Argentina to fly the flag of Las Malvinas at London Olympics

[Deareg]

as you'll have noted i was replying to a post by deareg where he said that the chinese would have sunk all britain's cruisers.

And that was about Hong Kong.

 

[LiamO]

as you'll have noted i was replying to a post by deareg where he said that the chinese would have sunk all britain's cruisers.

obviously I had made no such note

 

[Pickman's model]

You ain't fucking stupid so stop acting like you are.

i don't think you're stupid, but you've missed some important aspects of the british way in warfare, which is to get together with other countries, often to subsidise them (see, inter alia, the sums paid to other countries in the napoleonic wars) and to fight as part of an alliance. britain's armed forces have never been so numerous that britain alone could take on a major enemy / enemies - it's been her ability to mobilise men and money, usually within the context of an alliance, which has provided so much of her past military success. any conflict with a country like china would see britain fighting as part of an alliance. looking at the falklands, what's striking is that britain was able to project her power something like 6,000 miles (i forget the precise amount) and defeat the armed forces of a country whose supply lines were so much shorter. it wasn't as though a load of other ships could be sent south to replace eg the galahad and tristram, or the men killed on board those ships. i read recently that there are very - surprisingly - few countries able to project military power much beyond their borders, and it's only places like britain, france and the united states that can do so under their own steam. it's in that sort of context, and remembering that the british armed forces are among the best trained in the world, that any hypothetical conflict between china and britain would occur. and there's no way that a british government would enter such a war without an alliance, almost certainly involving canada, australia and the united states.

as part of such an alliance i believe that british forces would acquit themselves well, in terms of achieving their objectives.

from an american assessment of the operational capabilities of china's military from 2010:

However, as a PLA Daily 2008 New Year’s
Day editorial points out, the PLA’s “level of modern-
ization is incompatible with the demands of winning
a local war under conditions of informatization, and
capabilities are still incompatible with the demands
of carrying out the new historic mission (两个不相适
应).”

www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub995.pdf

 

[Pickman's model]

And that was about Hong Kong.

yeh so the royal navy would have remained at anchor and let pla howitzers sink the ships. i think not. there'd be a large number of intermediate steps before matters came to blows, and i would be surprised if the british and their allies waited until they could see the whites of the pla's eyes before doing something about it.

 

[Deareg]

i don't think you're stupid, but you've missed some important aspects of the british way in warfare, which is to get together with other countries, often to subsidise them (see, inter alia, the sums paid to other countries in the napoleonic wars) and to fight as part of an alliance. britain's armed forces have never been so numerous that britain alone could take on a major enemy / enemies - it's been her ability to mobilise men and money, usually within the context of an alliance, which has provided so much of her past military success. any conflict with a country like china would see britain fighting as part of an alliance. looking at the falklands, what's striking is that britain was able to project her power something like 6,000 miles (i forget the precise amount) and defeat the armed forces of a country whose supply lines were so much shorter. it wasn't as though a load of other ships could be sent south to replace eg the galahad and tristram, or the men killed on board those ships. i read recently that there are very - surprisingly - few countries able to project military power much beyond their borders, and it's only places like britain, france and the united states that can do so under their own steam. it's in that sort of context, and remembering that the british armed forces are among the best trained in the world, that any hypothetical conflict between china and britain would occur. and there's no way that a british government would enter such a war without an alliance, almost certainly involving canada, australia and the united states.

as part of such an alliance i believe that british forces would acquit themselves well, in terms of achieving their objectives.

from an american assessment of the operational capabilities of china's military from 2010: www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub995.pdf

If you have taken the time and effort to research and type that I am just gonna wave the white flag now.

 

[Pickman's model]

If you have taken the time and effort to research and type that I am just gonna wave the white flag now.

no, i just researched the link, the rest i knew.

 

[agricola]

I thought that I was the one that needed educating? I know the Belgrano was outside the British exclusion zone and sailing away from the islands, that is fact so how the fuck you conclude that they were about to take part in an attack is beyond me.

Thatcher wanted that war and was having it no matter what, she was warned in advance that the Argentines were going to invade and could have stopped the invasion if she had not wanted a war.

The Belgrano was an enemy warship, and was therefore fair game. This exclusion zone and what direction it was sailing nonsense in was given undue prominence because Thatcher was stupid enough to lie about it, she should have just told the truth (which would have been that any Argentinian Navy vessel seen out of port would be sunk when and where we could find one).

 

[paolo]

i don't think you're stupid, but you've missed some important aspects of the british way in warfare, which is to get together with other countries, often to subsidise them (see, inter alia, the sums paid to other countries in the napoleonic wars) and to fight as part of an alliance. britain's armed forces have never been so numerous that britain alone could take on a major enemy / enemies - it's been her ability to mobilise men and money, usually within the context of an alliance, which has provided so much of her past military success. any conflict with a country like china would see britain fighting as part of an alliance. looking at the falklands, what's striking is that britain was able to project her power something like 6,000 miles (i forget the precise amount) and defeat the armed forces of a country whose supply lines were so much shorter. it wasn't as though a load of other ships could be sent south to replace eg the galahad and tristram, or the men killed on board those ships. i read recently that there are very - surprisingly - few countries able to project military power much beyond their borders, and it's only places like britain, france and the united states that can do so under their own steam. it's in that sort of context, and remembering that the british armed forces are among the best trained in the world, that any hypothetical conflict between china and britain would occur. and there's no way that a british government would enter such a war without an alliance, almost certainly involving canada, australia and the united states.

as part of such an alliance i believe that british forces would acquit themselves well, in terms of achieving their objectives.

from an american assessment of the operational capabilities of china's military from 2010: www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub995.pdf

From the density of the text, I assume there's some interesting points.

Sentences and paragraphs are good. Seriously, be more readable.

 

[Pickman's model]

From the density of the text, I assume there's some interesting points.

Sentences and paragraphs are good. Seriously, be more readable.

From your post I gather you haven't read it so you can't comment on its readability

 

[Lock&Light]

From your post I gather you haven't read it so you can't comment on its readability

I think he/she commented on its unreadability.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think he/she commented on its unreadability.

no, you don't.

 

[Lock&Light]

no, you don't.

But I do, Pick. I do.

 

[likesfish]

trying to hold hong Kong would have been militarily impossible
even with a Black-adder level cunning plan.

 

[Pickman's model]

But I do, Pick. I do.

no, you don't think. your posts are a continual diarrhetic stream of contradiction to what i and selected other posters put forward.

 

[Lock&Light]

no, you don't think. your posts are a continual diarrhetic stream of contradiction to what i and selected other posters put forward.

There is no way that you can substantiate such bullshit, Pick. You really are just a phoney.

 

[Pickman's model]

There is no way that you can substantiate such bullshit, Pick. You really are just a phoney.

I don't need to substantiate my claim beyond suggesting anyone who doubts mr examine your past postd. Your record speaks for itself

 

[trampie]

I remember Argentinian posters [meaning posters on street corners] asking for Welsh support at the time of the Falklands conflict.

 

[Lock&Light]

I don't need to substantiate my claim beyond suggesting anyone who doubts mr examine your past postd. Your record speaks for itself

Your bullshit speaks for itself. As does your tagline.

 

[dylanredefined]

Hong kong the Chinese turn off the taps and wait.Thatcher should have at least let them all have passports.

 

[likesfish]

guess the argentian team will be marching or rather running very fast as we have put the the Nepal team behind them

 

[Giles]

Colonialism and empire involved the disposession, extermination and enslavement of hundreds of millions. It was the greatest series of crimes in human history and the UK is up to its elbows in it.

But if the Falklands was a crime in that context it was a bit of shoplifting next to mass murder happening else where.

Surely "colonialism" involves people from a rich and more powerful nation taking over another, and then lording it over the native inhabitants, exploiting their resources and labour, and treating them as slaves or at least inferior beings, with no rights to run their own lives?

Unless the sheep on the Falklands rise up against their human masters (and I'm sure they have some grievances against some of the farmhands!) then this is not really a "colonial" situation. There are not, and never were, any "natives" who the Brits ruled over or dispossessed.

Giles..

 

[likesfish]

sheep were imported as well
Their was some sort of native fox but that was wiped out.
rumours that some stone age natives reached the islands but don't think any real proof was ever found.
Just how insane would you have to be to take to the South Atlantic in an outrigger canone ?

 

[DotCommunist]

the polynesians would have had the stones. They got everywhere

 

[laptop]

the polynesians would have had the stones. They got everywhere

Mostly moving westward from somewhere around Malaya, though.

 

[likesfish]

they might have seriously doubt they would have bothered.
British only settled it to stop the spanish

 

[LiamO]

I remember Argentinian posters [meaning posters on street corners] asking for Welsh support at the time of the Falklands conflict.

and why not? There were probably as many welsh speakers on the Argentine side as the british.

 

[Casually Red]

as part of such an alliance i believe that british forces would acquit themselves well, in terms of achieving their objectives.

making it back to dunkirk at least

 

[dylanredefined]

making it back to dunkirk at least

Just turn up with a few tons of opium worked last time.

 

[Casually Red]

Oh ok.

BTW, my comments towards CR were based on the other thread they started on the Falklands (seems like an unhealthy obsession but hey ho) where the Falklanders are described as "inbred Anglophiles" and that the protestants of Northern Ireland are only slightly less inbred. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on that...

i never said that . Not all protestants here are cross eyed big eared unionists . Furthermore given the fact that my girlfriend , my sister in law and a few of what Id consider my political freinds are protestants Its not the type of sectarian remark Id ever make . But I suppose the generalisation suits your general purpose of demonising the poster and by extension the post .

 

[Pickman's model]

Your bullshit speaks for itself. As does your tagline.

Every time you post you prove my point