User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 4:41:19 AM EST
[#1]
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. This is the second nice historical picture thread to be fucked up in the past little bit. People just can't have nice things. I think there might be a force field surrounding GD that prevents any social graces. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 4:49:20 AM EST
[#2]
Well let's see if we can get it back on track. Let's look at some of the modern defenses that are in place today on the Falklands
Typhoon 
Tornado 
Mount Pleasant Airbase 
HMS Trafalgar 
HMS Dauntless 
Rapier SAM System 
Falkland Island Defence Force 
Falkland Island Patrol Boat 
FWIW, I went ahead and put any "anti-colonial jackasses" on my ignore list so I don't have to read their rants anymore, |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 4:53:30 AM EST
[#4]
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 4:54:05 AM EST
[#5]
I'm guessing just the four Typhoons and lone submarine would royally fuck up anything Argentina could bring to bear.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 4:54:27 AM EST
[#6]
Quoted:
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. Hello. This is me. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 4:55:34 AM EST
[#7]
Quoted:
I'm guessing just the four Typhoons and lone submarine would royally fuck up anything Argentina could bring to bear. at this point, yes. Argentina's military has been rotting for 30 years now. They had their best opportunity in 82, and would had been better to wait until 83 or 84 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 4:55:43 AM EST
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? No. Because you demonstrated you do not have a grasp on the situation in the South Atlantic and dragged the thread down to your level. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 4:57:46 AM EST
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? No. Because you demonstrated you do not have a grasp on the situation in the South Atlantic and dragged the thread down to your level. Oh joy! The navy bund is starting to show up from their deck watch. Are you going to tell me that the UK didn't know about the oil back then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 4:58:36 AM EST
[#10]
Quoted:
I'm guessing just the four Typhoons and lone submarine would royally fuck up anything Argentina could bring to bear. Yeah, considering the Argies can barely afford to operate their 1960's era A-4's, which by now may not even have any capable heat seeking missiles to arm them with, they can easily shoot down the A-4's from a safe distance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:00:01 AM EST
[#11]
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. That much is obvious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:04:29 AM EST
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? No. Because you demonstrated you do not have a grasp on the situation in the South Atlantic and dragged the thread down to your level. Oh joy! The navy bund is starting to show up from their deck watch. Are you going to tell me that the UK didn't know about the oil back then? [citation needed] And, actually, it went "tarded" when you demonstrated that you couldn't make an argument without sounding like an ignorant cock. It has nothing to do with your argument. You could have probably demonstrated a case for that. It's that you can't back up that argument without sounding like a petulant 16 year old with a poor grasp of the English language. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:04:36 AM EST
[#13]
Quoted:
Well let's see if we can get it back on track. Let's look at some of the modern defenses that are in place today on the Falklands ..... HMS Dauntless
..... FWIW, I went ahead and put any "anti-colonial jackass" on my ignore list so I don't have to read their rants anymore, Holy Crap! The Argies are screwed! The Brits have a Dalek! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:06:05 AM EST
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? No. Because you demonstrated you do not have a grasp on the situation in the South Atlantic and dragged the thread down to your level. Oh joy! The navy bund is starting to show up from their deck watch. Are you going to tell me that the UK didn't know about the oil back then? [citation needed] I think it's the other way around.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:06:44 AM EST
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? No. Because you demonstrated you do not have a grasp on the situation in the South Atlantic and dragged the thread down to your level. Oh joy! The navy bund is starting to show up from their deck watch. Are you going to tell me that the UK didn't know about the oil back then? [citation needed] I think it's the other way around.... Incorrect. You made the argument, and thus you must back it up. ETA: You've already shown you're incapable of making an argument without sounding like a child. Let's not prove that you don't know how these things work at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:08:18 AM EST
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well let's see if we can get it back on track. Let's look at some of the modern defenses that are in place today on the Falklands ..... HMS Dauntless http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01437/dauntless_1437050b.jpg ..... FWIW, I went ahead and put any "anti-colonial jackass" on my ignore list so I don't have to read their rants anymore, Holy Crap! The Argies are screwed! The Brits have a Dalek!
All your Argentina belong to us! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:11:39 AM EST
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? No. Because you demonstrated you do not have a grasp on the situation in the South Atlantic and dragged the thread down to your level. Oh joy! The navy bund is starting to show up from their deck watch. Are you going to tell me that the UK didn't know about the oil back then? [citation needed] I think it's the other way around.... Incorrect. You made the argument, and thus you must back it up. ETA: You've already shown you're incapable of making an argument without sounding like a child. Let's not prove that you don't know how these things work at all. No, the argument has been made on here many, many times before in this and other threads that the oil resources were not known in 82. You are like the child that has walked into the conversation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:13:13 AM EST
[#18]
Quoted:
And, actually, it went "tarded" when you demonstrated that you couldn't make an argument without sounding like an ignorant cock. It has nothing to do with your argument. You could have probable demonstrated a case for that. It's that you can't back up that argument without sounding like a petulant 16 year old with a poor grasp of the English language. When Spade and I agree, you know you've achieved something! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:15:43 AM EST
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? No. Because you demonstrated you do not have a grasp on the situation in the South Atlantic and dragged the thread down to your level. Oh joy! The navy bund is starting to show up from their deck watch. Are you going to tell me that the UK didn't know about the oil back then? [citation needed] I think it's the other way around.... Incorrect. You made the argument, and thus you must back it up. ETA: You've already shown you're incapable of making an argument without sounding like a child. Let's not prove that you don't know how these things work at all. No, the argument has been made on here many, many times before in this and other threads that the oil resources were not known in 82. You are like the child that has walked into the conversation. Oh, well, if it's been argued many times before it should be quite easy for you to toss up some good quality peer reviewed sources that back up your argument then, shouldn't it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:17:15 AM EST
[#20]
Quoted:
did the US provide any support? Yes. We provided new AIM-9s and other logistical support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:19:27 AM EST
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[ [citation needed] I think it's the other way around.... Incorrect. You made the argument, and thus you must back it up. ETA: You've already shown you're incapable of making an argument without sounding like a child. Let's not prove that you don't know how these things work at all.[/quote] No, the argument has been made on here many, many times before in this and other threads that the oil resources were not known in 82. You are like the child that has walked into the conversation.[/quote] Oh, well, if it's been argued many times before it should be quite easy for you to toss up some good quality peer reviewed sources that back up your argument then, shouldn't it?[/quote] Do you even know what that means, or are you repeating words you hear on msnbc? I'll humor you later. I'm working now. Provided this thread isn't locked for you guys getting butthurt that I'm not sucking thatcher's cock and rubbing the navy jack all over my body. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:20:10 AM EST
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
did the US provide any support? Yes. We provided new AIM-9s and other logistical support. I already answered this dport. Did you even read bro? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:22:35 AM EST
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? No. Because you demonstrated you do not have a grasp on the situation in the South Atlantic and dragged the thread down to your level. Oh joy! The navy bund is starting to show up from their deck watch. Are you going to tell me that the UK didn't know about the oil back then? [citation needed] I think it's the other way around.... Incorrect. You made the argument, and thus you must back it up. ETA: You've already shown you're incapable of making an argument without sounding like a child. Let's not prove that you don't know how these things work at all. No, the argument has been made on here many, many times before in this and other threads that the oil resources were not known in 82. You are like the child that has walked into the conversation. Oh, well, if it's been argued many times before it should be quite easy for you to toss up some good quality peer reviewed sources that back up your argument then, shouldn't it? Do you even know what that means, or are you repeating words you hear on msnbc? I'll humor you later. I'm working now. Provided this thread isn't locked for you guys getting butthurt that I'm not sucking thatcher's cock and rubbing the navy jack all over my body. Well, at least my point has been proven. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:23:00 AM EST
[#24]
Umm I don't care what anyones views are on the politics that started the war that is another thread . This thread was "Falklands War photos 1982" not "Politics behind the Falklands War of 1982"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:26:19 AM EST
[#25]
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. They are still in the red by protecting the Falklands. The oil discovery is just now allowing them to repay the UK for the defense costs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:26:39 AM EST
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? Nope - because you came and crapped all over thread because it didn't fit with your agenda. We get that you don't like the UK or it's Monarchy, however instead or just saying this and leaving you have to labour the same tired argument. What do you think would have happened to the current residents of the Falkland Islands if Argentina would have won? Do you think their current regime care about them in the slightest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:29:35 AM EST
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? No. Because you demonstrated you do not have a grasp on the situation in the South Atlantic and dragged the thread down to your level. Oh joy! The navy bund is starting to show up from their deck watch. Are you going to tell me that the UK didn't know about the oil back then? You mean in 1833? Or when a military force invaded and took their government and British nationals hostage? The Argies deserved to get ass blasted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:29:59 AM EST
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? Nope - because you came and crapped all over thread because it didn't fit with your agenda. We get that you don't like the UK or it's Monarchy, however instead or just saying this and leaving you have to labour the same tired argument. What do you think would have happened to the current residents of the Falkland Islands if Argentina would have won? Do you think their current regime care about them in the slightest? Pumping oil by 1989 and living like a bunch of sheiks |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:30:31 AM EST
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? No. Because you demonstrated you do not have a grasp on the situation in the South Atlantic and dragged the thread down to your level. Oh joy! The navy bund is starting to show up from their deck watch. No, the argument has been made on here many, many times before in this and other threads that the oil resources were not known in 82. You are like the child that has walked into the conversation. Oh, well, if it's been argued many times before it should be quite easy for you to toss up some good quality peer reviewed sources that back up your argument then, shouldn't it? Do you even know what that means, or are you repeating words you hear on msnbc? I'll humor you later. I'm working now. Provided this thread isn't locked for you guys getting butthurt that I'm not sucking thatcher's cock and rubbing the navy jack all over my body. Well, at least my point has been proven. Straw meet man  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:30:56 AM EST
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: did the US provide any support? Yes. We provided new AIM-9s and other logistical support. Stingers too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:33:01 AM EST
[#31]
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. They are still in the red by protecting the Falklands. The oil discovery is just now allowing them to repay the UK for the defense costs. Why would they? The south Georgia reserves are for after the north sea isn't viable anymore |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:33:32 AM EST
[#32]
Quoted:
Umm I don't care what anyones views are on the politics that started the war that is another thread . This thread was "Falklands War photos 1982" not "Politics behind the Falklands War of 1982" Then post more pics from the Argie side 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:37:17 AM EST
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? Nope - because you came and crapped all over thread because it didn't fit with your agenda. We get that you don't like the UK or it's Monarchy, however instead or just saying this and leaving you have to labour the same tired argument. What do you think would have happened to the current residents of the Falkland Islands if Argentina would have won? Do you think their current regime care about them in the slightest? I don't have an agenda. I'm saying that the war was a lot closer than credited, and given a few more months of prep on Argentinas side and a few more months of decline on the UK's side, it would had been vastly different. I'm not arguing that Argentina should retake them. They cannot. The UK cares about as much about them as the Argentinian govt would. Place holding pawns for resources underground. Yay another shipment of tea and some BBC! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:39:28 AM EST
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? No. Because you demonstrated you do not have a grasp on the situation in the South Atlantic and dragged the thread down to your level. Oh joy! The navy bund is starting to show up from their deck watch. No, the argument has been made on here many, many times before in this and other threads that the oil resources were not known in 82. You are like the child that has walked into the conversation. Oh, well, if it's been argued many times before it should be quite easy for you to toss up some good quality peer reviewed sources that back up your argument then, shouldn't it? Do you even know what that means, or are you repeating words you hear on msnbc? I'll humor you later. I'm working now. Provided this thread isn't locked for you guys getting butthurt that I'm not sucking thatcher's cock and rubbing the navy jack all over my body. Well, at least my point has been proven. Straw meet man That's....not a straw man. I'd have to have been, for one thing, responding to your argument in a related way. In fact, I was making a totally different argument. Your argument: England knew about oil reserves prior to the 1982 war. (My only response to this was, really, to ask you for proof.) My argument: DanTSX argues like a petulant child. You really don't know much about arguments either, do you? ETA: At best you could argue "ad hominem" but I think you've successfully provided us with enough actual evidence to prove the argument anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:42:19 AM EST
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? No. Because you demonstrated you do not have a grasp on the situation in the South Atlantic and dragged the thread down to your level. Oh joy! The navy bund is starting to show up from their deck watch. No, the argument has been made on here many, many times before in this and other threads that the oil resources were not known in 82. You are like the child that has walked into the conversation. Oh, well, if it's been argued many times before it should be quite easy for you to toss up some good quality peer reviewed sources that back up your argument then, shouldn't it?[/quote] Do you even know what that means, or are you repeating words you hear on msnbc? I'll humor you later. I'm working now. Provided this thread isn't locked for you guys getting butthurt that I'm not sucking thatcher's cock and rubbing the navy jack all over my body.[/quote] Well, at least my point has been proven.[/quote] Straw meet man [/quote]
That's....not a straw man. I'd have to have been, for one thing, responding to your argument in a related way. In fact, I was making a totally different argument. Your argument: England knew about oil reserves prior to the 1982 war. (My only response to this was, really, to ask you for proof.) My argument: DanTSX argues like a petulant child. You really don't know much about arguments either, do you? ETA: At best you could argue "ad hominem" but I think you've successfully provided us with enough actual evidence to prove the argument anyway.[/quote] Hi I took philosophy 101 too. I don't act like a college freshman about it though. The oil issue has been referenced here many times. There is no need to deconstruct the argument to create burden of proof. Adults are talking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:51:56 AM EST
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? Nope - because you came and crapped all over thread because it didn't fit with your agenda. We get that you don't like the UK or it's Monarchy, however instead or just saying this and leaving you have to labour the same tired argument. What do you think would have happened to the current residents of the Falkland Islands if Argentina would have won? Do you think their current regime care about them in the slightest? I don't have an agenda. I'm saying that the war was a lot closer than credited, and given a few more months of prep on Argentinas side and a few more months of decline on the UK's side, it would had been vastly different. I'm not arguing that Argentina should retake them. They cannot. The UK cares about as much about them as the Argentinian govt would. Place holding pawns for resources underground. Yay another shipment of tea and some BBC! This is just stupid. The Argies murdered, tortured and committed dozens of war crimes against their own conscript soldiers. That regime didn't give a crap about anyone except those in power. Plus they had all the time they wanted to prepare, they were the invaders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:00:56 AM EST
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Disguised as a container ship? http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/839/Falklands_War_cas0141.jpg didn't work too well. What happened to it? http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib/33/media-33715/large.jpg Hit by a Argie Exocet (possibly purchased from the French) What was the name of the ship? Wiki page? The name is the Atlantic Conveyor. Almost all of the Brits Chinooks went up in flames inside its hull, except for one - Bravo November. A mockup (forward section of an ex-USAF CH-47D) of Bravo November is on display at the RAF museum in London. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:04:49 AM EST
[#38]
Fuck the Argies and their supporters in Connecticut.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:06:28 AM EST
[#39]
Quoted:
Umm I don't care what anyones views are on the politics that started the war that is another thread . This thread was "Falklands War photos 1982" not "Politics behind the Falklands War of 1982" Exactly. I just want to see some more FAL goodness. Not read what everyone cares politically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:06:48 AM EST
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip for trees Well, at least my point has been proven. Straw meet man That's....not a straw man. I'd have to have been, for one thing, responding to your argument in a related way. In fact, I was making a totally different argument. Your argument: England knew about oil reserves prior to the 1982 war. (My only response to this was, really, to ask you for proof.) My argument: DanTSX argues like a petulant child. You really don't know much about arguments either, do you? ETA: At best you could argue "ad hominem" but I think you've successfully provided us with enough actual evidence to prove the argument anyway. Hi I took philosophy 101 too. I don't act like a college freshman about it though. The oil issue has been referenced here many times. There is no need to deconstruct the argument to create burden of proof. Adults are talking. You're right. You don't act like a college freshman. All of mine managed to make arguments that didn't make them sound like they were in junior high, even if they wrote like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:11:35 AM EST
[#41]
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. Of course that makes sense to you. You and Obama. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:16:52 AM EST
[#42]
Quoted:
Pumping oil by 1989 and living like a bunch of sheiks Absolute nonsense. So you think the Argentines would have taken over the Falklands at great cost and left the oil reserves to the European descended inhabitants for them to profit from? Even though the reason that they invaded in the first place was to draw attention away from their dire financial situaiton? Really? If you are going to claim that we defended the Falklands purely for profit (which if you read my early posts, you'd know were untrue), then to claim that Galtieri was going to do it for anything different is a bit of a daft argument. For your information, the idea of the Islanders being allowed to remain under Argentine rule is ridiculous, the Argentine government were already planning on getting as many Argentinians from the mainland over as possible to "replace" the residents of the Falklands. What do you think would have happened to them? Had the residents stated that they wanted to be part of Argentina in the their recent referendum, then we would have let them - they were the main reason we went to war and if you'd read up on the background of the conflict you would know that. Then as now, I believe in the right to self-determination - don't you? The other possibilities of outcomes of the conflict have been consigned to history, discovery channel documentaries and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner wet dreams. Over here in the UK, we are well aware that we took a gamble and that it could have played out differently - that's war. Like I said, just say "I don't like the UK, it's Monarch or citizens and would prefer we weren't allies with them" and get back to watching the stuff depicted in your avatar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:18:46 AM EST
[#43]
Quoted:
Absolute nonsense. So you think the Argentines would have taken over the Falklands at great cost and left the oil reserves to the European descended inhabitants for them to profit from? Don't forget that the Argentinians are also European descended. That's why I laugh when they bitch about "colonialism". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:19:58 AM EST
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like what Teddy Roosevelt once said of a similar war. "A splendid little war" Not really. It was a damn close call for the Brits. A couple lucky Exocet hits and it could have been a bloody shambles. Only God knows what "could have happened," but I disagree. I think that once they arrived on the islands, Brit victory was a foregone conclusion - particularly with Brit sub(s) effectively denying access to the islands. Their supply lines were cut and their largely conscript-based force on the islands was rather pathetic and unmotivated in the end. This is not to say there were not a few dedicated, capable units, however. Nevertheless, once Thatcher decided to fight, an eventual Brit victory was a foregone conclusion. Actually it wasn't a foregone conclusion. Proper fusing on some bombs, a few more exocets, some bad weather, a few more weeks in the S. Atlantic during the winter and it wouldn't have happened. the falklands was a close run thing and the brits got lucky in a lot of places. HMS Hermes was due to be decommissioned in 1982 after a defence review by the British government and on 25 February 1982 the Australian government announced after several months of negotiations that it had agreed to buy HMS Invincible for £175 million. So, if the Argies had just waited a bit, there would've been no Brit carriers for the Harriers to use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:22:11 AM EST
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pumping oil by 1989 and living like a bunch of sheiks Absolute nonsense. So you think the Argentines would have taken over the Falklands at great cost and left the oil reserves to the European descended inhabitants for them to profit from? Even though the reason that they invaded in the first place was to draw attention away from their dire financial situaiton? Really? If you are going to claim that we defended the Falklands purely for profit (which if you read my early posts, you'd know were untrue), then to claim that Galtieri was going to do it for anything different is a bit of a daft argument. For your information, the idea of the Islanders being allowed to remain under Argentine rule is ridiculous, the Argentine government were already planning on getting as many Argentinians from the mainland over as possible to "replace" the residents of the Falklands. What do you think would have happened to them? Had the residents stated that they wanted to be part of Argentina in the their recent referendum, then we would have let them - they were the main reason we went to war and if you'd read up on the background of the conflict you would know that. Then as now, I believe in the right to self-determination - don't you? The other possibilities of outcomes of the conflict have been consigned to history, discovery channel documentaries and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner wet dreams. Over here in the UK, we are well aware that we took a gamble and that it could have played out differently - that's war. Like I said, just say "I don't like the UK, it's Monarch or citizens and would prefer we weren't allies with them" and get back to watching the stuff depicted in your avatar. no. they would had sent them, and their sheep back home to Manchester, or Birmingham, or whatever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:22:27 AM EST
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like what Teddy Roosevelt once said of a similar war. "A splendid little war" Not really. It was a damn close call for the Brits. A couple lucky Exocet hits and it could have been a bloody shambles. Only God knows what "could have happened," but I disagree. I think that once they arrived on the islands, Brit victory was a foregone conclusion - particularly with Brit sub(s) effectively denying access to the islands. Their supply lines were cut and their largely conscript-based force on the islands was rather pathetic and unmotivated in the end. This is not to say there were not a few dedicated, capable units, however. Nevertheless, once Thatcher decided to fight, an eventual Brit victory was a foregone conclusion. Actually it wasn't a foregone conclusion. Proper fusing on some bombs, a few more exocets, some bad weather, a few more weeks in the S. Atlantic during the winter and it wouldn't have happened. the falklands was a close run thing and the brits got lucky in a lot of places. HMS Hermes was due to be decommissioned in 1982 after a defence review by the British government and on 25 February 1982 the Australian government announced after several months of negotiations that it had agreed to buy HMS Invincible for £175 million. So, if the Argies had just waited a bit, there would've been no Brit carriers for the Harriers to use. don't bring facts into this 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:24:25 AM EST
[#47]
Quoted: The oil issue has been referenced here many times. There is no need to deconstruct the argument to create burden of proof. Adults are talking. Did you know that the UK and Argentina agreed in 1995 to split any oil revenues (50/50 for discoveries west of the islands, 1/3 Argentina 2/3 UK for discoveries east of the islands)? Argentina then withdrew from that agreement in 2007 so now, by their choice, they get nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:25:26 AM EST
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The oil issue has been referenced here many times. There is no need to deconstruct the argument to create burden of proof. Adults are talking. Did you know that the UK and Argentina agreed in 1995 to split any oil revenues (50/50 for discoveries west of the islands, 1/3 Argentina 2/3 UK for discoveries east of the islands)? Argentina then withdrew from that agreement in 2007 so now, by their choice, they get nothing. which was smart as they revenues should be 100% theirs 
Did the Kuwaitis settle for anything less? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:31:26 AM EST
[#49]
Quoted:
Disguised as a container ship? http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/839/Falklands_War_cas0141.jpg No, that is a container ship, the Atlantic Conveyor. She was later hit by two Exocets and sank afterwards (the Harriers were all off when she was hit.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:31:49 AM EST
[#50]
Cool pics. Fuck Argentina.
|
|
|
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.
