Argentina 'will control Falklands within 20 years'

Scroll to see replies

122025278

Original post by Studentus-anonymous

Not to mention our trident subs also carry torpedoes, so you know, goodbye Argentine navy (or what passes for one), trident hardly detracts from our ability to defend the Falklands.

All it means is we can glass Buenos Aires as well as sink it's boats. Fun times.

Firstly it is 2013, secondly Brazil is not Argentina and is not at war with the UK.

Please tell me you put more intellectual rigour into your school/college/uni work.

Indeed. Unfortunately since Argentina doesn't understand competent fiscal practice, and is on the verge of being kicked out the IMF because they aren't abiding by the rules, there's little foreseeable danger of Argentina prospering.

it's painful watching a country lose touch with reality and commit political, economic and military suicide by just not acting rationally.

Bye Argentina, you'll make a nice province of Brazil or something perhaps.

You forgot to tell me that neither Taiwan nor South Korea are Argentina too.

Aside from that you offer nothing more than personal opinion.

Reply 101

Good bloke

Original post by 122025278

Aside from that you offer nothing more than personal opinion.

What do you offer that isn't personal opinion?

Reply 102

Friar Chris

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh God sorry, couldn't control myse-

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously Argentina, you're cracking me up.

Reply 103

Psyk

Original post by 122025278

It is a bit silly though. No one lives on Antarctica. The British and the Norwegians were the first to visit 100 years ago. It's like us populating it with a couple of hundred people and then asking them do they want to be British or Pakistani then claiming the whole continent lol. It'd be preposterous!

Preposterous or not, that's how every country or territory was formed if you go back far enough. Argentina itself is actually one of the more recent examples of that, except even more preposterous because people actually did already live there, and the Spanish just came along and claimed the land anyway.

For the record, I think all Antarctic claims are pointless, including the British one. And funny you should use that example because it was actually Argentina that tried to do something like in Antarctica. They flew a pregnant woman to Antarctica so an Argentinian would be born there, and therefore strengthening their claim. Although as far as I care they can go ahead and claim it, as long as they don't start building military bases.

Reply 104

Sir Fox

Would someone please take this gentleman back to his room and hand him his medication ...

Reply 105

Studentus-anonymous

Original post by 122025278

You forgot to tell me that neither Taiwan nor South Korea are Argentina too.

Aside from that you offer nothing more than personal opinion.

Argentina's political, economic and military woes are not opinion, they are fact.

But I care not, great thing about being right is I don't need to care much for what you say if it is out of touch with reality. :smile:

Bye.

Reply 106

122025278

Original post by Studentus-anonymous

Bye.

I thought I was talking about 20-30 years into the future... You can predict that can you? You really should be doing other things if you can!

Bye.

Reply 107

L i b

Original post by RevolutionIsNear!

Britain can't even defeat a bunch of desert nomads in afghanistan (even with the help of NATO) what makes you think can take on Argentina and easily defeat them? Not to mention all the spending cuts and reduction in army personnel.

I'm not sure if you have even the slightest grasp of history, but those "desert nomads" have resisted the occupations of the greatest empires that this world has ever known. Even if I had all the legions of Hell at my disposal, I would shudder slightly at the idea of trying to hold Afghanistan.

But of course, we're talking about two different concepts. In Afghanistan, we're talking about securing, policing and holding a territory - not defeating it in war. That happened a long time ago, and pretty quickly too.

Reply 108

TheFrozenLake.

Yes but these fighter bombers have not got the range nor can they carry as much bombs as strategic bombers. We need something like the B-2..But then again the amount of money spent to develop the B-2 and the cost of it's ridiculous, Cruise missiles have taken over the role of conventional bombers..

So cost wise we should just concentrate on fighter bombers..And since we are cash strapped it's the best thing to do.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 109

Drewski

Original post by TheFrozenLake.

Yes but these fighter bombers have not got the range nor can they carry as much bombs as strategic bombers. We need something like the B-2 or B-1. We had the Avro Vulcan.

We needed the Vulcan last time because we a- wanted to take out the runway at Mount Pleasant, b- had no nearby runway to use ourselves and c- the Harrier GR3s couldn't carry a big enough weapon.

None of those factors will matter in a future scenario as we won't lose MPA, we won't need to stage out of Ascension and even in the very unlikely event of losing such abilities, we can now launch Tomahawks from submarines and achieve better results. Your point is entirely irrelevent.

Reply 110

scorpion95

It is ours, argentina can suck it, push them to make them do something to justify declare war with them and obliterate them, argentina should just get over it, they can't afford it, if they want it back so badly make them clear all of our debt first then they can have it back

Reply 111

ChapelTom

Original post by Miracle Day

Las Malvinas is the Argentine name for the Falkland Islands.

I knew that, I was just being sarcastic. To me there is no such place as the Malvinas, it is the Falkland Islands.

Reply 112

ChapelTom

Ireland was a weird one, the counties that stayed part of the Union were crafted not on a religious basis or geographical basis, but it was all about how much territory the north could control themselves. There were some counties with more Catholics than Protestants that went north and Protestant majority counties which went with the south.

The colonialists in this case are the Argentines and I agree with your post totally. Why can't the government in Argentina get back to sorting out their wretched economy for a change...?

Reply 113

jsmithy11

I think its time for Britain to give the Falklands back to thier original owners and put an end to colonialism once and for all.

Reply 114

Drewski

Original post by jsmithy11

I think its time for Britain to give the Falklands back to thier original owners and put an end to colonialism once and for all.

This ought to be good. And/or stupid.

Go on then, who are they?

Spoiler

Reply 115

jsmithy11

Original post by Drewski

This ought to be good. And/or stupid.

Go on then, who are they?

Spoiler

They are closer to Argentinia though...

Reply 116

Drewski

Original post by jsmithy11

They are closer to Argentinia though...

So?

The Channel Islands are closer to France yet are British.
Greenland is closer to Iceland and Canada yet is Danish.
The Canary Islands are closest to Morocco yet belong to Spain.
Corsica is closer to Italy yet belongs to France.
Shemya lies closer to Russia yet is American.

Proximity has sod all to do with it and is a very stupid argument.

Reply 117

jsmithy11

Original post by Drewski

Didn't Argentina manage to accupy them for a short while in the 80's? Before the colonial Brits came to kick them off their own land and take it for themselves.

Reply 118

Drewski

Original post by jsmithy11

Didn't Argentina manage to accupy them for a short while in the 80's? Before the colonial Brits came to kick them off their own land and take it for themselves.