Argies Catch 22

[BrilloPad]

Why let reading or comprehension get in the way of insulting a fellow member.

Exactly - you MF lover.....

[Moscow Mule]

Sorry son, 1200 retards holding guns, and bored out of their tiny minds, isn't going to stop it being over run if we can't even get anyone there to back them up.

So, who to listen to: people too stupid to get a proper job so they joined the army, or ex military chiefs with an ear for the real facts.

Tricky, tricky...

There's only one winker here chap.

Those ex military chiefs have been wheeled out to force an agenda in the media.

If you took the time to read the articles I posted you would realise how much bulltulip you're spouting.

[Zoiderman]

There's only one winker here chap.

Those ex military chiefs have been wheeled out to force an agenda in the media.

If you took the time to read the articles I posted you would realise how much bulltulip you're spouting.

The weakness in your argument is that you think I haven't.

[Zoiderman]

Moscow,

Just so I get this right:

You think a blog is more informative than a collection of ex defence leaders?

And you have the audacity to suggest the defence people are being used for an agenda?

You think this: "The rumour mill has been flapping faster than a tuliphouse door in a Force 9" written bya collection of ex squaddies is more informative than a collection of Admirals, Brigadiers and Air Marshalls?

Wow, I think I am justified in using the for the is strong in this one...

[Moscow Mule]

The weakness in your argument is that you think I haven't.

The weakness in your argument is that you haven't got anything other than "1200 troops is not enough to defend MPA" even when the reasons why it is have been spelt out to you multiple times. Feel free to rebut the articles point by point if you think you can.

Moscow,

Just so I get this right:

You think a blog is more informative than a collection of ex defence leaders?

And you have the audacity to suggest the defence people are being used for an agenda?

You think this: "The rumour mill has been flapping faster than a tuliphouse door in a Force 9" written bya collection of ex squaddies is more informative than a collection of Admirals, Brigadiers and Air Marshalls?

Wow, I think I am justified in using the for the is strong in this one...

Generally, when that blog has contributions from some of the finest military thinkers in the UK at the moment, yes I do.

Sandy Woodward is defending the Navy's corner. He and the others have been rolled out for a few column inches when the anniversary is coming up. The points they make are irrelevant - if you control MPA, you control the Falklands. Taking them would be a bloody, drawn out affair which the Argentines have no stomach for, and for which they would lose the little international support they do have.

If you don't want to believe me or "a blog" perhaps you might want to read Professor Michael Clarke of the Royal United Services Institute and his take on the situation. I'll pick out the salient point for you:

"Some analysts have posited exotic subterfuge strategies that an Argentinian government might adopt. They range from the fanciful to the comical, but the fact that they are devised at all is testimony to a recognition that there is no plausible mainstream military option open to Buenos Aires. "

Once again, you are the winker in extremis on this thread.

[Zoiderman]

Ah, it's a nice try, but a bit doomed by the content from the finest squaddie minds out there; barn door, tulip myself, etc, etc.

It's written by ex squaddies from Iraq and Afghanistan, those links you supplied. I checked.

Sorry, but the very nature of how stupid you must be to sign up as a squaddie renders your argument, once again, invalid.

Your argument is riddled with more holes than your brain: Typhoon IIs are good, but a small SAM will still upset your day.

And General Sir Mike Jackson, he obviously was just rolled out for some column inches?

**** a duck, these people have more brains on the end of their nose picking finger than squaddies, and they all say if a small group of elite Argie troops disabled the airfield, we'd be fooked; we cou;dn't re take them.

[shaunbhoy]

If people want to be taken seriously, they really shouldn't post when they get in from the pub.
For those who are not bothered about that though, I guess those rules don't apply.

HTH

[Zoiderman]

I know, these people who drink. I mean, Moscow Mule, wtf is he on...

[Zoiderman]

It makes me laugh to think the article keeps going on about an air presence. Saying even if they destroy the airfield, that the Typhoons might be in the air. OK china balls, where do they land when the fuel runs out?

You want to lend the article an intelligent label, yet it's full of bravado ("a small team of swarthy underwater knife fighters"), and far from the truth. It intimates looking at the troops coming in under a false flag cover, then doesn't move it forward, staying with an imaginary submarine force.

The truth is, 30-5o well trained troops could get to the island undetected (admitted in the article) and all they need to do is disable a 2 mile runway and a bank of rapiers. No matter how ******* good a typhoon is, if it cant take off and land, its as good as tits on a bull. So then you are left with 1200 troops with no air cover. How quick would they be to run up the white flag? I will tell you, very, very quickly.

Now the level of squaddie induced bravado again (and intellectual content so lauded by my good friend the mule):

Argentina is willy waving. However, it then goes on to state, your article remember, that whilst it is unlikely, it isn't impossible. Also, that the presumption is that Argentina doesn't have the stomach for a war, presuming there would be one. One, remember, that we have said we couldn't have. So the presumptions are that if the Argies did take over, which they could, we would enter into a full blown war, and launch Task Force 2. However, we can't launch task force 2, as we actually don't have task force 2, it doesn't exist.

Care to expand your view on that?

[OwlHoot]

Ahem:

The British task force, in 1982, descended on the Ascension Islands as a staging post for their trip to the Falklands War,

However, Washington at first refused Britain permission to use the "USA-operated airfield facilities" for refuelling RAF jets...

A little information in the wrong hands is sometimes harmful:

After finally getting approval from the yanks, with personal intervention from RR, the fly boys deployed a fleet of Vulcan bombers and Victor tankers at the airfield.

The opening bombs were launched from Ascension after this aproval was granted, and only then the base to supply the Task Force.

The Matelots stopped at Ascension for refuelling on the way.

Now you may be confused as it was only after the Falklands was that the British created a fly boy presence on the island.

Hope thats clear now.

I not as convinced as some here that you're talking bollocks about a possible Argie sneak attack; however you may be being a bit pessimistic about Yank support.

While I seem to recall some US State Department bint a few months ago saying it was time to start negotiations on the Falkland Islands, didn't Obama during Cameron's recent visit reaffirm the US's support for British ownership and occupation?

God knows what Cameron conceded in return, if Obama was sincere; but if so that would tend to suggest that in the event of another Argie invasion the US would assist the UK much as they did before if not more so.