Falklands War of Words - The Empire Strikes Back

[nemgod]

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?

I think the Phoenicians are the first really, especially in the med since they landed in Cyprus, Crete, Italy and North Africa (Carthage). Greeks maybe 2nd couple hundred years later.

[Condottiere 40K]

In case anyone's wondering, militarized nuclear powered submarines are capitol ships.

[Plan C]

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.

Whoa, hang on, you're backing away from your own points. You expressed concerns about the welfare of the British military in this incredibly tenuous scenario that they underestimate Argentinian forces in case or armed confrontation.

So I ask you again - what is the basis for this concern? What do you know about Argentinian military capacity that we don't?

I will expand - do you think that Britain stands a chance against Argentina in a potential armed conflict over Falklands?

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.

If only there was a simple, catchy word to describe this behaviour...

[Dr Zoidberg]

In case anyone's wondering, militarized nuclear powered submarines are capitol ships.

We weren't.

[Bobz]

Yeah, just like in 1982.

The Argentine navy in 1982 was far more capable than the one that exists today. There's a good article somewhere, probably in the last Falklands thread, that explains the appalling state the Argentine armed forces.

[Menelik_I]

Address what the failures of Argentina on the domestic front? Or the actions of a military junta almost thirty years ago? Is that the gist of the debate?

Or is the gist of the debate a few islands on which lives less than 3,000 people. A small community by any standard, a community which is subsidized by the British government. Which is used as pawns by the British government to give them a claim on maritime shipping and mineral rights off of the coast of Argentina almost 13,000 km away.

The maritime shipping and mineral rights are the gist of this debate because without them the British would not give two about the islanders.

As for territorial integrity, I don't see it as ridiculous at all:



Looks pretty damn close to me. Why is it so offensive that they bring this subject up. You didn't want the Germans on the Channel Islands. The Germans didn't want you on Heligoland. You have your islands, stop trying to claim others' islands.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Maybe I found out how to place you on ignore instead of following you around and posting what a meanie you are.

I didn't but I'm not going to address your post I already did pages back, I brought up the various ways in which that community has been subsidized through free flights for medical treatment to subsidized wine imports, to the Falkland Islands Development Corporation.

Which despite Condottiere40k's snarky comments is not a brilliant shining example of the free market at work I am demonizing because I'm a covert operative of occupy wall street. It is actually a government initiative to funnel money to people wanting to start or expand local businesses. Again something I'm for personally, but which conservatives generally are not unless it bolsters a colonial population and keeps an empire "alive" (Terri Schiavo like living death state alive).

So according to you every single Enclave in the world should be invaded ? : Kabinda, Kalingrad, Alaska , etc ?

Or yet Venezuela should take the Dutch West Indies Islands and Canada invade Saint Miquelon Islands ? What a load of Barbaric Notions.

The Claim of territorial integrity by Argentina is BS, the British were on the Islands before Argentina even existed to make any claim to anything, so the British didn't violate anything because there was NOTHING to violate. Your complains about Colonialism make no sense since Argentina was the Party pushing a colonial claim on the Island against the wishes of the Native Falklanders, so Britain had to restaure order to the Galaxy Deal with it.

[Menelik_I]

The Argentine navy in 1982 was far more capable than the one that exists today. There's a good article somewhere, probably in the last Falklands thread, that explains the appalling state the Argentine armed forces.

The currrent government purged the military as part of their take over, give it maybe 20 years for any realistic threat to emerge.

[Stavroforos]

Whoa, hang on, you're backing away from your own points. You expressed concerns about the welfare of the British military in this incredibly tenuous scenario that they underestimate Argentinian forces in case or armed confrontation.

So I ask you again - what is the basis for this concern? What do you know about Argentinian military capacity that we don't?

I will expand - do you think that Britain stands a chance against Argentina in a potential armed conflict over Falklands?.

The basis for the concern is the many ships Britain lost last time it underestimated Argentina.

[Menelik_I]

The basis for the concern is the many ships Britain lost last time it underestimated Argentina.

Which doesn't mean anything since Britain has 2 of the world most advanced Warships in the Falklands and an airwing big enough to invade most third world countries, and this time they have a garrison in the Island that is ready to fight.

History is not prophecy.

Edit:

Also last time Geography and technology was stacked against the British because they had no counter measures against cruise missiles except using helicopter as baits and assuming a formation to shield the carriers from attacks. Also because of distance the Argentines had initially air superiority because the British had limited air refuelling capacity, while today they could basically fly strike missions from Assuncion or St Helen that would be refueled mid Atlantic.

On the subject of St Helen isn't that Island closer to Angola than UK ? ST HELEN IS AN ANGOLAN ISLAND DOWN WITH COLONIALISM !!!!!!!

[Claudius Gothicus]

Is this where idealistic youngsters dream about a new war between Argentina and the UK over the South Atlantic Islands?

Sorry to dissapoint you but until we are finished licking the Iranian's blood stained boots(yes, and that's Argentine blood I'm talking about) our erratic and laughable External Policy won't get back to you. Hehehehe

What's that worth? Like a bucket of American poo?

Something around 13 american dollars.

[Menelik_I]

Is this where idealistic youngsters dream about a new war between Argentina and the UK over the South Atlantic Islands?

Sorry to dissapoint you but until we are finished licking the Iranian's blood stained boots(yes, and that's Argentine blood I'm talking about) our erratic and laughable External Policy won't get back to you. Hehehehe

Read about this in the Telegraph ... is K really serious about this ? This is just disgusting

[Sir Pignans]

The basis for the concern is the many ships Britain lost last time it underestimated Argentina.

Well considering the US thought it was almost impossible, we didn't do too badly.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Read about this in the Telegraph ... is K really serious about this ? This is just disgusting

Yes, they are serious... there are no clean political, cultural or judicial gains in this one for Argentina, but there are less than clear reasons, shady ones, which many have summed up in 2 not mutually exclusive options: most likely an attempt to get cheaper oil (Argentina is in the middle of a long denied Energy Crisis) or a deliberate attempt to obstruct the Judiciary from discovering the suspected connections between certain political circles around the current government and the local perpetrators who facilitated the Iranians the ordeal.

[Plan C]

The basis for the concern is the many ships Britain lost last time it underestimated Argentina.

In that case you should be advocating the maintenance of the political status quo in the Falklands, surely? Should Argentina attack the islands again more British lives will likely be lost protecting their status as British subjects.

Where I think you could show some consideration is for our Argentinian friends, many of whom would likely also perish. Show some concern for the Argentinians too mate.

[Stavroforos]

Well considering the US thought it was almost impossible, we didn't do too badly.

I'd still say that losing so many ships to a second-rate (or by today's standards third-rate, since Britain would be second-rate) was not the best performance.

In that case you should be advocating the maintenance of the political status quo in the Falklands, surely? Should Argentina attack the islands again more British lives will likely be lost protecting their status as British subjects.

Where I think you could show some consideration is for our Argentinian friends, many of whom would likely also perish. Show some concern for the Argentinians too mate.

I'm not advocating any position on the Falklands, as far as I know.

I couldn't care less if a million Argentinians and Britishers died fighting over some rock in the water.

[Menelik_I]

I'd still say that losing so many ships to a second-rate (or by today's standards third-rate, since Britain would be second-rate) was not the best performance.

You should really educate yourself, because you don't see to understand the difficulties the British had to face in the conflict.

Here is a nice documentary to contribute to your education.

[Plan C]

I'm not advocating any position on the Falklands, as far as I know.

I couldn't care less if a million Argentinians and Britishers died fighting over some rock in the water.

Then what are you doing in this thread?

Also:

I couldn't care less if a million Argentinians and Britishers died fighting over some rock in the water.

The basis for the concern is the many ships Britain lost last time it underestimated Argentina.

Thus you eat your own tail.

[Stavroforos]

You should really educate yourself, because you don't see to understand the difficulties the British had to face in the conflict.

Here is a nice documentary to contribute to your education.

Yeah, even second-rate navies have to face difficulties when going up against third-rate ones. What's your point?

Then what are you doing in this thread?

Also:





Thus you eat your own tail.

I'm sorry if you took my feigned concern for British lives seriously.

[Menelik_I]

Yeah, even second-rate navies have to face difficulties when going up against third-rate ones. What's your point?

Except that most of the battles where between the British Navy and the Argentine AIRFORCE.

Sinking of the Belgrano aside the Argentine Navy barely showed its head in the conflict, all Royal Navy ships lost in the conflict were due to Argentine Aircraft attacks, so you really don't know what in the you are talking about.

[Stavroforos]

Except that most of the battles where between the British Navy and the Argentine AIRFORCE.

Sinking of the Belgrano aside the Argentine Navy barely showed its head in the conflict, all Royal Navy ships lost in the conflict were due to Argentine Aircraft attacks, so you really don't know what in the you are talking about.

Well, I hate to give you the news, but the Sheffield was sunk by the Argentine Navy. In any case, considering both Navy and Air Force used Exocets, the weapons used to sink the ships of the invaders, whatever point you're trying to make on a technicality is moot.