MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Royal Navy largest ship, HMS Ocean begins her Olympic deployment
One hundred and fifty sailors and aircrew recreated the Olympic Rings on the flight deck of the Royal Navy's largest ship to mark the start of her Olympic deployment for the 2012 London Games. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWhat a fine ship!
Jul 16th, 2012 - 06:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Royal Navy is finsished JAJAJAJa Pirates etc etc
Not to mention HMS Bulwark that is acting as a back stop off of Weymouth. Distinctly less glamourous than driving an LPH up the Thames, but nonetheless quite handy given the changable nature of the weather...
Jul 16th, 2012 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0good old Bulwark..a fine assualt ship
Jul 16th, 2012 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Albion, Bulwark, Invincible, Ocean. Amongst the best of THE BEST. And Her Britannic Majesty's Royal Navy is THE BEST there is. Whatever it takes, the Royal Navy, the British Army and the Royal Air Force will always show the world how it should be done. Want to win against the British Armed Forces? Just be sure that you have ten times the capability and lots of luck!
Jul 16th, 2012 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 04 Conqueror
Jul 16th, 2012 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You appear to have overlooked one thing that the Argies really need and have never shown that they possess: a set of balls EACH, just ONE ball each would be a start.
LOL ;o)
@5
Jul 16th, 2012 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One is in the Albert Hall.
The Argies could increase their bad attempts at running(?) their economy by being succesful on salvage. When they and the Chav try it on, they'll have plenty of scrap metal to keep the Belgrano company.
Does 'give peace a chance' actually mean 'give a piece of our forces a chance' when we attack you?
6 Pete Bog
Jul 16th, 2012 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, if they are stupid enough to try it again, even with Dead Man Walking Chavez 'helping them' we should first of all blatter their airfields as they take off and then shoot their aircraft out of the skies.
Then a systematic surgical missile strike (non-nuclear) on ALL the strategic installations such as oilfields, power stations, dams to hydro-power and the accompanying machinery rooms, military barracks of any designation (airfields already gone), potable water installations especially pumping stations, road transport nodes and finally metro transport infrastructure such a subway trains (though they are doing enough damage to those themselves).
Wherever possible civilian sites are to be avoided, but not to the exclusion of winning the war (to prevent the Gaddafi approach so beloved of Argentines).
There should then be a broadcast to the population that THEY brought this on themselves by electing this bunch of crooks and THEY should elect a new NON-PERONIST government NOW or the missile strikes will continue until they do.
The first item of business MUST be a correction to the constitution (and school books / teaching briefs, etc) removing all reference to the Malvinas or Falklands in perpetuity. Any restatement to be interpreted by the UK as an act of war with instant retribution.
This would be the minimum we should consider to stop once and for all this Peronist nonsense about the Malvinas.
Chavez by this time would be out one military and his oilfields - end off.
In the conclusion, to use military euphemisms, this is a minimum force strike to achieve our aims though additional actions should not be dismissed.
“we should first of all blatter their airfields as they take off and then shoot their aircraft out of the skies.”
Jul 17th, 2012 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is the only part of the post that in the real world where most of us real people live would actually take place.
The rest was childish and would never take place, None of it has any military purpose other than to terrorist the civilian population.
It also shows glaring lack of information on our own forces. We don't have unlimited missiles to throw at useless targets.
After the airfields are disabled, NOTHING on mainland Argentina would cause us any bother in the Falklands in any way.
Some of the suggestions are down right stupid. Bombing subway trains?
“Wherever possible civilian sites are to be avoided”
Water pumping stations?
What the hell have you been smoking?
“ this is a minimum force strike”
What you suggested is a almost complete obliteration of the country using scorched earth tactics. You might as well nuke them.
Zethee
Jul 17th, 2012 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do not know where you come from or where you allegiance lies, however let me quote you from “THE CASE OF ARGENTINA by Carlos Escudé” no less. This man is a respected Argentinian Academic who set out to expose the disgraceful indoctrination by Peronists of the children especially and the population in general re the mythical Malvinas.
In his conclusions on the 1982 war which was fully examined due to it being a direct response to the discredited Junta who supported this myth he stated:
“[3] . After the war, a lot has been said about the possibility that the result might have been different if Argentina would have been ”luckier“ in her military operations, sinking more British ships with bombs that hit their targets but never exploded. Such conjectures are very unconvincing for the simple reason that war is not a sport played on the gentlemanly defined limits of the playing grounds. If Argentina had, for example, sunk one of the British aircraft carriers, escalation would have been inevitable, with the remaining one attacking the Argentine mainland and most probably wrecking the Patagonian oil and hydroelectric industry. This would have had a devastating long term effect upon Argentina's economy, and an immediate and equally disastrous effect on political support for the war, as Buenos Aires would have been left without energy. As it was, war never got to Argentina, and the country can be considered extremely fortunate for that.”
And how do you know how many missiles the UK has? You have also missed the point of WHY we should do as I have set out. It would no longer be actions which directly affect the Falklands in the immediacy of a war by the Argentinian goverment BUT actions to defeat the government and Peronistas forever.
Left to you there will be a war every thirty years or so.
“You might as well nuke them.” shows a staggering lack of appreciation for nuclear war. At least my approach would put the Argentines back to where they want to belong.
“I do not know where you come from or where you allegiance lies”
Jul 18th, 2012 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why would this matter? I am correct in what i said. If you'd been around this website long enough, you would know full well.
The entire second paragraph was utterly pointless and you failed to provide me some proof or reason why any of what you said wasn't dribble from a sixteen year old with a hard-on.
Please explain to me the military reasons for attacking civialian water pumping stations, underground public transport systems, and other such rubbish you posted?
Also, please explain to me the point of bombing the Argentine barracks, when there army has no chance of reaching the falklands after we;ve removed there navy and airforce?
“And how do you know how many missiles the UK has?”
It is free information available on the internet. You specifically mentioned non-nuclear missiles from subs, that would mean Tomahawk missiles. The UK had around 60 of these, of which we used around 13.
“You might as well nuke them.” shows a staggering lack of appreciation for nuclear war.”
Does it really? because causing instant death to people is MUCH worse than destroying all there power and food supplies and leaving them for months to all slowly die in pain.
You are an idiot.
To carry on. In the REAL case of a war, what would actually happen is quite simple. Once the forces learned of Argentina's aggression. Tommahawks would be launched at Argentine airfields, enough to put them out of action for over 48 hours. Then the base would be reinforced with more typhoons(less than 48 hours to reach there) and more forces would be on route. This would in effect give Argentina no chance of taking the islands nomatter what they threw at them.
Jul 18th, 2012 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you actually believe that we would attack the Argentine mainland, you are either six years old or quite frankly, an idiot.
@11 zethe
Jul 18th, 2012 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you want to perpetuate the constant aggression of the Peronists towards the Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas) then what you would limit our response to an attack by Argentine will guarantee that.
If you believe that the real numbers of the various missile formats available are shown on the internet, then it is you who is the idiot, not me.
The reasons for the response I have outlined are blindingly obvious even to a half-wit (you started it). The population need to understand what their blind support for the Malvinas lies and the corresponding aggression means: complete destruction of basic infrastructure.
They need also to elect politicians who will behave as politicians should and respect other countries and the people within them.
In this much reduced condition they will learn that Argentina is very seldom superior to anybody on the planet nevermind the Falklanders.
They will also learn what it is to pull together or perish.
Do you really think that 1982 was a 'just a military expedition' as these people would have the Falklanders believe? Do you really think the The Mad Bitch Of Argentina would stop for a nanosecond if she thought she could win the Falklands 'back' by a military strike, even though they were NEVER theirs? Do you realise the absolute terror that the Islanders were under in 1982? Have you ANY understanding of what the present Islanders think these morons in charge of Argentina are quite capable od doing NOW, not some time in the future?
I have retired to Uruguay and in the last 15 months here and on Mercopress have seen for myself the innate aggression when a bunch of Argentines get together.
BTW nuclear war does NOT bring instant death to the whole population as you erroneously allude to. Educate yourself about the facts before you get on your high horse to me.
“If you believe that the real numbers of the various missile formats available are shown on the internet, then it is you who is the idiot, not me.”
Jul 19th, 2012 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I believe it because it is true. Our entire budget is accounted for and apart from black projects, is made available. It is also information backed up by the US who sold us the missiles.
The US and UK forces are VERY open about there expenses compared to literally every other force in the world. Even the SAS' Budget is not a state secret while the force itself is.
“They need also to elect politicians who will behave as politicians should and respect other countries and the people within them.”
You do not like Argentinia because they wish to forcibly change the islanders government(Argentinian) so your brilliant idea is to forcibly change Argentina's government. Congratulations! You have just became the thing you hate.
“ Do you realise the absolute terror that the Islanders were under in 1982?”
Oh. ok. Because the islanders were locked up and some troops took a crap in the post office, that condones us totally destroying there country and purposely targeting civilian areas with missiles. Nice logic there.
“myself the innate aggression when a bunch of Argentines get together.”
Because none of what you mentioned is aggressive in any way, is it?
“BTW nuclear war does NOT bring instant death to the whole population as you erroneously allude to. Educate yourself about the facts before you get on your high horse to me.”
Oh i am quite informed. And i never said the entire population. If you launched a high tier trident at BA, everyone in BA would be vaporised.
Truly idiotic logic you have going on there. Luckily no-one like you would ever get in power. And nothing of what you have mentioned would ever take place.
13 zethe
Jul 19th, 2012 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In my 66 years I have learnt that 'ever' and never' cannot be predicted.
The islanders also had field guns placed between their houses: I wonder IF YOU KNOW WHY THAT WOULD BE? Just a gag was it by the fun loving Junta to keep them awake with the firing - nothing to do with making them the target? No, obviously not.
Of course my recommendations are aggresive you idiot! They are designed to stop the agression against the Falklands once and for all. Some of our people will die if the Falklands are attacked. Many more Argentinians will die as a result of THEIR aggression if my recommendations were to be implemented.
I bet you would go off your head if 1.33 million Argies died? But I bet you would accept 100 islnders dying given your 'appreciation' of the terror, yes TERROR, that the islanders would feel. Do the arithmetic: it is the same ratio of dead to the population of both countries, but heh, 1.33 M is just too much for you, isn't it.
All through my life I have respected all races, etc. until they cross the line of mutual respect. Then you have to do what is necessary to fix things so they don't go wrong again. End off.
“in my 66 years I have learnt that 'ever' and never' cannot be predicted.”
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0it's taken you sixty six years to learn something that isn't correct?
I know my nan is “never” “ever” going to raise from the dead and come for a cup of tea.
I also know that i wont “ever” wake up and suddenly become the richest man in the world tomorrow.
Just like i KNOW that our government will not “ever” wake up one day and just randomly decide to kill millions of Argentinians for no reason what so ever.
Ratio my arse, there is no justifiable reason to do any of what you sre suggesting, You're obliviously just a biter old man.
15 zethe
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no answer to your 'logic' invoking the dead for 'never'.
“Just like i KNOW that our government will not “ever” wake up one day and just randomly decide to kill millions of Argentinians for no reason what so ever” No, you don't KNOW that, you only THINK you know. 'Ever' is a very long time. I don't think the islanders would agree with 'no reason whatsoever' either.
BTW Tomahawk numbers = 171 (latest batch is 60). No exact numbers for those used in the same period. So no one KNOWS what numbers there are left.
AND then there are all the other missiles that can be used.
I hope, as you grow up, because from the illiteracy shown here it suggets you may still be in school, you learn some resolve. Sometime, in the real world, not the one you live in, unpleasant things have to be done.
At no time did I say there was any pleasure taken in my recommendations and I note (as will the Islanders) that you did not propose a real alternative to end the Argie aggression once and for all.
As for being a “biter” old man, (the word is 'bitter') you are welcome to your opinion, but if YOU or your parents were part of the 100 killed out of 3,000, would you think 100 Argentineans in return from 40,000,000 would be 'fair dues'. I doubt very much that the islanders would see it that way.
The amount of insults you threw at me from your first post and continue to do so, leads me to wonder where you are from. You talk a lot about what the UK does and use 'we' but you have never committed yourself as I have, just WHERE are you from and where do you live now?
“No, you don't KNOW that”
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, i do. Any sane person in the UK knows that the UK is not randomly going to bomb millions of people for absolutely no reason.
“AND then there are all the other missiles that can be used.”
Examples, please.
“I hope, as you grow up, because from the illiteracy shown here it suggets you may still be in school”
I love when people start grammar policing, it's always the last resort of someone who knows they are quite wrong.
“ but if YOU or your parents were part of the 100 killed out of 3,000, would you think 100 Argentineans in return from 40,000,000 would be 'fair dues'”
In the several years i have been on this website i have not met one single islander who was sane of mine who wished millions of Argentinians death.
“leads me to wonder where you are from”
The fact that this is so important to you is rather hilarious. Bitter, racist old man.
“The amount of insults you threw at me”
The contradiction in this is rather hilarious. I saw quite a few insults in your last post.
At the end of the day, The UK will never randomly bomb and kill millions of Argentinians for no reason, anyone who isn't going senile or just plan nuts knows this full well.
“BTW Tomahawk numbers = 171 ”
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This one, is funny. In the first few hour in Libya. The UK used 13 Tomahawks.
How long exactly do you think the endless rain of missiles is going to last in Argentina? six hours?
Lmao.
18 Zethee
Jul 24th, 2012 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, you're convinced a UK government will NEVER do it so it doesn't matter, does it?
Well if you'd like to provide me with one link of any UK politician who has ever suggested the idea of innocently murdering millions of Argentinians with missile strikes. Please, let me know.
Jul 24th, 2012 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If not, we bot know you are talking out your arse.
It would be innocently killing some Argentineans, because they would have already killed innocent people on the Falklands, you know, OUR PEOPLE!
Jul 24th, 2012 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you may have meant to write: murdering millions of innocent Argentinians? aND YOU WOULD STILL BE WRONG. You have no idea how many would die, have you? Or is it another 'never or ever' thought of yours?
And anyway, no politician is ever going to say that, even if they are thinking it, are they?
Just what is your problem? You have STILL NOT come up with any plan or idea of how to stop the Argies starting it all up AGAIN have you?
Very good at insults though. Is this because that is how you are, or is it a result of a poor education?
“it would be innocently killing some Argentineans, because they would have already killed innocent people on the Falklands, you know, OUR PEOPLE!”
Jul 25th, 2012 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Technically. We invaded BA hundreds of years ago. So by your definition, they had a right to attack us?
Fortunately, people in the real world do not believe the way you do.
“And anyway, no politician is ever going to say that”
Yes, because it's insane and generally insane people do not get jobs in politics(Although not always the case).
“Just what is your problem?”
I'm the one with the problem? Yes, I'm sorry that i do not wish to randomly attack and kill possibly millions of civilians, CLEARLY i have the problem out of the two of us.
“You have no idea how many would die”
I say millions because this is the rough estimate you gave with the ratio of civilians that died in the last war. You're insulting my intelligence, Might want to look in the mirror. I specifically recall stating in several posts that i do not believe that the UK would be in any way able to launch any size of attack that you would believe possible.
“Very good at insults though”
Actually they are rather poor insults conducted while rather intoxicated. I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic.
Just to reiterate: Insulting ones grammar does not in any way make you more superior or intelligent. It is always the last refuse of of a person who has lost the argument, realizes he's made a fool of himself and is still to stubborn to give it up.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!