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.

 

Uk 'vs Argentina (Present Day)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
M6D

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Oh okay..fine, the SBS take out the navy with bayonetts and bubblgum while the SAS jump on their tanks and tear of the hatches with their bear hands before taking out the whole crew with one bullet...
sounds more realistic to me




posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by M6D
Oh okay..fine, the SBS take out the navy with bayonetts and bubblgum while the SAS jump on their tanks and tear of the hatches with their bear hands before taking out the whole crew with one bullet...
sounds more realistic to me


Right let me see!


The SBS played a crucial (but unknown) part in the Falklands war!

And as for the SAS...the SAS carried out several(most of the) operations during the Falklands war, most noticebly the operation that took A WHOLE Argie airfield using a few pounds of explosive and lots of M-16 rounds!

Just accept it...we whooped them...and we'd whoop them again...with or without Bush!



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
Right let me see!


The SBS played a crucial (but unknown) part in the Falklands war!

????
They boarded the argentinian spy ship off the task force, they conducted many raids and recces alongside and without that SAS.


And as for the SAS...the SAS carried out several(most of the) operations during the Falklands war, most noticebly the operation that took A WHOLE Argie airfield using a few pounds of explosive and lots of M-16 rounds!

Yeah and the SBS achieved a world record of being the only SF team to board a ship by air, seize it and scuttle it.
All without a shot being fired.
You'll find that the SBS played a major role its just not puplised as much and the fact they let the SAS take credit for thier actions because they are supposed to be a secret unit.


M6D

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
LOL! im not against britain mate! i was just exaggerating beacuse of a little ol british patriotism! bit of a joke you see...



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Yeah man.. you guys can do anything now!!
You won the Ashes!!! heartiest congratulations..

I personally thought you guys wouldn't be able to pull it off..



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Hi, I just find this thread today, and I want to say something.

I am from Argentina, and I can tell you that the chances of a new conflict are more than remote and not only because our armed forces are not enough equipped.
Although Great Britain (specially England) is the most hated country in Argentina, here the war is considered an act of madness of the military goverment of those days. No democratic president would ever launch an attack on Malvinas (Falklands), we have so many economic and political troubles here, that there is no chance of war... it is ridiculous even to think about it.

Besides, we already won where we like it most...



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
not wishing to start any flames , but

QUOTE : "Although Great Britain (specially England) is the most hated country in Argentina, "

sure it is , thats why prince harry spent part of last winter at an argentine polo ranch


QUOTE : "Besides, we already won where we like it most... "

yup - by cheating - a great advertisment for your country



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
not wishing to start any flames , but

QUOTE : "Although Great Britain (specially England) is the most hated country in Argentina, "

sure it is , thats why prince harry spent part of last winter at an argentine polo ranch


Ah... prince Harry, I remember... every TV show and newspaper made jokes about him when he came...
Besides, I said the people here hates England. I didn't say I do. I don't really care actually...

But what I really don't like is to call us "argies"... In case you don't know, that's insulting here... so please, don't.

OK, all of this is way off-topic, sorry for interrupt...



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Oh.. I didn't know that.. sorry if I offended you..
Actually I started that connotation in this thread at lest very innocently..
didn't know it was already there AND that it was considered derrogatory..
Its just that typing "argentinians" in every post becomes kind of cumbersome..!! :p
so do you argentinians have another shorter designation by which we can call you?



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
< will pledge not to use " argies " ever again if our argentine posters will cease and desist using " malvinas "


call me a petty bastard - but i do find it offensive



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Oh.. I didn't know that.. sorry if I offended you..
Actually I started that connotation in this thread at lest very innocently..
didn't know it was already there AND that it was considered derrogatory..
Its just that typing "argentinians" in every post becomes kind of cumbersome..!! :p
so do you argentinians have another shorter designation by which we can call you?


It's ok, no problem. I'm afraid no, we don't have a shorter word... sorry.



Originally posted by ignorant_ape
< will pledge not to use " argies " ever again if our argentine posters will cease and desist using " malvinas "


call me a petty bastard - but i do find it offensive


Really? can I?


Maluinas and later Malvinas was the name the French gave to the islands, who where their first habitants... so, what's so wrong about calling them that way?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peronemlin
Maluinas and later Malvinas was the name the French gave to the islands, who where their first habitants... so, what's so wrong about calling them that way?


And Tasmania used to be called Van Diemen's Land, Australia was New Holland, New York was New Amsterdam...The French don't like it much if you say Der Elsatz and Strazburg...Belize was called British Honduras...I'm sure I've heard of Formosa and Siam before...and wasn't there a place called Ceylon?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Ceylon is now Sri Lanka

en.wikipedia.org...



The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (ශ්රී ලංකා in Sinhala / இலங்கை in Tamil) (known as Ceylon before 1972) is a tropical island nation off the southeast coast of the Indian subcontinent



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peronemlin
Besides, we already won where we like it most...



We can say that too !




posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Argus

We can say that too !



Did you win that cup?

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Peronemlin]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peronemlin
Did you win that cup?


How could we...we didnt have a fat, sweaty, cheating coke head striker to score for us!


Anyway...can we get back on topic?


Oh...and why cant you be Argie's if we are Brit's?


Mic



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
Ceylon is now Sri Lanka

en.wikipedia.org...



The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (ශ්රී ලංකා in Sinhala / இலங்கை in Tamil) (known as Ceylon before 1972) is a tropical island nation off the southeast coast of the Indian subcontinent




Duh.

Thankyou for missing the point. How about Formosa and Siam?



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
QUOTE :"How about Formosa and Siam?"


FORMOSSA is now tiawan

SIAM is now thialand



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Now more people are missing the point.

Would you like to tell me where Rhodesia is?

How about Zaire?

Or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

USPostal employee to Mr Burns:

"This manual must be out of date. I can't find Prussia, Siam or autogyro."

[edit on 4-10-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Getting back on track...

Thought I post my two sense.

Firstly why did the Argentinians loose in the first place?

1) Air force. The Argentinians had a good air force, heck just look at the damage it did to the British Task force! The trouble was the planes were operating from land based airfields at the extremes of their fuel capacity and due to fuel limitations would inevitably have to fly similar attack routes when setting off to attack the British task force. As a result the British could predict their attack patterns which was to limit their effectiveness. In my opinion, had their planes had better range then the damage would have been a heck of a lot greater as the Argentinian pilots at the time were rather good. Now if they had been based from a carrier as well........
2) Troop quality. The troops that took the Falklands were a mixture of professional and conscript. Conscripts rarely make good soldiers and had a knack for surrendering in droves. In addition to this they were treated very badly by the professionals and had a very low moral.
3) Logistics. Many conscripts were left to starve because the Argentinians logistics were quite frankly very very poor. This had a bad effect on moral. When the British retook port stanley they found huge stock piles of food which had simply never reached the troops. Coupled with the terrible weather on the Falklands, the hardships these conscripts endured hindered their fighting ability.
4) Missles, the French stopped supplying the Argentinians with Exocets. With thier most effective anti ship weapon gone, the Airforce had to rely on less effective weaponry such as plain old iron bombs. As far as infantry weapons go, the british had more infantry missles which were decisive in many confrontations. Appart from this both sides were evenly matched in the area of infantry weapons. Oh yeah, the Sidewinder played a massive part as well in the air to air battles making the harrier very deadly indeed.

Fast forward to the present day. None of these problems have been addressed. The British armed forces have gone from strength to strength and have won numerous conflicts since. Economically, Britain is doing very well. The Argentinians are in dire economic straights and cannot afford another war. Their armed forces have also suffered.

In the first place they had the element of surprise. The British didn't expect an attack but now the Falklands Plan exists so again another factor falls in favour of the British.

Bottom line: The British would win again decisivly. In my opinion, they would completely neutralise the Argintinains with minimal casualties.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join