Originally posted by mkgandhas] and allow the reentry into the Argentine union.

since when was it part of the Argentine union? aka you might want to lay off the vino and look at it soberly since it never was yours, isn't yours and the future aint looking any better

Originally posted by staticarium

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Britain won the last war because it still had the forces and reach of an Empire with U.S. backing under Thatcher with Reagan's full and enthusiastic support. I wonder....with British forces tied up helping to start the next World War far to the north....what forces are left to have a nose to nose fight over the Falklands when Argentina has homefield advantage to the point of being almost laughable??

Sure...nothing was funny last time. The UK HAD a world class military for strength and numbers back then...now they had a sidekick force to help support the United States. No offense guys....but with cuts and lack of new systems to replace old ones...what *CAN* the UK actually field to the Falkland islands this time which will win?

Your grasp on history is abysmal as proven in another thread.

The US in fact refused to offer direct help, and labelled the victory we gained as an impossibility. Norway provided far more assistance to us in that conflict than you ever did, mind you in those days you were too busy funding and importing arms for the IRA to use against innocent people in our cities.

I wouldn't brag about US military strength either, since I am having trouble thinking of a war you have won in the last 30 years without another country backing you up.

Okay, I wasn't trying to be hateful on the United Kingdom as you're so obviously being against my own nation. In fact, I outright said my post on this was coming from a position of ignorance and lack of depth to my knowledge of the military inventory of the United Kingdom's armed forces. So..... If my grasp on the history of a set of Islands far across the planet from anything I care about is weak......it's fair to say I said so, in my own words, well before this reply.

To the extent I seem to recall Ronald Reagan supporting Margaret Thatcher, I sure could be mistaken...after all, I'm going by vague first hand awareness and over 2 decades of analysis and reporting on the events since. Again.... Some rock in the South Atlantic holds all the interest to me as Catalina Island probably holds for someone in London...if they've even heard of the place.

Again though.. I am glad to hear the United Kingdom still retains the power to stomp another nation on the opposite side of the planet. One certainly might have cause to wonder..what with the U.K. being WORSE on over-commitment and over-extension of forces than WE are and I'd call Obama patently insane to even joke about deploying a battle force to the Southern Hemisphere on a totally new fight right now.

Oh well.... We do all see things differently...and my nation's MILITARY hasn't lost a war. That includes the war of 1812 and the Revolutionary War that sent a World Empire back across the Atlantic, licking it's wounds. American POLITICAL leadership and will have lost wars. American MILITARY forces *DO NOT* lose without some real help from the idiots commanding them from Washington offices.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by staticarium

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Britain won the last war because it still had the forces and reach of an Empire with U.S. backing under Thatcher with Reagan's full and enthusiastic support. I wonder....with British forces tied up helping to start the next World War far to the north....what forces are left to have a nose to nose fight over the Falklands when Argentina has homefield advantage to the point of being almost laughable??

Sure...nothing was funny last time. The UK HAD a world class military for strength and numbers back then...now they had a sidekick force to help support the United States. No offense guys....but with cuts and lack of new systems to replace old ones...what *CAN* the UK actually field to the Falkland islands this time which will win?

Your grasp on history is abysmal as proven in another thread.

The US in fact refused to offer direct help, and labelled the victory we gained as an impossibility. Norway provided far more assistance to us in that conflict than you ever did, mind you in those days you were too busy funding and importing arms for the IRA to use against innocent people in our cities.

I wouldn't brag about US military strength either, since I am having trouble thinking of a war you have won in the last 30 years without another country backing you up.

Okay, I wasn't trying to be hateful on the United Kingdom as you're so obviously being against my own nation. In fact, I outright said my post on this was coming from a position of ignorance and lack of depth to my knowledge of the military inventory of the United Kingdom's armed forces. So..... If my grasp on the history of a set of Islands far across the planet from anything I care about is weak......it's fair to say I said so, in my own words, well before this reply.

To the extent I seem to recall Ronald Reagan supporting Margaret Thatcher, I sure could be mistaken...after all, I'm going by vague first hand awareness and over 2 decades of analysis and reporting on the events since. Again.... Some rock in the South Atlantic holds all the interest to me as Catalina Island probably holds for someone in London...if they've even heard of the place.

Again though.. I am glad to hear the United Kingdom still retains the power to stomp another nation on the opposite side of the planet. One certainly might have cause to wonder..what with the U.K. being WORSE on over-commitment and over-extension of forces than WE are and I'd call Obama patently insane to even joke about deploying a battle force to the Southern Hemisphere on a totally new fight right now.

Oh well.... We do all see things differently...and my nation's MILITARY hasn't lost a war. That includes the war of 1812 and the Revolutionary War that sent a World Empire back across the Atlantic, licking it's wounds. American POLITICAL leadership and will have lost wars. American MILITARY forces *DO NOT* lose without

some real help from the idiots commanding them from Washington offices.

You lost the Vietnam war. Plus it was the French who freed you from our mighty empire.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Okay, I wasn't trying to be hateful on the United Kingdom as you're so obviously being against my own nation. In fact, I outright said my post on this was coming from a position of ignorance and lack of depth to my knowledge of the military inventory of the United Kingdom's armed forces. So..... If my grasp on the history of a set of Islands far across the planet from anything I care about is weak......it's fair to say I said so, in my own words, well before this reply.

Why post then? If you don't understand what you are debating, surely you should just not debate that topic?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Again though.. I am glad to hear the United Kingdom still retains the power to stomp another nation on the opposite side of the planet. One certainly might have cause to wonder..what with the U.K. being WORSE on over-commitment and over-extension of forces than WE are and I'd call Obama patently insane to even joke about deploying a battle force to the Southern Hemisphere on a totally new fight right now.

Of course you know all about our military commitments, right? Or are you just making more silly statements based on nothing? Probably the latter.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Oh well.... We do all see things differently...and my nation's MILITARY hasn't lost a war. That includes the war of 1812 and the Revolutionary War that sent a World Empire back across the Atlantic, licking it's wounds. American POLITICAL leadership and will have lost wars. American MILITARY forces *DO NOT* lose without some real help from the idiots commanding them from Washington offices.

Funny that, because most historians would agree that the 1812 War was ended "status quo ante bellum", or "as things were before the war". You attempted to invade Canada, and you were comprehensively defeated, you never succeeded in any of your military goals and your country was occupied by us. Still think you won the war? If you can read, which I highly doubt, try a history book.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon lost the Vietnam war. The U.S. Military lost a few battles...and the NVA, as history shows, were no push overs.....but when our nation could, at any time, have simply occupied and TAKEN North Vietnam right to the Chinese border.....it isn't losing, it's called ceding the war to the enemy by choice.

THAT requires a politician. Militarys don't lose wars by default...they have to be ordered to do that.

Don't you get bored of talking rubbish?

You say "the US Military lost a few battles", what you really mean is you were completely smashed in every single ground conflict you had with the NVA and the only upper hand you had was when you were dropping napalm and agent orange on children.

I mean, I can't figure it out, you had over 1,000,000 troops and the North Vietnamese had half that number, yet you were literally booted out of their country after you failed to defend Saigon. Still you claim you could "at any time, have simply occupied and TAKEN North Vietnam right to the Chinese Border". You really make me laugh.

I feel it is important to remind you that at the same time, we were also engaged in a little Commie smashing of our own in Malaysia. We used 35,000 troops in an area much larger than Vietnam, and we still won.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Thanks for the information... My post really is coming from a lack of knowledge and depth for what the UK still has that can be projected around the world...while engaged in hostilities elsewhere in at least two different places. That tends to answer it. So..as long as Argentina remains alone and other South American nations don't decide to lend a hand, the Falklands are safely British for the duration. That is good to know with some reasoning to explain it.

Let's put things in perspective for you, as you seem to gripe about defence cuts but not actually be aware of our capability.

(We are far more capable now than in 1982, trust me. The defence cuts have been hyped by the media and overblown)

The ENTIRE South American continent could band together, with all their ships, soldiers and aircraft and still not have the muscle to invade and hold the islands. That's not me being a "patriot", but anyone wanting those islands had better have a world class navy, which even combined the SA countries do not have. Their surface ships would be ripped apart by our subs and there would be little they could do.

Now just bear in mind that Argentina has few friends they can truly rely on, so that reduces the amount of allied firepower straight away. Even Brazil is just making a show, but have recently signed several defence agreements with the UK. At best, if they wanted a scrap, the only country that would even think about joining them is Venezuela, but I doubt even they would be bonkers enough as the US would use that as an excuse to remove the fat little idiot running that country.

Argentina was actually in a better position last time to win and they failed. Now their military is in an even worse state.

Originally posted by mkgandhas
Russians,Iranians could do Argentina a favour. Iran could provide some longe range Shahab-3 conventional missiles. and Russia some S-300,Buk-m1's and Tor-m2. plus iglas and kornet ATGM's. A few Brahmos/Yakhonts anti-ship missiles or urans will do.

Wow, a stunning lack of any appreciation for geopolitics, but a rather simple imagination.

Russia would never support them because they have their own territorial issues that they'd probably not want to draw attention to. Same with China. Iran, bah, those missiles would be useless in this type of conflict.

What use would an S-300 system be if they couldn't even get it to the islands? What use woudl anti-ship systems be if they were stuck in Argentina? They do not have the naval capacity to launch an invasion. The mere thought of an Astute in the area would keep their "fleet" (hardly) in port, just like after the Belgrano.

Think about what you're saying first.

Originally posted by mkgandhas
It could help in liberating Falklands from the oppressive British empire and allow the reentry into the Argentine union.

Liberating? Re-entry?

Jesus wept.

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
If USA were not there you would be speaking German or russian and singing praises for Hitler or Leon Trotsky.But sadly you still have that reptile Monarchy in our nation. the germans whooped you in dunkirk in ww2 and you nearly lost ww1.We saved your ungrateful hides.

I wish we had dropped an atomic bomb on the monarchy and London too.

Bwaahahahahaha...Jesus, you're so mental it's funny.

Nearly lost WW1? No we didn't. We had won it by 1917, the German High Command knew it couldn't survive a war of attrittion with the UK and France. The first US combat troops didn't hit the front until the middle of 1918!

WW2, chances are, if there was no US we would still be running it, so we would have the benefit of the resources from 1939, not 1942 when you guys finally decided to help crush an evil bastard, but only after you got attacked.

Dunkirk was hardly an arse whipping, but rather testament to the fighting spirit of the nation. Would you expect me to believe that American civilians would have done the same?

We also did a fine job against both the Italians and Germans in North Africa without the US help.

If course the UK would win if there was another Falklands War. Cabinet papaers have already revealed why. The UK has made it clear that if the Falklands were invaded next time we will not send a fleet. Instead, the UK keeps a nuclear sub off the coast with 8 armed nukes readyto go. If the Argiesinvade next time, we just flatten 8 of their biggest cities.