omg we're so l33t we pwned dem fuckin argis so h4rd!!!!11!!11SEREVENT wrote:
Well then they still lost and if their men weren't any good then that's their problem.
cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
omg we're so l33t we pwned dem fuckin argis so h4rd!!!!11!!11SEREVENT wrote:
Well then they still lost and if their men weren't any good then that's their problem.
nationalism and chauvinism ftw. we always did pretty well with them in europe...
no there's basically no sheep here.LostFate wrote:
sheep fuckers? dont they live in finland?
You mean NZ. The common description of an NZer are sheep shagger and kiwi.ruisleipa wrote:
no there's basically no sheep here.LostFate wrote:
sheep fuckers? dont they live in finland?
Most of em live in wales iirc.
and australia.
if you read my posts carefully, you will notice that i did not defend them. attacking sovereign territory is wrong. i was just talking about some factsSEREVENT wrote:
cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
omg we're so l33t we pwned dem fuckin argis so h4rd!!!!11!!11SEREVENT wrote:
Well then they still lost and if their men weren't any good then that's their problem.
nationalism and chauvinism ftw. we always did pretty well with them in europe...
stop defending them then and saying if it wasn't for the fact they lost the war they would have won...
After they did use one Mitterand (in his autobiography) claims that Thatcher forced him into handing over the disarm codes for the missiles - they also had very limited supplies of them (you mention the Atlantic Conveyor - which they used their last Exocet on) since the French refused to sell them any more.Dilbert_X wrote:
Their aircraft could still fly.Bertster7 wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
If the Argentinians had put up a real fight they would have won it easily.
Now I doubt there are enough ships.
Yeah - of course they could. The fact that their navy couldn't leave port after we sent nuclear subs down there didn't impede them at all.
If one exocet had hit the carrier it would have been game over, the Atlantic Conveyor was bad enough.
Fighting a war on the other side of the worl without air cover, or US support, was bad enough.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-02-25 10:55:46)
Less about socialism more about fighting the old european oppressor.JohnG@lt wrote:
Socialists believe more that the classes are linked rather than populations defined by borders... They'll stick together and bring in Chavez too.Ticia wrote:
No but he will support Argentina and that itself is scary. Brazilians hate Argentinians with more passion than tango.ghettoperson wrote:
I doubt it, da Silva isn't the type to start a war over something like this.
Obama has already said the US is "remaining neutral" about this. Fucking facepalm junior varsity foreign policy.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Unless some massive amount of oil is found I doubt anything will happen.
If it does the UK will get support from the US and every other NATO country while South America gets raped trying to support Argentina.
Well, had the London bombings still occurred, I can guarantee that the U.K. would not have remained neutral afterwards.Dilbert_X wrote:
The UK should have remained neutral on 9/11 TBH.
Indeed.Kmarion wrote:
More UK peeps died on 911 than on 7/7.
It was still an attack on the US, not the UK.Kmarion wrote:
More UK peeps died on 911 than on 7/7.
you do realise that doing so is basically telling the US "tough luck shit happens", right?Dilbert_X wrote:
It was still an attack on the US, not the UK.Kmarion wrote:
More UK peeps died on 911 than on 7/7.
What about the Madrid bombings?Dilbert_X wrote:
The London bombings probably would not have occurred if the UK had remained neutral.
In any case they were home-grown terrorists, not Saudis trained in Afghanistan. Attacking Afghanistan would still have made no sense, Iraq even less.
spain was in afghanistan and iraq then though.Cybargs wrote:
What about the Madrid bombings?Dilbert_X wrote:
The London bombings probably would not have occurred if the UK had remained neutral.
In any case they were home-grown terrorists, not Saudis trained in Afghanistan. Attacking Afghanistan would still have made no sense, Iraq even less.
True, but very very little amount of forces compared to the UK...Spark wrote:
spain was in afghanistan and iraq then though.Cybargs wrote:
What about the Madrid bombings?Dilbert_X wrote:
The London bombings probably would not have occurred if the UK had remained neutral.
In any case they were home-grown terrorists, not Saudis trained in Afghanistan. Attacking Afghanistan would still have made no sense, Iraq even less.
A) You'll have to do better than a glorified "no, you're wrong"ruisleipa wrote:
I think you should learn yer history better yeah? No-one knows for sure who discovered them first. before the UK returned there in 1833 the yanks, Spanish and French all laid claim to them. The first settlement was established by a Frenchamn. So the claim that the islands have always been British is bollocks. I just hate remnants of British imperialism like this, and Gibraltar. For all I care they can go to Argentina, and the Rock to Spain. The idea of these littel islands in the south pacific being British is daft to me, and the fact we went to war for them and nearly a thousand died for them is just bonkers. But it's just my opinion.Pubic wrote:
The UK was there first.
Most of the British islands in the South Pacific are a bit irradiated now....Pubic wrote:
A) You'll have to do better than a glorified "no, you're wrong"ruisleipa wrote:
I think you should learn yer history better yeah? No-one knows for sure who discovered them first. before the UK returned there in 1833 the yanks, Spanish and French all laid claim to them. The first settlement was established by a Frenchamn. So the claim that the islands have always been British is bollocks. I just hate remnants of British imperialism like this, and Gibraltar. For all I care they can go to Argentina, and the Rock to Spain. The idea of these littel islands in the south pacific being British is daft to me, and the fact we went to war for them and nearly a thousand died for them is just bonkers. But it's just my opinion.Pubic wrote:
The UK was there first.
B) They're in the south atlantic, not the south pacific.
Estimates say that there could be upwards of 60 billion barrels under and around the Falklands. For some perspective, the North Sea has about 30 billion barrels left (45 years worth).-Sh1fty- wrote:
Unless some massive amount of oil is found I doubt anything will happen.
If it does the UK will get support from the US and every other NATO country while South America gets raped trying to support Argentina.
FOR CROWN AND EMPIRE.Switch wrote:
Estimates say that there could be upwards of 60 billion barrels under and around the Falklands. For some perspective, the North Sea has about 30 billion barrels left (45 years worth).-Sh1fty- wrote:
Unless some massive amount of oil is found I doubt anything will happen.
If it does the UK will get support from the US and every other NATO country while South America gets raped trying to support Argentina.
If there's that much oil, it's inevitable that it will kick off.
A) Glorified what? You mean a reply with stuff like facts and dates and stuff yeah? Or if you have some hitherto unknown historical information rolling around please, tell us. Otherwise, whatever dudePubic wrote:
A) You'll have to do better than a glorified "no, you're wrong"ruisleipa wrote:
I think you should learn yer history better yeah? No-one knows for sure who discovered them first. before the UK returned there in 1833 the yanks, Spanish and French all laid claim to them. The first settlement was established by a Frenchamn. So the claim that the islands have always been British is bollocks. I just hate remnants of British imperialism like this, and Gibraltar. For all I care they can go to Argentina, and the Rock to Spain. The idea of these littel islands in the south pacific being British is daft to me, and the fact we went to war for them and nearly a thousand died for them is just bonkers. But it's just my opinion.Pubic wrote:
The UK was there first.
B) They're in the south atlantic, not the south pacific.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-02-27 04:27:15)
