Falkland islands protest outside Brit embassy in BA

[SD_Film Artists]

It all seems a bit of a moot discussion. The Falklands are British and we've all shown in other pages.

But... but... but... Las Malvinas!

I can't look at St Malo in the same way again

[Farnhamia]

It all seems a bit of a moot discussion. The Falklands are British and we've all shown in other pages.

But... but... but... Las Malvinas!

Please accept this lovely fruit basket, this wheel of Stilton cheese, this selection of fine British teas, and this (slightly soiled) Order of the Garter. Thank you.

[Cromarty]

But... but... but... Las Malvinas!

Is the name of some fictional islands belonging to Argentina.

Which is fine, except this thread is about the very much not fictional islands named the Falklands.

[Tagmatium]

But... but... but... Las Malvinas!

Please accept this lovely fruit basket, this wheel of Stilton cheese, this selection of fine British teas, and this (slightly soiled) Order of the Garter. Thank you.

I ain't giving these back.

They're mine now!

Mine!

Muaahahahaaa!

I'm British

[SD_Film Artists]

But... but... but... Las Malvinas!

Is the name of some fictional islands belonging to Argentina.

Which is fine, except this thread is about the very much not fictional islands named the Falklands.

I hope I'm not being pedantic but, what's the difference between'Falklands-Malvinas' and 'London-Londres'. Perhaps it's that "Malvinas" doesn't even try to sound like "Falklands".

[Tagmatium]

Is the name of some fictional islands belonging to Argentina.

Which is fine, except this thread is about the very much not fictional islands named the Falklands.

I hope I'm not being pedantic but, what's the difference between'Falklands-Malvinas' and 'London-Londres'. Perhaps it's that "Malvinas" doesn't even try to sound like "Falklands".

It's politically charged now, which is why it's not really the same.

[SD_Film Artists]

I hope I'm not being pedantic but, what's the difference between'Falklands-Malvinas' and 'London-Londres'. Perhaps it's that "Malvinas" doesn't even try to sound like "Falklands".

It's politically charged now, which is why it's not really the same.

Aye that.

[Machtergreifung]

Yes. Because a single engagement requires the exact same numbers of ships and preparations as a full blown war and invasion. Well done sir.

thanks for showing your historical ignorance but actually graf spee's battlegroup spent four months crusing around the south atlantic, fighting several actions before being sunk and they certainly weren't worried about not getting home. thats the germans as well, who didn't have the wide network of ports and coaling stations the royal navy had. so in conclusion: its been done in 1914, its been done in 1944, its been done in 1982 and the Idea that its impossible in 2011 is exactly the same kind of wishful thinking that led argentina to defeat in the falklands war and exactly the same defeatism that nearly kept the british from responding. wrongly. suck a lime.

1. Spee was able to get coal from neutral nations under international law and stocks in the German colonial holdings in the area.
2. Spee had five warships, and three transports hauling coal presumably. Hardly comparable to a fleet needed to recapture any island.


You talk to me of ignorance, but yet seem unable to provide anything other than a wall of text, deviod of punctuation or grammar.

[SD_Film Artists]

thanks for showing your historical ignorance but actually graf spee's battlegroup spent four months crusing around the south atlantic, fighting several actions before being sunk and they certainly weren't worried about not getting home. thats the germans as well, who didn't have the wide network of ports and coaling stations the royal navy had. so in conclusion: its been done in 1914, its been done in 1944, its been done in 1982 and the Idea that its impossible in 2011 is exactly the same kind of wishful thinking that led argentina to defeat in the falklands war and exactly the same defeatism that nearly kept the british from responding. wrongly. suck a lime.

1. Spee was able to get coal from neutral nations under international law and stocks in the German colonial holdings in the area.
2. Spee had five warships, and three transports hauling coal presumably. Hardly comparable to a fleet needed to recapture any island.


You talk to me of ignorance, but yet seem unable to provide anything other than a wall of text, deviod of punctuation or grammar.

Oh, get a room! another thread!

[The UK in Exile]

thanks for showing your historical ignorance but actually graf spee's battlegroup spent four months crusing around the south atlantic, fighting several actions before being sunk and they certainly weren't worried about not getting home. thats the germans as well, who didn't have the wide network of ports and coaling stations the royal navy had. so in conclusion: its been done in 1914, its been done in 1944, its been done in 1982 and the Idea that its impossible in 2011 is exactly the same kind of wishful thinking that led argentina to defeat in the falklands war and exactly the same defeatism that nearly kept the british from responding. wrongly. suck a lime.

1. Spee was able to get coal from neutral nations under international law and stocks in the German colonial holdings in the area.
2. Spee had five warships, and three transports hauling coal presumably. Hardly comparable to a fleet needed to recapture any island.


You talk to me of ignorance, but yet seem unable to provide anything other than a wall of text, deviod of punctuation or grammar.

when you can't argue the facts resort to grammar nazism. and its not devoid of punctuation. its just all in the wrong place.

[Churchilland]

-Sigh, stupid Argentines- The Falklanders are seemingly more British than any other of our Crown Dependencies, I heard some talk on the television and their accent sounded like a mix of the West Country and Cockney. The Falklanders, if they wanted to be Argentine, would've said so by now, but no, they are loyal to Britain and probably will stay loyal in the forseeable future, anyway, Argentina hasn't been an independent nation long enough to have significant claims on the islands, weren't they still a Spanish colony when we claimed the Falklands?

[SD_Film Artists]

-Sigh, stupid Argentines- The Falklanders are seemingly more British than any other of our Crown Dependencies, I heard some talk on the television and their accent sounded like a mix of the West Country and Cockney. The Falklanders, if they wanted to be Argentine, would've said so by now, but no, they are loyal to Britain and probably will stay loyal in the forseeable future, anyway, Argentina hasn't been an independent nation long enough to have significant claims on the islands, weren't they still a Spanish colony when we claimed the Falklands?

Yes; Argentina claims to have inherited the Falklands from Spain, which has two issues: The Falklands aren't Agentina, so being granted independence from Spain doesn't give Argentina the right to take their pick at nearby land. The 2nd issue: Even if the Falklands were explicitly given to Argentina by Spain, the Falklands weren't even Spain's land to give away in the first place- they were and are British.

[Cromarty]

-Sigh, stupid Argentines- The Falklanders are seemingly more British than any other of our Crown Dependencies, I heard some talk on the television and their accent sounded like a mix of the West Country and Cockney. The Falklanders, if they wanted to be Argentine, would've said so by now, but no, they are loyal to Britain and probably will stay loyal in the forseeable future, anyway, Argentina hasn't been an independent nation long enough to have significant claims on the islands, weren't they still a Spanish colony when we claimed the Falklands?

Yes; Argentina claims to have inherited the Falklands from Spain, which has two issues: The Falklands aren't Agentina, so being granted independence from Spain doesn't give Argentina the right to take their pick at nearby land. The 2nd issue: Even if the Falklands were explicitly given to Argentina by Spain, the Falklands weren't even Spain's land to give away in the first place- they were and are British.

3rd Issue: when the Falklands were Spanish, they were administered not from Buenos Aires but from Montevideo.

[Machtergreifung]

1. Spee was able to get coal from neutral nations under international law and stocks in the German colonial holdings in the area.
2. Spee had five warships, and three transports hauling coal presumably. Hardly comparable to a fleet needed to recapture any island.


You talk to me of ignorance, but yet seem unable to provide anything other than a wall of text, deviod of punctuation or grammar.

when you can't argue the facts resort to grammar nazism. and its not devoid of punctuation. its just all in the wrong place.

I have argued the facts, or did you miss the two points that invalidate your claim that the the warships under Spee were easily supplied? I suggest that we follow SD Artists and continue this via telegram if you persist in being wrong.

[Socialist States Owen]

when you can't argue the facts resort to grammar nazism. and its not devoid of punctuation. its just all in the wrong place.

I have argued the facts, or did you miss the two points that invalidate your claim that the the warships under Spee were easily supplied? I suggest that we follow SD Artists and continue this via telegram if you persist in being wrong.

...yet you haven't actually addressed how this means that the logistical tasks involved in an operation by the British military to retake or defend the Falklands now would be impossible, when shipping now has much further range (as one of many examples of how things are different.)

[Forsher]

It all seems a bit of a moot discussion. The Falklands are British and we've all shown in other pages.

But... but... but... Las Malvinas!

I think it is meant to read Lost Malvinas.

[Forsher]

Am I British? No.

Israel and Palestine are both nuts.

How was he to know that?

Well, Israel and Palestine are nuts. You have toi be to keep fighting a war for years...

[Forsher]

You're forgetting the crucial fact that we have no way of taking out any opposing fighter aircraft. Sure, I reckoned that we would have had more of a chance had Labour gone through with the deal to buy those F-16's but seeing as they didn't, we've got no hope in thw world.

As for the claims made by the RN, with Argentina, it is remotely realistic. For the whole of South America, downright stupid. Anyone with a remote sense of realism would realise that as soon as the RN ran into an enemy which fields a competent air force like Brazil, Chile or Venezuela, they'd be in for a nasty shock.

Is that bit I highlighted in bold referring to the RN or the Argentine Navy? If its the former, I strongly doubt that you have a clue what you are talking about.

It's actually neither. It is about the RNZAF, who would struggle against a high-tewh rock.

[The UK in Exile]

when you can't argue the facts resort to grammar nazism. and its not devoid of punctuation. its just all in the wrong place.

I have argued the facts, or did you miss the two points that invalidate your claim that the the warships under Spee were easily supplied? I suggest that we follow SD Artists and continue this via telegram if you persist in being wrong.

so you do, of course you ignore two more recent and relevant examples to do so.

[Tagmatium]

But... but... but... Las Malvinas!

I think it is meant to read Lost Malvinas.

The joke is I'm British and recognise the fact that the Falklanders want to be British.

[Forsher]

I think it is meant to read Lost Malvinas.

The joke is I'm British and recognise the fact that the Falklanders want to be British.

Las vs Los vs Lost?

[Machtergreifung]

I have argued the facts, or did you miss the two points that invalidate your claim that the the warships under Spee were easily supplied? I suggest that we follow SD Artists and continue this via telegram if you persist in being wrong.

...yet you haven't actually addressed how this means that the logistical tasks involved in an operation by the British military to retake or defend the Falklands now would be impossible, when shipping now has much further range (as one of many examples of how things are different.)

1. No deep water port under British influence in the region. Cape Town, at best, Gib at worst.
2. Ascension has no major port facilites.
3. UK lacks sufficent air transport capability to move everything thats needed by air.
4. Any ships from the Falklands are subjected to a 3,800 mile sail to Ascension to resupply/rearm the battlegroup.
5. Any ships damaged in the fighting have to sail to Ascension also.
6. Ascension has little in the way of fuel stocks (During the Falklands War, the Americans handed over thier fuel stocks on the island, which was the main reason the British got their at all!)

British logistical problems would not be impossible, but very difficult. Any severe losses to transport capability, and the ball is firmly in the Argentine quarter.

[The UK in Exile]

...yet you haven't actually addressed how this means that the logistical tasks involved in an operation by the British military to retake or defend the Falklands now would be impossible, when shipping now has much further range (as one of many examples of how things are different.)

British logistical problems would not be impossible, but very difficult. Any severe losses to transport capability, and the ball is firmly in the Argentine quarter.

no more difficult than 1982. when they faced far stronger opposition. Royal naval strength may have declined in absolute terms, but relative to argentina... nope.

[Farnhamia]

British logistical problems would not be impossible, but very difficult. Any severe losses to transport capability, and the ball is firmly in the Argentine quarter.

no more difficult than 1982. when they faced far stronger opposition. Royal naval strength may have declined in absolute terms, but relative to argentina... nope.

There's only one way to settle this: the President of Argentina and the British Prime Minister must meet on the field of honor.

[Machtergreifung]

British logistical problems would not be impossible, but very difficult. Any severe losses to transport capability, and the ball is firmly in the Argentine quarter.

no more difficult than 1982. when they faced far stronger opposition. Royal naval strength may have declined in absolute terms, but relative to argentina... nope.

Hardly. British forces suffered severe supply shortages all the way through the Falklands War, and probably would have taken a lot more losses had the Argines manage to get a few more transports.