Next Falklands war

[tractor]

...

Yeah your reply was a bit strange, confused me, you quote me and looks like you answered my post within the quote then underneath said that it looked like I was replying to someone else. Very strange.

Anyway, to answer your question. The poster gave his military opinion, I would like to know what rank he was so I can judge how much authority that opinion carries. If he was a general then I would expect him to be an expert in his field and his opinion would mean more. The opinion of a private regarding the strategic defence of the island would carry less weight to me.

My comments to you especially on your date invitation were emboldened so that you would see the context within your reply that I originally quoted. Clearly, that did not work.

WRT your point, everyone, even rank and file have the benefit of hindsight and are capable of making a sensible judgement on whether the FI would be easier to defend now than they were in 82. Then we had a platoon. It was widely accepted that the withdrawal of HMS Endurance precipitated the action by Argentina. To all intents and purposes, there was no defence. It was a question of walk up and say 'We are here.' It would not be so today.

WRT expert generals, I suggest you take a look at military history and indeed, the arguments and mistakes made by the strategists over the landing proposals during the very campaign in question before placing too much faith in that direction.

[woohoo]

My comments to you especially on your date invitation were emboldened so that you would see the context within your reply that I originally quoted. Clearly, that did not work.

WRT your point, everyone, even rank and file have the benefit of hindsight and are capable of making a sensible judgement on whether the FI would be easier to defend now than they were in 82. Then we had a platoon. It was widely accepted that the withdrawal of HMS Endurance precipitated the action by Argentina. To all intents and purposes, there was no defence. It was a question of walk up and say 'We are here.' It would not be so today.

WRT expert generals, I suggest you take a look at military history and indeed, the arguments and mistakes made by the strategists over the landing proposals during the very campaign in question before placing too much faith in that direction.

You replied to a reply you thought was for someone else within the quote, then commented underneath it - so yeah that confused me.

I've explained why the opinion of a private carries less weight than a general with me. I expect one to be an expert in using a gun and running the other to be an expert in strategic thinking. Regardless of your opinion of rank, it matters to me. Which is why I asked the question, your response about different ranks all dying was stupid.

[tractor]

...

You replied to a reply you thought was for someone else within the quote, then commented underneath it - so yeah that confused me.

I've explained why the opinion of a private carries less weight than a general with me. I expect one to be an expert in using a gun and running the other to be an expert in strategic thinking. Regardless of your opinion of rank, it matters to me. Which is why I asked the question, your response about different ranks all dying was stupid.

You need to read the thread again to see that it is you who is still confused. I replied to your assertion that I was a dick, when all I was trying to do is make you realise that with the benefit of both hindsight and the public knowledge of the level of defence that has been invested in the Falklands, that anyone, regardless of rank or even military service could see that it would be far, far harder for the Argentines to get a foothold now compared with '82.

What you would 'expect' from soldiers and generals is far from reality generally, both in military history and particularly with the Falklands landings. You will only realise if you bother to read the mutliple accounts that are available. But don't let reality get in the way of your suppostion eh?

[woohoo]

You need to read the thread again to see that it is you who is still confused. I replied to your assertion that I was a dick, when all I was trying to do is make you realise that with the benefit of both hindsight and the public knowledge of the level of defence that has been invested in the Falklands, that anyone, regardless of rank or even military service could see that it would be far, far harder for the Argentines to get a foothold now compared with '82.

What you would 'expect' from soldiers and generals is far from reality generally, both in military history and particularly with the Falklands landings. You will only realise if you bother to read the mutliple accounts that are available. But don't let reality get in the way of your suppostion eh?

First off you point out my spelling mistakes and then can't be arsed correcting your own spelling.

Let's agree to differ, you asked why I asked about rank, I've told you. If you agree or not does not matter, I answered your question.

What would their rank have to do with it? Privates to Lt Cols gave their lives during the campaign.

I've answered this, to imply that I don't understand that a range of people died during the campaign is a stupid and silly thing to say. Had nothing to do with my reason for asking about rank. Next time try and find out why people ask things before coming out with such a stupid and ignorant statement.

[tractor]

.....

First off you point out my spelling mistakes and then can't be arsed correcting your own spelling.

Let's agree to differ, you asked why I asked about rank, I've told you. If you agree or not does not matter, I answered your question.

I've answered this, to imply that I don't understand that a range of people died during the campaign is a stupid and silly thing to say. Had nothing to do with my reason for asking about rank. Next time try and find out why people ask things before coming out with such a stupid and ignorant statement.

And I told you why you were wrong to place such faith in such a generalisation. Take it or leave it.

As to your second ridiculous para, would you not consider my initial question "What would their rank have to do with it" satisfy your requirement? Jeebus! Your immediate response is to call me a dick and ask me out for a fight FFS!

As far as the spelling goes, it is a game around here. Usually, those that pick up on spelling immediately go and screw it up themselves (as I did), making it even funnier. Excuse me while I go and overreact somewhere

Perhaps "Suppostion" was meant as a portmanteau of suppository and supposition. Perhaps you could take one to relieve the other? Then again it may have been a typo which is different from messing up your apostrophes, which in turn is grammar, not spelling; but we don't have a grammar emote readily available.

[TykeMerc]

Tractor, it's clear you will not get a rational debate from the illiterate idiot, he's only capable of calling people that disagree with him stupid and suggest a physical altercation.

[woohoo]

And I told you why you were wrong to place such faith in such a generalisation. Take it or leave it.

As to your second ridiculous para, would you not consider my initial question "What would their rank have to do with it" satisfy your requirement? Jeebus! Your immediate response is to call me a dick and ask me out for a fight FFS!

As far as the spelling goes, it is a game around here. Usually, those that pick up on spelling immediately go and screw it up themselves (as I did), making it even funnier. Excuse me while I go and overreact somewhere

Perhaps "Suppostion" was meant as a portmanteau of suppository and supposition. Perhaps you could take one to relieve the other? Then again it may have been a typo which is different from messing up your apostrophes, which in turn is grammar, not spelling; but we don't have a grammar emote readily available.

You also spelt multiple incorrectly, dick.

[woohoo]

Tractor, it's clear you will not get a rational debate from the illiterate idiot, he's only capable of calling people that disagree with him stupid and suggest a physical altercation.

you have found a mate, so sweet.

[tractor]

...

you have found a mate, so sweet.

Sentences begin with capital letters. Again, typo - how do you know I'm not dlysecix?

[tractor]

...

Tractor, it's clear you will not get a rational debate from the illiterate idiot, he's only capable of calling people that disagree with him stupid and suggest a physical altercation.

His complaint that I should have asked him first when I actually did is what makes me laugh the most. Anyway TV is slow tonight.