Falklands War of Words - The Empire Strikes Back

[I WUB PUGS]

Well, I guess. Depends on your definition of "colony". Not like all of those islands were settled by Greeks to begin with.

[Bobz]

Oh, I'm sure they'll manage to take some ships down, especially since Britain doesn't even have a capital ship.

Lol the Argentines would actually have to get a navy that's not literally sinking in the harbour first.

[Stavroforos]

Well, I guess. Depends on your definition of "colony". Not like all of those islands were settled by Greeks to begin with.

Yeah, but they were, lol.

Lol the Argentines would actually have to get a navy that's not literally sinking in the harbour first.

Yeah, just like in 1982.

[Dance]

Let's be real here..

Many who know of the Falkland Wars, of the early 80's, know any attempts again, by Argentina would be futile..

A. Argentina was run by a dictator, who made a rash decision, that cost him, and his supporters, their dictatorship, as weakly held together as it was.
B. They were utterly defeated, and would be again, undeniably.
C. I don't believe Argentina can do more than just spew threats, and keep on about a war they lose thirty years ago. It's over. They had their chance, as poorly misconceived as it was, and they lost. End of the story.
D. I am a proud supporter of the British, the UK in general, and the Falkland Islanders.

[I WUB PUGS]

I'm sure the ancient peoples loved the Greeks showing up on their shores and proclaiming to own everything their ships could reach.

[Stavroforos]

I'm sure the ancient peoples loved the Greeks showing up on their shores and proclaiming to own everything their ships could reach.

But they were ancient Greeks, on those islands. The native residents before were like, goats and Polyphemus.

[I WUB PUGS]

Pfft, if we're gonna go back 200 something years for the Falklands, I call thousands of years ago for Greeks fair game.

Or do you think its okay to stamp out the beautiful creatures of antiquity for some empires of city-states?

[Comrade_Rory]

But they were ancient Greeks, on those islands. The native residents before were like, goats and Polyphemus.

I dunno, I think there's a difference between being Greek and being forcefully Hellenised
But still, wasn't ancient Greece pretty much the worlds first major coloniser? With colonies all over the Mediterranean?

[Gertrudius]

Yeah, just like in 1982.

Remember that their fleet only stayed out until the Belgrano was sunk, at which point they retired to port. How are they going to get to the islands given it's current defenses, the atrophy of their fleet, the continuing deficit in air capabilities from a war that happened thirty years ago, and the threat of a nuclear submarine sitting off their coast?

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but the insinuation in your statement strikes more of trying to stir up a reaction from certain members than a legitimate appraisal of the current situation. Just the way I see it.

[Stavroforos]

I dunno, I think there's a difference between being Greek and being forcefully Hellenised
But still, wasn't ancient Greece pretty much the worlds first major coloniser? With colonies all over the Mediterranean?

Right, but the people on those islands were Greek, they weren't Hellenized or didn't replace any other residents.

In any case, to say that Greece was a major coloniser would be somewhat wrong, considering there was no Greek state and that the colonies that were founded were only culturally tied with the Greek mainland, rather than actually belonging to an actual Greek city, with few exceptions.

In any case, I don't think you'll find many Greeks asking for Marseilles back.

Remember that their fleet only stayed out until the Belgrano was sunk, at which point they retired to port. How are they going to get to the islands given it's current defenses, the atrophy of their fleet, the continuing deficit in air capabilities from a war that happened thirty years ago, and the threat of a nuclear submarine sitting off their coast?

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but the insinuation in your statement strikes more of trying to stir up a reaction from certain members than a legitimate appraisal of the current situation. Just the way I see it.

I'm simply saying that underestimating the Argentinians cost the British once already, I don't think there should be much room for it.

[Plan C]

I'm simply saying that underestimating the Argentinians cost the British once already, I don't think there should be much room for it.

So what is your opinion on current Argentinian force projection capacity in comparison with British forces?

[Stavroforos]

So what is your opinion on current Argentinian force projection capacity in comparison with British forces?

Argentina doesn't need force projection.

[Denny Crane!]

Argentina doesn't need force projection.

Either you misunderstood the question, didn't read the topic title or don't understand military matters even up to they layman level.

[Stavroforos]

Either you misunderstood the question, didn't read the topic title or don't understand military matters even up to they layman level.

Why would the Falkland Islands need force projection? Are they going to become an autonomous great power any time soon?

[Denny Crane!]

Why would the Falkland Islands need force projection? Are they going to become an autonomous great power any time soon?

I think you need to use a dictionary, stat!

Power projection (or force projection) is a term used in military and political science to refer to the capacity of a state to conduct expeditionary warfare, i.e. to intimidate other nations and implement policy by means of force, or the threat thereof, in an area distant from its own territory

Its over 1000 miles from the falklands to Argentina not to mention if it starts a full time war with the UK it might want to attack them to and that counts as force projection.

[Stavroforos]

I think you need to use a dictionary, stat!

Power projection (or force projection) is a term used in military and political science to refer to the capacity of a state to conduct expeditionary warfare, i.e. to intimidate other nations and implement policy by means of force, or the threat thereof, in an area distant from its own territory

Its over 1000 miles from the falklands to Argentina not to mention if it starts a full time war with the UK it might want to attack them to and that counts as force projection.

So you're saying that Argentina had force projection in 1982?

[Denny Crane!]

So you're saying that Argentina had force projection in 1982?

I'm saying they didn't and they were a joke in 1982, a failure and their invasion proved that.

Are you in the habit of answering questions with questions? Of assuming positions on anothers behalf when questioned? Because to me it betrays an incredibly weak antagonistic position with no foundational knowledge strength.

[Stavroforos]

I'm saying they didn't and they were a joke in 1982, a failure and their invasion proved that.

Are you in the habit of answering questions with questions? Of assuming positions on anothers behalf when questioned? Because to me it betrays an incredibly weak antagonistic position with no foundational knowledge strength.

Well then, why didn't you go to them in 1982 with your dictionary and show them that they didn't have force projection? That way they wouldn't have taken over the Falklands and sunk your battleships.

It was all clearly just a linguistic dispute.

[Denny Crane!]

Well then, why didn't you go to them in 1982 with your dictionary and show them that they didn't have force projection? That way they wouldn't have taken over the Falklands and sunk your battleships.

It was all clearly just a linguistic dispute.

But you said they didn't have it and they don't need it? The linguistic dispute is that you clearly don't even know what YOU want to say.

To a certain extent I'm guilty of that, in 1982 of course they had limited force projection as they do now, its pathetic and clearly not enough to prosecute a war but yes they have a small amount which your flippant nonsensical posting goaded me into saying they had none in 1982 which was quite literally just me posting derogatory nonsense based on their craplustre performance then.

But any nation that wants to be any kind of power beyond coastal defence needs force projection otherwise it has no power to do so.

[Stavroforos]

But you said they didn't have it and they don't need it? The linguistic dispute is that you clearly don't even know what YOU want to say.

To a certain extent I'm guilty of that, in 1982 of course they had limited force projection as they do now, its pathetic and clearly not enough to prosecute a war but yes they have a small amount which your flippant nonsensical posting goaded me into saying they had none in 1982 which was quite literally just me posting derogatory nonsense based on their craplustre performance then.

But any nation that wants to be any kind of power beyond coastal defence needs force projection otherwise it has no power to do so.

So, Argentina, besides having a small amount of force projection (is there a scale?), still launched an attack against a group of islands many miles away, even if they belonged to a nation which once had a large level of force projection. I mean, are you going to suggest that some conflicts are brought about even if the odds of winning aren't good? How dare those people offend your dictionary definition of warfare.