Will we witness another Falklands War ?
Comments
-
GavH wrote:Lagavulin wrote:The U.S government of the time gave us f**k all support. We had to beg the French and Aerospatiale, from what I've read, to stop supplying Argentina with their Exocets.
That's not actually correct. The Regan administration (with the late Al Haig) of the time offered us one of their carriers and when Thatcher refused that, they gave us a shed load of Sidewinder missiles for the Harriers instead. That was fairly crucial.
Not to mention steering the odd satellite off course here and there for some intel...0 -
Of course theres oil there its the only reason we are interested in the Falkland Islands.
I hope theres no war there as im planning on going back to Argentina this year.
Spend 6 months there in 2007 and its an amazing country.Alot of people are suprised to hear the Argentinians are the nicest,friendliest people ive ever meet in the world.
The best steaks,wine and some of the hottest women in the world.
Amazing mountains,salt flats,desert,glaciers,waterfalls and wildlife.And cheap as chips0 -
dodgy wrote:GavH wrote:Lagavulin wrote:The U.S government of the time gave us f**k all support. We had to beg the French and Aerospatiale, from what I've read, to stop supplying Argentina with their Exocets.
That's not actually correct. The Regan administration (with the late Al Haig) of the time offered us one of their carriers and when Thatcher refused that, they gave us a shed load of Sidewinder missiles for the Harriers instead. That was fairly crucial.
Not to mention steering the odd satellite off course here and there for some intel...
Also while in public they were neutral, behind the scenes they had already stated that if War came they would be behind the UK. They were also actively trying to persuade the Argies to NOT take Thatcher for a fool and avoid war at all costs. It seems that the Argentines thought that she would not have the balls to go through with a bloody military campaign.
We should be able to destroy most of their Navy,ports, and airbases with our Nuclear Submarines. We did the same before with HMS Conqueror when she sunk ARA General Belgrano. The 1st time a nuclear sub had sunk a ship.
I think common sense will prevail and we will not go to war again but we should still up out military presence just in case.0 -
The argies have been saying the islands are theirs since the war finished, so this is not really anything new. Also we now have two RIC at MPA(more fights in the bars!) and two ships patroling the exclusion zone, plus the additional aircraft. I'd say enough bods to keep and invading force at bay for a while.
Not forgetting that there's oil there, so the yanks will send a large force to help us and then steal our oil0 -
Interesting that. I stand corrected. :oops:GavH wrote:Lagavulin wrote:The U.S government of the time gave us f**k all support. We had to beg the French and Aerospatiale, from what I've read, to stop supplying Argentina with their Exocets.
That's not actually correct. The Regan administration (with the late Al Haig) of the time offered us one of their carriers and when Thatcher refused that, they gave us a shed load of Sidewinder missiles for the Harriers instead. That was fairly crucial. As for begging the French and Aerospatiale, that didn't actually work. MI5 had to buy as many of the Exocets known to be on the open market as they could to prevent Argentina getting them.0 -
Oh god, I do remember the RIC bar right at the end of that corridor, right at the edge of the base. I was accomoated in the lines right next to it for 2 tours. I was RAF, but went in there a handful of times and was (surprisingly) made welcome. Still got a bit boisterous in there!0
-
nolf wrote:blackpanther wrote:nolf wrote:freehub wrote:Who would win, Argentina or the UK? There's only one way to find out.....
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
Also I would bet a fairly substantial sum of money that the UK would wipe the floor with them.
Fighting defensively, from strength, with newer equipment, with (hopefully) political backing esuring we would see it through.
Also internationally I would have thought we would have the upper hand.
COme on Nolf, go and collect Feehub and get joined up, youll love it, freezing weather, people trying very hard to kill you (and its real not just a ps3 game) if your lucky, youll get off a transport ship thats just been hit, if yoiure even luckier youll do it without coming into contact with melting steel.
Pfft I know its not like a ps3 game.
Thats why i've been practising on Counter Strike and Goldeneye (N64), as I think they're a more realistic depiction of combat situations.
OMG, like the other day, I was like totally pwning this n00b with my ak, and he was like "OH NOES!" and I was like "suck it fagz rofl!". It was awesome.
You could be a Combat-Correspondent. If mood is imical to the plane on which we preceed, you just nose-dived into the South Atlantic and are probably half French as well. :P0 -
I have just noted, Hugh Cornwell will be playing there soon......you never know, perhaps poor old Hugh might get arrested as a spy!0
-
dodgy wrote:Oh god, I do remember the RIC bar right at the end of that corridor, right at the edge of the base. I was accomoated in the lines right next to it for 2 tours. I was RAF, but went in there a handful of times and was (surprisingly) made welcome. Still got a bit boisterous in there!
we used to call that end of the corridor the "Bronx" :shock:0 -
That's right, I think we called it the Bronx too. It was handy for the 'bottom' NAAFI though
0 -
I dodged 2 tours to the Falklands, managed to get to belize in '93 instead. 8)0
-
War? Probably not.
Plenty of posturing? Oh yes!
With oil at stake and political points for success, I think there will be a lot of talk, some posturing and then hopefully someone will back down.
Can Chavez afford to whip up the Argies only to simply walk away?
Can the British Government afford to lose the revenue that oil would bring?
Unfortunately, I think the answer to both is no. That leads to confrontation
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
We kicked their asses back in '82 and we'd do it again. Today's troops are much more experienced than we were back then, better equipped and better supplied. Lots of very important lessons were learnt.
Also, there's a fair few old boys who'd make their own way back down there to get the job done 0 -
Chrissz wrote:We kicked their asses back in '82 and we'd do it again. Today's troops are much more experienced than we were back then, better equipped and better supplied. Lots of very important lessons were learnt.
Also, there's a fair few old boys who'd make their own way back down there to get the job done
Oh, yeah.....................
"There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world, t'would be a pity to damage yours."0 -
Aggieboy wrote:Chrissz wrote:We kicked their asses back in '82 and we'd do it again. Today's troops are much more experienced than we were back then, better equipped and better supplied. Lots of very important lessons were learnt.
Also, there's a fair few old boys who'd make their own way back down there to get the job done
Oh, yeah.....................
Blimey! I'm off to the recruitment office!
0 -
Hmm.The jingoistic $um will already have its headlines ready. :x
IMHO Jaw Jaw is better than War War.If there was no oil no one would give a toss. :?
More young lives lost.Sureley there is a better way in the 21 st C.
bagpuss0 -
bagpusscp wrote:Hmm.The jingoistic $um will already have its headlines ready. :x
IMHO Jaw Jaw is better than War War.If there was no oil no one would give a toss. :?
More young lives lost.Sureley there is a better way in the 21 st C.
+1
My previous post was tongue in cheek, your sentiments sum it up totaly IMHO.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
syncro wrote:Aggieboy wrote:Chrissz wrote:We kicked their asses back in '82 and we'd do it again. Today's troops are much more experienced than we were back then, better equipped and better supplied. Lots of very important lessons were learnt.
Also, there's a fair few old boys who'd make their own way back down there to get the job done
Oh, yeah.....................
Blimey! I'm off to the recruitment office!
She's da bomb!
Don't blow a fuse!
I'd love to explode all over her."I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
My old man was on HMS Active during the conflict. Just before the Argies surrendered they were down to their last couple of shells (most of them were used up during naval gunfire support during Tumbledown). Most of the other ships were in a similar position.
The Argies were that close....thankfully they didn't know and decided to hoist the white flag instead.
A good read is Razor's Edge....a real eye opener.
As to the OP's original question? No.
Regarding the boobs above. Yes.Whyte 905 (2009)
Trek 1.5 (2009)
Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Comp (2007)0 -
Is it any coincidence that now as the UK is overcommitted in Afghanistan and facing an economic meltdown that the Argentines see an old score to settle? No doubt Brown would love the chance to 'do a Maggie' in the run-up to an election. he may even use the conflict as an excuse to postpone or cancel it...0
-
I think strong diplomacy would be the best thing here, no one wants any more British casualties as there are far too many already. I think this is just a bit of chest puffing and face saving from the Argentinians.0
-
Didn't we think that last time? Now with a shrunken navy and no long-range air the Argentines do doubt think the time has come for another push, whether that push is diplomatic or military in nature. Just the threat of their intervention will add exra stress to the already stretched forces.0
-
dmclite wrote:I think strong diplomacy would be the best thing here, no one wants any more British casualties as there are far too many already. I think this is just a bit of chest puffing and face saving from the Argentinians.
bit of a pun on the above pic ?Nothing in life can not be improved with either monkeys, pirates or ninjas
4560 -
Cressers wrote:Is it any coincidence that now as the UK is overcommitted in Afghanistan and facing an economic meltdown that the Argentines see an old score to settle? No doubt Brown would love the chance to 'do a Maggie' in the run-up to an election. he may even use the conflict as an excuse to postpone or cancel it...
Not sure that would fly, Britain continued to hold elections during the second world war, when things were rather more dangerous.
Also, economy in melt down?, not quite. Unemployment is high and we've lost about 10% of output through the recession, but compared to Argentina were still doing pretty well. "I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
Gordon Brown might just consider it, after all, it didn't do Thatcher's popularity any harm, and apparently Gordon's got a bit of a temper anyway....
Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
Bikerbaboon wrote:dmclite wrote:I think strong diplomacy would be the best thing here, no one wants any more British casualties as there are far too many already. I think this is just a bit of chest puffing and face saving from the Argentinians.
bit of a pun on the above pic ?
Think my subconcious kicked in when I saw her dirty pillows on parade. 0 -
Lagavulin wrote:
Interesting that. I stand corrected. :oops:GavH wrote:Lagavulin wrote:The U.S government of the time gave us f**k all support. We had to beg the French and Aerospatiale, from what I've read, to stop supplying Argentina with their Exocets.
That's not actually correct. The Regan administration (with the late Al Haig) of the time offered us one of their carriers and when Thatcher refused that, they gave us a shed load of Sidewinder missiles for the Harriers instead. That was fairly crucial. As for begging the French and Aerospatiale, that didn't actually work. MI5 had to buy as many of the Exocets known to be on the open market as they could to prevent Argentina getting them.
the united states provided support to both sides - I seem to remember Thatcher being annoyed by the level of US support. I've got a book about this at home - might have a quick browse when I get home.
I was living in Plymouth druing the Falklands War so my opposition to the war didn't exactly go down too well among my friends at school who were to man (boy) pro thatcher, and rabidly jingoistic.0 -
nolf wrote:Cressers wrote:Is it any coincidence that now as the UK is overcommitted in Afghanistan and facing an economic meltdown that the Argentines see an old score to settle? No doubt Brown would love the chance to 'do a Maggie' in the run-up to an election. he may even use the conflict as an excuse to postpone or cancel it...
Not sure that would fly, Britain continued to hold elections during the second world war, when things were rather more dangerous.
Also, economy in melt down?, not quite. Unemployment is high and we've lost about 10% of output through the recession, but compared to Argentina were still doing pretty well.
There were no general elections during world wars Two or One.
After the 1935 election there wasn't another one until after the war ended in 19450 -
Lets hope it doesn't happen!0
