MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ Sea Lion well latest oil appraisal sends Rockhopper shares soaring
Shares in Falkland Islands Rockhopper Exploration soared 16% on Monday, after it raised its lowest case estimate of crude reserves at its Sea Lion well. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWheres Think when you want him?
Apr 05th, 2011 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Following the announcement, Mrs Thatcher's only comment was to rebuke questioning journalists with the remark, ”Just rejoice at that news
:-))))
1--
Apr 05th, 2011 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you really think the next Commenters will Think
this subject impeccable ?
Think was bleating on about this on the forum of another story.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 10:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0He thinks it is all a lie and tried to claim it was a downgrade when in fact it is the opposite.
Like many of the other Argie posters he can't admit being wrong and clearly any success must be a lie or conspiracy. He has his head in the sand and cannot even bring himself to see the information that is in his face.
Delusion is a terrible affliction isn't it!
Its great to see that progress continues to be made and that commercial quantities of oil are being discovered. However we need now to be ever vigilant to ensure that any sneak attack from Argentina is effectively countered and this time, punished.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0What would a “sneak attack from Argentina” consist of, Be serious? In its current state Argentina cannot organize a 3-day camping trip, much less a military operation.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oil has a strange way of making possible those things that once seemed impossible.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nah, Argentina has said this will not go to war and they are telling the truth.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hmm.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 01 Well:
2700 BPD x $108 PB = $291 600 Per day, $104,976,000 per year.
That's effectively doubled their GDP.
I'm not saying that a sizable number of nutjobs in Argentina (many of whom are government officials) wouldn't want to attack. I'm pretty sure some of them even fantasize about it. I'm saying they can't because they lack the resources, the capabilities, the intestinal fortitude and the organizational wherewithal. Argentineans love TALKING about projects (remember the bullet train between Buenos Aires and Cordoba?) but getting anything done is a different story altogether.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For all practical purposes, Argentina lacks functional radar capabilities today and cannot control their own airspace. The likelihood of Argentina launching a complex military operation matches the likelihood of D'Elia getting Charlize Theron to marry him.
One must not dampen your thoughts, but how many countries in the paste swore blind that they had no interest or intention or the capability to go to war, and as soon as you relax, nod off or just forget about it by being distracted by other events, when the unexpected happens,
Apr 05th, 2011 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0all im saying is, never turn your back or underestimate those who you think wants peace, when others in power may have completely different ideas, [just keep your guard up, [just an opinion]
the oil is great news , could be worth billions and billions, [ring any bells]
???
Guys, if you enjoy paranoia, knock yourselves out. I'm not giving credence to Argentineans' statements about their reluctance to go to war. It's not that I believe in their proclamed good intentions. Rather, they are factually incapable of launching a military operation, regardless of how much they'd like to get their hands on that oil revenue.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0People in Argentina fill potholes in the street with dirt after they get tired of waiting for months for the local government to do it. Many of their military vehicles haven't run in years due to lack of funds to buy fuel. They haven't updated their arsenal in years either. That's how dire the situation is.
So, once again, Argentina does not constitute a military threat. It's not that they are “nice” or “peace loving”; it's that when it comes to a project of such magnitude, a macro initiative that requires careful planning and sophisticated organizational skills, they can't find their collective ass with both hands and a flashlight.
Gotta go. It's been fun “talking” to y'all.
England provides revenue from Whisky exporting 175 $/ per sec !
Apr 05th, 2011 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0seems that more lucrative & easy& clear than oil business.
Dan4 is completely correct. Aisde from using a sub to torpedo civilians there is no credible logical threat. Any aircraft not only can't fly there due to fuel from mainland Argentina but would also have to butt heads with the Typhoons and would stand no chance. Same with any ships.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any attack on civilians and there would be an international outcry from the UN.
Also, it's not a military dictatorship running the nation now, it is a democratic nation and they have said there will be no war. I agree with them when they say this.
Without any income I doubt the re-evaluation will hold the price for long, chances are that someone is about to cash out and want to maximise his theft.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8426244/Why-you-should-avoid-Falkland-Islands-oil-explorers.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8426244/Why-you-should-avoid-Falkland-Islands-oil-explorers.html
Beef/
Apr 05th, 2011 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I believe that spies paradise Argentina has being related into
trojan horses , worms , espionage etc more than oil ( doesn't care it).
Yul/ 401 Ottilia
Just one day after the usual.....(RKH) Rockhopper Exploration
Apr 05th, 2011 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0261.25 -15.25 (-5.52%) so far :-)))))))))
May be investors read this article last night:
”Why you should avoid Falkland Islands oil explorers“
”the companies exploring in the Falklands would not meet my investment criteria. In fact, you’d probably be better off with a bet on the greyhounds.
All of this is before considering any ramifications from the fact that the sovereignty of this territory is disputed by Argentina”
By Garry White, 04 Apr 2011 Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8426244/Why-you-should-avoid-Falkland-Islands-oil-explorers.html
16 Guess you wont be investing. Good idea.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TWIMC
Apr 05th, 2011 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Time for our daily share price check…………….:
Falkland Oil & Gaaaas : Down 4,14% today to 81p (Woooow, Missing their Aussie Big Brother already!)
Borders & Southern Comfort; Down 4,33% today to 60,75p (Dirt cheap too!)
Despair Petroleum: Down 1,39% today to 35,50p (Woooow, seem the Market doesn’t believe in Ninky!)
Rockflopper: Down 4,98% today to 262p (Woooow, gently sliding down after yesterday’s “magnificent no news”)
And………………. last but not least
Arghhhhhhos: Up/Down 0,00% today to 29,75p (Buy, Buy, Buy, Buuuy)
Seems that the Market and I are reading the Malvinas Oilies with the same glasses :~)
I'll believe Rockhopper's statement when I see the actual results. These two companies so far haven't exactly been the most honest and forthcoming.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You obviously listen to too many Argentine politicians.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 08 zethe
Apr 05th, 2011 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.bgs.ac.uk/falklands-oil/tax_legislation.html
Contrary to most peoples expectations oil exploration is a slow and steady process, and very rarely big bang. The market loves to speculate on big movements often causing bigger or contrary movements; these often have little to do with the long term outcome of the exploration or in the early stages the value of the companies involved.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So big opportunities for us to celebrate when there is upward movement, and big opportunities for the nihilists when there are downward movements. Largely it doesn't affect the programme of work or the ultimate outcome.
So back to the chorus.
21 dab: Yeah it wasn't a detailed sum. Didn't include tax operational costs ect. Was just a quick bit of head maths. Still, it represents a massive increase in GDP.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 022(#) + 23 (#)
Apr 05th, 2011 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0according to you ,some Commenters write after Think or just Ding ?
No offence intended but i don't personally understand the question. Some commenters only post after Think?
Apr 05th, 2011 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[] 25
Apr 05th, 2011 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I mean,which Commenters post their comments by Thinking ?
I'd have thought the answer was quite obvious.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes obviously ?
Apr 05th, 2011 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[] 23 +[] 25
Apr 05th, 2011 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you join these [] 27 +[] 28 comments.
Note to all: above are prime examples of why there is very little foreign investment in Argentina. El Thinko decides to quote the daily SP but only when the daily SP fluctuations finish red. Marcos likes to base investment news based on one persons opinion. He doesnt indicate why a risk averse income investor would choose to not invest in frontier oil exploration.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Master thinks that RKH is now two companies. BTW master the results of the last appraisal drill are on view for the world to see. Go to the website if you want to see them. Please indicate where and when RKH have not been forthcoming. I can post you the links if you want them. Or are you like Marcos and unable to comprehend such details?
This forum provides a good opportunity for a discourse based study into the Argentine world. They make their mind up in advance about the truth and when the evidence mounts up against them they simply refuse to believe it and think it is not happening. They deserve our sympathy as it is a shame they cannot comprehend anything that docent fit with their self-centered view of the world.
The data is there for all to see. Oil will flow to the market from sea-lion
Master, especially for you. Results if you want to see them for yourself! Happy reading.
http://www.rockhopperexploration.co.uk/pdf/sea_lion_post_14-10-4.pdf
http://www.rockhopperexploration.co.uk/pdf/sea_lion_post_14-10-4.pdf
Now, Yul mentioned whiskey. Think I will get the crystal out for a drop of Jura.
@11 Oh Dan4 again with a daily briefing or intelligence report direct from “ El Estado Mayor Conjunto” or Ministerio de Guerra or better of from the Commander in Chief herself . He talks about radar capabilities? do you know what a radar is ? Playing “ Call of duty” (Xbox version does not qualify you to talk about the military nor the organizational skills of the top command. Go back to your interior design and focus on the right colors of the dress that you are going to wear tonight. Hee Ha !!!!
Apr 05th, 2011 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It still stands to reason that Argentina would need a functional military to invade the Islands. The terms “Functional” and “Argentine Military” however are in a dichotomous relationship.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[] 31 .... hey amigo....
Apr 05th, 2011 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don' t remember the first names of ZARATE (!)
brothers who were teachers at ESMA in 70s years.
Please say to us their first names if you know .
by the way , one of them was very obscene talker
and heavy smoker Which one ?
Don't ask me who I am ..... OK!
Nice……………
Apr 05th, 2011 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Patrik Bateman I (Mr Beef) and II (Mr.Dan4), RG’Rambo (artillero601) and El Think (Think) agreeing fully about the improbability of an Argentinean military attack on the Archipelago.
@32 those 2 opposite concepts that you just mentioned should be explained by the 3 star general Dan4 sir!
Apr 05th, 2011 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0,, I understand what people are saying, and in no way am I encouraging things, but even if she had nothing, the whole point of secrecy or surprise is to take advantage of the comp latency one may put on security, purely from their point of view does the rewards outweigh the risks involved,just a thought thats all,
Apr 05th, 2011 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Briton - I wouldn't call a 1500 - 2000 strong garrison, integrated air and sea defense, four typhoons (can be doubled in less than 24hrs), a destroyer and a few nuclear powered subs complacent.
Apr 05th, 2011 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You may well of course be right, im just pointing out the whole point of this would be surprise, to you and I and the rest of the world, its impossible, but conceivable, I trust our military , but never politicians,
Apr 05th, 2011 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we can all quote thing like Singapore-troy-fortress Europe-tubruck HMS hood, The 3 German pocket ships, pearl harbour, [lightly] im just saying is the rewards worth the risk, that’s all.
the garrison is @ 3000 by the way
Apr 05th, 2011 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I thought it was much less than that, around 300, but or course this is way way out .
Apr 05th, 2011 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh no !!, with a cost of 600 million a year?
Apr 05th, 2011 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“the garrison is @ 3000 by the way”
Apr 05th, 2011 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The garrison is between 1000 and 2000 depending on the time of year and what training is going on in the area. Not three thousand.
“Oh no !!, with a cost of 600 million a year?”
It's not a cost of 600 million a year. Cost is 70 million this year. Only in 83, 84, 85 did the islands cost us 600 million a year. This was due to building up the base.
Well it probably never happen,, anyway Britain has other more pressing problems at the moment, see all tomorrow
Apr 05th, 2011 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0so $657 million in 2004 is incorrect?
Apr 05th, 2011 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#33/
Apr 05th, 2011 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What are you doing !!...very dangerous !..They can't know and reply .
These comments on have Wikipedia - Internet levels
You must kidding just so lightly here !.....just fun !
geo ! my advice to you open a new log-in accounts to steering forums,
if you liked here....
Yul/401 Ottilia
“so $657 million in 2004 is incorrect?”
Apr 05th, 2011 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes. 2004 military expenditure was 114 million. And that includes movable assets like the jets, heavy equipment. It is no longer counted like that.
interesting ! thanks for the info
Apr 05th, 2011 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“David Cameron: Britain caused many of the world's problems”
Apr 05th, 2011 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Britain is responsible for many of the world’s historic problems”
No sh.t, what a surprise. What about getting the hell out of our islands Malvinas?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8430899/David-Cameron-Britain-caused-many-of-the-worlds-problems.html
Pass.
Apr 06th, 2011 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0(47) Artillero601
Apr 06th, 2011 - 03:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just for your “info”………………………………….
The “total cost” for the Mount Pleasant base (all inclusive) is about ~$600.000.000 per year.
The ~$100.000.000 mentioned by many are just “budgetary jugglery” from the MoD to keep the tax payer at ease. (For example:……. Wages are not included in that figure)
You, as a Ex-Military person know surely what I’m talking about.
The true “population” of Mount Pleasant is “kind of” restricted information but………………….................................
Best estimates are:
Armed personnel: Between 2.400 to 3.000
Service personnel: Between 600 to 900
The “total cost” for the Mount Pleasant base (all inclusive) is about ~$600.000.000 per year.
Apr 06th, 2011 - 05:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Figures show that the UK spending on foreign aid - including the amount spent by departments other than DFID - will rise by 50 per cent, increasing from £8.4billion this year to £12.6billion in 2014.
The £12.6billion figure is equal to £479 for every household in Britain.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322745/Foreign-aid-budget-cost-family-500-Fat-cats-earning-90k.html#ixzz1Iie7kWIr
Money well spent keeping that oil safe,dont you think think
“Best estimates are:
Apr 06th, 2011 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Armed personnel: Between 2.400 to 3.000
Service personnel: Between 600 to 900”
your best ain't much cop think, just because someone works in the military and wears fatigues doesn't mean they are armed personnel, there is one Roulement Infantry Company stationed at MPA ....hardly 2400-3000 armed personnel.
Still, given how you consistently hold onto your delusion that the cost of maintaining the garrison is 10 times what it actually is I can't say I'm that surprised that your 'best estimate' is so far off the mark.
We are delighted with your best estimates. There are also 12 Typhoons, three nuclear powered submarines, 15 nimrods and the place is bristling with rapier sites.
Apr 06th, 2011 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Suggest you keep a respectful distance.
48 Err Cos they're not yours, never have been and never will be?
Apr 06th, 2011 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(52) and (53)
Apr 06th, 2011 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please,……………. put your act together.
One Kelper tells me you are running a discount“Dad’s Army” base.
Another Kelper tells me the whole bloody English Army is out there.
Chuckle chuckle
@53 ... so?? Since 2001 , the US is been in Afghanistan with the biggest and most sophisticated military in the world. When it comes to conventional warfare , the will of the people to fight to the end is the one that prevails , so don't count too much on the hardware. Vietnam was another example. Just a thought
Apr 06th, 2011 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0English Army ?
Apr 06th, 2011 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How you say? what a turnip
Ohhhh.................
Apr 06th, 2011 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a terrible “unintentional” mistake I made at (55).
Did I write “English Army”?
What immense “Ignorance”!
I meant, of course “Royal Army”
”Just for your “info”………………………………….
Apr 06th, 2011 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The “total cost” for the Mount Pleasant base (all inclusive) is about ~$600.000.000 per year.“
Just for your ”info” that is a complete and utter lie.
You can keep lying as much as you want, think. The FACTS are that the islands cost us currently 70 million a year. A FACT that i have proven to you before.
Your wages argument is weak. The 3000 people at the base would cost us the same if they were based in scotland.
(59)
Apr 06th, 2011 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Seems that Turnip school is over and the boys are all home.......
Zethee.... You have never proved a single thing.
“Zethee.... You have never proved a single thing.”
Apr 06th, 2011 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Age is getting to you, think. Last time you kept bringing this up i proved you wrong. I searched the parliment website for the figures.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100222/text/100222w0006.htm
You're wrong.
(61) Zethee
Apr 06th, 2011 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Boy….. I choose to ignore you from the very beginning because you are a consummated Turnip, a gun freak and a self admitted dyslectic.
Anyhow you opt to call me a liar and make fun with my age….
Gloves off then………………………
You may have searched your“PARLIMENT” webside.
But your certainly didn’t understand the “DOCUMINT”
I quote:
”There is some variation between years caused by what categories of expenditure were included.
For example, in recent years figures do not include:
Military equipment.
Military personnel pay.
Service children's education facilities.
Estate works and maintenance.
IT and communication.
Maritime visits or air charter.
Costs associated with these activities are met by other top level budget holders.
The MOD's core budget is separated into eight top level budget holders (TLBs), each responsible for delivering individual military objectives.
Within these TLBs the budget is not routinely allocated in terms of regions, but in terms of categories of expenditure.
To provide the level of detailed breakdown of these categories in relation to the Falkland Islands would be of disproportionate cost.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100222/text/100222w0006.htm
In layman’s words, that even a Turnip can understand:
A “Budgetary jugglery” from the MoD to keep the tax payer at ease.
As I write in my Post No. (50)
If you listen to Mr Peter Preston in “UK can't afford the Falklands”at around the 1 minute mark , he says:
Apr 06th, 2011 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A big bill maybe a half a billion pounds a year”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11999601
@ 61 @ 62 .... GW Bush forgot to put the war in Iraq on the books. 3 trillion dollars later look where we at . Cooking the books for the sake of keeping the public out of your ass is basically a STANDARD PROCEDURE.... just a thought
Apr 06th, 2011 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You could not make it up….
Apr 06th, 2011 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Great Britain has a “Budget” for their bases in Malvinas.
The “Budget” is about 100.000.000 U$S
The “Budget” does NOT include:
Military equipment. (Meaning vehicles, guns, uniforms, food, in short: everything in the base)
Military personnel pay. (Meaning generals, officers, soldiers, in short everybody in uniform)
Work and maintenance. (Meaning workers, barmen, toilet cleaners, in short everybody in civilian clothes)
Maritime visits or air charter. (Meaning : all transport)
IT and communication. (Meaning : all the rest)
What do they use the 100.000.000 U$S “Budget for?
Toilet paper?
“You may have searched your“PARLIMENT” webside.
Apr 06th, 2011 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But your certainly didn’t understand the “DOCUMINT””
I absolutely did understand the document.
Military equipment. - Would cost us the same if based in UK.
Military personnel pay. - Would cost us the same if based in UK. Still only adds 40 million to the 70 million it says.
Service children's education facilities. - Would cost us the same if based in the UK
Estate works and maintenance. - An extra cost. Couple million a year? max.
IT and communication. - Couple mil a year, max.
Maritime visits or air charter. - Maritime visits do not cost us any extra. The royal navy is constantly going around the world.
There is no way on this earth you can exaggerate 70 million into 600 million. Look at the list. In recent years wages were taken off the cost for the islands for the reasons i have mentioned. And the cost of the islands droped from 140 million to 70 million.
The cost of 1500 troops is about 40-50 million a year. With about 10-20 million on repair, maintenance and other costs.
This figure makes perfect sence. The one you would have us believe that the base costs us 70 million, while pay maintenance and childcare cost an extra 500 million a year.
Your gloves may have came off, but clearly your old mind is failing you.
“A “Budgetary jugglery” from the MoD to keep the tax payer at ease.”
Apr 06th, 2011 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This especially is hilarious; Think can pull a figure out of his arse. with no facts references or even logic behind it, but a clearly government sourced document detailing all costs for 30 years from the secretary of defence has to be a lie.
To be fair to Think I dont belive he pulled the figures out of his arse,his head is in the way,even if they were true its a drop in the ocean to what we pay out in foreign aid, any money spent on the defence of the Falklands is money well spent,even an investment if Oil gets a flowing
Apr 06th, 2011 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@55 & 56
Apr 06th, 2011 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0stillakelper was taking the piss you pair of clowns.
piss? does he have an incontinence problem?
Apr 06th, 2011 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0clowns? No! is not Halloween yet sunshine
66 Nice one. The old goat hasn't got a clue. And thats the way it should stay.
Apr 06th, 2011 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0is there a british emassy, a british firm or a british tourist in Argenmtina ?? lets get them out, or ship them home in a crate, lets cut off any food export to britishstan and close any port to their pirat ship, as well as the ships and planes of their allyes, take the money from their bank account in Argentina as they did with Gaddafy's accounts. Argentines or anyone should go and sink this platforms before they create another oil spill in Argentine waters, if UK can arm terrorits in Libya we can also arm ourselves and sink their pirat ships, Gaddafy will pay 10.000.000 to anyone willing to go on this mission, is there any MI6 who needs the cash ?? even a CIA agent will do.....further more Argentina should mine the ocean around Malvinas Argentina to keep pirats from stealing their resources, that is the only politics europids understand even a rope around the neck of pirats is better then talking to them, this is what they did with Saddam and it should also be good enough for europids, go back to Murdering Muslims women and children wich is what you people are good at.
Apr 06th, 2011 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How's Canada?
Apr 06th, 2011 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Man U are playing Chelsea on the box at the moment but will be back later.
Apr 06th, 2011 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@72 Pathe-Tic
Apr 07th, 2011 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Keep ranting I(diot), you're as good a show as any mad mullah.
:-)
Some FACTs rather than fantasy about the cost to UK of maintaining the Falklands Garrisson. Total strength including civilain support staff is LESS than 2000 and that is a publicly avaiable figure.
Apr 07th, 2011 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The actual annual costs:
AirCharter hire for the flight movements of people and kit - 2 flights a week.
Operating costs of a cargo ship every 6 weeks(ship owned by UK Govt anyway)
Costs of transferring aircraft to Uk and back for major deep servicing etc.
Thats about it in reality as even if they were NOT here, those personell and all their planes,ships, etc would still be somewhere else being paid and needing feeding accomodating,training etc etc.!
Tht is why the figure of approx £70million is near the mark and a lot of the rest are silly fanatasies dreampt up by media reporters who have no idea but want a headline to sell a paper! In this the UK papers are just as bad as the Argentine ones I agree.
(76) Islander1
Apr 07th, 2011 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The whole idea of a budgetary cuts is to CUT costs......
If CUTTED, those personell and all their planes,ships, etc would NOT be somewhere else being paid and needing feeding accomodating,training etc etc.!
They would be CUT..... OUT.....GONE
Saving the British taxpayer 600.000.000U$S per year.
Saving the British taxpayer 600.000.000U$S per year
Apr 07th, 2011 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0£7.7 billion Foreign Aid budget 2010/2011 financial year
we get to defend the Falklands for a bargain compared to our foreign aid budget :-)
“Saving the British taxpayer 600.000.000U$S per year.”
Apr 07th, 2011 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Keep saying it doesn't make it true. That figure is not real. This has been proven, perhaps your decrepit mind has forgotten already?
Perhaps in your old age you have also forgotten that a month ago your estimate for the cost of the islands was 720,ooo,ooo. Seems to have changed since, funny that.
“If CUTTED, those personell and all their planes,ships, etc would NOT be somewhere else being paid and needing feeding accomodating,training etc etc.!”
Wrong. Our budget is a set % of gdp. It is 2.5%. That is a set ammount. If the islands were not there. Those planes ships and men we would still have, they would just be based in another place. You are wrong. And it has been proven.
We don't recruit extra people for the islands or germany, cyprus. We recruit a set number of people(about 250,000) and they are sent where needed. If we had more people, the base would be larger. We didn't recruit 10,000 people for Afghanistan. We had 10,000 troops we sent there.
The facts are there think, You are wrong.
Oh, and just to expand on how much you really have lost it think;
Apr 07th, 2011 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In this post he claims it's ~$600.000.000 per year. Thats US dollars.
A few months back he said:
720 Million British bloody Pounds!!! A Year !!!!
At this current exchange rate would cost the UK 1.174104 billion dollars.
Could somebody explain to Zethee that the British Defense Budget (2,5% of GDP) is NOT a natural law NOR has been delivered by God to the United Kingdom?
Apr 07th, 2011 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even if the % changed. Doesn't help your argument. All my points stand.
Apr 07th, 2011 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We recruit a set number of people depending on budget. Higher budget - more people. These people are then assigned places around the world. Nomatter where they are placed, they cost us the same if they were based in the UK. Bar shipping and base costs. We do not recruit people with the intention of keeping them in one place and if the islands were no longer ours we would not be sacking the 1500 people there, rather sending them elsewhere.
The UK mainland itself doesn't even have enough military accomidation to hold the entire army. So to an extent it's necessary to have them in places like these.
Either way; Your argument is flawed, You have no facts, Your claims are illogical, Inconsistent and down right daft.
I’ll try to make it easy for you using your own words:
Apr 07th, 2011 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”We recruit a set number of people depending on budget. Higher budget - more people.”
Try this one:
“We recruit a set number of people depending on budget. Lower budget - . . . . people.”
Where you able to fill the dotted line?
Wasn’t too difficult was it?
As i have explained before. Our budget is not increased because of the islands. It is a set number. Not having the islands would not decrease our defence budget.
Apr 07th, 2011 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Removing the base from the islands would not decrease our defence budget, the people would only be elsewhere. We would only save 70 million a year. that 70 million that is stated in that document(Being the only one of us to provide some facts to this argument).
If we did not have the islands, our defence budget would have 70 million more to spend on defence. It would not decrease our defence budget.
Just for clarification, what number are you going to stick with? Do the islands cost us 600 million a year. Or the previous 1.1 billion? Are there any facts to go along with this? What made you change your mind? After all 720 million bloody british pounds is a lot of pounds.
I would very much like to see your maths or sources for this information.
The make up, numbers, location and cost of British Armed Forces are confidential and not for supercilious liars in stolen Patagonia.
Apr 07th, 2011 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All you need to know is that if you cross the line and you'll get a slap. Really cross the line and you'll get wasted.
Simples baby.
I would very much like to see your maths or sources for this information
Apr 07th, 2011 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thinks been asked this loads of times,comes out with the DYOR bollox all the time,any way for the record i have a 12 inch cock,just have to take my word for it,and i dont use it as a rule
UK defense budget news
Apr 07th, 2011 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Libya forces David Cameron to rethink defence cuts”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8436505/Libya-forces-David-Cameron-to-rethink-defence-cuts.html
Comments
“What a complete and utter retard. After two world wars, we've now sunk to the level of re-assessing defence cuts on the basis of some poxy North African squabble. Can it get any worse”
“Can we please have our carrier back Sir?”
“Lets hope the Turks havent chopped the bugger up yet!” :-)))))))
My son is in the process of joining the RAF, from the information they place on their website they have four overseas bases, Ascension, Gibraltar, Cyprus, and the Falkland Islands. At any moment only 10% of RAF personnel are serving overseas, and this includes during multi-national UN sanctioned missions with allies.
Apr 07th, 2011 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The number of people serving in the Falkland Islands is insignificant compared to the number serving within the MoD, and besides, its our business not yours, and we can afford it no matter what it costs, £70 Million, £720 Million, or £1.1 Billion, I pay my taxes and all I care about is protecting the Falkland Islanders from a bigoted neighbour; Argentina, a country with a history of stupidity that it continues to build on every year.
88 So you are going to send your son to protect the oil and fish of rich greedy corporations? Don't you worry down here, we are not interested in wars and the only problem he might encounter is Argentinean fog. We'll welcome him when he runs to the mainland for help.
Apr 07th, 2011 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Joining the RAF doesn't mean being a pilot. Or being stationed there.
Apr 07th, 2011 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think, you are wrong - but I accept you will never admit to such a fallability! The aircraft which are rotated through here, the ships rotated throght here, the men ans women rotated through here - would ALL still be part of HM Armed Forces if there was no Falklands - where do you think they are when they are not here? This is NOT their full time base - all a part of UK based units.
Apr 07th, 2011 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One smallship was built specifiacally for the Falklands - little HMS Clyde - but I am pretty sure that she would also be kept and become part off the UK coastal protection fleet guarding offshore oil etc - like here predecessors did.
Please try and get reality into your head- the big cost here was the basic infrastructure- airbase and naval port etc - that was done long ago - now its just routine maintenance etc.
And routine exercises that you know full well have been goping on for over 25 years - despite all the crap and hysterics from Buenos Aires last time there was a routine exercise here.
Cameron force to rethink defence cuts after the Libya fiasco, Portugal is asking for a bailout and Nick Clegg can't handle the pressure anymore and cries. I wonder if he found out how much money they are spending to count penguins in Malvinas.
Apr 08th, 2011 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/8369519/Nick-Clegg-I-cry-to-music-and-even-my-sons-ask-why-everyone-hates-me.html
Argies seem to be spending their taxes on new toys
Apr 08th, 2011 - 06:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina, similar to other Latin American countries, is increasing its defence budget at a robust pace according to a new report form Strategic Defence Intelligence.
The defence budget, which stood at $2.6bn in 2010, recorded a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.36% during the review period (2006-2010). The large growth in the defence budget was due to increased personnel salaries. The Argentine defence budget is expected to register a CAGR of 15.87% during the forecast period (2011-2015) to reach $5.5bn by 2015.
Defence expenditure is primarily driven by modernisation plans, participation in peacekeeping missions and a dispute with the UK regarding the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The Argentine government has announced plans to increase defence expenditure, which stood at 0.7% of GDP in 2010, to 1.5% of GDP over an unspecified period. It is estimated that by 2015 the defence budget will stand at 1.3% of GDP. Capital expenditure accounted for an average of 3.6% of the defence budget during the review period. However, modernisation plans will increase capital expenditure to an average of 6.2% of the defence budget during the forecast period.
HMS Astute didn't get stuck this time but in the news again.
Apr 08th, 2011 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/08/man-arrested-shooting-nuclear-submarine
Argie human rights abuses in the news again
Apr 08th, 2011 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/63884/us-state-department-questions-argentine-judiciarys-independence
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/63884/us-state-department-questions-argentine-judiciarys-independence
The following human rights problems were reported: killings and use of excessive force by police or security forces; police abuse and alleged torture of criminal suspects and prison guard brutality toward prisoners; overcrowded and substandard prison and jail conditions; occasional arbitrary arrest and detention; prolonged pretrial detention; continued concerns about judicial efficiency and independence; official corruption; domestic violence against women; child abuse; trafficking in
persons for sexual and labor exploitation, primarily within the country; and child labor.
@58 Think
Apr 08th, 2011 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no English Army, and no Royal Army, the first ceased to be at the Act of Union, the latter at some point after Revolution, Restoration, and Glorious Revolution, when the word Royal was removed from its title. It is called the British Army, and operates as an integral partner with the Royal Navy & Royal Air Force as a part of the UK MoD.
I find it difficult to take your figures seriously when you make such basic errors.
@89 Marvin
I'm sure any visit he might make to the Islands in the future will be an enjoyable one.
did the europids murder all the Muslim women and children in Libya yet ?? or will they theft the oil first ?? I am surprised with all the free oil around no body has set any of it on fire, those gas tanks in Libya are too big to miss with a .50 caliber. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c03_1240518549
Apr 09th, 2011 - 06:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0(96)
Apr 09th, 2011 - 08:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have neither wish nor intention to be “taken seriously” by the likes of you!
As any less “Turnipy” poster easily could deduce by reading my posts; Me writing “English Army” and “Royal Army” were “intentional mistakes”……
I know perfectly that it is called the “Commonwealth Army”!!!
I seem to remember that you have previously corrected others about that “basic mistake”
As if anybody else but Turnips cares if your Army is called British, English Welsh, Scottish, Regal or whatever !!!
What a Turnip…………
@98Think, well, l'll try again. at least Think have the grace to admit that you didn't know that the British Army was not called“Royal”.
Apr 09th, 2011 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0You would not have been expected to know. So no need to be embarrassed.
The English Army ceased to exist in 1707.
Not 100% sure why the army isn't Royal, l think that its something to do with the Duke of Cornwall's Light lnfantry.
l don't think the army is called the “Commonwealth Army”. Not since 1660 anyway.
l know your Scandinavian Armies are all Royal, maybe you thought ours was too. Peace
“Not 100% sure why the army isn't Royal”
Apr 09th, 2011 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0King Charles II. He didn't trust the army after the civil war so removed the “Royal” from the army. Since then it's just become tradition.
(99) Cher Isolde
Apr 09th, 2011 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Evidently, my British sense of irony is simply too fine-tuned and refined for the Brutish to understand :-)
By the way Cher Isolde.....
The Scandinavian Armies ain't ”Royal”…….
Each of them has a ”Royal Guard” regiment but … that’s it.
And don’t dare trying to discuss THIS specific issue with me….. Woman :-)
Evidently, my British sense of irony is simply too fine-tuned and refined for the Brutish to understand :-)
Apr 09th, 2011 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good old argie damage limitation at work,along with didnt hurt,ment to do that etc:-))))))
(99) Cher Isolde
Apr 09th, 2011 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you want more proof that I “knew” that your “Royal Army” is not called “Royal Army”, please read posts No. 213, 214 and 218 from following MercoPress Article:
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/09/15/argentine-militants-demand-return-of-falklands-war-booty-docked-in-buenos-aires
I quote:
213 Wireless Sep 21st, 2010 - 10:05 pm
Pheel(208) You keep mentioning the 'Royal Army', when there hasn't been a Royal Army operated in the UK since 1689, when it became illegal for the Monarch to raise an Army.
214 Think Sep 21st, 2010 - 10:24 pm
Comment removed by the editor.
218 Think Sep 22nd, 2010 - 04:24 am
Nice to see that the editor is keeping this site neat and clean.
Typing 214 times “Royal Army” at (214) was surely wrong and offended a lot of people :-)
From now on I will only type “Royal Army” once, only when neccessary.
The turnips fall for it every time ;~)
Now he's a fountian of information. Ofcourse when someone can and has proven the old git wrong, silence endues.
Apr 09th, 2011 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just another Supercilious twerp. Not worth a brass farthing.
Apr 09th, 2011 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@101 & 103 Think, did l touch a raw nerve Cher Think, you even came back for another go! And the supreme insult for you...............Woman?
Apr 10th, 2011 - 07:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0A misogynist among latin macho-men, you must really be in your element .
You may well be a woman in the next life, hope so it might teach you something.
Thank you for confirming what l suspected. You know what l mean!
l now christen you“Royal Turnip” long may you reign over all the other turnips.
You assume wrongly, Cher Isolde!
Apr 10th, 2011 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Woman = Insult?..... No way…. I just adhere to Gray’s notion that Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus............................................
Misogynist = El Think? ….Qui, Moi?.... No way…. I’m still adhering to the concept that Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus............
In short…. I like women very much…… especially when they know their place :-)
Where is their place, M'sieur Think? You did say once that you had been married quite a few times, yes? l wonder why.
Apr 10th, 2011 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Where is their place, M'sieur Think? ”
Apr 10th, 2011 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Quick, off the top of my head...............
”Barefoot and pregnant”
”Kinder, Küche, Kirche”
”Dama en la Sala,… P*** en la Cama”
;-)
the secrets of a successful marriage by Don Think, or is that don't think?
Apr 10th, 2011 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0what about love & affection or respect & partnership? are your brains in your big head or your little head?
All that other stuff too…
Apr 10th, 2011 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One thing doesn’t exclude the other….
Ying and Yang and all that, you know….
As a gift for @ 110 & @ 111 a beautiful love making song ....
Apr 10th, 2011 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjYnddeEfao&feature=fvst
Nice……… But I’d choose a more “intime” piece with a slow crescendo, a robust build-up and a authoritative finale.
Apr 10th, 2011 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaU0C87P4AM&feature=fvst
PS:
Look at that kid!............ He really knows how to caress her!
No doubt !
Apr 10th, 2011 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@98
Apr 10th, 2011 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I obviously hit a raw nerve Think, so sorry about that, you latin americans are so emotional, such emotion even suggests your moniker is an oxymoron when it comes to reasoned thought and debate, the irony eh?
Yes, I've corrected others in the past, but it seems you still need a bit of stick; no 'Commonwealth Army' ever existed, so your mistake whether intentional (yeah right), or otherwise, needs to be corrected.
Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army, the World's first professional army, existed from 1645 to 1660, when it was disbanded; but the Commonwealth of England, was the World's first Republic (the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1795 had a Monarch and so doesn't count), existed between 1649 and 1660.
It seems we can't help being first at everything, and all you johnny-come-latelys seem to think we're first at everything just to deliberately to annoy you, when in fact the truth is we don't even think about it.
'As if anybody else but Turnips cares if your Army is called British, English Welsh, Scottish, Regal or whatever !!!'
Such fine words, but your subsequent post @103 seems to contradict you, much like any Argentine evidence regarding their claim to the Falkland Islands and SGSSI is contradicted by all the real original verifiable evidence, such is life.
I think, that you 'Think', are the turnip here, and a right royal one you are.
but the Commonwealth of England, was the World's first Republic
Apr 10th, 2011 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, but no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
:-)))
Apr 10th, 2011 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 115 .....Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army, the World's first professional army, existed from 1645 to 1660 ...... I don't think so. 2000 years ago, the Roman Army was a professional Army, paid by the Legion Commanders at one point and then paid by the Emperor (Augustus Octavian, made that change) Why do you think the coins have the Emperor's faces? one of them, to remind the Legions who was paying them ......Just a thought
Apr 10th, 2011 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(116) dab14763
Apr 10th, 2011 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dear Dab; allow me to “complement” your info……………….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice 697–1797
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice 1005–1815 / Englishmen, Please notice the Flag :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice 11th century–1406
Still Chuckling about the Turnip at (115)
.....Allow me to continue, their contract (Roman Army) was for 20 years, not allowed to marry, needed to know how to read, write, swim and the discipline was so strict and the punishment was so severe (decimation) if they didn't perform well in battle that they rather face the enemy than pay the consequences ...... Hail Caesar !!
Apr 10th, 2011 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is the English flag …..................................................……English?
Apr 10th, 2011 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Prince Edward, Duke of Kent:
“The St. George's flag, a red cross on a white field, was adopted by England and the City of London in 1190 for their ships entering the Mediterranean to benefit from the protection of the Geonoese fleet. The English Monarch paid an annual tribute to the Doge of Genoa for this privilege.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Genoa#Alleged_Genoan_origin
Chuckle chuckle………..
It never was just the English flag. It's the flag of St. George.
Apr 11th, 2011 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's on like, 15 flags.
The romans had the cross on one of there flags. I'd say that would probably be where the flag came from.
@122 ..“The romans had the cross on one of there flags. I'd say that would probably be where the flag came from”....... during Constantine probable, first Roman Emperor to adopt Christianity ...
Apr 11th, 2011 - 01:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still chuckling about the Turnip at (115)
Apr 11th, 2011 - 06:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0He says:
”It seems we can't help being first at everything, and all you johnny-come-latelys seem to think we're first at everything just to deliberately to annoy you, when in fact the truth is we don't even think about it.”
Chuckle chuckle .... “we don't even think” .....Chuckle chuckle
England Johnny come late at ”World's first professional army” by about 2.000 years :-)
England Johnny come late at ” World's first Republic” by about…. Well you haven’t arrive there yet, have you? :-)
England Johnny come late at having their own flag….The old one was ”borrowed” and ”paid Tribute for” from the Italians …..The new one is crossed over by the Scottish flag :-)
@115 Wireless, l think you might have put your foot in it there. But never mind, we all make mistakes. Thats ALL of us, Think. Believe it or not, you actually do too!
Apr 11th, 2011 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Argie flag of choice
Apr 11th, 2011 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0On May 29th, the acting commander of 2 Para, Major Chris Keeble, sent a message via a POW to the commander of Argentine forces at Goose Green. It gave the Argentine commander the following options
1) That you surrender your force to us by leaving the township, forming up in a military manner, removing your helmets and laying down your weapons. You will prior notice of this intention by returning the POW under the White Flag, with him briefed to the formalities, no later than 08.30 hours local time.
2) You refuse in the first case to surrender and take the inevitable consequences. You will give prior notice of this intention by returning the POW without his White Flag, although his neutrality will be respected, no later than 08.30 local time.
3) In any event, an din accordance with the terms of the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war, you will be held responsible for the fate of any civilians in Goose Green and we, in accordance with the laws, do give you prior notice of our intention to bombard Gose Green.”
The POW returned with the White Flag just after first light. It was only after this that it became clear just how large the Argentine force was at Goose Green and Darwin. At the actual surrender were 983 men; about 100 had been taken prisoner during the battle. More than 200 Argentineans had been killed in the fighting; 2 Para lost 17 men killed.
(125) Isolde
Apr 11th, 2011 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”We all make mistakes. That’s ALL of us, Think. Believe it or not, you actually do too!”
I say:
Ohhhh Cher Isolde… I know… I know……...................... I know it so well.
But it seems there are so many haughty English Turnips in here that don’t know it.
Anyhow ……......
Interesting Wiki-trip (Post No. 119) through the “Once Omnipotent Italian Maritime Republics”
It makes one “Think” about the Rise and Fall of Empires….................
Memento Mori Cher foe
El Think
Just doing numbers. The Sea Lion will produce 2700 bbo/day. At US$110 a barrel; that is 972,000 bbo/year; total raised a year: US$106,920,000.
Apr 11th, 2011 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0BUT the cost of producing the barrels per day amount to US$250,000 (well that is the figure I read about). So, it is 90,000,000 US$ a year you have to subtract. You get US$17,000,000 profit margin, but to this number you must discount costs of Tranportation to ports near refineries. So lets say the final figure comes down to only US$14,000,000 a year profits. Is this figure what is really left for the Islands Governement? There must be some other kind of tax on it levied by the UK? or there isn´t? I was just wondering if more production is needed to make the whole oil exploration profitable. Please correct me.
(128)
Apr 11th, 2011 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0I quote from one of the “Optimistic British Oil Bolletin Boards”
“The economic analyses made by the companies involved in the North Falkland Basin show that a discovery with 400 million barrels recoverable reserves ”could be commercial”, using an FPSO and regular offloading to a tanker, with an acceptable number of wells and a per well flow rates in the range 7.000 -10.000 barrels of oil per day”
The “key” word being “Recoverable”
They are very, very ,very, (did I remember to say very?) very far from it yet.
The key word being “Recoverable” oil. Anyone remember when the key word was “NO” oil?
Apr 11th, 2011 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
@126 ....200 dead in Goose green??? you are out of your freaking mind !!!!!! Out of the 600 reported casualties, 300 came from Belgrano, the other 300 came from the rest, Air Force, Navy, Army, Prefectura Naval, Gendarmeria, ect , etc ..... If you think that I believe that lost @ 200 in the conflict you must be smoking something illegal. Any attacking force has a ratio of 3 to 1, why? because you expect to loose more people in the attack .... Even the US Naval Academy does not agree with your numbers is that why you all put a freeze on the information until 2050 or something? Come on people , let's move on to better things. Just a thought
Apr 11th, 2011 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(131)
Apr 11th, 2011 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are of course right Sr. M.
I hardly ever read what that particular poster writes……
Suggest you adopt the same approach.
Correct figure seems to be 47
47 too many……………………………..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Goose_Green
126 Wikipedia can't count. Seems 2 Para wounded, took prisoner and killed more Argentinians than were actually there. Whatever it was a victory over a force defending an entrenched position and which outnumbered the British Paratroopers 2 to 1. Initial reports were indeed that 240 Argentinians had died in the fighting leading some in the UK to question whether a massacre had taken place. It was only later that the correct casualty figures were released. The battle of Goose Green also demonstrated the Argentinian lack of respect for the white flag of surrender which was used at various points during the battle to lure British troops to their deaths.
Apr 11th, 2011 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0131 Happy to move on. Bitter memories.
Gracias Sr Think ! In this case “The Bullshitmeter” was indicating abnormal readings so I had to jump and do something about it. Even wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. I had to call Cnl Peluffo and verify this.
Apr 11th, 2011 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And the Turnip show continues!!!
Apr 11th, 2011 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now we get another brainwashed turnip at (133) saying:
”The Argentinian lack of respect for the white flag of surrender which was used at various points during the battle to lure British troops to their deaths.”
Many British veterans, journalists and authors have “dissected” that piece of War propaganda in multiple books and newspaper articles.
All free available and on public record in the Internet………………
Happy to move on. Bitter memories…………………
“Any attacking force has a ratio of 3 to 1, why? because you expect to loose more people in the attack”
Apr 11th, 2011 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ratios as low as 1:3 have been successful, as high as 6:1 not successful. Op Barras for example the British army took a force of 160 men against 600 in direct opposition to that ratio rule.
Many army's do teach the 3:1 rule. But it's not something the British army is big on. And the falklands is another perfect example of that. You had just over 10,000 men to our 5,000. Technology, Air power and training are big counters to that ratio.
“Even the US Naval Academy does not agree with your numbers”
The same US Naval Academy that stated that retaking the islands was a military impossibility?
@135 Of course propaganda and misinformation are typical characteristics of war time bullshit !
Apr 11th, 2011 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm almost done reading “ One hundred days” by Adm. Sandy Woodward ..... very freaking interesting !!
135 Its you that's brainwashed.
Apr 11th, 2011 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can't even keep a promise? Not even to your supercilious self.
@136 ...Technology, Air power and training are big counters to that ratio. ... That's correct, that's the way to compensate for the difference in troops. Which it comes to the “beef” that I have with the Air Force but I will not discuss that in this forum for obvious reasons ......
Apr 11th, 2011 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0139 No best not.
Apr 11th, 2011 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@140 .....lol!!
Apr 11th, 2011 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dan grow up mate,
Apr 11th, 2011 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You Brits sound like a bunch or war mongers and wingers
not even your britt Radar was able to detect Argentine jet fighters
as they evaded britt air defences and consequently sank several britt ships to the bottom of the ocean floor start reading your facts u donkey. By the way don't think you will be so lucky next time.
Our radar couldnt detect your ships also,mind you it could of been due to the fact they were hiding in port
Apr 11th, 2011 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tigre142- some facts - the British naval radars could and did detect your airforce attaks - but - in 1982 their max radar range for lower level was not much more than 20 miles - so not much time to give warnings and prepare etc. HMS Sheffield was hit because her radar and electronics were masked by other events going on at a crucial moment, all the others saw planes coming - and took out quite alot of them.
Apr 12th, 2011 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Its a historical military fact that ships do not fare well against planes if they do not have early warning.
2011 is a bit different - a type 45 destroyer can sit in Stanley outer harbour and basically watch aircrat taking off from Rio Gallegos - that is the tecnology the Royal Navy has today, its multiple defence missile system can then take out 10 to 12 incoming planes simultaneously.
144@Islander. Ironic, that´s the word for what you´ve just said. SO much technology of yours is today hypersuperfluous considering the poor (and I use this adjective just to be generous) decaying state of all the Argentine Armed Forces (even using the word “armed forces” makes me burst into harking laughter right from the belly).. anyways, your hypersuperfluous garrison down there waiting for “an attack” that would never happen again also makes me laugh out loud. Why do you sound so bragging about your military tech? If Argentines and British were given the same quality and quantity of weaponry, and without intervention of other 3rd countries, the Argentines would rub your nose against the floor in 8 out 10 times... and this is partly the reason why Argentina is still under one of the strictest veiled arms embargo ever seen in history. SO WAR was and has been ever since 1983, but especially after 1994 absolutely out of the question for Argentina in regard to the matter of the Malvinas. So you are all wasting time and money. Why dont you engage in a more constructive approach toward Argentina and the Malvinas?
Apr 12th, 2011 - 03:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Except for the sovereignty, Argentina would give way to any wish the Islanders would ask for. You Brits could even add a secret clause to an agreement with Argentina reading like this: In case Argentina might attempt to run over the Islanders in any issue, a Nuclear Sub or Typhoons will indicate B.A. what to do to put things back to right.
BEing serious enough: driving on the left, having your common law judicary, “your own armed police” is sth Argentina would accept. Sth like a state associated to Argentina but with a safeguardign clause to split from her in case things go in ways unexpected to the Islanders and the Brits. And everybody would go happy-go-merry-about!
“Argentines and British were given the same quality and quantity of weaponry, and without intervention of other 3rd countries, the Argentines would rub your nose against the floor in 8 out 10 times”
Apr 12th, 2011 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0I believe the last war in 82. where our armed forces general level of modern tech were very equal and we wiped the floor with you proves that wrong.
Also the fact that 5000 of our marines took 10,000 POW's. Technology aside, british forces still have the longest training of any army in the entire world.
Our troops were and are of a different quality.
Gotey (Comment #145):
Apr 12th, 2011 - 05:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0“If Argentines and British were given the same quality and quantity of weaponry, and without intervention of other 3rd countries, the Argentines would rub your nose against the floor in 8 out 10 times...”
A) Talk is cheap. 1982 provides evidence that it's easier said than done.
B) If my grandma had balls, she'd be my grandpa.
145 Sounds great but can Argentina ever be trusted. The answer is unfortunately not. You have shown yourselves to be a nation of cheats, hypocrites and liars who find it impossible to abide by normal standards of international behaviour. When you are caught in the act you twist and turn, blame this or that and then claim “propaganda”.
Apr 12th, 2011 - 06:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0@145 Gotey,we are not interested what Argentina would accept.
Apr 12th, 2011 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is our land not yours & you have no rights here at all. We are a self-governing nation & do not want to be part of Argentina. So please just go away & repair your own country.
Oh dear, I made a mistake, but am man enough to admit it, unlike most Argentinians, however, the main thrust of my argument is that Think was incorrect about a 'Commonwealth Army' ever existing, and we were a Republic before Argentina was ever thought about, and decided we didn't like it, so were first in that respect, and that is why the Argentines are johnny-come-latelys.
Apr 12th, 2011 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Isolde is quite correct, Think has been shown to be incorrect on many occasions, and has consistently not accepted or admitted as such.
There is also the Elephant within every comment thread of MercoPress regarding Argentina's continued false claim to the Falkland Islands, the continued maintenance of the Big Lie of Peronism, the morally reprehensible and legally unsupported argument that the Falkland Islanders are not entitled to the right of Self-Determination, and the crass stupidity of every Malvinist contributor.
These are not things to chuckle about, these are things that Think and his Argentinian Turnips should be thoroughly ashamed about, but then, if they have a culture where admitting such grand faults as these is impossible, how can we expect them to admit to similar mistakes to that of mine @115?
So when you chuckle Think, you're really laughing at your own credibility.
150 Its pointless talking with these people, they are without hope and incapable of breaking out of their brainwashed condition. I do however resent the way they try to distort the truth to match their over blown view of their ridiculous Country.
Apr 12th, 2011 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is amusing is the way that some Argentinians make strong emotional statements only to break their word in the blinking of an eye. They can't simply can't help themselves.
Let's talk about military technology for a second. Some of our units had the latest technology and most of them didn't. When you have to share a night vision goggles among a platoon and to top it off , you don't have any batteries for it? Let's talk about tactics. The function of the Air Force is the following, Air superiority (which we didn't have), protect the supply line ( we didn't have ammo and food towards the end) and support the ground forces. The Navy, didn't have anti submarine technology, nevermind a plane carrier, ect, etc so the Army basically was left alone against all these infrastructure put in place and well organized. If you think that courage (we had plenty of) will compensate for all ?? the answer is NO!. should I continue?
Apr 12th, 2011 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“nevermind a plane carrier”
Apr 12th, 2011 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You had H.M.S Venerable.
”If you think that courage (we had plenty of) will compensate for all ”
No, and im not saying you never had courage. But training certanly helps a lot.
After the conflict the question was made, conscripts vs professional troops. The Army wanted the second, the government said no! (too expensive) so you tell me .....
Apr 12th, 2011 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0152 Can I refer you to what you said at 139. Please continue if you feel the need but what changed?
Apr 12th, 2011 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentinians did have an Aircraft carrier but it stayed in port. I seem to remember it was called “25th May” or something like that.
The two destroyers escorting the Belgrano at the time it was sunk, were believed to be equipped with anti submarine technology.
The Harriers from the the two light carriers did provide some Air Cover but I would hardly describe this as air superiority. The Argentinians had Pucara aircraft based on the Islands which posed a potent threat to UK ground forces. The Argentinians also had good artillery.
Be serious is right. Neither side had air superiority. When the troops were fighting on the ground it was with equal technology. The only difference being quality of the men out there.
Apr 12th, 2011 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Complaining about conscripts is often a sound Argentinian excuse. I personally don't see how being a conscript makes you less of a soldier. France(france may have abolished this recently) and Germany both have conscription and both armys field very professional and well trained men. Unless your conscripts were purposely trained less well than the the rest of your army, some sort of different basic training designed to be less effective....?
Even if your full force was non conscript the level of training between Argentinian and British troops is vast, the UK army spends a lot of time and money training it's troops more than most of the world.
Who complained about the conscripts? I didn't ! what I said was after the conflict the option of a professional Army was a better idea. Don't switch the words ....besides the class of 62 joined their units in January and the conflict was in April, 3 months of training? give me a break !!!!!!!!
Apr 12th, 2011 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0157 Well yeah you did kind of because you compared Conscripts with a Professional Army implying the latter would have performed better and but for the cost would have been the choice of the Argentine Military.
Apr 12th, 2011 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the amount of training the class of 62 received, the timing of the 1982 aggression was entirely in Argentina's hands.
@ 158 .. true!
Apr 12th, 2011 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 155 & 156 No! we did not have air superiority and that's a fact! There were very limited C130 trips from the mainland and that's another fact. We can't compare the Pucara (although an awesome plane) with the Harrier. Besides the Pucaras were destroyed by special forces at the beginning of the conflict (that was the Air Force responsability to guard them). In terms of Artillery, the use of conscripts is minimal, all mayor functions are performed by Officers and NCO's .... should I continue?
So a Pucara didn't shoot down a British Helicopter during the battle of Goose Green?
Apr 12th, 2011 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I take it we are agreed that the Argentine Artillery was good.
“155 & 156 No! we did not have air superiority and that's a fact! ”
Apr 12th, 2011 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not disagreeing with that. I even said “Neither side had air superiority”.
“that was the Air Force responsability to guard them”
I wouldn't put the blame to them, to be honest. Special forces are trained for such tasts. Air force crews aren't trained to fight off highly trained special forces and the SAS in particular are good at that role. The blame should be going to the general who didn't assign them a decent enough army guard detail.
@160 Most of the Pucaras were destroyed so if one did or not, I don't really know. .....
Apr 12th, 2011 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In my opinion the Artillery did well because of several things, equipment, training and best of all leadership ......
Maybe the Argentines lost because their heart wasn't in it? Although they would never admit it, maybe they knew deep down inside that they were invaders, that it was not their land & that the real owners were fighting back.
Apr 13th, 2011 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0If they had had a stamp and envelope, maybe they would have sent their thoughts home to Galtieri rather than leave them lying on the floor of the Post Office.
Apr 13th, 2011 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0@163 .... when you run out of ammo , what do you do? you charge with the bayonets? Isolde, this is not William Wallace against William “the longshanks” . When Gral Menendez asked for reinforcements and Gral Galtieri says “ Sorry, not can do” , at that point the war was over. He didn't see the need of keep going and loose more people. Of course some of you can say that the war was over since the Royal Marines landed ... and that's for debate. Just a thought
Apr 13th, 2011 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think one can dispute that once the Royal Marines landed the war was effectively won though not just because the Royal Marines had landing. By the time they had landed all forms of resupply and reinforcement had effectively been cut off, it was only a matter of time.
Apr 14th, 2011 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Career (United Kingdom) 
Apr 14th, 2011 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Name: HMS Venerable (R63)
Ordered: 7 August 1942
Builder: Cammell Laird
Yard number: 1126
Laid down: 3 December 1942
Launched: 30 December 1943
Commissioned: 27 November 1944
Decommissioned: April 1947
Fate: Sold to the Netherlands 1 April 1948
Career (Netherlands) 
Name: HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81)
Namesake: Karel Doorman
Acquired: 1 April 1948
Commissioned: 28 May 1948
Decommissioned: 29 April 1968
Refit: 1955-1958
1965-1966
Fate: Sold to Argentina 15 October 1968
Career (Argentina) 
Name: ARA Veintcinco de Mayo (V-2)
Namesake: Date of the May Revolution
Acquired: 15 October 1968
Commissioned: 12 March 1969
Decommissioned: 1997
Out of service: Inoperable by 1990
Refit: 1969
Homeport: Puerto Belgrano Naval Base
Fate: Provided spare parts for NAeL Minas Gerais and remainder was scrapped in 2000
The argentine Aircraft carrier, just some info
from wikapedia
The ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2) was an aircraft carrier in the Argentine Navy from 1969 to 1997. The English translation of the name is the Twenty-fifth of May, .
The ship previously served in the Royal Navy as HMS Venerable and the Royal Netherlands Navy as HNLMS Karel Doorman. She was deployed south during the Beagle Crisis in 1978 and in the first weeks of the Falklands War, where her aircraft were deployed against the Royal Navy task force, but spent the bulk of the war in port.[1]
@166 so we agreed on the air superiority then .....
Apr 14th, 2011 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just some info to help you all
Apr 14th, 2011 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British had exactly 28 fighter aircraft in the Falklands 1982
Argentina had 97
the 97 not all deployed? ... besides with better antiaircraft capabilities ....
Apr 14th, 2011 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0“@166 so we agreed on the air superiority then .....”
Apr 14th, 2011 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think so yes. I don't think either side had air superiority.
Falklands task force [RN]
Apr 14th, 2011 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Planes 28
Aircraft carriers 2
Assult ships 2
Destroyers 8
Frigates 15
Submarines 5
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1252149/Its-bitter-truth-We-send-task-force-Falklands-today.html
Just a thought .interesting reading
see all later
To clarify the issue of WHO had air superiority. BRITAIN did.
Apr 14th, 2011 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine planes could only fly to Malvinas for raid attacks on ships and very rarely on targets on land. The Argentine fighters A-4 and Mirage III always flew in their Air-to-Surface mode, always carrying “simple drop-type bombs” set be launched against ships. It is true they also had full ammo in their guns but these were intended for use only for defense in case Brits´ radars spotted them and the Patrolling Packs of Harriers were sent to hunt them down. The Argentine pilots had to fly all the way from the continent and when entering the 200 mile war-zone they flew low at no more than 30 to 40 ft above sea waves to avoid radar detection. They approached targets with radios off, in silence, and based on their notes in kneepads. When they approached their targets, they had only a 5-7 secs window for targeting and launching the bombs. Then, having burned most of its fuel for flying too low, the Argentine pilots had one thing to do: cut off to the right or left and away at max speed back to the continent after dropping the empty underwing tanks. In their escape, they were many times spotted by the radars of patrolling Brit ships, which promptly advised the patrolling packs of Harriers. These Brit fighter jets then went after the Argentine planes and most of the times shot them down. The Harriers were a powerful and fearful threat for the Argentine planes. All Harriers were armed with effective and well-maintained guns but their trump-cards were: their V-STOL capability in combat and their Sidewinder E missiles. These missiles engaged the target thru use of the laser beam-intelligent missile head target lock device. In a few words, the Harriers could “shoot and forget” from wide range of angles; then the missile did its job right once the target was engaged by the laser beam reflection onto the head of the missile, this locked the missile route right after the targeted Argentine plane.
@173 Gotey, so what is your point? You fight to win. lf you've got better equipment than the enemy, good. lts not our fault that your planes were inferior(if in fact they were)or that you didn't use more forward bases or your aircraft carrier.
Apr 14th, 2011 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0@165 artillero601, whose fault is it if you run out of ammunition?
Thats part of war, to prevent supplies from reaching the enemy.
l have also heard some Argentines saying“they were only conscripts fighting a professional army” true, but who sent them there? Certainly not the British. Excuses, excuses.
“To clarify the issue of WHO had air superiority. BRITAIN did.
Apr 14th, 2011 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine planes could only fly to Malvinas for raid attacks on ships and very rarely on targets on land.”
This is just a case of you not understanding the term; air superiority means there is complete a control of the skies around the target area. NEITHER side had this. That is a fact. If the UK had air superiority then your jets would not have been able to sink some of our ships.
“the Patrolling Packs of Harriers were sent to hunt them down”
I don't know how much you think you know about air combat but this shows major lack of understanding. Fighter jets don't just fly around in circles in packs over the airstrip/carrier. Once spotted on radar, a harrier or three would have been launched off the aircraft carrier(s).
“The Harriers were a powerful and fearful threat for the Argentine planes. All Harriers were armed with effective and well-maintained guns but their trump-cards were: their V-STOL capability in combat and their Sidewinder E ”
Again, your fault. The UK tried to sell you some harriers before the war. Your generals told us that they were bad jets.
To my pals Zethee , Wireless .. (why? because we like to talk about war, weapons and blowing up shit)... may be I failed to explain in detail with an air superiority is due to having only 2000 words to explain and also the vast detail that requires. When I say air superiority is the following: 1. support the supply line 2. support the land operation 3. eliminate the enemy Air Force, the first 2 was NOT accomplish by us.
Apr 14th, 2011 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@174 is not an excuse is a debate and an exchange of information PERIOD. I give a different perspective to the arguement, we agree or disagree based on facts and that's about it.
Next debate, definition of a Tactical Target ......
176 Don't think Britain was ever able to establish full air superiority with the few Harriers it had at its disposal. The Harriers didn't have a particularly long range and were subsonic compared to the supersonic Argentinian jets. Their success depended on them being in the right place at the right time. Certainly the task Force's control of the air improved as time went on but it was never total. We only have to look at what happened at Bluff Cove to understand that.
Apr 14th, 2011 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I hear what you say about supply lines but Argentina had a long time to stock up and prepare before the Task Force was assembled and had arrived off the Falklands.
@177 ....Argentina had a long time to stock up and prepare before the Task Force was assembled and had arrived off the Falklands...... that's the key of the whole thing! you nailed it! It was not planned for April, it was planned for the summer time ....(later on) so what was the key factor to rush into it?
Apr 14th, 2011 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The timing was the key to the war. Not sure why your general chose to do it early, The logical thing to do would have been to wait a few more months.
Apr 14th, 2011 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@179 you are correct! but let me add something here, going against Nato's best Armed Force with a huge allied ,the US, facing 2 fronts, the Islands and Chile, without any coalition of other countries ..... and you tell me , what is wrong the picture??
Apr 14th, 2011 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@175 ...Again, your fault. The UK tried to sell you some harriers before the war. Your generals told us that they were bad jets...... lol!!!!! Next time, I will call you directly and I will buy from you. Deal?
178
Apr 14th, 2011 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My point is that the Argentinians had plenty of time to bring in ample supplies either by boat or air before the task Force even got near. We had to bring everything with us on board ships.
“what is wrong the picture?? ”
Apr 14th, 2011 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Everything. I honestly don't think the generals thought the UK would react. There wasn't supposed to be a war. The worst thing they did was show pictures of Royal Marines captured and laying down on the floor, it got the UK public all riled up for a fight.
Honestly? you may laugh at me all day long but I truly believe Galtieri was setup.....
Apr 14th, 2011 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About showing pictures of the Marines, of course!!, is intended to gather public support and ignite the issue aside from the obvious BUT ! the order was NOT to kill anybody in the initial phase of the conflict and that's a fact
Aye the troops were treated well. It was just the pictures of them like that got the public all worked up, people over here generally hold the forces with a high regard. In what way do you think he was set up? And by who?
Apr 14th, 2011 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I believe that the UK withdrawing a ship from the area was the catalyst that started the war but i don't think one could go as far as blaming us for inviting aggression(Not that you've said that; a wild guess).
@176 artillero601
Apr 14th, 2011 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't mind having Argentine friends, we would realise of course that there is one discussion we could never discuss intelligently, but it is not a barrier to friendship, we would just have to agree to disagree. However, I've not made any comments relating to air superiority, I think you meant to indicate someone else within this discussion.
I think however, that even if Argentina had waited until the next Summer in late 1982, that the result would have been the same, although likely with fewer casualties on both sides. I believe this because without Aircraft Carriers of our own, which would have been sold by then, we would have accepted the offer of the US Aircraft Carrier Group, manned by the US Military to retake the Islands.
I think Argentina would have been less likely to attack US Navy Ships and Aircraft than the Royal Navy, its Air Arm, or the RAF. In addition, Argentina's Navy would have stayed in port the entire time in order to avoid conflict, and its aircraft would not have been tasked to attack US Navy Ships.
So a lot less bloody, and likely a much shorter conflict, although their may have been more Argentine Civilians 'disappeared' due to the rule of the Junta being extended by at least another six months, possibly into early 1984.
This is all conjecture, but I think it has some substance.
(176) Artillero
Apr 14th, 2011 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”To my pals Zethee , Wireless .. (why? because we like to talk about war, weapons and blowing up shit)... ”
Zethee , Wireless ..….. I “Think” this is the beginning of a beautiful Friendship.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vY-4zWKsJM
Chuckle chuckle.
Sorry to disappoint you , but when the INVINCIBLE and HERMES left for the Falklands
Apr 14th, 2011 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The most important question was, what would happen if either carrier was sunk,
If this happened or we lost the Falklands, contrary to what people thought, the British [royal navy]
Would have withdrawn and awaited the arrival of the other two Carriers
HMS Bulwark , and HMS Illustrious
These ships were if necessary being refitted for service.
Read the links,
http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/falk.htm
Also read the truth of why we would not have ecepted help with carriers from the US Navy,
Just to help .
http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/falk.htm
The first link is about the carriers,
The end link about the war from the royal navy.
..
@ 186 .......jajajaja!!
Apr 14th, 2011 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@185 ...I don't mind having Argentine friends... and I don't mind to having brits as friends either. At the end of the day, People will decide what is best for the area (100 years from now probably), if we leave the politics aside and we focus into commerce and bilateral relations, why not? Let the islanders and argentines decide what is best for both of them. Am I wrong?
Briton, you have to be careful in using web sources, the first link has a Disclaimer that they are the Authors opinion rather than the definitive truth.
Apr 14th, 2011 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Author has decided that the USN would have just offered to hand over a ship to be manned by the RN, which is totally impractical, which he does partly mention.
Looking at the suggestion, which is unconfirmed by either the USN or RN;
First, why would the USN make the offer without manning it with trained USN Personnel? Surely as a Navy used to the running of Capitol Ships it would know how impossible it would be to commission such a vessel without many months, if not years of training of freshly recruited RN Personnel, and its own shared DoD Intel with the MOD would already know the capability of the RN, so providing an unmanned carrier is just a none-starter.
Secondly, the DoD keeping such an offer of a USN Carrier Group under wraps until the MoD was forced into a position to accept it would have been prudent necessity; US Public opinion would no doubt be swayed by pictures of a sinking RN Carrier, and the casualty list.
Finally, the Americans don't like their friends injured any more than they do themselves, and as the UK was a Special friend, I don't think it would be unlikely that they would make such an offer without it being fully manned, and then withdraw it when the offer was accepted, as that would not make logical sense.
I can also see the RN making an assessment of whether it could man the older USN Carriers itself in short order, so I'm tended towards accepting the story that RN Officers were looking over a couple of Iwo Jima Class Carriers at Norfolk. I've no doubt they would have recommended that the practicalities made the option virtually impossible in terms of providing an effective replacement for any lost RN Carriers.
Wireless
Apr 14th, 2011 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you are of course right in part, but we must also remember that we must never ever think that the Americans will defend us or our interests over theirs, the USA has always in the past, and to day , still want to control the whole of the Americas, from Alaska in the north west, Canada, and all the way down to the Falklands, And we stand in their way,, the other day i mentioned about the chances of the argies ever reinvading the Falklands, pointing out that we are not as well protected there, as some think, people thought i was mad, well we can only read and see with our own eyes, and remembering that our government has in the past, lied to us over defence, today [on a shoe string] and in future, always giving the impression we are all ok. until they have to prove it, by that time , most would either be out of government-retired-or dead, as long as you and others understand that politicians are only in it for the most part, for what they can get on the backs of other, ect ect, see below an opinion from [[Sharkey’s World]] an ex military expert, he says the following, The Argentines, should they seize it, to defend the Islands against the British.
Could a surprise Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands succeed?
The simple answer to this question is, yes – and without any doubt. There are many options
http://www.sharkeysworld.com/search/label/4.%20Falklands
see what you and others think, his opinion, but well respected,
“[on a shoe string]”
Apr 14th, 2011 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 4th(?) largest defence budget in the world is not a shoe string budget. There isnt any way anyone can even argue that it is.
lets go through his theory shall we, it's quite amusing really:
“established a regular and ‘innocent’ presence supplying equipment and stores to oil rigs and shore settlements”
Any person on this website knows that's just stupidity. Argentina has and wants nothing to do with the oil industry.
“A synchronised attack on the airfield is carried out by the Commandos and by paratroopers dropped by Hercules transports”
Transports that somehow get past four typhoons. Given argentine doctrine 3:1 for an attacking force. 4500 troops dropped off by 7 Hercules transports.
“Troop transports and logistic supply vessels supported by Hind attack helicopters”
Ships that manage to avoid typhoons supported by imaginary helicopters .
“As soon as the Argentine forces have secured the airfield..The whole exercise could be completed with barely a shot fired”
Yes, the 1500 men there will just surrender without fighting.
“if the Argentines attacked Ascension Island”
Just...lol.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!