Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Falkland Islanders vote to remain British


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#16    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Unsafe at Any Speed

  • Member
  • 24,118 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:27 AM

View PostYamato, on 13 March 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

So Britain retains a paltry scrap of what was once a feast the sun never went down on. Pass me a flag and hand me a Kleenex.

The actual history of the Falklands from the beginning:
http://en.wikipedia....ds#15th_century
Oh dear, more Western Imperialism? hand them back to the people they rightly belong to!
Actually, while the Falklands may be something of an anachronism in being a British Dependency, the Commonwealth is, or has to potential to be, a non insignificant global force, do you not think? Or is that just Imperialism too?

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#17    Bonecrusher

Bonecrusher

    Facebook Fiend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Joined:25 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middleton,Greater Manchester,UK

  • Your blood's worth bottling!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 09:09 AM

View PostTheLastLazyGun, on 12 March 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:



I wouldn't worry about that.  Once a few RAF Typhoons and Royal Navy Daring-class destroyers - the world's most powerful air defence destroyers - shoot down a few of their balsa wood planes, they'll start to see sense.
If that's the case what about their infantry?Don't tell they will be armed with big red balls,plastic projectiles and water cannons.Well somebody's got to get some mileage out of all the discarded props from Total Wipeout.They can have Richard Hammond as a general and Amanda Byrom has a public relations officer.

However The Falkland Islanders are entitled to more than squatter's rights.In fact I would say they have 120% citizenship.The Spanish came and if they were passionate about the Falkland Islands they would have stayed.It dosn't really matter if they gave the Falklands a pet name or if they are in close proximity to Argentina.If the original Spanish settlers decided to make more of a go it wouldn't be even a British outpost anyway.However the Falklands War did rubberstamp an other term for Thatcher at Downing Street.But unlike the middle east conflicts there's a valid reason for this.Even though it might give Cameron more credit if they get a green light for a second Falkland War.

Edited by Medium Brown, 13 March 2013 - 09:13 AM.

Swindon Town:  Division Two Champions 2011-12.
Proud member of Macdonald's Red Army since 1989.
Up the Robins!

#18    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 13 March 2013 - 09:18 AM

The truth is if the Argentinians don't like it they will have to lump it.

What are they going to do throw stones at the Islands?

They have no capability to do anything by force so it is all a non-story.  

Their entire Navy was defeated on the last attempt by a single WW2 torpedo.

Edited by skookum, 13 March 2013 - 09:20 AM.

Posted Image

#19    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:03 AM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 12 March 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

Well, strictly speaking the French were there first. They say
In 1690, Captain John Strong of the Welfare en route to Puerto Deseado was driven off course and reached the Falkland Islands instead, landing at Bold Cove. Sailing between the two principal islands, he called the passage "Falkland Channel" (now Falkland Sound), after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland, who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition. The island group takes its English name from this body of water.[18]
In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland.[19] In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766.[20] Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767, and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.[21]

if we really want to be pendantic.

The French were there first but then they decided to give their part of the islands to the Spanish, who then tried to kick the British off the islands even though the British were there before the Spanish.


#20    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:05 AM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 13 March 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

Oh dear, more Western Imperialism? hand them back to the people they rightly belong to!
Actually, while the Falklands may be something of an anachronism in being a British Dependency, the Commonwealth is, or has to potential to be, a non insignificant global force, do you not think? Or is that just Imperialism too?

The Commonwealth's economy overtook that of the Eurozone in June 2012.  Whilst the EU is predicted to have no growth over the next five years, the Commonwealth's economy is predicted to grow 7.3% annually over the next five years.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 13 March 2013 - 10:18 AM.


#21    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:13 AM

View PostMedium Brown, on 13 March 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

If that's the case what about their infantry?Don't tell they will be armed with big red balls,plastic projectiles and water cannons.Well somebody's got to get some mileage out of all the discarded props from Total Wipeout.They can have Richard Hammond as a general and Amanda Byrom has a public relations officer.

I wouldn't worry about the Argentinean Army.  Even when you take the British Army's cuts into account the Argentinean Army will still be only barely half the size of the British Army.  It is ill-equipped with a lot of cheap second-rate and probably second-hand equipment from other countries.  The Argentinean defence budget is so lacking in funds that it is almost entirely used to pay the wages of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and civilians the armed forces ministry employs rather than military equipment.

Quote

.If the original Spanish settlers decided to make more of a go it wouldn't be even a British outpost anyway.

Why wouldn't it?  The British were on the islands BEFORE the Spanish and before Argentina even existed.  The Spanish weren't the original settlers.


Quote

But unlike the middle east conflicts there's a valid reason for this.Even though it might give Cameron more credit if they get a green light for a second Falkland War.

There will be another Falklands War were the Argentineans ever foolish enough to invade them again.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 13 March 2013 - 10:15 AM.


#22    Bonecrusher

Bonecrusher

    Facebook Fiend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Joined:25 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middleton,Greater Manchester,UK

  • Your blood's worth bottling!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:11 PM

View PostTheLastLazyGun, on 13 March 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:



I wouldn't worry about the Argentinean Army.  Even when you take the British Army's cuts into account the Argentinean Army will still be only barely half the size of the British Army.  It is ill-equipped with a lot of cheap second-rate and probably second-hand equipment from other countries.  The Argentinean defence budget is so lacking in funds that it is almost entirely used to pay the wages of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and civilians the armed forces ministry employs rather than military equipment.
There will be another Falklands War were the Argentineans ever foolish enough to invade them again.
I can't help but feel they are sabre- rattling.They must have heard about our cuts and thought easy money.I always thought there was something iffy about why Total Wipeout got canned.I don't think the ratings were that poor.But the American version is still going on.Do you honestly think without the incentive of oil our partners in war are going to intervene.But in your analysis of their battle structure it'll be like a gun against knife fight.Anything to protect the Falkland Islands sovereignty.So this is a war we can definetly win hands down.But if it was us I won't made any rash decisions until that Argentinian flag is firmly planted.You also need to look out for swarthy looking Hispanic guys.And converted oil tankers in the harbour.Because that's what left of their fleet.

Edited by Medium Brown, 13 March 2013 - 02:14 PM.

Swindon Town:  Division Two Champions 2011-12.
Proud member of Macdonald's Red Army since 1989.
Up the Robins!

#23    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,950 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 13 March 2013 - 03:59 PM

View Postskookum, on 13 March 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

The truth is if the Argentinians don't like it they will have to lump it.

What are they going to do throw stones at the Islands?

They have no capability to do anything by force so it is all a non-story.  

Their entire Navy was defeated on the last attempt by a single WW2 torpedo.

Given that their navy is doing a fine job sinking on their own I don't think you'd even need that torpedo.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#24    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:30 PM

View PostCorp, on 13 March 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

Given that their navy is doing a fine job sinking on their own I don't think you'd even need that torpedo.

Their navy has about 42 ships.  The Royal Navy has 328 powerful ones.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 13 March 2013 - 07:31 PM.


#25    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:08 AM

View PostTheLastLazyGun, on 13 March 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

Stick three Gurkhas on the islands.  That'll get the Argentines running.

That's what they did back back in '82.  The Argentines thought the British Gurkhas were cannibals and would eat them, so the Argentines just turned round and ran whenever they faced them.  They were terrified of them.  It was easy to win the war when you have a few Gurkhas handy.

It was that easy.  The Argies had read all about the Gurkhas and their deadly kukri knives in magazines so they just didn't have the balls to face them.  Any Argie that did take on the Gurkhas had no balls left.  Literally.  The gurkhas are armed with their deadly kukri knives, and they don't like their knives going too long without being covered in enemy blood (it's a centuries-old tradition).

We have 4000 Gurkhas in the British Army (one of them beheaded a Taliban and took his head back to base for idenitfication).

The British can beat the Argies hands down.  If one Gurkha can defeat many Japanese during WWII when his comrades were lying dead all around, we have no worries.  And anyone else who is silly enough to take us on should think twice.

Posted Image
Deadly.  British Army Gurkhas and their kukri knives that must be covered in enemy blood during battle.

Only thing is the hated it on the islands.  Not really the terrain they train for.  

They are amazing people who still consider it a massive honour to serve.  There actions are truly heroic, didn't one get a medal for fighting off an entire Taleban squad single handed.  When he ran out of ammunition he battered two to death with the tripod from his fixed machine gun post.

Posted Image

#26    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,950 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 14 March 2013 - 04:23 PM

I've been told by soldiers who have served in Afghanistan that the Gurkhas are very hardcore. They kind of freak out their allies because they always want to be in combat and complain if they go too long without a mission. :P

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users