Falkland/Malvinas Islands Debate- Your Opinion?

[Machtergreifung]

1 WW2 crusier, a patrol boat and four (?) other ships in exchange for two modern warships is a excellent trade IMO.

Brilliant trade if you don't mind losing war.

Hardly the one-sided slaughter you made it out to be though, is it?

[Kryskov]

it was wrong what Britian did in the 1980s.. they kicked 70% of the population out that were all Spanish speaking Argentinians. los Malvinas should be Argentinian. why do the british need to be down there in the first place? colonial era is over.. and war is not the answer because if it does get bad, countries of latino America would intervene.. and if they intervene a lot of britians resource inports would be cut because of the minerals, metals and all sorts of jazz that britians depends on.

Complains about colonialism, then says Argentina should have the islands. Please, no. If you're going to go with the whole "The UK is being imperialistic!" approach, you need to support the independence of the Falklands, not the continuous possession of it.

And I'm unfamiliar with the UK kicking 70% of the population out. Can you give me a link to an article (in English) about that?

And helicopters can deploy countermeasures while AA is taken out. I suppose if there were hundreds on the island, it would be concerning, but the likelihood of the Argentinians deploying that many in 48 hours is small.

[Imperiatom]

It is to illustrate how these tired battered souls can go through the barrier to protect their people.

Still, a source?

The Typhoon website.

[Imperiatom]

Brilliant trade if you don't mind losing war.

Hardly the one-sided slaughter you made it out to be though, is it?

It is if you take away the planes and such we cause to be damaged ourselves with the bad weather. that's why i only meant in combat an that is 7-1 which is quite a slaughter and given they have similar planes to before but ours are much better dedicated fighters that gap has only widened.

[Kryskov]

1 WW2 crusier, a patrol boat and four (?) other ships in exchange for two modern warships is a excellent trade IMO.

"Admiral! The Argentinians have a ship that hasn't been used since 1945, a patrol boat, and 4 frigates!"

"Mother of God! We better send them the god damn USS John F Kennedy!"

[Imperiatom]

Hardly the one-sided slaughter you made it out to be though, is it?

It is if you take away the planes and such we cause to be damaged ourselves with the bad weather. that's why i only meant in combat an that is 7-1 which is quite a slaughter and given they have similar planes to before but ours are much better dedicated fighters that gap has only widened.

Also none of our planes were shot down by there planes, all their air forces claimed kills after the war is 1 helicopter.

[Machtergreifung]

Hardly the one-sided slaughter you made it out to be though, is it?

It is if you take away the planes and such we cause to be damaged ourselves with the bad weather. that's why i only meant in combat an that is 7-1 which is quite a slaughter and given they have similar planes to before but ours are much better dedicated fighters that gap has only widened.

Total losses for both sides (ops losses and non-combat aircraft and helicopters included)

Agentina: 100
Britain: 36

Considering the huge difference in training and equipment, that's really not such a great ratio.

[Democratic Koyro]

It is if you take away the planes and such we cause to be damaged ourselves with the bad weather. that's why i only meant in combat an that is 7-1 which is quite a slaughter and given they have similar planes to before but ours are much better dedicated fighters that gap has only widened.

Total losses for both sides (ops losses and non-combat aircraft and helicopters included)

Agentina: 100
Britain: 36

Considering the huge difference in training and equipment, that's really not such a great ratio.

Argentina use pretty much exactly the same shit they did 30 years ago. It'd be a better ratio for the British today.

[Machtergreifung]

Total losses for both sides (ops losses and non-combat aircraft and helicopters included)

Agentina: 100
Britain: 36

Considering the huge difference in training and equipment, that's really not such a great ratio.

Argentina use pretty much exactly the same shit they did 30 years ago. It'd be a better ratio for the British today.

Of course. Did they even bother to replace the Skyhawks?

[Fintanland]

Of course. Did they even bother to replace the Skyhawks?

No. They are still using them. They got a "Fightinghawk" upgrade that makes them fighter-bombers on paper, but that's about it.

[Democratic Koyro]

Argentina use pretty much exactly the same shit they did 30 years ago. It'd be a better ratio for the British today.

Of course. Did they even bother to replace the Skyhawks?

They upgraded them to the Fighting Hawk, other than that they got 7 French Mirage 5 Ground Attack Planes. For a grand total of 41 Attack Aircraft.

[Imperiatom]

It is if you take away the planes and such we cause to be damaged ourselves with the bad weather. that's why i only meant in combat an that is 7-1 which is quite a slaughter and given they have similar planes to before but ours are much better dedicated fighters that gap has only widened.

Total losses for both sides (ops losses and non-combat aircraft and helicopters included)

Agentina: 100
Britain: 36

Considering the huge difference in training and equipment, that's really not such a great ratio.

That is in real warfare not a game if you asked any officer if they would take a 3-1 ratio in their favor in material before a major war they would. in men we lost 1 pilot killed whilst they lost 29 killed. you cant argue with that 29-1 in terms of air force pilots.

[Machtergreifung]

Total losses for both sides (ops losses and non-combat aircraft and helicopters included)

Agentina: 100
Britain: 36

Considering the huge difference in training and equipment, that's really not such a great ratio.

That is in real warfare not a game if you asked any officer if they would take a 3-1 ratio in their favor in material before a major war they would. in men we lost 1 pilot killed whilst they lost 29 killed. you cant argue with that 29-1 in terms of air force pilots.

True, but it would only really have a strategic effect on a extended conflict of more than 2 1/2 months.

[Socialist States Owen]

Maybe dead subject is the wrong way to put it. Why do we have to have a new thread on this every couple of weeks?

Perhaps because a certain Argentinian President won't let it go? Because it involves a certain country who were once the most powerful in the world and still maintain some influence? Because we still haven't forgiven Argentina for Maradonna?

Believe me, I understand as a fellow Brit the need to one up the rat faced handballing bastard. However, we don't need a new thread on it this often.

[Imperiatom]

That is in real warfare not a game if you asked any officer if they would take a 3-1 ratio in their favor in material before a major war they would. in men we lost 1 pilot killed whilst they lost 29 killed. you cant argue with that 29-1 in terms of air force pilots.

True, but it would only really have a strategic effect on a extended conflict of more than 2 1/2 months.

We have more hardware, it has both better capabilities and surviverability and men with some of the best training in the world with the confidence of knowing what happened last time and that will pray on the minds of the Argentinians. plus a military with 10 years of real warfare experience behind them.

[Edward Richtofen]

You want land that you supposedly have no valid claim over

Not supposedly. Evidence shows quite clearly that we don't.

"Supposedly" is my non-offensive way of saying you have nothing

[Edward Richtofen]

You want land that you supposedl have no valid claim over

Many countries do. Japan. Russia. China. Indonesia. Brunei. Italy.

Italy hs minorities in its WWII European Gains, Russia has its BS crusade for warm water (GIVE KONIGSBERG BACK YOU IMPERIALISTS!), Japan has ethnic claims on a good chunk on its surrounding islands

[Alexandrian Republic]

The Falklands belong to Argentina not the Collapsed British empire.

[Machtergreifung]

True, but it would only really have a strategic effect on a extended conflict of more than 2 1/2 months.

We have more hardware, it has both better capabilities and surviverability and men with some of the best training in the world with the confidence of knowing what happened last time and that will pray on the minds of the Argentinians. plus a military with 10 years of real warfare experience behind them.

Victory disease you mean?

Still, this is all pure fantasy now, the chances of Falklands War Deux is non-existant. Safe to say it would still remain "two bald men fighting over a comb.".

[Democratic Koyro]

The Falklands belong to Argentina not the Collapsed British empire.

Says who?

[Fintanland]

The Falklands belong to Argentina not the Collapsed British empire.

And why would that be?

[Socialist EU]

British bureaucratic control or Argentinian bureaucratic control? Not much of a choice.

[Imperiatom]

We have more hardware, it has both better capabilities and surviverability and men with some of the best training in the world with the confidence of knowing what happened last time and that will pray on the minds of the Argentinians. plus a military with 10 years of real warfare experience behind them.

Victory disease you mean?

Still, this is all pure fantasy now, the chances of Falklands War Deux is non-existant. Safe to say it would still remain "two bald men fighting over a comb.".

When i was out in afghan i had total confidence in the air support and in the medical forces that i could be in surgery if wounded in as little as 30 min's that's faster than back at home in the UK. I know that unlike the press love to make out my equipment is second best only to the united states and that I and the men of my platoon were some of the best trained soldiers in the world. its not victory disease its trust in your own abilities and the men you lead that know matter what you faced one way or another you will come out on top and from what i know about Argentine army whilst they may be just as brave as we are. they are not as we equipped or trained or supported logistically in the field. As many of the best sportsmen and teams prove if you win the psychological battle the game is already half won.

[Forsher]

There is no legal, historical, social or moral justification to the Argentine claim to the Falklands.

There isn't even a geographical justification as I am sure Poles are well aware of.

[Aeken]

Ah, another one of these. As I have always been saying, the UK should have then as long as the Falklanders still want to be their subject. Argentina's claims ae clearly irrelevant.