[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
No it doesn't. Geographical positioning is irrelevant. If it was relevant the Channel Islands would be French. The opinions and choice of the people that live there is most important, above everything else and since they want to remain part of Britain that pretty much settles it.
And if the Argies don't like it, tough luck

I should have put quotation marks around that. Galloway's point was that proximity was more important than self-determination, which is nonsense. David Mitchell jumped on him for that, and when Galloway began spouting out about colonial guilt, Hugo Rifkind jumped with the fact that the Argentines are as much a colonial power as the British.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
I should have put quotation marks around that. Galloway's point was that proximity was more important than self-determination, which is nonsense. David Mitchell jumped on him for that, and when Galloway began spouting out about colonial guilt, Hugo Rifkind jumped with the fact that the Argentines are as much a colonial power as the British.

Ah ok. Yeah I'm just watching it now. I'm really not surprised that George Galloway is in favour of giving the islands to the Argies, it's typical of him. But he is, of course, wrong.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Ah ok. Yeah I'm just watching it now. I'm really not surprised that George Galloway is in favour of giving the islands to the Argies, it's typical of him. But he is, of course, wrong.

It was strongly reminiscent of his support of the Hussein government of Iraq... The man is an absolute buffoon.

[navarre]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Ah ok. Yeah I'm just watching it now. I'm really not surprised that George Galloway is in favour of giving the islands to the Argies, it's typical of him. But he is, of course, wrong.

Galloway is a scumbag. He'd support anyone who was against Britain, regardless of truth. Dunno whether he does it because he's a (failed) media whore or whether he is literally that stupid.

Anyone (ie Galloway) who can't hold onto their parliamentary seat in a heavily Muslim area when their main policy is whining about Israel is a complete failure, and an oxygen thief. He'd be better off in a career that suited his skill set, ie cleaning public toilets.

[Nugget McChicken]

(Original post by navarre)
He'd be better off in a career that suited his skill set, ie cleaning public toilets.

I doubt that. The man would add to the **** rather than remove it.

[A Mysterious Lord]

(Original post by Nugget McChicken)
I doubt that. The man would add to the **** rather than remove it.

No he'd defend the **** from the aggression of the toilet brush.

[Snagprophet]

(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
No he'd defend the **** from the aggression of the toilet brush.

No actually he's spread the **** around onto other people and condemning them for removing it.

[gagaslilmonsteruk]

I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but on all UK news websites I've been on, I've not seen anything about the tragic train crash which killed 49 and injured 550 in Argentina today. Is this for propaganda reasons, due to the current poor relations between our two countries? I only found this out through the Russia Today news website. www.rt.com

[LouReed]

(Original post by gagaslilmonsteruk)
I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but on all UK news websites I've been on, I've not seen anything about the tragic train crash which killed 49 and injured 550 in Argentina today. Is this for propaganda reasons, due to the current poor relations between our two countries? I only found this out through the Russia Today news website. www.rt.com

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17129858

I'd like to think/hope that the BBC (at least) wouldn't ignore something like that just for political point scoring.

[Psyk]

(Original post by gagaslilmonsteruk)
I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but on all UK news websites I've been on, I've not seen anything about the tragic train crash which killed 49 and injured 550 in Argentina today. Is this for propaganda reasons, due to the current poor relations between our two countries? I only found this out through the Russia Today news website. www.rt.com

It's on BBC news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17129858

As of 11pm, it's on the front page of the Times website:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

Mail online (found on the front page, admittedly buried somewhere in the middle):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-station.html

Telegraph, also linked to on front page:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...erailment.html

Guardian, again from front page:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ed-train-crash

Did you actually look?

[bulgy]

All those that are of the belief that the typhoon is such an invincible superweapon, think again.
The typhoon has a kill:death ratio of 9:1, and since the argentines have 34 of these badboys to our 4 typhoons, I make that quite a close fight.

[amime]

(Original post by bulgy)
All those that are of the belief that the typhoon is such an invincible superweapon, think again.
The typhoon has a kill:death ratio of 9:1, and since the argentines have 34 of these badboys to our 4 typhoons, I make that quite a close fight.

Let's just presume for a second here that there is a war about to start. It would be a severely bad move for any tactition to use their entire air force on one battle. Not to mention that the 9:1 is probably a ratio that was found using much more advanced air craft that what the argies use.

But these points are pretty irrelavent when the uk has arguably the best air defence in the world right now in the navys type 45 destroyers. It is apparently able to track and hit a tennis ball travelling 3 times above the speed of sound. Not too shabby ey.

[Student2806]

(Original post by bulgy)
All those that are of the belief that the typhoon is such an invincible superweapon, think again.
The typhoon has a kill:death ratio of 9:1, and since the argentines have 34 of these badboys to our 4 typhoons, I make that quite a close fight.

I don't think Argentina would send its entire air force in one go. And if they did, HMS Dauntless' PAAMS is so advanced it could probably take out most of them alone without the Typhoons anyway.

[@Sam]

I think we have been over this several times before, in pure numbers yes Argentina could easily beat the Typhoons at RAF Mount Pleasant and HMS Dauntless, which is not at all the world’s best air defence vessel by any proximity, however the likelihood of them conducting such an audacious attack, or an attack all together, is next to none and thus Britain continues to trump them. Any attack would most likely involve their naval fighters (A-4s) which would be relatively easy bait for the Typhoons and if necessary the Dauntless or the two remaining Rapiers that defend Mount Pleasant.

In regards to the air defence comment Britain is vastly, vastly, under equipped in this area we have very few remaining Rapier guns and they are next to useless in the modern day with the likelihood that their FLAADS replacements will be even fewer in number. The Type 45 is not the world’s best air defence warship, at the moment, it could very well achieve that status for its size as there are very few comparable vessels although the fact that it is brand new means half of its toys do not work yet or have not even been equipped.

[Aj12]

(Original post by @Sam)
I think we have been over this several times before, in pure numbers yes Argentina could easily beat the Typhoons at RAF Mount Pleasant and HMS Dauntless, which is not at all the world’s best air defence vessel by any proximity, however the likelihood of them conducting such an audacious attack, or an attack all together, is next to none and thus Britain continues to trump them. Any attack would most likely involve their naval fighters (A-4s) which would be relatively easy bait for the Typhoons and if necessary the Dauntless or the two remaining Rapiers that defend Mount Pleasant.

In regards to the air defence comment Britain is vastly, vastly, under equipped in this area we have very few remaining Rapier guns and they are next to useless in the modern day with the likelihood that their FLAADS replacements will be even fewer in number. The Type 45 is not the world’s best air defence warship, at the moment, it could very well achieve that status for its size as there are very few comparable vessels although the fact that it is brand new means half of its toys do not work yet or have not even been equipped.

I know you have said this a few times and I agree with you however if we are deploying this ship to the falklands for it to work as a viable deterrent I imagine its going to be very well equipped with weapons.

[@Sam]

(Original post by Aj12)
I know you have said this a few times and I agree with you however if we are deploying this ship to the falklands for it to work as a viable deterrent I imagine its going to be very well equipped with weapons.

Its as well equipped as it can be at this stage of its development, ideally it would have the anti-ship missiles allowing the Lynx to be replaced with the much more capable Merlin (The Lynx has a limited anti-ship ability and is thus used as an alternative to the Harpoons that will be fitted at a later date), but obviously it is a new ship and its air defence technology is double crewed (additional technicians, software engineers etc) with the anticipation that something will probably break as it engages in exercises (and hopefully not combat) as is usual with any new piece of technology. The real issue that I find is that a lot of people look at this as a brand new ship assuming that it must be instantly ready for war when in reality it is probably a good year or two off that assuming that the Navy is given the funding to equip them to such a level (In reality this may never happen and if it does will be under the 2015 Defence Review). HMS Daring is probably in a slightly better situation with a more experienced crew now and the air defence systems are more tested, although it has still yet to receive all of its full load out it did get the CIWS assets for its recent deployment (The Dauntless still lacks these and would thus be exposed to the Argentine Navy) which is a plus and is probably why it was chosen for the more dangerous, or likely to be dangerous, mission within the Persian Gulf.

Obviously there has likely been some political decisions in regards to deploying these vessels in such a manner and I would reasonably assume that the Navy was, from a tactical perspective, more keen to deploy another Type 23 down south, although they probably supported the cabinet's suggestion when it came in for propaganda purposes. In my view the Dauntless would have been better going to sea a few months later with the Anglo-French battle group to gain experience in its primary role (Defending carriers) there they would also have the support of the French Navy who have the same basic air warfare system on their Horizon class destroyers, assuming that Argentina does not pull anything off it should be a good deployment for the ship though and will demonstrate its capacity to operate in the extremities of the globe.

[WarriorInAWig]

There is one British settlement that the Argentines' haven't minded for ages, since 1865, to be precise.

I give to you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Wladfa .

If the Argentines really wanted to say no to the British, then they'd have to do away with these remnants of Welsh culture too! :P
Not sure where to go with this, but feel free to discuss.

[thunder_chunky]

A Welsh Argie, now there's a good rugby team.

[Barden]

Not the same thing. All those Welsh-descended people consider themselves Argentinian... and colonised the area as Argentinians... not in the name of the UK.

[GR3YFOXXX]

The British are just as hypocritical, have you ever heard of the Chagos Islands? If not, John Pilger wrote an excellent essay on the topic. The British occuption of the Malvinas/ Falklands is only as legitimate as any similar Argentine claims.