Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Football & Politics; business as usual in Argentina.
- Thread starter smudge
- Start date
Baldseagull
Well-known member
To be fair the Argentines have a reasonable rebuff for the Islanders vote. They say it is like asking a squatter if he should be allowed to stay in the house.
Firstly,sorry you had trouble understanding the obvious,secondly its a football forum not a grammar and punctuation class,if you want to be a smug prat do it somewhere else.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Your post doesn't make sense. Woodchip isn't the only one who said so, he wasn't being smug or a prat.
Yoda
English & European
I'm still trying to work out your point?
One is for equal rights for blacks, the other is a petty feud over who owns a small area of rock in the Southern Atlantic that Argentina are suddenly piping up about due to there now being oil in it's waters.
Replying to an article about the Argentines on going claim to sovereignty I said "Odd when you look at the facts why they feel they have a stronger claim". What is so difficult to understand?
But the Falklands aren't our bollocks. And if Argentina invaded them, you wouldn't get them out diplomatically. Argentina have no moral claim to the islands at all, and we should make it clear to them that invasion by them would mean all out war. Then they'd never touch them, and there'd be no violence.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Except in this case the islands were British before Argentina existed. Anyhow, the United Nations is very clear on this. People have the right to self-determination ergo they're British.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Only if they own the house, but they don't.
Paris
Well-known member
Where's
when you need him?
- Apr 5, 2014
- 25,900
Thank you for sharing this, because it serves to show those nationalists, who glory in wartime victories to affirm an elitist position, that 'our boys' are actually far more intelligent and savvy than they could ever be. I've never met a serviceman who did not see the wider picture of conflict and, although doing their duty, understood that the enemy were humans too-and that ultimately most wars are the folly of those at political (and sometimes business levels).
The same goes for the serviceman in the two world wars, they were rightly proud of all they achieved, as indeed we are, but they took no pleasure at the waste of human life their noble cause, whether allied or enemy, required.
Last edited:
- Apr 5, 2014
- 25,900
The 1982 conflict was a lot closer than some think. Thankfully, the British forces were highly trained and mobilised, and many of the Argentines were young conscripts. On the ground there was a miss-match, but the logistics rendered us vulnerable. I remember, when I studied the conflict, reading that there were many doubts as to whether it could be pulled off, and that the unreliable Argentinian artillery had been a clinching factor.
I seriously doubt that our forces, however highly trained, could do the same again, not from scratch. What with the massive cuts to all parts of the services. If it was touch and go in 1982, it'd be no go now. However, our current presence in the Falklands is a major help here, and renders attack unlikely. Shame Mrs Thatcher didn't listen all those years back.
I seriously doubt that our forces, however highly trained, could do the same again, not from scratch. What with the massive cuts to all parts of the services. If it was touch and go in 1982, it'd be no go now. However, our current presence in the Falklands is a major help here, and renders attack unlikely. Shame Mrs Thatcher didn't listen all those years back.
Last edited:
Brighton Mod
Its All Too Beautiful
They wouldn't get anywhere near it, early warning, better intelligence and strategic defence, they'd be wasting their time!!!!!!!
- Apr 5, 2014
- 25,900
Very much so. It's that fact that the islands are defended that makes the difference. If the forces weren't there it would be a different story.
Kuipers Supporters Club
Well-known member
Drones = Easy Solution to any threat.
Seagull over Canaryland
Well-known member
You are probably right. The Argies would be daft to make a conventional attack on the Falklands. Apart from the ground and air resources already down there they should also fear that we might have an RN submarine or two lurking in the South Atlantic. I hope we also have a well rehearsed contingency to reinforce the islands should the threat be serious enough.
However given their domestic problems and the potential windfall from oil discoveries the Argies might eventually become desperate enough to mount a discrete attack 'guerrilla' style by a small covert force, and maybe under the cover of a civilian fishing vessel. Yes we have 4 Typhoons and a substantial detachment of ground forces in place but taking out those planes would be sufficient to shift the military balance of power in the South Atlantic, especially if they could secure Mount Pleasant for long enough to make an airborne assault. I fear that we would have a stiff challenge to displace them. The logistics of getting reinforcements down there swiftly won't be easy.
History shows that a small covert force can embarrass a supposedly superior and well embedded opponent. Only last year the Taliban breached a major airbase in Afghanistan and destroyed several US Harriers plus other resources, and caused several, mainly US casualties. The US and UK Govts have seriously downplayed the embarrassing impact caused by such a small force and in an area of the base where allegedly the UK was responsible for security.
Woodchip
It's all about the bikes
Ah, diddums. Now go and do your English homework, idiot.
Replying to an article about the Argentines on going claim to sovereignty I said "Odd when you look at the facts why they feel they have a stronger claim". What is so difficult to understand? Idiot
Last edited: