Argentines burn tyres and Union Jack at anti-British protest
111 replies, posted
Its funny that they're trying to start shit over the Falklands despite the fact their military has barely advanced at all since the last Falklands war.
Argentina should do itself a favour and quiet down.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34739277]In the end it's their money they're wasting.[/QUOTE]
"Hey you guys, let's buy these British flags that the British made that we're going to spend our money on [b]and burn them![/b]"
:v:
[img]http://www.rna-10-area.co.uk/images/belgrano-sinking.jpg[/img]
Need we say anything else.
Why don't we send them a scale model of the falkland islands with a note saying "here's your islands"
British Nationalists are funny
[QUOTE=HkSniper;34742091]If the UK did have to go to war over this, I would hope we would back them up.
We owe them plenty for the conflicts we have been involved in and they have been there for us.[/QUOTE]
The only reason America wasn't involved during the falklands war was because the british goverment at the time turned down an offer of assistance, believing we didn't need the help. If anything happened again, I'm sure we'd welcome a carrier group or two.
[QUOTE=UseLets;34743811]British Nationalists are funny[/QUOTE]
Not as funny as how Argentina's government and a portion of its population are behaving like children.
I've heard there's tonnes of oil under the Falklands islands and the surrounding area. That's why they care so much and that's why we'll never give it back.
[QUOTE=jaybuz;34744140]I've heard there's tonnes of oil under the Falklands islands and the surrounding area. That's why they care so much and that's why we'll never give it back.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the British originally owned the islands. Or that almost all the citizens wish to remain British. Nope, it's all about oil because the Tories are evil and big corporations run the world.
Oil makes the world spin.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;34744218]Yeah it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the British originally owned the islands. Or that almost all the citizens wish to remain British. Nope, it's all about oil because the Tories are evil and big corporations run the world.[/QUOTE]
Well the French were actually the first to own them, but after that it was the British, not that that matter of course, it's more about the wishes of the Falkland Islander to stay as a British territory.
[editline]17th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=jaybuz;34744253]Oil makes the world spin.[/QUOTE]
The jews did 9/11 and Osama was a CIA agent.
Look, I realize that everyone's making jokes.
However.
I did some research, and take a look at these numbers:
[quote]
Argentinian Losses:
649 killed
1,068 wounded
11,313 taken prisoner
---------
1 cruiser
1 submarine
4 cargo vessels
2 patrol boats
1 spy trawler
---------
25 helicopters
35 fighters
2 bombers
4 transports
25 COIN aircraft
9 armed trainers
[/quote]
[quote]
British Losses:
258 killed[4]
775 wounded
115 taken prisoner
---------
2 destroyers
2 frigates
1 LSL landing ship
1 LCU amphibious craft
1 container ship
---------
24 helicopters
10 fighters[/quote]
I understand that the Argentinians took substantial losses, there's no arguing that. However, if they're such an nonthreatening force, how were the seven ships, 24 helicopters and 10 fighters lost?
Speaking from a logistical point of view, those are pretty substantial losses in themselves.
The Falklands War doesn't make sense to me.
It's like if two grown men wanted the same cubical at their workplace so they physically [I]fought[/I] each other for it. Except one of them had worked in that cubical for ages anyways.
Come on.
Argentine here. Just want to say this whole thing is really fucking stupid. I can perfectly live in a country where those islands are british.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;34739281]Stirring up nationalism!
Making people ignore the economy since 1976[/QUOTE]
Pretty much this.
two destroyers and two frigates is nothing to scoff at either. It seems stupid to put out the "we'll-kick-yer-ass" attitude as if a substantial loss of life is nothing.
[QUOTE=autodesknoob;34740081]as a chilian, i hate argentina. They stole us territories when we were at war with 2 different countries.
Fuck them in the ass.[/QUOTE]
You just jelly our country is bigger than yours. :v:
[tab]For the record, I have nothing against the chilean.[/tab]
[QUOTE=Andokool12;34744568]The Falklands War doesn't make sense to me.
It's like if two grown men wanted the same cubical at their workplace so they physically [I]fought[/I] each other for it.
Come on.[/QUOTE]
Reading the Wiki on it really makes me wonder why the hell Thatcher went as far as she did. It was a very substantial operation.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34744662]Reading the Wiki on it really makes me wonder why the hell Thatcher went as far as she did. It was a very substantial operation.[/QUOTE]
Because of the scale of the Argentinian occupation force. She needed to deploy an appropriate force, and then some, to ensure British victory.
I insist, if this whole thing was up to me, I'd just officially hand you over those islands. I mean, we wouldn't even know what to do if we rightfully owned them.
Now everyone's like "Hurr durr let's get ahold of any english cultural icon and savagely bastardize it, as if that would mean justice over the Falklands!! BECAUSE WE OWN THEM HERP DERP!!"
Fucking retarded logic... They forgot our national pastime, football, is an english sport. *facepalm*
[QUOTE=Andokool12;34744568]The Falklands War doesn't make sense to me.
It's like if two grown men wanted the same cubical at their workplace so they physically [I]fought[/I] each other for it.
Come on.[/QUOTE]
it's more like the cubicle belongs to one of them and the other has no claim over it but takes a massive shit in it anyway, the first guy has to kick the other guy out and clean it up..
There's even drama going on at 4chan over this...
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Swrvr.jpg[/img]
[I]*Sigh*[/I]
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;34740758]Every Ship, Helicopter and Aircraft should have speakers installed, playing this on loop.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzntZLHcYy0[/media][/QUOTE]
Hahaha :v:
In reality, it'd be more [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAt3za6aN94&t=20s]like this[/url]...
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34744461]Look, I realize that everyone's making jokes.
However.
I did some research, and take a look at these numbers:
I understand that the Argentinians took substantial losses, there's no arguing that. However, if they're such an nonthreatening force, how were the seven ships, 24 helicopters and 10 fighters lost?
Speaking from a logistical point of view, those are pretty substantial losses in themselves.[/QUOTE]
One word: Exocet. That was their only advantage.
[QUOTE=autodesknoob;34740081]as a chilian, i hate argentina. They stole us territories when we were at war with 2 different countries.
Fuck them in the ass.[/QUOTE]
You guys should invade the Falklands since Argentina considers it their island. /instigation
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34744461]Look, I realize that everyone's making jokes.
However.
I did some research, and take a look at these numbers:
I understand that the Argentinians took substantial losses, there's no arguing that. However, if they're such an nonthreatening force, how were the seven ships, 24 helicopters and 10 fighters lost?
Speaking from a logistical point of view, those are pretty substantial losses in themselves.[/QUOTE]
I think most people are just kidding around a bit, it certainly wasn't an easy war, most didn't think it was possible to take it back, that was partly because the task force had to sail thousands of miles to fight against a force which had weeks to prepare defences.
The reason so many ships were lost was because of the Exocet missiles the French had sold to the Argentinians, many of the helicopters lost were on board those ships. Also a large number of the other aircraft were lost because of the extremely harsh weather conditions. The helicopters that had survived were having to fly extremely low to avoid the anti aircraft fire constantly supplying the soldiers on the ground, plus it was really the first time the Harriers had been put to use.
There's an interesting history behind the only surviving Chinook used in the Falklands, it was picking up freight from another ship while the other 3 were on board the Atlantic Conveyor when it was hit by an Exocet missile, leaving it as the only heavy lifting aircraft they had, without any spare parts, lubricants or tools. It's had some incredible luck, only a few years back in Afghanistan a ricochet hit the pilot in the head and damaged it's controls, and they still managed to get back to base. It's the oldest Chinook still being used in the British military, and even has it's own Wikipedia page: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_November[/url]
[quote]On 30th May, Bravo November was busily transporting ammunition to the guns in the forward positions in ten-ton loads, and returning Argentine prisoners (sixty at a time) from Goose Green to Port San Carlos. However, that evening the SAS discovered that the Argentine army had withdrawn most of its troops from Mount Kent. After dark, three Sea Kings from No.846 Squadron flew K Company of 42 Commando from San Carlos to Mount Kent while Bravo November carried twenty-two men and two 105mm guns in her fuselage with a third 105mm gun slung underneath. Flying close to the ground with the aid of night vision goggles, Langworthy took Bravo November from Port San Carlos to Mount Kent in a half-hour flight through occasional snow showers which reduced visibility to almost zero.
Upon reaching Mount Kent, which the crew had been led to believe was relatively flat, they found a sloping peat bog flanked by stone rivers on either side. Bravo November landed the under slung gun without any trouble. When they tried to land to unload the two guns carried in the fuselage the Chinook's back end sank into the peat so that the ramp could not be lowered.
Squadron Leader Langworthy raised the helicopter a few feet, allowing the ramp to be lowered and landed again for a second attempt. Just as the guns were about to be unloaded the SAS, covering the landing area, engaged a company of Argentine troops to the northeast. At this time, the lighting in the helicopters rear cabin fused, leaving the unloading operations to be carried out in darkness except for use of a few hand torches. Under these conditions, the man wheeled out the guns despite the noise of the engines and tracer fire flashing past outside.
With the guns unloaded, Langworthy lifted off and started back to San Carlos, avoiding the battle. As the Chinook left at low altitude, it ran into a thicker snow shower and Langworthy allowed the helicopter to descend for a few seconds and hit something solid. The Chinook had actually hit the surface of one of the creeks west of Mount Kent at about 100 mph.
The impact threw up spray which flooded the intakes of the two rear-mounted engines and they lost power, at the same time the hydraulic power assistance of the helicopters controls failed, making it even harder to control the helicopter. The co-pilot jettisoned his door, and Langworth shouted for him to assist Langworthy at the controls. They both heaved on the collective levers and increased the pitch of the rotor blades. This lifted the helicopter up again, clearing the water and the engines wound up. In the back of the helicopter, one of the two other crew members, Tom Jones, lost his helmet and had been about to jump from the helicopter believing it to be breaking up. The other crewman had beckoned to him to put on another helmet and by the time he was on the intercom learnt that the helicopter was climbing and passing 1,500 feet.
Unable to navigate, Langworthy returned to San Carlos at medium altitude but was unable to contact the port and instead approached with all the helicopters lights on and hoped that the missile defence would realize that no Argentine aircraft would dare to fly so high and fully lit up. Fortunately, the people on the ground at San Carlos were hearing the Chinook's calls, although the Chinook could not receive their transmissions. The crew stepped out of the Chinook and a careful inspection revealed little damage. The co-pilots door was lost, the fuselage was dented and the rear-loading ramp had suffered some damage[/quote]
[url=http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/BravoNovember.html]Source[/url]
Get that helicopter a medal.
[I]Don't cry for me, Argentiiinaaaaaa...
The truth is, I neeeeeeeeever left you...[/I]
The men crewing that helicopter are just as impressive!
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34744461]Look, I realize that everyone's making jokes.
However.
I did some research, and take a look at these numbers:
I understand that the Argentinians took substantial losses, there's no arguing that. However, if they're such an nonthreatening force, how were the seven ships, 24 helicopters and 10 fighters lost?
Speaking from a logistical point of view, those are pretty substantial losses in themselves.[/QUOTE]
Well the odds we're definatly on the argentines side. With their base of operations close to the combat zone and the fact that they had no opposing force when they initially took the islands. It's alot easier to defend an island then it is to retake one, when you consider that, it's quite amazing that the british forces did not incur more loss.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34744461]Look, I realize that everyone's making jokes.
However.
I did some research, and take a look at these numbers:
I understand that the Argentinians took substantial losses, there's no arguing that. However, if they're such an nonthreatening force, how were the seven ships, 24 helicopters and 10 fighters lost?
Speaking from a logistical point of view, those are pretty substantial losses in themselves.[/QUOTE]
I think that the helicopters and maybe some of the fighters were on a ship that was sunk. It was a case of all our eggs in one sinking basket
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.