re: Obama administration backing Argentina over UK
It's hardly like this would be the first time this administration has dissed the UK and the special relationship that the US and UK have had since not long after The War of 1812. Remember the iPod?
I think your estimation of the Special Relationship is reaching, there. I wouldn't seriously suggest its existence until post-World War II.
Also, it's apparently a tradition for the President to give the British Monarch a shitty gift. Make of that what you will.
Edit: And if I remember correctly, the Queen actually asked for that gift beforehand.
edited 22nd Dec '11 10:40:42 PM by USAF713
I am now known as Flyboy.Yeah, not exactly the gaffe it's so often made out to be. Her old one was outdated apparantley. Thought it was quite a nice gesture personally.
Though I have to say, Obama really doesn't seem overly fond of us. I can understand why the US would remain neutral and call for negotiations, but calling the islands the Malvinas stings, it really does. One word that implies a thousand more.
Bane of Lancastrians. Softies.I don't understand it either. After Libya and Osama I expected more of Obama. Hm.
I am now known as Flyboy.Meh, I don't know if any of this will really add up to anything in the end. Unless negotiations happen, any attempt to take the islands is an invasion, which would turn it into a whole different ballgame. If Argentina does invade, I'd be very surprised if Obama didn't form some kind of protest against it.
There's almost zero chance that Argentina would invade. It'd lose America's backing at the very least and that's a very powerful country you want on your side. Argentina's going a different route this time. Plus, I think they're smart enough to know that the UK would give them an asskicking in the end.
I was wondering why frisbees got bigger as they got closer then it hit me.Well, see, that's why I think it won't really add up to much besides people bitching at each other. I don't think anyone wants an actual physical conflict. It's basically going to go: Argentina bitches, UK bitches back, US calls for negotiations, negotiations either happen or they don't, everyone ends up pretty much as they were when this all started.
...and the Daily Mail gets in the act with another of their Wild Mass Guessing-type features
.
I kinda-sorta want Argentina to win... If them Brits lose badly enough, they WILL blame the cuts. If the defeat is spectacular enough, it might discredit the austerity meme once and for all... Or at the very least, it'd end Cameron's political career.
edited 23rd Dec '11 2:42:36 AM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.We called it the General Galtieri Award For Services To The Conservative Party...
...one minute Thatcher was hated and getting nowhere. People could see the damage her policies were causing. It was almost certain she'd be kicked out at the next election. Then she gets gifted a fucking war to win, and the bitch rolls back in with a landslide - even though nothing had changed, her domestic policies were still destructive and ruinous, and set the foundation for the wreck Britain is today.
And the biggest irony? In late 1981, the Tories were proposing to rubber-stamp cuts to the Royal Navy that would have made it impossible to get the fleet together to win back the Falklands... Thatcher was all for these naval cuts...
edited 23rd Dec '11 3:43:57 AM by AgProv
Elderly curmudgeon and awkward person. Professional old fart.
And for an indication of how desperate the Royal Navy was in 1982 — they considered the reactivation of HMS Bulwark
, a former commando carrier that had been deactived in 1979 due to a fire. However, the vessel had deteriorated too much. To quote The Other Wiki:
Nonetheless, the carrier remained intact for over a year, and during the early stages of the Falklands War it was announced that Bulwark would be reactivated. However, a rapid ship survey had determined she had deteriorated too much for this to be practical. The carrier was eventually scrapped in 1984.
There's a greater probability of the F-35 being canned as a whole in the next 2 years than the QE being ready and equipped with them in 5.
Between budgetary concerns and a lot of data circulating about it that from a combat standpoint it's a rather poor aircraft (it's outmaneuvered in the air by the 1960s era F-4 Phantom II. What hope does it have in a close in fight against say a Mig-29 with a competent pilot?) the chances of the F-35 entering service are growing thin.
edited 23rd Dec '11 4:59:23 AM by MajorTom
"Too Big to Fail" might be the argument here — nothing will stop the F-35 entering service. Perhaps one of the variants might be dropped, but there are no alternatives.
Keep Rolling On![]()
Not entirely true. The Rafale is a competant aircraft, with it most likely being the plane that shot down the SCUD that was heading to Misrata 4 months ago. The Typhoon is no slouch either.
And we can always do the Russian thing with our planes, and do heavy technological updates and such to existing aircraft (ala Su-27).
But back on topic, this hypocritical jackassery needs to be pointed out. Self-Determination for South Americans, but not for Falklanders? Bullshit.
Also, I am mad at Obama on this one.
edited 23rd Dec '11 7:53:05 AM by Hurricane_Delta
But making the Typhoon CATOBAR-capable? I've read somewhere that it would be a Typhoon In Name Only — it would look like a Typhoon, but it would be a completely new aircraft.
Us British being who we are, we'd rather do that than order the Rafale. French Fighters? Not us!
edited 23rd Dec '11 8:03:41 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnFor CATOBAR, yes, since making the airframe capable of resisting the stress of a catapult launch is very extensive work and adds a lot more weight. However for STOBAR (i.e. ski-jump), there is much less work and weight (~500kg more) and a demonstrator has already been for an Indian Navy competition.
Still a theoretical possibility, even if it would necessitate changes to the carrier design again.
A different shape every step I take A different mind every step of the lineOr we could just convince the French to lend us their aircraft carrier and man it with our own people. I think the reason the British didn't call on its allies in the original war was because if such an operation could be done it could be done than the British had enough forces as it is.
Tim I think you are seriously overestimating the capability of the Argentinean navy. Keep in mind that last time all it took was one good sink (by a sub) and the entire fleet turned tail and fled back to port. The British sub fleet is still strong enough to take out not only the Argentinean subs but also wreck havoc on their surface fleet.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranUS and Brazilian support evaporates if Argentina makes it a war, and US support will probably go away when Obama is out of office. Argentina is most likely just a political tool for Brazil, so I don't put much stock in that...
I am now known as Flyboy.

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:11:34 PM by TheWesterner
I was wondering why frisbees got bigger as they got closer then it hit me.