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.
Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
reply to post by michael1983l
The thing is .. Englands military strenght is and has always been insignificant.
The only people you dare to mess with are 3rd world countries.
Why don't you have a big mouth threatening the russians or Chinese ?
Oh right .. you couldn't even fend off the Germans in WW2 without the help of ten other countries.
Originally posted by Tifozi
Originally posted by ThorsBrother
That would be like Romania joining in with Norway for possession of Shetland. Irrelevant and at best a futile gesture.
I still maintain this is just South American politicians trying to make themselves look like they are doing something instead of sorting their own economic mess out. Give the population a distraction, "Hey, look over there!".
I highly doubt the Venezuelan population would be in agreement if it did come to war, i doubt they want their armed forces eradicated too.
No offence to anyone from the nations mentioned above.edit on 6/2/2012 by ThorsBrother because: Corrections
If that was the case, then why is the UK sending nuclear submarines, carriers and their own prince to the area?
You need 2 to dance the tango.
Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
To kick some Argie arse if need be
Nah i'm joking, we have been over this since page 1
They're replacing/reliving assets currently on duty there, every 6 months ships switch, its routine the only difference is the ship sent to relive the old 70s Type42 destroyers is one of the brand new Type45 destroyers which pretty much grounds any aircraft in the Argentine air force
edit on 7-2-2012 by BRITWARRIOR because: (no reason given)
We do not currently have any operational carriers so that isn't possible.
The Destroyer and Sub are going down there as scheduled Rotation as a deterant that has been present since 82.
As for our Prince, I am not sure what damage he can do from his RESCUE helicopter.
Originally posted by SecretFace
reply to post by ChrisF231
Ahhh but your addressing ATS here! There are people who are anti establishment for the sake of being, rather than for the sake of reason. These people are always against "The Man". Britain, both historically and at present, is part of the "Evil Empire", that evil colonial power that killed and destroyed, curse them! Curse them all! These people will not listen to reason, they will listen to Rage Against the Machine and then side with whichever side stands against Britain, could even be the Devil himself. They don't care what the people living on the Falklands want. How many who have posted have even mentioned about what those people want? None! They don't care! It says a lot about them and tells me that I'm glad people like them are not in power, I'd rather have the Devil I know what expect in the driving seat than these mad men!edit on 7-2-2012 by SecretFace because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Tifozi
So, after considering that this movements are expensive and don't really pay back that much, why is the UK sending those ships there?
In 1594, they were visited by English commander Richard Hawkins, who, combining his own name with that of Queen Elizabeth I, the "Virgin Queen", gave the islands the name of "Hawkins' Maidenland."
1592 - First confirmed sighting of the Islands by English navigator John Davis of Desire
1594 English navigator Richard Hawkins of Dainty maps the northern coastline and names the Islands 'Hawkins Maydenlande' after himself and Queen Elizabeth
1598 Dutch navigator Sebald van Weerdt of Geloof names the Jason Islands 'The Sebaldines'
Seventeenth Century
1675 London merchant Anthony de la Roche sights South Georgia
1684 British explorers William Dampier, John Cook and Ambrose Cowley of Bachelor's Delight sight the Islands
1690 First landing at Bold Cove, Port Howard by British captain John Strong of Welfare whilst sailing to Chile who names Falkland Sound after Lord Falkland, Treasurer to the Navy;
Captain Strong discovers a large fox-like animal which is named the warrah
1696 British navigator William Dampier returns and circumnavigates the Islands
Originally posted by Soshh
Originally posted by Tifozi
So, after considering that this movements are expensive and don't really pay back that much, why is the UK sending those ships there?
Without having to consider the fact that we are currently drilling for oil there, it is a British territory populated by British citizens and this makes it more than worth the 0.5% of our defence budget allocated to protect it.
edit on 7/2/12 by Soshh because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by gabrielxxx
You do realise that wikipedia can be written by anyone right?
Originally posted by Tifozi
Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
To kick some Argie arse if need be
Nah i'm joking, we have been over this since page 1
They're replacing/reliving assets currently on duty there, every 6 months ships switch, its routine the only difference is the ship sent to relive the old 70s Type42 destroyers is one of the brand new Type45 destroyers which pretty much grounds any aircraft in the Argentine air force
edit on 7-2-2012 by BRITWARRIOR because: (no reason given)
Yes, I know that is routine.
But the thing is, the UK isn't all that healthy at the moment, nor wealthy. You guys are experiencing one of the roughest moments in your history, and the only reason people seem unable to notice it, is because you endured so much crap in the past (ww2 bombings).
A country with an unemployment rate as high as the UK's, with a near future so fragile, can't really afford to be playing around the world with their ships and troops. If you consider the distance from homeland, Argentina is a "bit" of a stretch, even without considering logistics. Even the "all-mighty" US is retreating at the moment from that attitude.
So, after considering that this movements are expensive and don't really pay back that much, why is the UK sending those ships there?
They wouldn't be there unless there was a purpose. Wether that purpose has turned into a routine or not.
Thanks for the pleasant reply by the way, nice change of air from members in these types of discussions.
So, after considering that this movements are expensive and don't really pay back that much, why is the UK sending those ships there?