What? Know anything about modern war? Could very well be true. But your relative expertise is pretty clear from your actual substantive arguments. Anything more than that just comes off as rubbing someone's face in it.
My perception. As someone who also knows very little about modern warfare.
What equipment? They certainly haven't been buying anything offensive and their air force is antique. If they started buying up Mirage 2000s, we might want to consider bolstering the fighter squadron at Mount Pleasant, but until that happens, we have very little to worry about.
it only takes one election to elect a fanatic.
Vocal support from the EU. Neutrality to quiet support from the US. It will be the UK fighting alone, however.
The only bit I remember properly was some of the helis and those were just pictures and some googling. I'm looking for the thread now but it might take a little while to find from the looks of things.
edit: wiki does actually say they've bought a couple Mirages
True, and I remember their President (to be President?) mentioning trying ot reclaim them but I just see it as unlikely. Then again you know a lot more about politics than I do.
Not much of a suprise from the US. Would've thought France might lend us a bomb or two.
I was commenting on his personal knowledge of the subject as evinced by his post, maybe I should go back and edit it to say very little or not much? Anyway I am dragging this OT sorry.
Cast offs from other nations most likely. 40 year old Mirage versus a Eurofighter isn't much of a fight.
It is always good politics to stand strong in the face of an enemy. That's all Kirchner is doing. The crowds love it.
No, but they might support us in non direct ways like in 1982. The French saved a lot of lives in that Conflict, even if they never seem to get credit for it.
We're both dragging it OT. I'm just asking for your help in keeping things civil. Especially given your knowledge of the topic. That tends to get lost when everyone gets their dander up and starts trading volleys. Seems a shame. That's all.
It is a numbers game. On a 1 v 1 there isn't anything that can match a Typhoon. That much has been shown again and again at Red Flag. Once you start piling the numbers... eventually even the best aircraft fall foul of the odds.
These days there should be sufficient advance warning to deploy a greater presence to ensure air superiority, however the capability to move as many men by sea as we did in the 80s is no longer there.
That said, if there was any belief/evidence that Argentina would try to secure these ends by any means other than their current diplomatic tack, then the military presence in the region would grow.
I was talking to the 2nd Sea Lord last month and he expressed the view that he would rather have joined the Royal Navy of today than the Navy of the 1970s due to the quality of the equipment the guys have. Pure politics, but there is an element of truth in there.
you mean a pacifist ? what does communism have to do with it, violence is an absolute certainty and necessity in Marxist theory of how a communist society would be achieved so a pacifist who is a communist is a rare thing, this is off topic though I dont really want to get into like we all did with the Falklands.
Not after I'd gone to some lengths to resolve the issue myself, no. But neither of you have have flatly violated TOS, so I'm simply requesting that we move on with the actual discussion.
Well since you questioned me I kinda have to reply regardless of whether its OT. If you don't want to get into something don't comment on it
He disapproves of violence in general so pacifist would of been a better word but when I've been brave enough to discuss war with him he told me he hates war because its an instrument of state to make money. Whatever other motives are fed to the public any war is pursued in the interest of filling state coffers. Happy to admit linking that with communism wasn't the smartest thing I've ever done but its the thing that comes to mind when I think of his political beliefs and, without writing a transcript of everything we've ever said, his anti-war stance does seem to come from views on capitalism and the evils of government.
Also re revolution: Taking my mate out of it and speaking generally why would the two have to be mutually exclusive? Surely it'd be a quesiton of which of your morals are more important to you? I could find violence morally wrong but if I felt more harm and suffering was, and would continue to be, caused by a capitalist regime it would make sense to take the necessary evil of revolution to prevent violence and harm in the long run. At least that's how I'd approach it.
Argentina would have to be willing to throw pilots away in order to overwhelm us with numbers, and they just don't have that will. No matter how badly they want the Falklands, I just don't see the public standing for it. Even if they won, we'd make them bleed for every yard.
I didnt tell you not to reply, just saying we should make the effort not tp derail the thread over it.
yes talk a little further and he will no doubt give you the same conclusion you have come to all be it in a much more formalistic way. usually something about how only class war is justified.