It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia Liken Falklands Ilsands To Crimea

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Exactly - and they are paying for it with Corned beef!



Seriously.... No threat, at all...




posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

True. I also would prefeer we dont sink them for yall. Got to give yall some practice
.

We should send yall soem f-18s. Put soem merlin engines in them too?



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
But I think the USA should loan us a F-18 or F-22 Squadron or two until you deliver our F-35's as you kinda left us hanging there


And where would they fly from, Crazey? the F-22 is simply not carrier capable and the F-18 can't take off from our new carriers as we have no catapults to launch them.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
41 ships so 80-120 harpoons will do the trick to sink them all. Then if they try to invade sink the transposrts at speed with Allied naval help from the US navy.if asked by the brits to help.


And of those 41 "ships", only half a dozen are actually Frigates or larger. Even then, they are so poorly maintained that they sink at dock!



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: crazyewok
But I think the USA should loan us a F-18 or F-22 Squadron or two until you deliver our F-35's as you kinda left us hanging there


And where would they fly from, Crazey? the F-22 is simply not carrier capable and the F-18 can't take off from our new carriers as we have no catapults to launch them.



That wonderfull RAF base we built on the Islands.

Anyway if the yanks leant us F18 then they have there own aircraft carries,


Not that we would need them seeing as the Argentinian airforce is rusting 70's crap.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: yuppa
41 ships so 80-120 harpoons will do the trick to sink them all. Then if they try to invade sink the transposrts at speed with Allied naval help from the US navy.if asked by the brits to help.


And of those 41 "ships", only half a dozen are actually Frigates or larger. Even then, they are so poorly maintained that they sink at dock!


I know. I almost think the cubans could beat them. LOL



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
That wonderfull RAF base we built on the Islands.


The one we already have the far more capable Typhoons based from?


originally posted by: crazyewok
Anyway if the yanks leant us F18 then they have there own aircraft carries,


Is it a buy 10, get a free carrier deal then? Usually, the Yanks don't give away Carriers with purchasers of the F-18!


originally posted by: crazyewok
Not that we would need them seeing as the Argentinian airforce is rusting 70's crap.


Exactly - and these "new" planes are no better and barely have the range or armament to be any sort of threat.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DAZ21

I am just curious how North Korea is going to keep America "busy". I figured the glove would come off if they stepped up.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: crazyewok
That wonderfull RAF base we built on the Islands.


The one we already have the far more capable Typhoons based from?


originally posted by: crazyewok
Anyway if the yanks leant us F18 then they have there own aircraft carries,


Is it a buy 10, get a free carrier deal then? Usually, the Yanks don't give away Carriers with purchasers of the F-18!


originally posted by: crazyewok
Not that we would need them seeing as the Argentinian airforce is rusting 70's crap.


Exactly - and these "new" planes are no better and barely have the range or armament to be any sort of threat.



No you misunderstand me.

My meaning was if we got into trouble due to our current lack of F-35 (which I agree is unlikely) they should lend us some airsupport in the form of the USAF and USN steping in to help.

But as I and you have pointed out that would be very unlikely,



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Ah, I see! It depends who is in the White House - Regan did offer support last time but was rebuffed by Maggie as she felt it was important we do it alone, but I suspect Obama will not lift a finger.

I still believe, despite the headlines, that we are more than capable of defending the Falklands with what we have now, much less what we have coming down the pipeline which is just going to blow anything the Argentines have clean away.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: crazyewok

Ah, I see! It depends who is in the White House - Regan did offer support last time but was rebuffed by Maggie as she felt it was important we do it alone, but I suspect Obama will not lift a finger.

I still believe, despite the headlines, that we are more than capable of defending the Falklands with what we have now, much less what we have coming down the pipeline which is just going to blow anything the Argentines have clean away.



I agree with Thatcher (god I feel sick saying that) and would agree with the same again.

We should do it on our own.

And we would likely do it on our own.

But random things can happen in war and if the delay in F35 was a factor then tne USA would owe some help.

But I cant see that happening.
As it stands tadman pretty much has it nailed in that the argies may as well just shoot there piliots themselves and save the fuel.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
a reply to: DAZ21
Russia is right. The Crimeans DID vote for independence from Kiev. They have every right to go their own way after the west showed the way with the forced dismemberment of Serbia and the creation of Kosovo.

To be honest I wouldn't be upset if the Ruskies station their army in Argentina, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm British too, I just think we and the west have pushed against Russia and its sphere of influence (through coloured revolution, Stratfor and NATO) too far


The vote was extremely questionable.

It went down way too fast had no outside oversight etc...

For all the world actually knows it was a complete fraud.

I can't say it was, as I don't have any proof.

But the only proof it was legit is what the Russian gov says.

So I call it 50/50 at best.


But the whole of Ukraine belonged to Moscow, not just Crimea. Lots of Ukranians want out from fighting Russia, but Britain and USA knows what's best for them. We use Ukraine like we used the Germans in the 30's, to weaken the USSR. Like for Germany then, I expect this won't work out well for the Ukranian people, but British and US politicians don't care about the deaths do they?


Moscow only had Ukraine because they invaded it in WW2.

You know like Poland easy Germany etc...

It was not Russia's to take or give.


Russia controlled Ukraine for hundreds of years. Ukraine has always belonged to Russia, just like Scotland belongs to England



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: DAZ21

I am just curious how North Korea is going to keep America "busy". I figured the glove would come off if they stepped up.


I don't know I think it's better to keep the gloves on, North Korea do have Nukes...



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
Russia controlled Ukraine for hundreds of years. Ukraine has always belonged to Russia, just like Scotland belongs to England



Actually, they didn't. For much of it's history, it has been dominated by Lithuania, Poland and Russia - each of them fighting it out for control over several centuries. Crimea istself was only conquered by Russia in 1789, the rest of Ukraine came afterwards. With the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, they fought a war of independence against the Soviet's but ultimately lost, the result being it was again divided between other nations.

And no, Scotland does not "belong to England". In fact, most of the Wars fought in the 14th, 15th and 16th century were as a result of Scottish aggression (as they were friends with France) - England had not attempted to conquer Scotland since the early 14th century. With the Union of the Crowns in 1603 when a Scottish King rose to the English throne. From that point on, there was no real conflict between the two nations and they willingly joined the United Kingdom in 1707.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Yea England will belong to Scotland after the general election anyway. God forbid.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Get real Stu. Scotland in reality belongs to England like Ukraine belongs to Russia. It's been that way for hundreds of years. Ukraine will return to Russia pretty soon. Russia is a very big powerful contry to have as a neighbour.a reply to: stumason



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

No it doesn't, not in the slightest. They have their own set of laws, have their own parliament (soon to be beefed up with even more powers). If anything, England has belonged to Scotland - not the other way around.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: YodaCoda

I genuinely feel the for the ordinary, everyday Argentinians.
Yet again your leaders are guilty of putting personal advancement and gain before the interests of the Argentinian people.

Not only has Kirchner sold you out with the Chevron deal she also turned down a very generous offer from the British government.

Argentina was offered 50% of the mineral rights found in Falklands Islands territorial waters.
The UK were prepared to supply the technology and also offered to build an oil refinery on mainland Argentina.

This would have been a massive boost to the Argentinian economy providing much needed jobs and income.
In addition it would have given Argentina access to the latest industry technology.

And perhaps the biggest plus would have been the development of a close working relationship between Argentina and the UK and also between Argentina and the Islanders themselves.
Who knows where this would have led to in years to come.

It would have been a mutually beneficial venture which could have produced much needed income, improved relationships and vastly reduced the risk of further confrontations between the two countries.

Yet Kirchner turned it down flat - no negotiating, nothing.

I sincerely hope there is no repeat of '82 - that would only result in one inevitable outcome.....and none of us wish for that to happen.

I feel truly saddened for Argentina that there seems to be no realistic alternative to Kirchner than others who are equally hawkish and reactionary.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ufoorbhunter



..... just like Scotland belongs to England


What on earth are you on about?

Did you not notice that little exercise in democracy that took place last August?



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Actually the US, as well as a bunch of other countries, could be obligated to assist. The Falklands are a part of the UK, which is a member of NATO. An attack on one is an attack on all. Simply invoke article 5.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join