Argentina to invade Falklands

so the obvious questions ?

1 - why the fook are you carping on about it

2 - why do you want them back

3 - why are you spitting your dummy out

PS - last but not least , thanks for the graphic demonstration that your countryman was a cheating bastard

LOL, what more needs said, you beat me to it ape...

Anyway back on topic, i dont think the argies will invade, as:
Keep smiling Kolmo, i know i am

[edit on 7/2/07 by C ROBERTSON]

I obviously know far more than you. Care to back up your claims with some "facts"? Because I can, whereas I clearly showed you to be talking out of something that is not your mouth.

As for vocab, I think you'll find that whilst it is colourful, I have more than an excellent grasp of my own language.



So, if the UK fought against blatant Argie agression, WE would look bad? Doubt it, chum.

US involvement would be minimal at best, probably more along the lines of economic sanctions whilst the RM and Para's give you another dose of arse kicking. We don't need (or even want) US troops to help, but I am sure the Americans would be more than happy to give you a slap in other way's, after all, they like us, whereas you S. Americans are not on their Christmas card list lately....



Indeed, Argentina's woeful economy would crumble if you attacked the UK. Sanctions galore, me thinks.



Well, excuse me, but as stated, the Harrier was not primarily a fighter. Even though the FAA Harriers were used for Fleet air defence, against the supersonic and excellent Mirage's and Super Ententards you would have thought you would get at least one of them...

But, due to limited loiter time as you flew them from the mainland with no A2A refueling capability and sub-standard training, you had your arses handed to you.

Granted, we lost Harriers to ground fire, but not even one was taken out by your jets, which were specifically designed for A2A combat, whereas the Harrier wasn't.



Where has the complaint button got too? This is quite clearly a breach of T&C's and deserves a warn. Any mod's hanging around?

For your info, my IQ is in the low 130's, I cannot stand baked beans unless they are of the Sweet Chilli Variety made by Heinz, I finished Primary school 13 years ago and I am not a chav. I don't even own a baseball cap or a pair of tracksuit bottom's, much less talk like a nasally congested wannabe black man.

Kolmo, if you want to fight then lets take a squadron of your jets and pit them againest one of ours and then we'll see whos boss!


Long Live England

Ling Live the Falkand Islands

Down With Argintina

Ill tell you what brought down 30 aircraft and it wasnt just harriers.

It was also a bunch hard arse 22 SAS blokes with Stinger SAMS who funnily enough whilst checking out their new equipment on delivery
decided to have a look through the sights. Funnily enough just as this fella done this an"ARGIE" aircraft came over the horizon and he pulled the trigger and "BAM" 1 down 29 to go.

Having spent 2 tours in the falkland islands i must say its one of the most beautiful places on this planet and you can bet you butt there is no way we would give it up.

And then all fell silent in the Kolmo camp... I'd be very suprised if they did invade but like i said -



[edit on 8/2/07 by C ROBERTSON]

Well in my point of view, back in 82 the UK was good friend of the USA.
The UK can deal with Argentina crap easily without our help.

But now, the UK is the USA best friend in a way. So if UK get any crap from anyone; The USA will bomb the crap out of them, cause thats what we love to do. If UK wants it or not.

Could it happen again? Possibly. Remember, when Galtieri sent his troops over back in 1982, the Argentine economy was in a very bad condition - the idea of invading the Falklands would be to provide some sort of boost of morale to the population to give his military junta more time to consolidate their power base. Inflation and unemployment was sky-rocketing and there was very little that the military junta could do about it, so they had to somehow unite the populace or face being overthrown.

So we come to 2007... the Argentine economy is still not in great shape (but it's on the mend... a war would probably send the economy back into a slump since war isn't good for economic growth). It may be another uniting factor. I'd be surprised if Argentina decides to use military force to take the islands - the world is angry enough at the US for invading Iraq, so how would they react to an invasion of a little island whose population wish to remain British and is governed by a democratic nation? The sanctions alone would lead to economic meltdown for Argentina. And what's more, the Argentine government know this. I think 80% of Argentina in a recent poll said they disagreed with the Iraq war... so it'd be a bit hypocritical for that same 80% to support an invasion of the Falklands (no UN mandate, no excuse that it's a 'defensive war' since the UK wasn't attacking Argentina beforehand).

It could happen again, but it's unlikely at the moment. If Argentina is so determined to get them back I think they'll have learnt the lessons of 1982 and decide that it isn't worth the expense (which, let's face it, they can't afford... the state of the economy supporting a war coupled with UN sanctions would cause an economic meltdown, back to the precarious days of the late 1990s/early 2000s or worse), embarrassment (at both the probable defeat and the fact that Argentina started an illegal war of its own and disregarded the UN whilst simultaneously opposing the Iraq conflict) and loss of life to try to invade them again and will simply stick to the negotiating table. Neither side has anything to gain from a war, least of all Argentina.

I'm also interested in Kolmo's response. Why do you feel that Argentina should attempt to take the islands by military means? Is it worth the loss of life on both sides? Why is retaking the Falklands more important than strengthening democracy in Argentina to prevent the rule of military dictators and continuing the build-up of the Argentine economy? You know, things that actually benefit the vast majority of people rather than sending young men off to die for a flag-waving opportunity then some nasty, biting sanctions and another probable defeat?

I also think US involvement would be more likely and forthcoming this time. Relations between the US and Argentina have dropped since the 1980s and UK-US relations are possibly at their highest point since World War II. Besides which, I think Bush is grateful for British support after the atrocities of 9/11 and of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns... and a great deal of Americans are thankful too. The US has made noises towards China over the independence of Taiwan and Middle Eastern nations over the security of Israel... America is probably quite happy to make noises towards Argentina and, if necessary, give Britain support should a second conflict break out.

I sincerely hope it doesn't, because it would be such a pointless waste of life on both sides. But if it does, then I would support British troops all the way in the face of unprovoked and unnecessary aggression.

USA with UK Military vs. Argentina Military,

Argentina doesnt even have a chance to do anything if they invade.
USA and UK has latest military weaponry, B-2 Bomber, Abrams M1A2 and Challenger 2 MBT tanks.
Argentina has crap made before 1995 like AK-47's and old soviet tanks.

Just example,

The First Gulf War!
Saddam's troops invaded and later got totally destroyed.
Totally destroyed by who? USA and UK of course!

BOCA JUNIORS!!!!!!!!!!!!! back on topic. Is their army even capable of such an invasion? How many ships does the Royal Navy have stationed there?. (im sure the "there and theirs are wrong,lol")

Have already covered the Brit military presense



From what i've read on the subject - they took the island partly by surprise, landing hercs at port stanley airport as there was minimal resistance - if they tried doing that now they would get blow out of the sky by the rapiers not to mention having to get past the tornados first...

[edit on 10/2/07 by C ROBERTSON]

[edit on 10/2/07 by C ROBERTSON]

Just to stir things up a little more...

The British keep going on about giving the "Argies" a damn good thrashing, tally-ho and all that. Is this the same thrashing they're giving out in Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Or the infamous Troubles in Northern Ireland (Yeah they "beat" the IRA).

It would be stupid if Argentina attempted to take the Falklands, and yes the British Army would take the islands, but they wouldn't last a guerilla(sic?) war. I don't think their military would stretch that far for a long war. Doubt they are happy with what Bush has dragged them into in the Middle East.

sip

Oh no my friend the British win counter-insurgency wars read the history please.

britains-smallwars.com...

.

[edit on 10-2-2007 by carslake]

Yes of course I know that. But I am talking about the current theatre of war. Please don't tell me that they are winning in the Middle East.

They do not want to get dragged into another Northern Ireland scenario but it's happening right now.

sip

If theres any concensus among the Brits about Iraq its that we should pull out in good order as soon as possible.

Theres nothing to be gained by staying, however the US needs the lines of communication with Kuwait to remain open, thats why we aren't out yet IMO.

.

The Falklands are probably one of the worst places on earth to be a guerilla fighter. The weather is terrible and extremely cold in winter, meaning you'd need some permanent shelters to hide in. You'd probably die of exposure otherwise and - let's face it - a tent isn't too hard to spot from a plane or a helicopter. Or even satellites. It's also hard to blend in with the locals since the population is relatively small - they'd probably realise that they'd never seen you before if you turned up on their doorstep asking for somewhere to sleep.

Secondly, you have the size of the Falklands - they're called the Falkland Islands (plural) for a reason - there's two main islands plus lots of smaller ones. Which one do the guerillas stay on? Can they travel without being spotted? How can they hide for long due to the small size of the islands?

Thirdly, we then come to the fact that the Falklands are islands. Nowhere to run, and resupplying the guerillas would be extremely difficult. The RAF could shoot down transport planes, the Royal Navy could sink transport vessels and the local populace wouldn't help you since your army had just been kicked out again. And again, the weather makes it difficult to resupply.

I'm sure there are other factors, but I think the Falklands are one of the few places that make it hard to sustain a guerilla war.

And as I said before, Argentina has nothing really to gain by trying to retake the islands via force, besides probably alienation from much of the international community (I wonder how other South American leaders such as Chavez would react to Argentine 'imperialism'? Knowing him, he'd probably support it... the hypocrite ) and some nasty sanctions which will cripple its economy again. Galtieri was short sighted enough not to realise the mistake he made the first time. I hope the Argentine government doesn't make the same mistake again.

Yup I agree but the war doesn't have to stay in the Falklands. It's easy to target mainland Britain as the recent Tube Bombings have shown. A more effective method would be hitting Britain itself.

sip

just try it

anyone touches whats ours and we'll give what for ....what not.

I wouldn't say it's easy... there hasn't been another successful attack since the bombings you refer to, and there have been a number of people detained for planning terrorist attacks. The UK security services and police have significantly changed their tactics. Remember, security forces have to be successful every time to prevent a terrorist attack - the terrorists only have to get lucky once. It's a major uphill struggle, and it seems that not even the United States is safe (9/11) and is still under threat (you may recall the alleged plot last August to blow up planes flying from Britain to America above US cities).

I'd also suggest that a nation itself wouldn't sponsor an attack on the United Kingdom if there was any chance it could be discovered and traced back (or any other nation capable of retaliating). And by recent events, we can see that the British authorities have the ability and the resolve to trace a criminal to other nations (see the Litvinenko murder). Can you imagine the consequences if it was discovered that Argentina had sent terrorists to bomb the UK? It's a direct act of war and if it happened on UK soil, NATO would be obliged to help... which could lead to a possible invasion of Argentina itself. Plus I suspect other nations around the world that are close to Britain, such as Australia, would be willing to get involved. Not a smart move.

[edit on 10/2/07 by Ste2652]

So that carajo we are going to be spent, the Argentineans in invading the Falklands Islands? After a little earth, he watches if we are going away to make problem. Jodanse English you and Yankis arrives with wars and other plagues there that we down are here well… I do not look for fight with anybody in the forum but, already we are great and we must be respected with the others (They remember, that in this forum much people of other nationalities are). So the next time they think before postear a message. I if outside the moderator of this cerraria section east thread without greater explanations…

Saludos a todos desde Argentina.

Snake Skywalker.

Mod Edit: Translated To English

[edit on 2/11/07 by FredT]