Falklands Conflict

[Fuchs66]

@Walther

I support the selfdetermination of the peoples. My ancestors were in 1945 not asked if they wanted to leave their ancestral farms in East Prussia. On the other hand, my country people didn’t ask the Polish or other people in the occupied countries if they want to leave their land.

The British actually wanted to get rid og Gibraltar a few years ago, but the people there told them that they prefer to stay British.
The same way the people living in Ceuta and Melilla don’t want to become Moroccan and rather stay Spanish.
I also find the way how the British government pulled the citizenship from the Hong Kong people, so that they couldn’t emigrate to Europe when Hong Kong was handed over to the China, rather shabby.

The Falklanders decided that they want to stay British, and the British government has to respect this.

Jan

Well said, I agree fully. I also found it a shame the way Hong Kong was wrapped up, but at least they managed to hang on to a special status and the way China is going at the moment maybe in a couple of decades they will be in a better position as we will be.

Edit:layout

[1000ydstare]

Jesus fucking wept.

Phalnix was only put on about 5 years ago, if that, you mong!!!

The system wasn’t even around until about mid to late 80s and only then fitted to the American ships.

Will check you dum ass links now.

[1000ydstare]

And in case I can’t find a reason why the numbers have changed although if they have it is due to some renumbering in the Royal Navy.

I thought the crux of your arguement is that we kept it quite. So why put different numbers up.

Looking forward to your explaination, dim wit.

[Fuchs66]

Also check your link, because if you follow the link for the Invincible look what the number is on the site you get to??? RO5

The RO7 on the american site is a mistake.

Edit to add: Here is the site in question

http://www.geocities.com/~davemc/canset.htm

Ark Royal is RO7

[system]

may 1982…

30 may 1982

was extracted of the tv that´s why you think it´s a fake, but i´ve the photo in my hands.

after the war…
17 september portsmouth

it is not the same ship…

[1000ydstare]

Right dickhead. Follow your links. I know they say it as you say it on the first web site, but if you carry on the Invincible is still marked as R05 on the website. There is obviously somekind of clerical error on the first link.

What about the tower? You can’t say “the tower” and then sign off. What about the tower.

[system]

@1000ydstare

Jesus fucking wept.

Phalnix was only put on about 5 years ago, if that, you mong!!!

The system wasn’t even around until about mid to late 80s and only then fitted to the American ships.

Will check you dum ass links now.

ooo insulting?

where is the british´s chivalry?

[Hanz_Lutz]

@TheIrishDuck

may 1982…

30 may 1982

was extracted of the tv that´s why you think it´s a fake, but i´ve the photo in my hands.

after the war…
17 september portsmouth

it is not the same ship…

That carier is screwd up and picture looks like real ,i think.

[Fuchs66]

@TheIrishDuck

[quote=1000ydstare]Jesus fucking wept.

Phalnix was only put on about 5 years ago, if that, you mong!!!

The system wasn’t even around until about mid to late 80s and only then fitted to the American ships.

Will check you dum ass links now.

ooo insulting?

where is the british´s chivalry?[/quote]

Not insulting just brutally honest

[1000ydstare]

There is also an error with Ark Royal it is marked as R08 when she is actually R07.

Your pictures haven’t come up.

Post them again, so I can destroy your futile arguements YET again.

Pillock

[BDL]

@Clauss von Stauffeberg

That carier is screwd up and picture looks like real ,i think.

Which shows how little you know about
(a) Naval operations
(b) Photography

IA for a ship fire is to slow the ship as much as possible - the ship in that photo is going flat out. It’s not even a decent fake.

[1000ydstare]

I’m still waiting with anticipation as to you’re explaination why a supposed secret operation, with a 50 year secrecy ruling would be allowed to be so blatently proved wrong by the numberin of a new ship with a new number.

What was wrong with the tower!!!

[BDL]

Since Erwin and ID haven’t supplied an answer, I guess they missed this in their general haste to post complete bollocks about something they have no knowledge about. Anyone object to me quoting it, to give them a fair chance to answer?

@BDL

I have one question for all of our South American friends. Can one of you supply a proper answer to this:

Let’s assum for a moment that our aircraft carriers were sunk. Let’s also assume (just for shits and giggles) that all of our planes were shot down, let’s also assume (for the hell of it) that all the white British soldiers were hiding behind the Gurkhas.

Now given all that, and the obvious superiority of the Argentinian forces over the British forces, how did one Brigade of light troops manage to completely defeat in a matter of weeks an enemy that outnumbered them three to one, was dug in on groung that couldn’t have been easier to defend, was better equipped and was far closer to home?

In short, how did we manage to kick your sorry excuse for an army of the FALKLAND ISLANDS, liberate the BRITISH islanders and still hold them 25 years later?

If the Argentinian army was so good, why does this document exist?

For those whose English isn’t great - it’s the SURRENDER treaty the Argentinians signed when they LOST South Georgia.

Why did the obviously victorious Argentians dump all of their shitty French armoured cars like this:

How did this British officer (clearly a POW since there’s no way we could have won), get so close to a shot down Argentinian aircraft?

[Sturmtruppen]

@BDL

Since Erwin and ID haven’t supplied an answer, I guess they missed this in their general haste to post complete bollocks about something they have no knowledge about. Anyone object to me quoting it, to give them a fair chance to answer?

Im out of here!,that’s why!

[1000ydstare]

In support of BDL.

Note smoke going straight up because HMS Coventry is dead in the water.

I want proper non scanned photoes with links to back up

[Hanz_Lutz]

[quote=“BDL”]

@Clauss von Stauffeberg

That carier is screwd up and picture looks like real ,i think.

Which shows how little you know about
(a) Naval operations
(b) Photography

IA for a ship fire is to slow the ship as much as possible - the ship in that photo is going flat out. It’s not even a decent fake.[/quote]

BDL mate i tell they looks like screwd up ,not tell he is finish ,you are in right i know very litle about battleships ,i only tell what i saw thats all.

[BDL]

@Erwin Schätzer(argentina)

[quote=BDL]Since Erwin and ID haven’t supplied an answer, I guess they missed this in their general haste to post complete bollocks about something they have no knowledge about. Anyone object to me quoting it, to give them a fair chance to answer?

Im out of here!,that’s why![/quote]

Surely you can spare five minutes to share some of your encyclopedic knowledge of the Falklands conflict with us?

[Fuchs66]

@Erwin Schätzer(argentina)

Im out of here!,that’s why!

A few of your countrymen said that in 1982 too :lol:

[1000ydstare]

Erwin the “Moderator” has left the building.

But I’m sure IrishDuck and Arkantos will stay.

[BDL]

@Clauss von Stauffeberg

BDL mate i tell they looks like screwd up ,not tell he is finish ,you are in right i know very litle about battleships ,i only tell what i saw thats all.

It’s not even a decent fake though, I’ve got four year old cousins who could knock better up in ten minutes with a box of crayola and some A4 paper.