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.

 

Argentina to invade Falklands

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   


I doubt she meant she would actually order the use of a nuclear weapon against Buenos Aires, though. It was probably just to get Mitterand to give her the codes to disable the Exocet missiles quickly so that British lives could be saved.


I quite believe that she Thatcher woud have ordered, a nuke to be landed right on top off beno aries if Argentina had attacked any British City, not that they could anyways, canthey afford the fuel


Wonder if the french would back argentina this time or would they back the UK, theres a thought.....




posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   
well as far i'm concerned, we'll take you all on if thats the case!

We will defend anything thats ours.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Wonder if the french would back argentina this time or would they back the UK, theres a thought.....


back the UK,
France has the same problems we do regarding sovereignty



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
To be honest chaps, i dont really think anything will come of this.

But if it does, i suppose its good practise incase the Germans kick off again



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Who Dares Wins
 


oh the germans? We can beat them with one hand tied behind our backs



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Files
 
Argentina has no soviet military hardware of any type. Neither tanks nor assault rifles or anything. It's all NATO/american. And yes, everything is old, outdated and not even near in the quantities required for another invasion and subsequent war.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Files
 
Argentina has no soviet military hardware of any type. Neither tanks nor assault rifles or anything. It's all NATO/american. And yes, everything is old, outdated and not even near in the quantities required for another invasion and subsequent war.



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by carslake
 


What people misses here is that Argentina claims the islands because they line in the Argentinean Marine Platform, what I call the Argntinean Sea. That is the reason the MALVINAS ARE AND WILL ALWYS BE ARGENTINEAN SOIL! This is not a patriotic statement but a geological proof that the islands pertain to us. I don't care a bit about the islanders there, if it were for me I would send them all back to Britain, we don't need them there. I know for sure that when the empire falls the Islands will be ours again! There is no empire that has failed to fall, and yours as well as the U.S. will be soon stepped on by us.


[edit on 5-8-2008 by falucho05]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by falucho05
 


Argentina has neither the moral or historic right to The Falklands.
The Falklands will remain a British Dependancy as long as the Islanders themselves wish to.
There are still to many vet's from the last conflict here in the UK and it would be political suicide for any party to even consider handing the islands back.
And probably more importantly, there is untold mineral wealth in the area which the UK will hold the rights for.

Even though our Armed Forces have disgracefully been run down we are still far too strong for Argentina.

All of this has been stated before.
Re-read this thread, put aside your patriotism for a while and seriously consider what the probable outcome of any conflict would be; another humiliating defeat for Argentina and far too many deaths, on both sides.

I don't know how old you are but can you remember all the dead bodies returning to Argentina in 1982?
Can you remember the humiliating pictures of thousands of Argentinian soldiers surrendering to a small handful of British soldiers?

I suspect that if Argentina tries again then the results would be far worse.

Put your own house in order first.



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
You really think so? Are they really that dumb? Didn't they get their butts kicked bad enough last time?


I wouldn't call it a butt kicking. The British lost a ship or two to exocet missiles. They also took a fair amount of casualties, under 100, but still, for such a short conflict that is a high number. Had the United States been in Britain's position during that conflict, I would be surprised if the US wouldve lost more than 10 casualties, and not even lose a single ship, maybe take damage to one.

So while the British did defeat them, it wasn't a trashing, and that was quite some tme ago, 20 years at least? I think Argentina would do MUCH better now.. and Britain would do worse simply because of the state of the world today. Too many British ships, aircraft, and personnel are deployed throughout the world, mainly Western and Eastern Asia, to help fight "Terrorism".

Add to this that the South American nations are closer together in ties, assistance, aid, and support than EVER before.. almost a union, in fact.



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by runetang
 


Really?
Now I don't want this to turn into any kind of mud-slinging match but the US suffered 19 fatalities when they invaded Genada!
Do you really think they could have sailed thousands of miles, faced sophisticated western weaponry, fought in such inhospitable conditions and fought the armed forces of Argentina, (substantially larger than Grenada!) and suffered half the casualties they did in Grenada?
Somehow I doubt it?

The UK has a military airstrip and base in The Falklands now; Argentinian forces wouldn't even be able to land on the Islands now let alone over-run them.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
While I am no fan of Mr. Blair one must remember that a previous labour government under then defence secretery David Owen, saw off an earlier Argentine threat without a shot being fired, by deploying submarines and the old Ark Royal carrier (45.000 tonnes).
It was the Thatcher government that were asleep on the job when the Argentines invaded, having pulled out the survelliance ship thus leaving the door open and then retaliating with a fleet comprising smaller carriers.
Is it not the current labour government that is commisioning two proper big carriers with assocaited aircraft!
There are far too many myths concerning Thatcher and her assumed supremacy in politics. The Falkland Islands being one of them.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
The Falkland Islands were discovered and settled by the British and were hitherto empty lands. They are 400 miles from Argentina and therefore not without question, Argentine territory. Under international law it is the islanders in these circumstances who have the right to choose their parent country, and they chose to remain with Britain democraticaly, against the then non democratic junta of Argentina.
Argentina has no more claim over those islands than does Britain over the Phoroa Isles (under Denmark but off the Scottish coast) or Morroco over the Canary Isles.
This time Britain is prepared and has a significant force ready and in place. Also we have one of the best submarine fleets in the world with more under construction. Remember the Belgrano!



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
No fear here guys.

I have just had a look at what Argentina has left of a fleet. We have more ships in HM Portsmouth right this minute than the whole of the Argentinian Navy combined.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Some of you guys don't know what your talking about and need to get your facts straight,before posting anything.
1st. we were asked for help by the governor of the islands,HMS Endurance was dispatched to Port Stanley and dropped off her marine detachment of ten men.A task force was sent from the UK,which included MN ships Atlantic conveyor,QE2 and canberra,the latter 2 doubled as troop/hospital ships.Also troops were carried on board RFA ships and royal navy ships.

Next alot of the islanders are decendents of British whalers,back when Britain had a whaling fleet.There is a lot of old whaling ships beached around the islands.Also HMS Warrior Britains 1st steam/sail iron clad warship was found in port stanley and is now fully restored and sitting just out side of Naval base gates at Portsmouth.

Taking of the islands from spain,the reason for this was we were at war with spain at the time,and the islands were a threat to our shipping lanes.
During WW2 if it hadn't been for the ships stationed there the Graph Spey would have escaped.Instead of being forced into MontiVideo for repairs.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by falucho05
 


" I know for sure that when the empire falls the Islands will be ours again! There is no empire that has failed to fall, and yours as well as the U.S. will be soon stepped on by us. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh dear! Stop it I can hardly type these words with the tears rolling down my cheeks...
Argentina stepping on the U.S never mind the U.K! What are you talking about?
Here's something for you to think about. It's GREAT Britain for a reason as you'll find out if you're ever foolish enough to try and take the Falklands by force. Whitehall may decide that Argentina would always be a threat to those British islanders living on the Falklands and may therefore decide that the only way to end that threat would be an invasion of Argentina! Ordinary Argentinians would benefit. Instead of corned beef for tea you could have some British roast beef. . !



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by norsescotty
The Falkland Islands were discovered and settled by the British and were hitherto empty lands. They are 400 miles from Argentina and therefore not without question, Argentine territory.


How could they be "Argentine Territory" if:

A) They are 400 Miles from Argentina. The maximum for an exclusive economic zone is 300 Miles. Even then, an EEZ is no guarantee of soveriegnty.

B) They were discovered and settled before Argentina even existed.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 


It's called Great Britain because the original Union was between England, Scotland and Wales, on the greater of the British Isles. It is not because we are full of ourselves, but rather because we inhabit the larger of the islands.

Hence why our country is known as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 


It's called Great Britain because the original Union was between England, Scotland and Wales, on the greater of the British Isles. It is not because we are full of ourselves, but rather because we inhabit the larger of the islands.

Hence why our country is known as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


Oh Dear! hark at you! It's called Great Britain because we're all great. End of story.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 


Feel free to continue in ignorance, if that is your wish. I tried to deny it, as the saying goes.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join