their fear of losing more ships to the submarines. I have little doubt that had their carrier made an appearance, then it would have been made top priority and gone the same way as the General Belgrano. As said earlier in the thread, the French had a team on the ground that helped fix the Exocet launchers which all had a technical fault. Without them, it is likely that all of the missiles would have failed before they could have been fixed - which would have meant the Atlantic Conveyor and the Sheffield would not have been sunk. The Argentines faced threat of war from some of their neighbors, but did receive support from other countries - like Iran, the USSR and Libya; so that should tell you something. They also received help from Israel. The Islanders are all descendents of the UK (much more so than Hawaii are of the US) and wanted to stay as part of the UK - does their opinion count for nothing? Had they wanted to leave, then they would have, They didn't want to be under the control of a military junta then and don't want to be under the control of some tinpot socialists now. Good for them I say. We all get that you don't like the Brits - that's up to you. But please don't try and get a thread about photos of soldiers at War blocked for your own entertainment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 11:30:34 PM EST
[#43]
Poor Argies got in the way of the RM vs. Para. Port Stanley Fun Run
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 11:44:11 PM EST
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read up on the conflict - you won't be disappointed! A real risk was taken getting ashore; it could have gone badly wrong. Likewise, the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor (a container ship that was sunk by French Exocet, that thought it was an aircraft carrier) left the landing force greatly short of helicopters. Never to be put off, the troops marched cross the island on foot. At the battle of Goose Green, the Paras were massive outnumbered, but still prevailed (a force of less than 300 captured 1200 Argentines). An old Vulcan nuclear bomber was used to knock the only runway on the Island out of action (another great story) and the loss of the General Belgrano scared the Argies so badly that they recalled their navy to port. Like I said, definitely worth reading up on! I believe at Goose Green a Brit Colonel led a charge on the Argentine positions. He was killed there, and received the Victoria's Cross. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Jones |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 11:45:27 PM EST
[#45]
this isn't a tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2013 11:54:41 PM EST
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
fuck argentina! No. Fuck the UK. Fuck the Queen. And fuck the FSA colonizing Las Islas Malvinas. I'm serious. The UK never gave a shit about any of their other colonies no matter how they voted. Why were the Falklands different? It's because the sea around the islands is like the Gulf of Mexico. Tons of oil down there. Wow.
You don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about. I assume you are either trolling for fun, or you hit your head or something. Unfortunately, many of my fellow Americans have strong anti-colonial and anti-monarchical sentiments, which can be taken to (often irrational) extremes. Even more unfortunate is the fact that this has frequently been reflected in our foreign policies, with anything from bad to disastrous and highly lethal consequences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 12:05:07 AM EST
[#47]
Well this went tarded..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 12:13:53 AM EST
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Obama wants to force the UK to give the Falklands to Argentina. 2. The Gen. Belgrano was formerly the USS Phoenix, an American cruiser that survived Pearl Harbor and WWII. Well let's see Argentina to Falkland Islands = 900+ miles, London Uk to Falkland Islands 7900+ miles. I don't know any of the history but that sure makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Because political boundaries should be drawn up based solely on distance from a given capital. I take it the United States will be handing Texas over to Mexico immediately. After all, Mexico City is 935 miles away from Austin, where as DC is 1523 miles. Self determination? Who needs it? I dont think anyone is handing texas to anyone. If D.C. wants to let us go then they are welcome too. We promise to report to Mexico City by friday.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 1:01:54 AM EST
[#49]
At the end of the day, Galtieri was one of the good guys. He stopped the communists from taking over in Argentina and was the first, and for many years the only, statesman to give military and financial support to the contras in Nicaragua. The Falklands war placed Reagan in a difficult position, as his administration regarded Galtieri's Argentina as a close ally and bulwark against communism. Realpolitik, however, required Reagan to throw Galtieri under the bus. Despite the fact that Argentina did most of the actual fighting against communism in Latin America, Britain was a key member of NATO and for that reason had to be helped. It was a lose-lose situation for the USA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 3:22:19 AM EST
[#50]
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. No shit... 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
