Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

Chris, I thought you were more intelligent than that!! You know exactly what I was saying without picking bits out of different posts, and trying to use them to insult someone.

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

Yep, it seems to be around the time of potential oil discovery that they ignited their "claims" again over the Falklands.

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

Or of course (providing that is the case, which I doubt), they could just side with their little poodle Great Britain and get a better deal.

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

It was actually about three months. I just think of it as being a year because I was at my grandparents near Bognor Regis in the summer holidays one year, as the task force was being prepared to set sail. And I was there a year later as they were coming back.

---------- Post added at 17:27 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------

Apart from the fact that the UK will give BP the rights, rather than American companies. And the UK will get the revenue.

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

All military personnel have military field training. As for techs there's a lot of front line trades.. My own service (weapons tech specialising in ordnance disposal) includes front line experience within a major conflict and yes I have been shot at.. :mad: You seem to know very little with your so called experience dug up from wikipedia and various other sites.

As for forum opinions yes you have a right to your own opinion but that doesn't mean your opinion is correct.. I'm sure that you'd no sooner have a moan if I were to sprout wiki data on beds and mattresses as though I had experience on the matter.

:td::td::td::td::td::td:

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

And of course, the largest division of BP is BP America....

btw, you don't have to be infantry to be shot at - I was in RAF Signal Intelligence, and I came under fire a couple of times (and not by my own side...;)).

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

I hope it hasn't been 'engineered' to turn our livestock against us in the cause of Las Islas Malvinas. Trojan sheep.... :D

As for BP, it will do what suits its shareholders the majority of which are US and UK pension funds and other institutional investors IIRC.

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

It also doesn't mean that you are correct. But all you have done is try to shoot down anyone else with a different opinion to you.

My opinion is simply looking at the wider picture. Your opinion appears to me to be very narrow, and only considering that due to our superior technology, that we are invincible.

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

Reminds me of the girl who got her sterling stuck on full auto so threw it away.. We all dived for cover.. So I've also been shot at by our own people :rofl:

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

tbf, we've all been there - mine was a WO whose Browning jammed, so he was waving it about to demonstrate the jam, until it went off and shot himself in the foot....:D

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

I should think that the UK government would give the rights to the UK part of BP...I think they should remind people that it is called British Petroleum. ;)

Not even by the Americans?? :D

The point I was actually making was the insulting comment to British Servicemen who fought in the Falklands War.

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

I have no intention of insulting anyone. I really do think you're firing from the hip without thorough research or the benefit of experience of the subject. Your view of whether HM Forces are adequate as a deterrent force has shifted from 'no and a determined assault could ovcome them' to 'yes but that means Argentina would have to make a big assault using troops as cannon fodder'. These are two quite different positions.

You also stated - without equivocation - that the original conflict lasted a year, only qualifying that statement as being a childhood memory when you were called out on it. I'm sorry, but as an excuse for a basic factual error that's lame.

I think you've gone out on a limb on this one, claimed statements as fact that are beyond your knowledge or experience to back up and are resorting to trying to play down the comments of people who actually do have first-hand experience of these matters by claiming the experience of friends or family as your own.

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

Americans??? :D

---------- Post added at 18:09 ---------- Previous post was at 18:04 ----------

Give it a rest Chris...it's not as if reporters get it 100% right all the time...and yes that is including reporters for local rags.

I made a mistake about the length of the war, because it was based on what I remember from 30 years ago. And I put my hands up to that, we all make mistakes. But unlike you, I haven't used the typical reporter tactic of twisting peoples words around to mean something different. You knew exactly what both of my comments that you quoted actually mean. And I'n not going to get drawn into a petty squabble about actual meaning of words.

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 18:09 ----------

Oh dear....maybe the argies do stand a chance :D

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

I've not used the word invincible, nor have a said that a victory is guaranteed.. What I have said is that the technology is the biggest advantage that anyone could have within the armed forces. It'll enhance an armies ability to defend, attack and is also the biggest deterrent that we have.

Now that you've attempted to put words in my mouth and failed whilst trying to defend your viewpoint I wonder if you'll finally realise that in a war no-one is right, these are purely opinions and you can't just include the size of the army or the closeness of the force in this discussion without considering the whole picture..

Argentine would be stupid to try to send in an attack, there's no way they could sneak in like last time and to get a major invasion force would be catastrophic for them when they attempt to deploy to the islands. The subs alone would have a field day never mind the type 45 and the typhoons.. It's not a case of when the 2nd conflict starts, it's more a case of are the argies willing to lose a lot more than they did in 1982 and still probably end up with no islands. I can also see attacks directly on military infrastructure on the mainland by TLAMs and the argies know that and also know that they can't defend against that. Argies have a lot to lose a lot more than us.

I'll say one thing Tim, you sure do make me laugh :rofl:

Re: Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising
 

Another old rerporter's epithet is never let the facts get in the way of a good story. It's not one I lived by personally, but wasn't I saying only a moment ago how you liked to claim the experience of friends and family as your own.

I think if you're going to wade into a discussion as detailed and long-lasting as this particular thread, you owe it to yourself to rely on a little more than childhood memories. Your mis-remembering of the basic fact of the length of the war would have been immediately corrected had you gone no further than the Wikipedia entry for the 1982 conflict.

For you to make grand statements about how ex-service personnel in this thread are insulting the memories of soldiers who died is utterly pitiful given that you are prepared to advance arguments about the detail of the current situation without even the basic courtesy of trying to get your facts straight.