Well South/Central America has been a very dormant place as far as conflict and major rebellion goes. Its only a matter of time before the whole place breakes out . Im surprised in this day and age of " ANTI COLONIALISM" this part of the world has not broken out already/ years ago.

Many look @ the middle east and Asia as the only hot spots to worry about while central and south America is simmering in the back round.

And having many friends and family from this part of the world I know whats on there minds. Its not all rose colored glasses. And not every servant is pleased to receive min wage and lucky enough to pick fruit for America. <---FACT!

Argentina take and hold the Falklands?
Not a chance.
Outcome would be the same as last time.
Possibly even worse for Argentina. After all if they couldn't take the hint after round one, wouldn't the UK forces have to inflict higher casualties in round two to ensure the message is read and understood?

Very biased "what if" video on the you tube link, might as well ask what if the UK govt had ordered a Polaris strike on Buenos Aires.

Hopefully this is all just foolish speculation and the current Argentinean govt has more sense than its predecessor.

I guess we'd have at least one submarine lurking about down there, surely?:lurk:

I should imagine that if there weren't already one down there, at the first inkling of trouble at least a couple would be quickly despatched.

I think you would be very wrong to assume britian couldnt defend the falklands again, just because i doesnt have the numbers of 1982 doesnt mean its not capible, dont forget in 1982 we only had invincible and hermes as carriers, today we have three carriers all be it one is mothballed.

We have the more capible type 23 frigates 13 in total as well as 4 remaining batch 3 type 22's, with 7 trafalgars 1 swiftsure and 1 astute boat gives us a fair pounce that will keep the argentine navy in port we did it last time as the argentinians openly states "we cannot counter a nuclear submarine" little has changed.

We have 4 type 42 destroyers and there are another 4 lurking around some where, we also now have three large platform docks HMS Ocean Bulwark and albion giving us better capacity in terms of we would be able to transport more units to the front in time of war, we can now launch attack helicopters from HMS Ocean the AH64D longbow apache giving better air support to ground troops, and its good to note ocean can also take chinooks too.

you then have the RFA which has 4 large landing ships bay class which can drop a fair amount of troops and equipment making our landing force to 7 large ships, this is without the other mothballed roundtable class that are still kicking about.

A good thing with the UK is in time of war they can requisition merchant vessels the QE2 and canberra sailed last time could you immagine the QM2 this time?

Whats more the UK would send down tornado's and tankers and awacs to the assencion islands to fly missions into the falklands so it will have a good role in attack and defence and would quickly gain air superiority or supremacy.

Remember in 1982 24 sea harriers took on the 200 strong argie air force not one was lost in air to air warfare.

Since 1982 the UK has stationed 2 troops for every one person on the island so theres around 3000 troops on the falklands that are permanantly there, whats more they also have an active naval presence with the flaklands gaurd ships they never leave the post and also HMS Endurance still looks after the falklands too.

in 1982 the americans offered us an aircraft carrier do believe it was the kitty hawk we turned it down we didnt need it we still probably wouldnt, give it another 10 years we will have type 45's and the new carriers therefore even now i dont think argentina would invade, whats more they havnt got the funding to either.

To add to what Kapitan said, the Argentine military has been mostly neglected since 1982. Today they've got a few destroyers and three old diesel subs. Most of their equipment is at least 25 years old. Their Air Force is essentially the same one they had in 1982 - Mirages and Skyhawks, only in fewer numbers.

Provocation thread fails miserably as it turns into intelligent discussion shocker :DL

There is no way the Argentines would even attempt another invasion, let alone prevail in a shooting war. They were beaten so soundly in the ground war that I doubt the memory has had chance to fade. Despite occupying every mountaintop around Stanley, in fortified positions with artillery support, mortars, heavy machineguns, air support, etc., in each battle they managed to lose more men than the attackers - a stunning reversal of the traditional battle equation that attacking forces are expected to lose two men for every defender killed.

Moreover, you have hundreds of thousands of British troops, airmen and sailors battle-experienced from eight years fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, while the Argentine forces have little on their side except macho propaganda about "Islas Malvinas".

Astute and the first Type 45s are just about to come on stream in the next month or so, albeit in less numbers than expected (or needed). These are the premier units in their class, and there is also the Bay Class, HMS Ocean, Albion and Bulwark, the 23s and Batch 3 22s - all world-class vessels light years ahead of anything we fielded in 1982 (the Type 12s still had steam propulsion, for God's sake).

Hmm, you mean the old Sidewinder chestnut, about the missiles which were already paid for and in the UK inventory when the war began (the US only released NATO stocks to replace those used)? Even then, as Sharkey Ward revealed, every Harrier missile kill was rear-aspect, so it had a far less dramatic impact than commonly held...though that never stopped the US manufacturer promoting the story at every turn. And as for the US providing fuel and facilities on Ascension Island - well, it's the least they could do for an ally, given that the British government has let them stay there for decades rent-free!

It's bad enough that American popular history writes their allies out of conflicts (British in WWII, Australians and Kiwis in Vietnam, UN in Korea, coalition in GW1, etc) without writing themselves into wars they had almost nothing to do with.

I keep hearing this complaint, usually from the English and it is starting to get irritating.

First off you say "American popular history" like it's a government department but you know that it's not. If we were to try to force total historical accuracy on writers and movie makers they would rightly scream free speech infringement.

Nor are British writers immune from doing the same thing. Case in point I saw the classic British movie "Battle of Britain" the other day but not once were any foreign members of the RAF depicted except the Poles. That's 284 men who risked life and limb to help defend England from the nazi scourge and the makers of that movie ignored their contribution. Should we blame British popular history for that oversight?

Educated folks on both sides of the pond know that WW2 was a team effort and to me that is good enough.

The thing that irritates people is when americans as in people not government claim "without us you wouldnt have won the war" or "we are the dog's bo**ox bow to us" it is crap so crap indead that the USN is chasing a diesel submarine its having to lease from sweden who is not a major global power and the bloody thing is running rings round them.

That is what gets to most people the fact americans think they are totaly invincible unfortunatly history has proved otherwise, no one is invincible you dont have to be big and strong to take on the strongest and win.

I admire the sence of american patriotism and the fact they stand by what they believe and are fully willing to fight tooth and nail for that, and i do admire the americans for this, but to push the policy over seas and into forigners faces is not really acceptable because it causes conflict, every person some where inside has a sence for thier country of oragin each country has had defeats and victories won and lost battles big and small.

The west cant see past thier noses and that is a fact we demand every country be a democracy and every country conform to a world order and if that country doesnt conform they are politically embarrased by us western nations sanctioned and then singled out for further humiliation.

Yet this goes against what the west is trying to stand for isnt a democracy a freedom of choice, speech, and government? so why is the USA UK NATO UN and the likes trying to take this away from a country ?
it seems non conformists to the world order are publically embarrased and unfortunatly as a citizen we hear day in day out about how these rouge nations are developing weapons to kill us all this is to scare us if they had them surely they would have used them by now?

Russia is a good example of this, recently two submarines were off the US east coast this made headline news even international news, yet like any other country in this world they have the legal right of navigation without hindrence in international waters, yet both submarines were probably being hounded by american naval vessels submarines and aircraft for the entiraty of thier patrols.
The big thing is "they pose a threat to national security they are operating close to american shores they have the potential to strike our nation"
And mr Obama do you not think for one moment why the Russians are doing this? maybe just maybe its because you have parked a few submarines off the russian coast so its only fair they send some to yours just to make it a point as in the like.

Or how about your policies of not entering terratorial waters the last time i checked murmansk was very deep inside Russian waters so far so it could be seen as a declaration or intent and you photographed it well done not only that years later you realse the pictures (it was intresting viewing them MR Obama i thank you much) but you moan and groan when a russian submarine does it to you.

Russia has the capability to ending america right now and america also has the same capability to end russia now these new missile shields, which a treaty was signed i do believe in the 1970's stating a missile shiel could not be constructed as it would give an overall impunity to one side and the effects of MAD would deminish making one side a supreme power rather than just having two super powers this was signed by the americans who now amazingly u turn on this.

poland and check rep are due to have the missile barriers installed who's missiles are they going to target should a launch occour? Iranian missile dont have the range to strike the EU let alone american and north korea can just about hit japan so of course it leads to only one other country capible of nuclear launch Russia.

As you guys know i have experiance in russia and i know what they feel, the reason they send submarines to your coast lines is because your doing it to them america betrayed the russians in the 1990's and continues to betray russia now and when a strong leader comes to power and says to america "shut the f**k up" you dont like it that is why in polls Vladimir putin scores a high 90% no one wanted putin to leave office which in my view a bad thing that he did in that capacity but it is good that he stays on he has done alot for the country something you americans british german have not seen will never see because your not there.

You cant expect democracy to evolve over night and people to adapt to it, especially because Russia has never had a democratic government in its entire history brezhnev tried and failed the only way is putins way and that is build slowly on even blocks.

I say this to the american government get your heads out your backsides start thinking before accusing think about what your going to do and who its going to effect and upset and then you may have more contries who are willing to conform.

I found a good documentary its done by the BBC and a british reporter but he lives in russia and has done since the 1990's take a look its done from russia's perspective and not american or british.

PART 1 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvnutD4WIYA
PART 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z_xCOoApXk
PART 3 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toi6faBE6UI

Your american government thinks they know all about Russia and its people sadly your sorely mistaken its amusing to see someone who has never lived in russia walked down the streets of moscow or st petersburg or spoken to the people pass a judgement about these people they dont even know theres a big lesson to learn you think you know Russia and its people think again.

If you think britian cant challenge a nation such as argentina for the falklands again then i suggest you go back to school.

"I saw a film today, oh boy. The English army had just won the war..."

Kapitan, August said that educated people know the truth. Your argument seems to be with those of us who claim to be educated but aren't. Most of us, especially here, like to discuss the truth about World War 2 and other facets of history; that truth being the actual facts of who contributed what, and where. Everybody made a contribution to that conflict, and everybody deserves the credit.

I think you're a little too angry about this. No one here is putting you, or your people, down.

Amazingly superbly awesomely great post there Kapitan. :salute:

thats wierd as not only are many nationalitites depicted in that film but all the pilots and their nationalities are listed at the end of the film as a memorial to their contribution. Perhaps you need to watch the film again.

Hold on I just checked , you are right. Two jamaican pilots as well as an Austrian , Egyptian and Icelander are missing from the film

Really? Can you name an actor in that film that portrayed any of the 127 New Zealanders or 112 Canadians that participated in the battle? How about any of the 10 Irishmen?

Yes they are listed in the end credits (except for the ones you mention) but even that horrible movie U571 made mention of other nationalities in the end credits and that hasn't stopped Europeans from, rightly, complaining about its historical fabrications.

My point however is you can't blame an entire nation because some hollywood movie or dime store novel writer plays loose and fast with the facts. You might as well be advocating against free speech.

Well there is Christopher Plummer for starters, amazingly he is Canadian and played a Canadian though of course Keith Park was played by Trevor Howard who was not really a New Zealander but was just acting as one and Micahael Redgrave is really from the West country but played as an Australian while Robert Shaw played fictional rendition of a rather famous South African.

Now you're gonna make me watch the movie again aren't ya?

It's a classic, I can think of a lot worse ways to waste a couple of hours.

Weird coincidence.....

On the telly right now...

On More4....

The Battle of Britain !

Must go.....

I got pretty bored to it very soon. IIRC, I've watched it twice since I got it on DVD and really cant make myself watch it the 3rd time. :hmmm:

I think the posting sounds a little agressive i can quite agree with you steve however the main part of the post is more to do with the americans calling our nation drunks, and totaliterians and i wanted ideally to get the point accross that no matter how well people think they know us they dont because they dont live our lives.

I n regards to the the film some do over step the mark but i think its more along the lines of british pride if you get what i mean, the problem with the UK white population and its a fair majority here feel that our country is being invaded by black people (i intend no racial offence here) i personally dont have a problem with other cultures entering the UK provided they contribute to our system, i do have a problem with the ones who come here and just simply live off our welfare state.

But in regards to the film it would seem it was made for a british audiance therefore having a black jamican or asian pilot means the film wouldnt sell, simply because it would envoke a bit of unrest umongst viewers because thats not what they want to see on a screen they ideally want to see a rather educated british male with a moustache who says words like thats absolutly spiffing and chop chop than a jamican trying to say the same.

The film is made for one purpose to put bums on seats to pay and make money history comes second.

I can turn it around look at the K19 film it has so many factual flaws loved in the UK because it showed russians being drunk illequiped foolish stupid ect, while some may be true the facts were highly distorted so much so the survivors and relatives sued successfully the film maker, this was the attempt hollywood made on portraying the russians to the typical western belief that they all are drunk and incompetant.

So there will always be bends in the film world distorting historical facts to make money.

I do understand where your coming from steve and august it would be nice to see a film that is factually correcthowever factually correct doesnt always sell tickets.

Oh August, would you like a clip-on Aimpoint to enhance that shot at your foot?

Not only does BoB go out of its way - to the detriment of the main narrative - to focus on Polish pilots, but every nationality is listed before the end credits - yes, even the tiny but latterly inflated contribution of US airmen. This was not included at the protest of veteran's groups, unlike the disclaimer at the end of the vile U571.

Incidentally, I also saw a film today. It was called One Of Our Aircraft Is Missing, a British propaganda movie filmed by Powell & Pressburger at a time when Britain and the Commonwealth were fighting alone against Nazi Germany. The bulk of the plot concerns the efforts of Dutch civilians and resistance fighters in helping downed Empire airmen. Gol-darn them selfish chauvinistic Brits.