CLICK FOR FULL PAGE


I'm not really nationalistic or patriotic, but I was pleased when we defended the Falklands 30 years ago and I'd expect us to do it again now. I see no real difference between that invasion and the German invasion of Poland. I bet a lot of people wish we'd nipped that one in the bud.

I thought it foolish last week when a spokesman said that we were not capable of defending them now. That seemed to be inviting trouble.

I guess I wasn't the only one who saw the danger in that. A decision has been made to send HMS Dauntless there shortly to replace a smaller ship. A practical measure since it's an advanced warship and also a message to potential invaders.

I know there are arguments about who owned The Falklands first (though I understand  the Argentine claim is quite weak) but unless we're planning to give North America to the native Indians or a large part of England back to the French/Romans/Celts  that is no argument at all. Every bit of land was owned by somebody else first.

Senior figures in [President Cristina Kirchner's] party blithely dismissed the aspirations of the island's residents to remain British, describing them as colonial ‘imports' whose views should count for nothing.
Cristina Kirchner nationalised everybody's pension savings in Argentina not so long ago, that show you wot sort of thieving old trout she is, wergh.
I used to think we were wrong, wrong wrong to insist on defending the Falklands when it was obvious (to me and Argentina) that they shouldn't really be thought of as 'ours'.

A few years on and a bit more reading and I can see now I was wrong about that, what with the Argentine claim being tenuous (something to do with the Spanish once leaving a plaque there saying 'this is ours' and then years later saying to Argentina 'oh there's some blooming puffin-infested bit of rock over there you can have if you really want it,')  but if they are talking of the Argentinians "sabre-rattling" how's this for braggadocio:

'most advanced and powerful warship....'

a battery of missiles that could "take out all of South America's fighter aircraft let alone Argentina's,"

The Type 45 destroyer is the most advanced anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic ship in the world

equipped with 48 Sea Viper missiles  

The ship is in a league of its own in air defence able to track dozens of multiple targets

"It can shoot down Argentine fighters as soon as they take off from they bases,"



Rampant hand-rubbing gloatery and gleeful delight,  trumpeting the language of computer war games, with all those sexy 'Sea Vipers' and Really Big Powerful Guns and 'Taking Out Targets'... We are talking here about blasting things, and people, to bits,  every so often I wonder how the world would have developed in the hands of women, with you men kept safely down the mines....  :lol




PS yes, yes Maggie, but she was a different sort of woman ..
So far as the missiles are concerned, 48 missiles is all it got.

So wot happens when Argie aircraft number 49 turns up, eh?

The other thing about this ship is it very costly, so they cut the order from 12 to 6 in 2008.   The ships came in at 29% over budget, but wot does you expect with BAE Systems.
You can't only blame BAe for going over budget. The MOD is notorious for changing its mind.
"But France has got wizzier bangier missiles on its warships than we have. We want them too."
"Ok," says BAe pursing its collective lips, "but it'll cost ya."
You can't only blame BAe for going over budget


OK, I forgot to blame the MoD as well, but I have done in the past.
I wonder if they would really be able to use the Blasting Things?

War seems almost impossible these days because as soon as you are doing well and on the way to winning by killing some of your enemies then the preparations for war crimes trials start up.

Even Old Maggie got in bother over the direction that ship was sailing in when it was sunk and things are much worse 30 years on.
The thing about the ship having only 48 missiles is that no one will want to volunteer to be those 48.

Incidently regarding Argentina's tenuous claim on the islands, before they invaded them the UK actually offered to go to the international courts to settle the claim/counter-claim but Argentina refused. Of course when they took the islands by force, then retaken, then that offer was withdrawn and has remained off the table ever since.

Argentina could have been pretty much in charge of the islands in all but name had they not been so stupid. They probably still could. If oil is found off the Falklands then someone is going to have to refine it and the simplest way to do it is run a pipeline to Argentina. If they want to cut off their noses to spite their faces then that's their own fault.
Prince William is our latest weapon.

The Argentinians are a bit narked by this as he will apparently arrive wearing 'the costume of a conqueror'.  I don't like it either, it's a bit... shabby.  I'd rather rely on the rights and wrongs of the matter to prove our point, not to mention the 48 bristling missiles. It all looks a bit sneery and blackmaily -   'go on spill a bit of [i]Royal blood!  we dare you!'
There's a tradition of putting royals in harm's way. Andrew was at the retaking of the Falklands, and wasn't Harry in Iraq? I suppose it stems from the fact that this was perhaps the original purpose of the royals, to lead their subjects into battle.
What it mainly does these days is take the peoples' eyes away from the fact that they are very expensive and mostly worthless parasites.
Next Page...



Hosted by Arvixe