Milei to speak on the Falklands islands-Argentina going into financial distress again. (Page 2 of 4)
I obey what I choose to obey.
Joined:
Oct 2003
Posts:
36272
EE: 100% (4)
LA, USA
|
Originally Posted By fssf158: 1 warship sunk. Glamorgan had to withdraw from the fight but survived. Agreed on the rest. Originally Posted By fssf158: Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean: Originally Posted By Redman556: The Brits can't make it to the Falklands unless they take cruise ships. They couldn't make it the last time, except we helped them and refueled them and resupplied them. If the Exocets worked, they would have lost half their navy once they got there. That fight was as difficult for them as the Normandy landings were for us in WWII. Their military was nearly dead then. Now they couldn't row down there. If the Argentinians want to take the islands, they'll take it. If this is about oil, they can easily appease the people of the islands by paying them a dividend each year from the profits on the oil, exactly like we did in Alaska. Not that we were doing it to appease the Alaskans, though there were a good number of natives that didn't like our getting oil there. This thing is over before it starts. Uh, 4 hits out of 6 or 7 missiles fired, and 2 warships and Atlantic Conveyor sunk seems like it worked to me. Heck, there's a reason Exocet sales went up after Operation Corporate, and countries that had been looking at Sea Eagle, Kormoran, etc., changed their minds and went with Exocet---because it had been proven to work in the real world, not just test firings against hulls. 1 warship sunk. Glamorgan had to withdraw from the fight but survived. Agreed on the rest. I stand corrected. My brain thought Ardent was sunk by an Exocet, which I confused with Glamorgan getting hit by one, and the fact that Ardent was *armed* with Exocets. |
We've now proven that we have zero rights, just what privileges we are allowed at any given time.
"Yes, Minister" is required viewing. Seriously, watch it. Along with "Yes, Prime Minister." They are not fiction.
"Yes, Minister" is required viewing. Seriously, watch it. Along with "Yes, Prime Minister." They are not fiction.
|
Originally Posted By Dirtydog: lol, somehow I don't think the US is going to help the UK much on this go around. No need for the Brits to worry. The Canadians will step in to help.  Frankly, I think the Falklands are British, and the Argentinians just need to accept that. And if Argentina attacks the Falklands, Argentina is in the wrong. That said, I can understand us staying out of it. |
|
Argentina doesn’t have the ass to take it. They don’t have the airpower, I believe they have 3-4 F16’s and they are old models, supposed to get 12 newer models soon. The brits have a good amount of boom boom on the island, but if ARG took the island, the UK couldn’t do a forced entry again. The US didn’t really help the UK last time. We provided them with some intel and some shrike missiles. In 2022 the FI’s were costing the UK 60mil Pounds annually. Apparently, it’s pretty expensive to live there, no surprise. |
|
Originally Posted By fssf158: The Exocets worked fine. They just didn’t have very many. Argentine pilots did a lot of damage with bombs as well. ETA: Two ships sunk and one put out of action in four engagements with seven total missiles fired is not a bad performance. Proper bomb fusing might have turned the tide. |
In America, the village idiots have organized.
|
Argentina's claim to the Falklands isn't exactly baseless, still I don't think Milei sees military action as either reasonable or viable. If they keep improving their economy as the UK continues it's decline into 3rd world shithole they could probably just buy them in a few years. |
"Dum spiro spero"
|
Originally Posted By AA717driver: They only gave up the Chagos to try to deny the U.S. use of Diego Garcia. Originally Posted By AA717driver: Originally Posted By Chokey: if they're still willing to give up the Chagos Archipelago, they might aw well give up the Falklands. They only gave up the Chagos to try to deny the U.S. use of Diego Garcia. Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty_dispute |
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77188
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Originally Posted By RustedAce: The English are an incredibly rude, provincial, anti-American people with a hyper-left governement. We should back Argentina and get that oil. Originally Posted By RustedAce: The English are an incredibly rude, provincial, anti-American people with a hyper-left governement. We should back Argentina and get that oil. I’ve been to the UK a dozen times and never had any issues with the English. The English will mop the floor with the argentines again. Originally Posted By RustedAce: Invasions dont need those these days. To cross hundreds of miles of contested water and air you do. The islands are far more defended now than in 1982 and while the British offensive capability isn’t as strong as 82 the argentines are multiple times worse. |
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
|
Originally Posted By fadedsun: To cross hundreds of miles of contested water and air you do. No you dont. If they did Birmingham wouldnt be occupied Pakistani territory currently. |
Pemberton the carbonated, behind his tasty bubbles, whispering of the love that is more horrible than hate.
|
Originally Posted By TheAmaazingCarl: Argentina's claim to the Falklands isn't exactly baseless, still I don't think Milei sees military action as either reasonable or viable. If they keep improving their economy as the UK continues it's decline into 3rd world shithole they could probably just buy them in a few years. It’s baseless if you believe in the right to self-determination. The islanders voted 99% to stay British a few years back. Keep in mind that the islands are internally self-governing. Most of the stupidity coming out of London does not apply to them. Their choice is a mostly hands-off government 8000 miles away that offers military protection or a historically chaotic and corrupt nation 400 miles away that has invaded and mistreated them within living memory. Which would you choose? |
|
Originally Posted By David0858: With what? The British military has been decimated. Originally Posted By David0858: Originally Posted By fadedsun: It's a new century, time for the Argentinian military to get their beating by the British again. 1833-ejected from the falklands. 1982-Ejected from the Falklands yet again. 2026-Don't worry hermanos, it's our year. I swear, they're like cowboys fans. With what? The British military has been decimated. What are the Argies going to use to get there? |
Never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be. - Adm James Stockdale
|
Originally Posted By Yeremyahu: The Argentinians should just send a thousand boats there and claim they are refugees. Do it legal even, enough Argentine sleeper agent immigrants could already have moved to the Falklands and just voted for independence. The point of my post is not to wish ill on the British people, but to highlight the hypocrisy of these central governments which are so vexed about trifling issues or foreign entanglements yet treacherously leave our borders wide open. The UK, Canada, Denmark, the USA, et cetera - these governments hold our nations in abject contempt, seek to hasten our demise, and only seek to court us when there is some favored pet project which prefers our bodies dying for it. Are the resource claims around the Falklands threatened by transnational investors looking to puppet Argentina? I guess someone should have worried about keeping Britain a homogenous industrial state forty years ago. If Greenland is some very important part of Denmark, then why toy with letting it go independent? Is China a threat? Then why are you still outsourcing to them? Is Russia a threat? Maybe you shouldn't have let your warsmith Joe D. Boomer get divorce raped and forced out on early retirement so that by now his grandsons could be as accomplished machinists as he was. Sneak immigration into the Falklands won’t work. They don’t allow it. |
|
Originally Posted By tveddy: Falklands have been under british control since before argentina was a country. The claim falklands are argentinian is completely false and unfounded Originally Posted By tveddy: Originally Posted By fssf158: Why would you pull for them? The people of the Falklands have made it clear they desire to remain British. Falklands have been under british control since before argentina was a country. The claim falklands are argentinian is completely false and unfounded They have never lawfully possessed it or had claim to it. They didn’t even really know where exactly the Islands were there when the British laid claim to them. They claim them by proximity and the fact the Brits are from the other hemisphere. |
|
Originally Posted By Genin: Most of the USA doesn't care what happens in the Falklands. With the UK not helping the USA with its Hormuz issue, Britain would probably be on its own if they had to fight in the falklands. Argentina is saber rattling, and the UK just doesn't have much of an ability to mount any kind of response should Argentina decide to invade the falklands. Sure Britain has some military already in the falklands, but long term support or resupply would be very difficult...but it would be the same for any Argentine force hoping to invade the falklands. Not our monkey, not our circus...most of the USA just doesn't give a shit about the falklands. The British military is a what effectively a division? a battalion? I mean rifle bearing troops. They still have a lot of the regiments “active” but they’re understaffed as I recall, like a company size element standing in for the regiment to be fleshed out in a call up. Now if they armed all those ceremonial bands they troup around they’d double their forces. I am not belittling the soldiers at all. It’s the decisions of the nation’s politicians that bear responsibility. Look at our navy though, it’s far from what it was numerically. We’re stretched thin. That old peace dividend always seems to bite you down the road. |
|
Originally Posted By Billybob2002: Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty_dispute Originally Posted By Billybob2002: Originally Posted By AA717driver: Originally Posted By Chokey: if they're still willing to give up the Chagos Archipelago, they might aw well give up the Falklands. They only gave up the Chagos to try to deny the U.S. use of Diego Garcia. Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty_dispute The wiki has some flaws. “Native Chagosians” were imported labor not native. The island had no fresh water and no occupants when first set up for servicing ships. Everybody makes their claims with a bit of coloring outside the lines of complete truth. |
|
Originally Posted By SteelonSteel: The wiki has some flaws. “Native Chagosians” were imported labor not native. The island had no fresh water and no occupants when first set up for servicing ships. Everybody makes their claims with a bit of coloring outside the lines of complete truth. Originally Posted By SteelonSteel: Originally Posted By Billybob2002: Originally Posted By AA717driver: Originally Posted By Chokey: if they're still willing to give up the Chagos Archipelago, they might aw well give up the Falklands. They only gave up the Chagos to try to deny the U.S. use of Diego Garcia. Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty_dispute The wiki has some flaws. “Native Chagosians” were imported labor not native. The island had no fresh water and no occupants when first set up for servicing ships. Everybody makes their claims with a bit of coloring outside the lines of complete truth. AA717driver is claiming that the UK is giving up Chagos as a FU to the United States. However, a basic search shows it is a complex situation. |
|
Originally Posted By RustedAce: No you dont. If they did Birmingham wouldnt be occupied Pakistani territory currently. Originally Posted By RustedAce: Originally Posted By fadedsun: To cross hundreds of miles of contested water and air you do. No you dont. If they did Birmingham wouldnt be occupied Pakistani territory currently. Then why haven't they done that with the Falklands? |
Never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be. - Adm James Stockdale
|
Originally Posted By Billybob2002: AA717driver is claiming that the UK is giving up Chagos as a FU to the United States. However, a basic search shows it is a complex situation. Originally Posted By Billybob2002: Originally Posted By SteelonSteel: Originally Posted By Billybob2002: Originally Posted By AA717driver: Originally Posted By Chokey: if they're still willing to give up the Chagos Archipelago, they might aw well give up the Falklands. They only gave up the Chagos to try to deny the U.S. use of Diego Garcia. Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty_dispute The wiki has some flaws. “Native Chagosians” were imported labor not native. The island had no fresh water and no occupants when first set up for servicing ships. Everybody makes their claims with a bit of coloring outside the lines of complete truth. AA717driver is claiming that the UK is giving up Chagos as a FU to the United States. However, a basic search shows it is a complex situation. Biden admin gave them no opposition like the morans they were and are. We sunk a shitload of money in to the military ops there and negotiated it in perpetuity that we had to say yea or no to a closure or sale. Trump admin apparently got wind of it and quickly but the brakes on when Atarmer had almost finished the give away. Frankly I say that they’re all idiots for listening to those international courts. Their decisions are always in favor of third world claimants as punishment for the old colonial days. Add in even the liberal wiki says the Mauritians agreed to allow the U.K./US use for cash allowances. It’s little different than our arrangement with Cuba for Gitmo. A contract is a contract. Granted now the Mauritians say they were coerced because their independence from colonial rule was on the line. Well no shit, that’s negotiations. What they want is to lease the US facility to the Chinese because now Mauritius is pro commode,… Commie, autocorrect has a germ of truth with that commode fix. |
|
Originally Posted By fssf158: Why would you pull for them? The people of the Falklands have made it clear they desire to remain British. Originally Posted By fssf158: Why would you pull for them? The people of the Falklands have made it clear they desire to remain British. https://modernity.news/2026/08/05/kids-in-tiny-british-village-beg-the-government-not-to-force-illegal-migrants-on-their-home/ The children of a quiet Oxfordshire village have been forced to put pen to paper and plead with the Prime Minister himself. Their message is simple and heartbreaking: leave our home alone. Piddington is a tiny English settlement of roughly 350 people—around 250 adults and just 46 children. The Home Office and Labour government under Andy Burnham intend to place 1,250 single adult male asylum seekers on a former Ministry of Defence site that borders the village, runs along the back of homes, and sits directly against the parish playing field and children’s park. |
Big girls make all your dreams come true!
Joined:
Dec 2001
Posts:
63327
EE: 100% (4)
WV, USA
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77190
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Originally Posted By RustedAce: No you dont. If they did Birmingham wouldnt be occupied Pakistani territory currently. Birmingham was annexed and is Pakistani? I was there in 24. I saw the union jack flying over it? 
|
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
|
Originally Posted By Dirtydog: lol, somehow I don't think the US is going to help the UK much on this go around. The UK has exactly ten seaworthy warships right now. Their task force in 1982 to retake the Falklands had over thirty. |
Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
|
Originally Posted By fssf158: Why would you pull for them? The people of the Falklands have made it clear they desire to remain British. That's because they are British. |
Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
|
Originally Posted By fadedsun: It's a new century, time for the Argentinian military to get their beating by the British again. 1833-ejected from the falklands. 1982-Ejected from the Falklands yet again. 2026-Don't worry hermanos, it's our year. I swear, they're like cowboys fans. Originally Posted By fadedsun: Originally Posted By tveddy: What do you expect after This It's a new century, time for the Argentinian military to get their beating by the British again. 1833-ejected from the falklands. 1982-Ejected from the Falklands yet again. 2026-Don't worry hermanos, it's our year. I swear, they're like cowboys fans. The UK lacks any force projection capacity. If Argentina can blow up the four (count em, four) Eurofighters on the ground with a surprise drone attack, the rest will be easy. 1933 UK was a powerful empire. 1982 UK was a strong nation. 2026 UK is a failed state. |
|
Originally Posted By fadedsun: I’ve been to the UK a dozen times and never had any issues with the English. The English will mop the floor with the argentines again. To cross hundreds of miles of contested water and air you do. The islands are far more defended now than in 1982 and while the British offensive capability isn’t as strong as 82 the argentines are multiple times worse. Originally Posted By fadedsun: Originally Posted By RustedAce: The English are an incredibly rude, provincial, anti-American people with a hyper-left governement. We should back Argentina and get that oil. I’ve been to the UK a dozen times and never had any issues with the English. The English will mop the floor with the argentines again. Originally Posted By RustedAce: Invasions dont need those these days. To cross hundreds of miles of contested water and air you do. The islands are far more defended now than in 1982 and while the British offensive capability isn’t as strong as 82 the argentines are multiple times worse. You are smoking the good stuff. The entire Falklands defense hinges on four Eurofighters. Get rid of those, which will cost about $400,000 in drones these days, and the war is over. Take the airfields and zero reinforcements are coming. The UK completely lacks capacity to strike back and retake the territory. |
|
Originally Posted By fadedsun: Birmingham was annexed and is Pakistani? I was there in 24. I saw the union jack flying over it? Won’t see it anymore. |
Pemberton the carbonated, behind his tasty bubbles, whispering of the love that is more horrible than hate.
|
Originally Posted By RustedAce: Originally Posted By fadedsun: Birmingham was annexed and is Pakistani? I was there in 24. I saw the union jack flying over it? Won’t see it anymore. Attached File |
"They want you dead but will settle for your submission" - Malice
Decadence is no longer morally acceptable.
Joined:
Jan 2014
Posts:
43283
EE: 100% (6)
ID, USA
|
Canada should declare war on the US. Argentina should declare war on GBR. Putin should declare war on NATO. North Korea should try to conquer the South and Japan. China should declare war on every single country that it has any sort of disagreement with. But first every single country on earth needs to team up and sterilize the entire Middle East in nuclear fire. Quit your whining and your pointless games of political footise and end all of your disagreements in fire and steel, forever. |
Exaggerate the essential, leave the obvious vague.
|
Originally Posted By RustedAce: Won’t see it anymore. The UK might as well just dissolve and become an Islamist State. |
Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77191
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Originally Posted By TheAmaazingCarl: Argentina's claim to the Falklands isn't exactly baseless, still I don't think Milei sees military action as either reasonable or viable. If they keep improving their economy as the UK continues it's decline into 3rd world shithole they could probably just buy them in a few years. It's absolutely baseless. The British held those islands before Argentina was even a nation. They cloak the argument in anti-colonialism yet it is claimed they own it because the Spanish once owned it as part of colonialism while speaking Spanish. ironic much? The Argentines illegally held the Islands in 1833 and were kicked out. They illegally held the islands in 1982 and were violently removed to the loss of hundreds of lives which ended up in 2 people being freed-the Falklanders from the Junta and the Argentines from the Junta too..ironic. They'll get removed even faster now because the gap is wider in capabilities. |
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77195
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Originally Posted By DefMan: Maybe Argies can settle for mineral rights while Brits keep the surface? https://media4.giphy.com/media/2TsWJ6YrglkthfS0ru/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cvpmomy2m8mwqhukmyzyz5eo5wqzkl3aheo7k845r&ep=v1_gifs_trending&rid=200.webp&ct=g Originally Posted By DefMan: Maybe Argies can settle for mineral rights while Brits keep the surface? https://media4.giphy.com/media/2TsWJ6YrglkthfS0ru/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cvpmomy2m8mwqhukmyzyz5eo5wqzkl3aheo7k845r&ep=v1_gifs_trending&rid=200.webp&ct=g Maybe they can leave the Islands alone since they lost the first two rounds? Third won't end any better. Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: The UK lacks any force projection capacity. If Argentina can blow up the four (count em, four) Eurofighters on the ground with a surprise drone attack, the rest will be easy. 1933 UK was a powerful empire. 1982 UK was a strong nation. 2026 UK is a failed state. Argentina has what drone capabilities, again? They have 12 F16AM fighters now with 12 more arriving before 2028. The British have 4x as many F35s and 10x as many Eurofighters which are superior in every way to the Block 15 fighters. The UK is such a failed state that Trump begged them for help during the Iran war. Nobody is debating the British military is a shadow of it's former 1982 self. The issue is the aggressors here are in even worse state and have to overcome an opponent with far better defenses and a major technological advantage in almost every way. |
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
|
Originally Posted By fadedsun: Maybe they can leave the Islands alone since they lost the first two rounds? Third won't end any better. Argentina has what drone capabilities, again? Originally Posted By fadedsun: Originally Posted By DefMan: Maybe Argies can settle for mineral rights while Brits keep the surface? https://media4.giphy.com/media/2TsWJ6YrglkthfS0ru/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cvpmomy2m8mwqhukmyzyz5eo5wqzkl3aheo7k845r&ep=v1_gifs_trending&rid=200.webp&ct=g Maybe they can leave the Islands alone since they lost the first two rounds? Third won't end any better. Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: The UK lacks any force projection capacity. If Argentina can blow up the four (count em, four) Eurofighters on the ground with a surprise drone attack, the rest will be easy. 1933 UK was a powerful empire. 1982 UK was a strong nation. 2026 UK is a failed state. Argentina has what drone capabilities, again? You fail to understand how the world has changed. The source for strike drones is a hardware store (fuselage/misc), a junkyard (motorcycle engine), and AliExpress (drone controllers). This isn't 1985. Offensive capacity is no longer sourced solely from DoD contractors and Soviet Design Bureau's. The imperial monopoly on offensive capability has been lost. |
|
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: The UK might as well just dissolve and become an Islamist State. Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: Originally Posted By RustedAce: Won't see it anymore. The UK might as well just dissolve and become an Islamist State. This. |
Every knee in heaven and on earth and under the earth will bow to worship him. Everyone’s mouth will say that Jesus Christ is Lord.
|
Originally Posted By fadedsun: The UK is such a failed state that Trump begged them for help during the Iran war. Only a fool would think that request was made for anything else but to form some international consensus on the Iranian issue. |
"They want you dead but will settle for your submission" - Malice