Argentina fuckin mad as hell at UK over Queen Elizabeth Land - UK ambassador faces full life consequ
92 replies, posted
[QUOTE=smeismastger;38932120]But UK has no navy anymore[/QUOTE]
and yet it's still over twice the size of the Argentine navy.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38929063]If I was in charge, I'd have them stripped of their better human status and thrown into the real world to see how they cope. Maybe that is too harsh.[/QUOTE]
I imagine pretty well given how both William and Harry are in the RAF.
Everyone understood it just as i did.
[B]As a fucking reference.[/B]
[QUOTE=markg06;38932339]I imagine pretty well given how both William and Harry are in the RAF.[/QUOTE]
Let's be honest here, those positions are more honorary than they are actual occupations.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;38932120]But UK has no navy anymore[/QUOTE]
I hope you are being sarcastic.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;38932746]Let's be honest here, those positions are more honorary than they are actual occupations.[/QUOTE]
"In 2009, [Prince William] transferred to the Royal Air Force, was promoted to Flight Lieutenant and underwent helicopter flying training in order to become a full-time pilot with the Search and Rescue Force. In 2010, he completed his general and special-to-type helicopter training and went on to RAF Valley on No. 22 Squadron performing co-pilot duties on board a Sea King search and rescue helicopter."
Doesn't sound honourary to me.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;38932120]But UK has no navy anymore[/QUOTE]
Really? The UK is currently building two massive aircraft carriers, a fleet of highly advanced submarines, the worlds best anti aircraft destroyers etc. The UK arguably has the worlds 4th most capable navy.
[QUOTE=Flyboi;38932898]Really? The UK is currently building two massive aircraft carriers, a fleet of highly advanced submarines, the worlds best anti aircraft destroyers etc. The UK arguably has the worlds 4th most capable navy.[/QUOTE]
Yeah man, those aircraft carriers don't have any jets that can actually use them since we scrapped the harrier and our new subs have been plagued with issues.
[QUOTE=smurfy;38929231]Illegal, unfortunately :([/QUOTE]
Hey, Iraq was an illegal war apparently and we still did that. It'll be fine, get the trenchcoats and snow goggles ready!
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;38932746]Let's be honest here, those positions are more honorary than they are actual occupations.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the RAF just hands Top Gun status out for no reason.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38932931]Yeah man, those aircraft carriers don't have any jets that can actually use them since we scrapped the harrier and our new subs have been plagued with issues.[/QUOTE]
True we may only have One fully working carrier at the moment and it's fitted to carry helicopters at that, but, y'know, thats 1 more carrier than the Aergentinians have.
We'll just fucking broadside them, old skool style.
Argentina seems like a really random country to do this sort of thing, but yet they always seem to.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;38932746]Let's be honest here, those positions are more honorary than they are actual occupations.[/QUOTE]
Uh you are aware that they both do actually work, William is an active SAR pilot flying rescue helicopters every day. Not too sure on the other one at the moment but he has done his actual "job" at some point.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38932931]Yeah man, those aircraft carriers don't have any jets that can actually use them since we scrapped the harrier and our new subs have been plagued with issues.[/QUOTE]
F-35b's nigga. VTOL capability like the harriers. We still have harriers in service too.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38928912]Why can't people realize that nobody gives a shit about royals anymore but tourists. They're a waste of tax money[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw[/media]
[QUOTE=CriticalIdiot;38933420]F-35b's nigga. VTOL capability like the harriers. We still have harriers in service too.[/QUOTE]
But our only Active Aircraft carrier doesn't use them anymore.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;38929134]
that goes against the whole idea of socialism.
it's like saying "a democracy can have a dictator" no not really that kind of defeats the point of democracy.[/QUOTE]
Eh, that's a pretty bad analogy. Having a dictator would remove every citizens access to democracy but having a monarch wouldn't remove access to state benefits and nationalisation, ect.
You do realise you don't have to follow political ideology like a religious fundamentalist follows their religion anyway. Ideologies are nothing more than guidelines to achieve a subjective idea of the greater good, there's nothing absolute about them.
Jesus, these Argentinians just own everything don't they?
[QUOTE=CriticalIdiot;38933420]F-35b's nigga. VTOL capability like the harriers. We still have harriers in service too.[/QUOTE]
Er, do we?
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;38933544]But our only Active Aircraft carrier doesn't use them anymore.[/QUOTE]
We don't have an active aircraft carrier ourselves. Not since we scrapped the HMS Ark Royal.
We won't have one untill the HMS Queen Elizabeth is finally finished. We have agreements with the French that if we really needed to we can launch from the Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier.
[editline]22nd December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Matriax;38933599]Er, do we?[/QUOTE]
The F-35B's aren't ready yet. They'll be arriving with the new aircraft carriers we're having made.
Also i'm fairly certain we still have some harriers in service since scrapping them early was a piss poor decision. It's just a handful though.
Why does everyone treat this as a military conflict? It's not going to come to that
[QUOTE=smeismastger;38932120]But UK has no navy anymore[/QUOTE]
The UK just don't have any aircraft carriers, we still have a helicopter carrier though.
The thing is that there's no real "claiming of land" as much as there is "saying that land is yours now and expecting everyone to roll with it" when it comes to the antartica
we have like, what, two shitty bases there in our entire [I]eighth[/I] of the antartica or something?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;38929134]it's like saying "a democracy can have a dictator" no not really that kind of defeats the point of democracy.[/QUOTE]
“Reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;38928646]I assume most people here get the reference, but just in case some of you don't:
[video=youtube;OHxyZaZlaOs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHxyZaZlaOs[/video]
[video=youtube;h8yHguvYYyQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8yHguvYYyQ[/video]
[video=youtube;ULWgEnnmcv4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULWgEnnmcv4[/video][/QUOTE]
wow i never knew jordguitar was apart of that
[QUOTE=CriticalIdiot;38933856]
Also i'm fairly certain we still have some harriers in service since scrapping them early was a piss poor decision. It's just a handful though.[/QUOTE]
No, they scrapped the lot. Even though they were in active use at the time, that is how desperate they were to save money via the SDSR.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38933453][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw[/media][/QUOTE]
I seem to recall another video that pointed out a few problems: The major one being that Republicans would likely contend that the land King George III so graciously 'voluntarily submitted' the profits of was land he gained through birthright in the first place, and even then was largely 'conquered' rather than 'owned'. Not only that, but the video here seems to forget about the 200m pounds of debt that he also transferred in the agreement.
[QUOTE=RobbL;38933552]Eh, that's a pretty bad analogy. Having a dictator would remove every citizens access to democracy but having a monarch wouldn't remove access to state benefits and nationalisation, ect.
You do realise you don't have to follow political ideology like a religious fundamentalist follows their religion anyway. Ideologies are nothing more than guidelines to achieve a subjective idea of the greater good, there's nothing absolute about them.[/QUOTE]
yea and socialist ideology is quite varied.
however, there are criteria for the word socialist that need to be met without eroding the meaning of the word.
communication starts to become confusing when you start using words to mean different things. using the word socialist to describe social democracy is quite confusing because social democracy is not very similar at all to the original usage of the word socialism.
also as i said before:
socialism is against arbitrary class by nature, a monarchy cannot exist within a socialist society because a monarchy is an arbitrary class of people.
socialism is about equality and sometimes merit. if someone is given money for something they are given money based on the value they create. you don't get money based on your birth. status is conferred upon participation, not geneology. monarchy is in opposition to this idea because a monarch is not given money or status based on any merit but rewarded based solely on who the monarch's parents were.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38928725]We actually have less.[/QUOTE]
Ah! But now Argentina isn't militarised, they have even less than we do!
[QUOTE=C0MMUNIZT;38933904]The UK just don't have any aircraft carriers, we still have a helicopter carrier though.[/QUOTE]
I don't think your country should focus on fleet carriers that much, submarines are the way today.
A wolfpack of submarines means the death of entire fleets, carriers or not. Currently it's impossible to destroy a incoming salvo of homing torpedoes with conventional means.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
