Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Las Malvinas.

124

Comments

  • #152
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Any proof ?

    If you honestly believe that the US would not back the UK (silently or otherwise) then you are delusional. The US needs the UK more than it needs Argentina and would NEVER risk losing that cooperation and support.


  • #153
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Put it in whatever currency terms you like.

    Its an unprecedented upgrade. The end result, be it in pesos or euro is a huge refurbishment and upgrade program to the value, this year, of 3 billion pounds.

    Market research analyst: https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=1553

    "In 2014 the defense budget is estimated to be US$4.7 billion and is expected to register a CAGR of 15.50% during the forecast period to reach US$8.3 billion by 2018."

    (paid to professionally research this info and produce reports for sale)



    Not 40 year old airframes from what I can tell, 40 years ago was just the first production, if Im right the airframes being will be 30 y.o and will be upgraded with present generation avionics.
    Yes it is an upgrade and whats more its actually needed outside the sphere of anything to do with Britain, imagine that.




    That surprises me, thus far the official stance of the US has been to recognize no sovereignty of the islands... to recognize only de-facto British administration ...and to ask both countries to talk it out as per the UN's resolution.

    Re: the engines, any source appreciated.

    is it 3 billion pounds or dollars, either way its only a modest increase - it may be unprecedented for Argentina but it's peanuts in the overall scheme of things if the country really does want to project power much beyond its borders.

    The Kfirs they are supposed to be getting were decommissioned by the IAF 20 years ago - talk about secondhand!!

    And it seems the deal may yet founder because of Argentina's association with Iran as well as the investigation of the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Buenos Aires Jewish community building that killed 85 people......
    The Argentine deal comes at a low point in relations between Jerusalem and Buenos Aires in the wake of an agreement the Kirchner government made last year with Iran to jointly investigate the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Buenos Aires Jewish community building that killed 85 people and is widely believed to have been carried out by Hezbollah with Iranian backing.

    As for the engines here's a few links for you...

    http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/The-Last-Of-The-Kfirs-Are-For-Sale-8-23-2013.asp

    http://www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/kfir.pdf (pg4)

    Now, if Obama needs the UK's help with Russia and the Crimea how likely do you think he is to piss them off by letting the engines go with the airframes? You never know the Brits may even prevail upon the Israelis to pull the deal the same way they persuaded the French not to sell Argentina the upgrade kits for their Super-Entendards.

    If they can't have J-79s they could always go down the South African route. South Africa has sold 'Cheetah' fighters (effectively Kfirs) to Ecuador and Chile. They still have some left, but one would assume the pick of the litter have already gone and what's left are the dregs.

    They could buy whole aircraft or the Snecma Atar 9K50 engines that power them and go through the hassle of marrying them up to the Israeli airframes.

    Hoooooowever, the Snecma is French engine and given the messing around the Argentinians have had to endure with the Super Etendards, I find it difficult to believe they'll be co-operative with the export of Cheetahs or the re-engining of Kfirs.

    Or the Argentinians could just take the $500 million they're planning to spend on fighters and go shopping in China or Russia, and buy some of their untried and untested aircraft......


  • #154
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    bumper234 wrote: »
    If you honestly believe that the US would not back the UK (silently or otherwise) then you are delusional. The US needs the UK more than it needs Argentina and would NEVER risk losing that cooperation and support.

    So why haven't they.

    I think you use only weak loose assumption and have never looked as far into this issue as I have.


  • #155
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    So why haven't they.

    I think you use only weak loose assumption and have never looked as far into this issue as I have.

    Seriously?

    Weigh up the pro's and con's of the US backing Argentina over the UK and you will see they lose a lot and gain very little. The US would never back Argentina over Britain and at BEST would stay neutral in public but support the UK behind the scenes.


  • #156
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Seriously?

    Weigh up the pro's and con's of the US backing Argentina over the UK and you will see they lose a lot and gain very little. The US would never back Argentina over Britain and at BEST would stay neutral in public but support the UK behind the scenes.

    Yes, that's why last time around the Yamks offered the USS Iwo Jima crewed with 'contractor' as replacement if either of the carriers were sunk.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Jawgap wrote: »
    is it 3 billion pounds or dollars, either way its only a modest increase - it may be unprecedented for Argentina but it's peanuts in the overall scheme of things if the country really does want to project power much beyond its borders.

    But it doesn't want to project power. Or need to. Argentina has good neighborly relations and is a founder member of mercosur.

    The Kfirs they are supposed to be getting were decommissioned by the IAF 20 years ago - talk about secondhand!!

    So Argentina will operate second hand military equipment.
    Again, not everything Argentina does has anything to do with GB.

    Separately, this is just the beginning of Argentinas increasing military budget. Who knows what'll be on the books in 10 years time.
    And it seems the deal may yet founder because of Argentina's association with Iran as well as the investigation of the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Buenos Aires Jewish community building that killed 85 people......

    But your link gives only one small loose speculation and nothing more.
    Its not even a full article.

    As for the engines here's a few links for you...

    http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/The-Last-Of-The-Kfirs-Are-For-Sale-8-23-2013.asp

    http://www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/kfir.pdf (pg4)

    Again, these links essentially say nothing.

    US engines .... ok .... taken alone that is quite meaningless.
    Indeed if anything the link shows that some countries evaded export restrictions.

    Now, if Obama needs the UK's help with Russia and the Crimea how likely do you think he is to piss them off by letting the engines go with the airframes? You never know the Brits may even prevail upon the Israelis to pull the deal the same way they persuaded the French not to sell Argentina the upgrade kits for their Super-Entendards.

    Do you think a huge international incident like Crimea could be overshadowed by some engines on a foreign airframe. Britain are going to make some massive breach in US relations for that ?
    Especially when as you say yourself Argentina can just go elsewhere.
    Places like Russia or China.


  • #158
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Seriously?

    Weigh up the pro's and con's of the US backing Argentina over the UK and you will see they lose a lot and gain very little. The US would never back Argentina over Britain and at BEST would stay neutral in public but support the UK behind the scenes.

    Lets not forget that the majority of south American countries, and all of the mercosur trade block, including Brazil, sides with Argentina on this issue.

    Thats why its been 'nuthin to do with us' for some time now.

    You'll never get more than neutrality out of the US on this.

    Britain backed the US in Afghanistan and even still the US keeps out of it.


    (other than to say Britain/Arg should talk it out)


  • #159
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Yes, that's why last time around the Yamks offered the USS Iwo Jima crewed with 'contractor' as replacement if either of the carriers were sunk.

    And was this in the days before or after the invention of the telephone.

    I know the 80's were awesome but you cant live there forever.


  • #160
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    But it doesn't want to project power. Or need to. Argentina has good neighborly relations and is a founder member of mercosur.



    So Argentina will operate second hand military equipment.
    Again, not everything Argentina does has anything to do with GB.

    Separately, this is just the beginning of Argentinas increasing military budget. Who knows what'll be on the books in 10 years time.



    But your link gives only one small loose speculation and nothing more.
    Its not even a full article.



    Again, these links essentially say nothing.

    US engines .... ok .... taken alone that is quite meaningless.
    Indeed if anything the link shows that some countries evaded export restrictions.



    Do you think a huge international incident like Crimea could be overshadowed by some engines on a foreign airframe. Britain are going to make some massive breach in US relations for that ?
    Especially when as you say yourself Argentina can just go elsewhere.
    Places like Russia or China.

    Ok, I'm guessing that if you can't get behind Haaertz's paywall, it's pointless putting up links to Janes? But we'll try anyway......

    http://www.janes.com/article/35183/argentina-eyeing-israeli-kfir-c-10-fighters

    http://www.janes.com/article/35184/argentine-super-etendard-modernisation-hits-major-snags


    http://www.janes.com/article/31118/argentina-defence-budget-grows-closer-to-regional-average (word has it that Guyana and Suriname are sh1tting themselves.......)

    Doesn't seem like going with China would be viewed positively all round either.....
    http://www.janes.com/article/25070/argentine-air-force-officials-cautious-of-chengdu-fc-1-co-production

    It seems if they go with the Chinese they could get some shiny new aircraft but lose access to all kinds of other stuff.

    And the bit about the Yanks not facilitating the export of the J-79 came from the defence industry website "Defence Industry Daily" but sure what would they know......oh, and apparently the Americans are not best pleased with Argentina over its association with Venezuela (according to the DID analysis) - so I think the Americans might be quite inclined to help the Brits by halting the export of a couple of dozen engines to someone associated with countries not on their Christmas card list.

    Incidentally, the money Argentina is spending on fighters is less than half what the Brits are spending on Reapers!


  • #161
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Lets not forget that the majority of south American countries, and all of the mercosur trade block, including Brazil, sides with Argentina on this issue.

    Thats why its been 'nuthin to do with us' for some time now.

    You'll never get more than neutrality out of the US on this.

    Britain backed the US in Afghanistan and even still the US keeps out of it.


    (other than to say Britain/Arg should talk it out)

    Actually, they say a little bit more than that don't they?

    According to the State Department's website.....
    We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Actually, they say a little bit more than that don't they?

    According to the State Department's website.....

    As directed to you a few posts back :

    "That surprises me, thus far the official stance of the US has been to recognize no sovereignty of the islands... to recognize only de-facto British administration ...and to ask both countries to talk it out as per the UN's resolution."



    Jeremy Corbyn (labor mp) here calling for bi-lateral negotiations with Argentina.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CagRMhkO-zE


    SIX Nobel peace prize winners have called for Britain to open talks with Argentina on the Falkland Islands, ahead of the 30th anniversary of a war between the two nations.

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/talks-urged-on-falklands-20120328-1vypf.html



    BRITISH sovereignty over the Falkland Islands is not accepted by the European Parliament, according to a visiting delegation of EU lawmakers who met with their Argentine peers.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/397702/Outrage-as-Euro-MPs-argue-Britain-s-sovereignty-over-Falkland-Islands-is-not-accepted

    Hopefully we'll soon see another mp joining Galloway and Corbyn. This issue should again be brought more into the 2014 mainstream news and out of the darkness of tabloid gingoism stuck in the 1980's.


  • #163
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Incidentally, the money Argentina is spending on fighters is less than half what the Brits are spending on Reapers!


    Incidentally, Argentinas defense budget is not built around what Britain does.


  • #164
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    As directed to you a few posts back :

    "That surprises me, thus far the official stance of the US has been to recognize no sovereignty of the islands... to recognize only de-facto British administration ...and to ask both countries to talk it out as per the UN's resolution."



    Jeremy Corbyn (labor mp) here calling for bi-lateral negotiations with Argentina.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CagRMhkO-zE


    SIX Nobel peace prize winners have called for Britain to open talks with Argentina on the Falkland Islands, ahead of the 30th anniversary of a war between the two nations.

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/talks-urged-on-falklands-20120328-1vypf.html



    BRITISH sovereignty over the Falkland Islands is not accepted by the European Parliament, according to a visiting delegation of EU lawmakers who met with their Argentine peers.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/397702/Outrage-as-Euro-MPs-argue-Britain-s-sovereignty-over-Falkland-Islands-is-not-accepted

    That's true you did......and the US's support is categorised in many sectors as being lukewarm, but it's still support. Plus you'd have to wonder if poking a stick at NATO is a good move for the Argentinian President. (Fernández distracts Argentines from inflation by putting Falklands on banknotes. Oh, wait… FT, 4/42014)

    Incidentally, it seems the money borrowed from Goldman Sachs isn't for spending - it's to boost the country's foreign reserves, described as 'dangerously low.'


  • #165
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Jawgap wrote: »
    That's true you did......and the US's support is categorised in many sectors as being lukewarm, but it's still support. Plus you'd have to wonder if poking a stick at NATO is a good move for the Argentinian President. (Fernández distracts Argentines from inflation by putting Falklands on banknotes. Oh, wait… FT, 4/42014)

    Incidentally, it seems the money borrowed from Goldman Sachs isn't for spending - it's to boost the country's foreign reserves, described as 'dangerously low.'

    Who cares whats done with it.

    Argentinas YPF also recently sold 10 billion in shares, but so what.

    Yes DeKirchner put out the Malvinas banknote, zero sh1ts were given in Washington or Brussels that day.


  • #166
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Incidentally, Argentinas defense budget is not built around what Britain does.

    Probably a good idea not to given the 'care worn' state of their navy.

    Probably shouldn't build what they do around Brazil either......a lot of Grippens and F-5s


    Or Chile - lot of F-16s

    It might be worth building a defence around what Uruguay does - they've only a few jet trainers but they're getting some F-5s and possibly BAe Hawks. Or Ecuador (Kfirs and Cheetahs).

    I suppose they could go with the Chinese option for replacing their fighters, but given they're also trying to upgrade their Hueys, it mightn't play well with the US.


  • #167
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Who cares whats done with it.

    Argentinas YPF also recently sold 10 billion in shares, but so what.

    Yes DeKirchner put out the Malvinas banknote, zero sh1ts were given in Washington or Brussels that day.

    Got a link for that?

    Because from I can see it was more like $1 billion and it wasn't shares it was bonds and they had to offer a meaty 8.75% to get the bonds away......

    The bond was given a rating low B3 rating by Fitch

    The company has a market cap of about $12 billion - difficult to believe they've just raised $10 billion in funds - maybe 10 billion pesos......


  • #168
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Probably a good idea not to given the 'care worn' state of their navy.

    Probably shouldn't build what they do around Brazil either......a lot of Grippens and F-5s


    Or Chile - lot of F-16s

    It might be worth building a defence around what Uruguay does - they've only a few jet trainers but they're getting some F-5s and possibly BAe Hawks. Or Ecuador (Kfirs and Cheetahs).

    I suppose they could go with the Chinese option for replacing their fighters, but given they're also trying to upgrade their Hueys, it mightn't play well with the US.

    Well, no, Argentinas defense budget is not built around any other country's. It has no need. Argentina has both good relations and strong trade links with Brazil, Chile and Uruguay. And Paraguay ... and well, all its neighbors really.
    It has a strong well equipped army and is a g-20 and mercosur member.

    Brazil is the only conceivable regional threat for invasion. US the only possible foreign one.

    So anyway, a 25% increase and predicted 15% cagr, for around 8 billion annual defense budget by 2018 as our market researcher friend predicts.
    Jawgap wrote: »
    Got a link for that?

    Because from I can see it was more like $1 billion and it wasn't shares it was bonds and they had to offer a meaty 8.75% to get the bonds away......

    The bond was given a rating low B3 rating by Fitch

    The company has a market cap of about $12 billion - difficult to believe they've just raised $10 billion in funds - maybe 10 billion pesos......

    Bit difficult to link to/prove a negative, the exceptional claim is being made by someone else, so they should provide the exceptional proof.

    Re: YPF
    Right you are. I erred on the YPF thing, my bad, figure and details incorrect.


  • #169
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Well, no, Argentinas defense budget is not built around any other country's. It has no need. Argentina has both good relations and strong trade links with Brazil, Chile and Uruguay. And Paraguay ... and well, all its neighbors really.
    It has a strong well equipped army and is a g-20 and mercosur member.

    Brazil is the only conceivable regional threat for invasion. US the only possible foreign one.

    So anyway, a 25% increase and predicted 15% cagr, for around 8 billion annual defense budget by 2018 as our market researcher friend predicts.



    Bit difficult to link to/prove a negative, the exceptional claim is being made by someone else, so they should provide the exceptional proof.

    Re: YPF
    Right you are. I erred on the YPF thing, my bad, figure and details incorrect.

    Another mis-typing error, no doubt......

    ......and no doubt as with all you're 'mis-typing' errors you'll now try to minimise the importance of it and / or blame the reader.........off you go.......


  • #170
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Another mis-typing error, no doubt......

    ......and no doubt as with all you're 'mis-typing' errors you'll now try to minimise the importance of it and / or blame the reader.........off you go.......

    What a very strange thing to say.

    I dont think i could have been any clearer or more up front.

    Try reading it again. :)


  • #171
    ChicagoJoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 372 ✭✭ChicagoJoe


    Jawgap wrote: »
    No it wasn't anything like the Alamo, the Siege of Lenningrad or the Alamo......it was an example of a small unit action and how a well motivated, well led and well trained force can have an effect out of all proportion to its size.

    The US Army's 'Center for Army Lessons Learned' has written it up as a case study highlighting it as an excellent example of how a small unit in a light rapid deployment should be handled. So they must obviously think it's up to snuff - incidentally, before you ask they laud the leadership of Mills, there's no mention of who the Argentinian commander is / was......

    The Battle Atlas of the Falklands War (published by the International Journal of Naval History) mentions the Puma being hit and crashing (at pages 25 and 26) - they gave Lt Mills the DSC for the action and one his sergeants the DSM. I assume that was for something more than taking a few pot shots at the chopper and the frigate. (Some accounts describe the ARA Guerrico as a corvette, some as a frigate).

    Incidentally, buddy, there's a review of "The Battle Atlas of the Falklands War" in "Soldados" (the Argentine Army Journal) - according to them that publication is "....very useful and detailed....." - they place it at the head of their list of English language books on the conflict.

    You can read the full review in the April 2000 edition of the journal.......
    " mentions the Puma being hit and crashing " If that's the case, how come we haven't ever seen any pics of the downed Puma splashed across a jingoistic Brit media !!!

    As for a few infantry men on shore making a ship of up to 3,000 tons ' retreat ' as Corvettes can be armed with medium- and small-caliber guns, surface-to-surface missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and antisubmarine weapons. :D Even bigger bullsh*t than the Puma story :D

    "they gave Lt Mills the DSC for the action and one his sergeants the DSM." Thanks buddy, nothing could have made my point better than the whole thing been jingoist British bullsh*t than the Brits handing out medals and awards for their brave heroic failures like at Singapore, the Somme, Charge of the Light brigade etc. You Brits are pathetic buddy, pathetic.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    ChicagoJoe wrote: »
    " mentions the Puma being hit and crashing " If that's the case, how come we haven't ever seen any pics of the downed Puma splashed across a jingoistic Brit media !!!

    Taken in 1989 and posted on Flickr......there are plenty of photos available.....

    6745509879_9e496c39be_z.jpg

    ChicagoJoe wrote: »
    As for a few infantry men on shore making a ship of up to 3,000 tons ' retreat ' as Corvettes can be armed with medium- and small-caliber guns, surface-to-surface missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and antisubmarine weapons. :D Even bigger bullsh*t than the Puma story :D

    Well the whole incident, including the retreating corvette and the sailor killed thereon is outlined in the "Battle Atlas of the Falklands"
    That morning "Guerrico" and the "Bahia Paraiso" under the command of Captain Trombeta and by now with many of the marines re-embarked from Leith, arrived off Grytviken. The Magistrate was called on to surrender by radio, but he passed authority for the island to Lt Mills, and at mid-day, with the Alouette going ahead to reconnoitre, "Guerrico" laying out in the Bay and the Puma about to land the first twenty troops near King Edward Point, battle commenced. As the troop-carrying Puma made her second trip in from "Bahia Paraiso" she was hit by small arms fire and badly damaged just off the Point with two Marines killed. Barely managing to lift off, she made it to the other side of King Edward Cove before crashing [first Argentine aircraft loss - a1]. The Alouette was also hit, but only lightly damaged and continued to bring in more Marines across from the base. Now "Guerrico" sailed in to support the landings and opened fire on the British positions, but it was her turn to be hit by hundreds of rounds of small arms fire as well as 66mm LAW and 84mm Carl Gustav anti-tank weapons before heading back out into the Bay.

    Soldados, the Argentine Army Journal describes the Battle Atlas as "a very useful and detailed guide to the day-by-day development of the war" (see their April 200 edition for the full review.


    ChicagoJoe wrote: »
    "they gave Lt Mills the DSC for the action and one his sergeants the DSM." Thanks buddy, nothing could have made my point better than the whole thing been jingoist British bullsh*t than the Brits handing out medals and awards for their brave heroic failures like at Singapore, the Somme, Charge of the Light brigade etc. You Brits are pathetic buddy, pathetic.

    Sounds to me like Lt Mills earned his DSC. He took a small, lightly armed force and engaged a superior force, inflicting damage out of all proportion to their size.....sounds like good soldiering to me especially as I don't think he lost any of his men.

    The Argentinian Navy, when they captured them, seem to have treated them well, so I assume they thought they'd behaved honourably.....



    And we still haven't got around to discussing the Black Buck raids....
    40degreessouth.a.jpg


  • #173
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Thats probably better suited to an history forum.


  • #174
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Thats probably better suited to an history forum.

    Black buck?

    Not at all - the raids are regularly discussed (at length) in air power forums. The use of strategic bombers in a tactical role; the psychological impact; the political -v- the physical impact etc etc etc


    And that's even before you get on to discussing the technical elements of how the raids were organised and executed - another little anecdote......... The Americans carried out a study looking at the potential for long distance raiding. The re-fuelling element of their potential plan ran to over 100 pages.

    At a meeting at Ascension when confronted with the USAF's analysis, an RAF officer decried the nonsense of the American analysis - took an A4 piece of paper and in a single page showed how it could be done (and how it was done).

    All spelled out in this (cracking read, btw).....
    51J85rw0hqL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU02_.jpg


  • #175
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Well, funny anecdotes from the past, pictures of 80's downed helicopters, rewarding of medals in the 80's for raids carried out by such and such which resulted in whatever, generally belong to stories from the 80's and so to some war history forum.
    (They're rich in 80's historic detail, like what might be found on a history forum, along with the referenced war history books)

    Granted theres the relevance of current military abilities which grew out of that past, and their influence on todays politics but thats fairly well established already and concerns present day elements for the most part.

    This thread focuses more on what potentials there are before arrival of the 2020 aircraft carriers, what may or may not happen before then, and the probable future for the islands from today to very long term.


  • #176
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Well, funny anecdotes from the past, pictures of 80's downed helicopters, rewarding of medals in the 80's for raids carried out by such and such which resulted in whatever generally belong to the stories of the 80's and so to some war history forum.
    (They're rich in 80's historic detail, like what might be found on a history forum, along with the referenced war history books)

    Granted theres the relevance of current military abilities which grew out of that past, and their influence on todays politics but thats fairly well established already and concerns present day elements for the most part.

    This thread focuses more on what potentials there are before arrival of the 2020 aircraft carriers, what may or may not happen before then, and the probable future for the islands from today to very long term.


    Well that's easy - nothing!

    The Argentinians lack the ability / willingness to pursue anything except the diplomatic option.

    The whole reason to stir it up probably has more to do with the election next year in Argentina and a desire to deflect attention away from the economy.

    As for Black Buck, given it was one of the most "political" set of air strikes in the last 50 years (probably only exceeded by Linebacker II), I would've thought discussion of them belongs in a "Politics of War" forum discussing the Falklands......


  • #177
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Well that's easy - nothing!

    The Argentinians lack the ability / willingness to pursue anything except the diplomatic option.

    The whole reason to stir it up probably has more to do with the election next year in Argentina and a desire to deflect attention away from the economy.

    As for Black Buck, given it was one of the most "political" set of air strikes in the last 50 years (probably only exceeded by Linebacker II), I would've thought discussion of them belongs in a "Politics of War" forum discussing the Falklands......


    You're a bit more sure than some in London, or those keeping an eye on what Argentina is buying...those perhaps even going so far as to delay or inhibit sales of certain parts and equipment.

    Although yes, I personally am of similar thinking when you say "The Argentinians lack the ability / willingness to pursue anything except the diplomatic option".

    Others somewhere out there in internet land may differ, given the unique set of circumstances which have come together recently which include strong words and open letters, a sudden jump in spending, speculation of oil, threats to oil company execs. Not forgetting the carriers will take some time and the nature of the last campaign on the islands. Enough reasons for questions to be asked.

    Indeed elections/Argentine domestic politics are probably the motivating factor for much of the noise...just like last time.

    Black buck - whenever it occurred is indeed relevant to a falklands thread, but rather one dedicated to the history of the last campaign.


  • #178
    tac foley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    HMS Victoria was the lead ship in her class of two battleships of the Royal Navy. On 22 June 1893, she collided with HMS Camperdown off Tripoli, Lebanon, during manoeuvres and quickly sank, killing 358 crew members, including the commander of the British Mediterranean Fleet, Vice-Admiral Sir George Tryon. One of the survivors was executive officer of the Victoria, John Jellicoe, was later Commander-in-Chief of the British Grand Fleet at the Battle of Jutland.

    Uh, Argentinian A4s, somebody?

    jawgap, old floon, give it up, like I did. You are trying to knit fog with our Argentinian apologist here.

    tac


  • #179
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    tac foley wrote: »
    HMS Victoria was the lead ship in her class of two battleships of the Royal Navy. On 22 June 1893, she collided with HMS Camperdown off Tripoli, Lebanon, during manoeuvres and quickly sank, killing 358 crew members, including the commander of the British Mediterranean Fleet, Vice-Admiral Sir George Tryon. One of the survivors was executive officer of the Victoria, John Jellicoe, was later Commander-in-Chief of the British Grand Fleet at the Battle of Jutland.

    Uh, Argentinian A4s, somebody?

    jawgap, old floon, give it up, like I did. You are trying to knit fog with our Argentinian apologist here.

    tac

    "Knit fog" - that's a useful summary and a phrase I intend to plagiarise :)


  • #180
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    tac foley wrote: »
    HMS Victoria was the lead ship in her class of two battleships of the Royal Navy. On 22 June 1893, she collided with HMS Camperdown off Tripoli, Lebanon, during manoeuvres and quickly sank, killing 358 crew members, including the commander of the British Mediterranean Fleet, Vice-Admiral Sir George Tryon. One of the survivors was executive officer of the Victoria, John Jellicoe, was later Commander-in-Chief of the British Grand Fleet at the Battle of Jutland.

    Uh, Argentinian A4s, somebody?

    jawgap, old floon, give it up, like I did. You are trying to knit fog with our Argentinian apologist here.

    tac


    I can see how you could easily misconstrue what I meant.
    But I can tell you in all honesty I wasn't implying that the Victoria was sunk by an A4.
    Rather it served as an example of ineptitude, to show that not only Argentines are prone to error or incompetence.

    Secondly, of what importance would it be.

    But if you really must you can replace it with Ardent, Antelope or Sheffield.


    - Monocle. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    I can see how you could easily misconstrue what I meant.
    But I can tell you in all honesty I wasn't implying that the Victoria was sunk by an A4.
    Rather it served as an example of ineptitude, to show that not only Argentines are prone to error or incompetence.

    Secondly, of what importance would it be.

    But if you really must you can replace it with Ardent, Antelope or Sheffield.


    - Monocle. :)

    Jesus H Christ. Now that's fine spinnery there. Bertie's tax accountant's prize bull couldn't spin finer bullsh*te than that. You've got more turns in you than a snake. Your mention of the HMS Victoria was nothing to do with trying to show incompetence; it was a lazy, mad dash of fervour to try and gloat over Argentinian strikes on British naval & merchant ships during the Falklands War, not a reference to an incident the better part of one hundred years prior.

    Honesty? You wouldn't know what was even if Gandhi himself handed it to you.


  • #182
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Trying to change history ?

    At post no. 69 you said

    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    .......

    Why didn't you mention the hms victoria, or any of the ships those crappy a-4s sunk ??

    At post #71 I introduced the question of the AAF's weapons people to fuse bombs properly in the context of competence....
    Jawgap wrote: »
    ........
    OK you got me - the databases I have access to don't have any info on a HMS Victoria being sunk by a sub or an A4........care to link to it?

    The last recorded use of 'HMS Victoria' was in the 19th C - but maybe you have access to special information, the rest of us don't.

    As for what the Skyhawks achieved.....
    They damaged HMS Glasgow, HMS Argonaut, RFA Sir Galahad, RFA Sir Lancelot and RFA Sir Bedivere, HMS Broadsword, and RFA Sir Tristram

    They sunk HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS Coventry, RFA Sir Galahad and HMS Fearless. And, yes, they would've sunk more if they fused their bombs properly - which goes to show how incompetent they were when still as late as the 8th of June they were still fusing their bombs incorrectly.

    .....and the RN were still able to get the ground forces ashore and sustain them there.

    But not a single Harrier was lost in air-to-air combat. Six were lost in accidents or to ground fire.

    21 A4s were lost in air-to-air combat or to ground fire - that's before you add in the Mirages, the Daggers, the Canberras and even the Hercules that were lost on the Argentinian side.


    Are you saying you introduced the issue of HMS Victoria in anticipation of me raising the issue of competence and bomb fusing?????

    Jaysus, but you're a good one if you can figure out what posters are going to post before they post it......


  • #183
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    By the way, do you want to join our Lotto syndicate.......


  • #184
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Trying to change history ?

    At post no. 69 you said




    At post #71 I introduced the question of the AAF's weapons people to fuse bombs properly in the context of competence....



    Are you saying you introduced the issue of HMS Victoria in anticipation of me raising the issue of competence and bomb fusing?????

    Jaysus, but you're a good one if you can figure out what posters are going to post before they post it......


    There is no anticipation, you have drifted to a separate topic.

    Here is your comment:

    "why didn't you mention the Santa Fe - the nuclear submarine the Argentinians have been building for 30+ years"
    (would you reason this to be an incidence of incompetence, inability to complete a 30 year project)


    Here is my retort:

    "Why didn't you mention the hms victoria, or any of the ships those crappy a-4s sunk ??"
    (would you reason this to be an incidence of incompetence, the collision of two battles ships of the same fleet)


    Had I been indicating that Victoria was among the ships sunk by a-4s in the falklands conflict I would have said 'any of the other ships those crappy a-4's sunk'.

    However, I can understand how it could be misconstrued.

    Then again, this is just pedantic in any case.

    Lexical semantics I believe its called.
    Can you tell me why it interests you so much.


  • #185
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Jawgap wrote: »
    By the way, do you want to join our Lotto syndicate.......


    Tell me more.


    Speaking of numbers, I see that Argentina has a birth rate of around 1% (16.88 per thousand) and should have about 4 million new citizens by 2020.
    On the other hand, from what I've seen of the islands I would guess, in the absence of any oil, that the islands population might increase by 6.

    I think if that case did arise, Britain might consider the sense in having a stagnant population requiring 1:1 civilian to soldier population ratio, producing nothing other than animosity from a quickly growing important market. (given that Argentinas huge natural resources are being fully exploited at that future time).


  • #186
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    There is no anticipation, you have drifted to a separate topic.

    Here is your comment:

    "why didn't you mention the Santa Fe - the nuclear submarine the Argentinians have been building for 30+ years"
    (would you reason this to be an incidence of incompetence, inability to complete a 30 year project)


    Here is my retort:

    "Why didn't you mention the hms victoria, or any of the ships those crappy a-4s sunk ??"
    (would you reason this to be an incidence of incompetence, the collision of two battles ships of the same fleet)


    Had I been indicating that Victoria was among the ships sunk by a-4s in the falklands conflict I would have said 'any of the other ships those crappy a-4's sunk'.

    However, I can understand how it could be misconstrued.

    Then again, this is just pedantic in any case.

    Lexical semantics I believe its called.
    Can you tell me why it interests you so much.

    Look, have the good grace to admit that you screwed up and admit you listed HMS Victoria as a casualty of the AAFs bombing efforts.

    You can spin it anyway you want, you can try to deflect, obfuscate, provoke, defend, delay or divert but it's pretty clear what you meant and that you really know feck all about that part of the world, the conflict, strategic studies and air and naval power.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Khomeini
    Site Banned Posts: 348 ✭✭Khomeini


    Viva Las Malvinas.

    The sooner these planters are removed the better. I fully support the motion of also stripping them of any wealth they have as reparations.


  • #188
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Khomeini wrote: »
    Viva Las Malvinas.

    The sooner these planters are removed the better. I fully support the motion of also stripping them of any wealth they have as reparations.

    Pretty pathetic attempt to draw a parallel between Cromwell and the Falklands!

    Aren't the 'Argentinians' likewise the descendants of colonists and 'planters'?


  • #189
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,840 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Pretty pathetic attempt to draw a parallel between Cromwell and the Falklands!

    Aren't the 'Argentinians' likewise the descendants of colonists and 'planters'?


    I dunno jawgap. i thought the Ayatollah came up with a well reasoned ant thought out argument. I felt that the points he used to back it up also brought a certain degree of clarity to proceedings.


    I also feel there is a desperate need for a sarcasm font, but that's something for another day


  • #190
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Khomeini wrote: »
    Viva Las Malvinas.

    The sooner these planters are removed the better. I fully support the motion of also stripping them of any wealth they have as reparations.

    Hi Khomeini, good to see you made it to London safely. Shouldn't you be running your Friends-of-DPRK group instead of waving Argentine flags? I'm not so sure that Dear Leader would approve of you touching any flag but that of the DPRK


  • #191
    tac foley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    Mods - please close this interminable and tiresome thread down. Senor d monocle, who has an agenda based on wiki myth and what-ifs, and writing from a washroom in the Argentinian embassy, is no longer even remotely funny.

    If Argentina was even remotely interested in acquiring The Falklands by an act of war, they would have tried it by now, especially if they truly are the technologically-superior wonder state that Senor d monocle claims them to be.

    Needless to say, they'd get seriously creamed a second time, this time with sub-launched TLAMS to their mainland bases. Fighting a war with planes and ships you don't have, all armed with missiles that are not there, is not the way to win any conflict.

    And with 'friends' like Chile, who are GREAT pals with the UK, on the other side, with a really functional army, navy and air force, Argentina would be up sh!t creek indeed. The Chilean army would just love to try out their nice shiny new Leopard 2 tanks on some moving targets.

    tac


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Look, have the good grace to admit that you screwed up and admit you listed HMS Victoria as a casualty of the AAFs bombing efforts.

    You can spin it anyway you want, you can try to deflect, obfuscate, provoke, defend, delay or divert but it's pretty clear what you meant and that you really know feck all about that part of the world, the conflict, strategic studies and air and naval power.

    I would admit to such a minor and pointless error if I made it.
    If you want to think of it in your own terms feel free.


  • #193
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    tac foley wrote: »
    Mods - please close this interminable and tiresome thread down. Senor d monocle, who has an agenda based on wiki myth and what-ifs, and writing from a washroom in the Argentinian embassy, is no longer even remotely funny.

    If Argentina was even remotely interested in acquiring The Falklands by an act of war, they would have tried it by now, especially if they truly are the technologically-superior wonder state that Senor d monocle claims them to be.

    Needless to say, they'd get seriously creamed a second time, this time with sub-launched TLAMS to their mainland bases. Fighting a war with planes and ships you don't have, all armed with missiles that are not there, is not the way to win any conflict.

    And with 'friends' like Chile, who are GREAT pals with the UK, on the other side, with a really functional army, navy and air force, Argentina would be up sh!t creek indeed. The Chilean army would just love to try out their nice shiny new Leopard 2 tanks on some moving targets.

    tac

    I suppose they could always get the Pope to let slip the dogs of war in the form of the Swiss Guard......


  • #194
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    tac foley wrote: »
    Senor d monocle, who has an agenda based on wiki myth and what-ifs, and writing from a washroom in the Argentinian embassy, is no longer even remotely funny.

    Resorting to the ol' ad-homs again.
    Just because I dare question something, or hold an opinion different to your own.
    If Argentina was even remotely interested in acquiring The Falklands by an act of war, they would have tried it by now, especially if they truly are the technologically-superior wonder state that Senor d monocle claims them to be.
    Well I would have though printing a picture of the Malvinas on a newly introduced note would have been a tiny indicator of a long term interest.

    I dont consider Argentina to be a tech wonder state, just a country that many might assume isn't as technologically advanced as it is. Its S.Americas most well educated country and has an advanced industrial sector.
    There were plans for a high speed rail link there not so long ago, just before the world economic crisis came about. It very nearly began.
    2015 for first local rocket/orbital satellite launch iirc.
    Needless to say, they'd get seriously creamed a second time, this time with sub-launched TLAMS to their mainland bases. Fighting a war with planes and ships you don't have, all armed with missiles that are not there, is not the way to win any conflict.
    Well thats been established and is true in the present term. Argentina has also said it will only follow diplomatic routes (although this while strangling the islands' economy). Personally I dont foresee a military conflict but I do wonder what will come in the not so distant future, its a country with a pretty high birth rate and huge resources, the military budget is set to double by 2018, if/when the inflation issues are finally fixed this will be even moreso the case, as the islands defense policy is to stay one step ahead this might leave Britain wondering if having islands with as many soldiers as civilians on them is really worth it, especially if it serves only to create animosity with a rapidly growing region and the trade bloc mercosur.
    And with 'friends' like Chile, who are GREAT pals with the UK, on the other side, with a really functional army, navy and air force, Argentina would be up sh!t creek indeed. The Chilean army would just love to try out their nice shiny new Leopard 2 tanks on some moving targets.
    In this hypothesis you reeeeaally wouldn't want to rely on Chile.

    Chile only has to share a border with their neighbors Argentina for the brief spell of ... pretty much forever.

    Thinking that Britain could somehow make Chile jump is a gross error, asking it to -now- help against one of its import partners, a country which must be passed through for anything coming/going from the Atlantic side (extreme south route excepted) is preposterous. Zero Chileans would be willing to die for Britain in such an event. Or willing to harm, or even risk harm to their own country.

    (Mercosur has in however, in reality, firmly backed Argentina so Argentina would actually be the one calling on allies)


    tac

    Separately, I see that the Chagos (ex)islanders recently gave their own support to Argentina. For those unfamiliar the Chagosians were some people, numbering about 2000 (iirc) who were chased off their little home islands by Britain in a case of supreme hypocrisy when taken together with Britains talk/policy on the Malvinas/falklands.

    - Monocle


  • #195
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Whatever about knocking this thread on the head, there's certainly some argument to be made for at least consigning it to the Walter Mitty forum.....


  • #196
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Whatever about knocking this thread on the head, there's certainly some argument to be made for at least consigning it to the Walter Mitty forum.....

    You dont have to keep coming back for more.

    Even at 3 am.

    If you dont like the thread just dont come back.

    (Incidentally - I had previously been onto a mod asking about how to get the thread closed, before yourself of tac mentioned it. Still might :) )


  • #197
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    You dont have to keep coming back for more.

    Even at 3 am.

    If you dont like the thread just dont come back.

    (Incidentally - I had previously been onto a mod asking about how to get the thread closed, before yourself of tac mentioned it. Still might :) )

    Truth never sleeps!

    Or in my case getting up and getting sorted for a day at the AHB means being up at that crazy hour.

    Anything you want me to dig out while I'm here?

    Tbh I just keep coming back to find out what other bat sh1t crazy stuff you're posting. It's better than the Conspiracy Forum!


  • #198
    ChicagoJoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 372 ✭✭ChicagoJoe


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Taken in 1989 and posted on Flickr......there are plenty of photos available.....

    6745509879_9e496c39be_z.jpg
    Could have been taken anywhere, proves absoulutely nothing !!!
    Well the whole incident, including the retreating corvette and the sailor killed thereon is outlined in the "Battle Atlas of the Falklands"
    So this is the kind of craft armed with medium- and small-caliber guns, surface-to-surface missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and antisubmarine weapons who allegedly, a few Brit infantry men on the shore alleged made ' retreat ' :D

    640px-ARA_Gomez_Roca_%28P-46%29.jpg
    Soldados, the Argentine Army Journal describes the Battle Atlas as "a very useful and detailed guide to the day-by-day development of the war" (see their April 200 edition for the full review.
    FFS, a very useful and detailed guide allegedly stated by a review in a Argentine Army Journal doesn't mean every single sentence in the book is completely or even near accurate !!!
    Sounds to me like Lt Mills earned his DSC. He took a small, lightly armed force and engaged a superior force, inflicting damage out of all proportion to their size.....sounds like good soldiering to me especially as I don't think he lost any of his men.

    The Argentinian Navy, when they captured them, seem to have treated them well, so I assume they thought they'd behaved honourably.....
    Captured by the Argentinian's after a token skirmish, don't be getting your jocks into a twist buddy over a typical British f**k up story.


  • #199
    ChicagoJoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 372 ✭✭ChicagoJoe


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Truth never sleeps!

    Or in my case getting up and getting sorted for a day at the AHB means being up at that crazy hour.

    Anything you want me to dig out while I'm here?

    Tbh I just keep coming back to find out what other bat sh1t crazy stuff you're posting. It's better than the Conspiracy Forum!
    You should post over there buddy, anyone who believes the jingoist British media fairytales of a few Brit infantry men on a shore making a 3,000 ton Corvette class ship armed with medium- and small-caliber guns, surface-to-surface missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and antisubmarine weapons ' retreat ' way out into the ocean :D


    640px-ARA_Gomez_Roca_%28P-46%29.jpg


  • #200
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Truth never sleeps!

    Or in my case getting up and getting sorted for a day at the AHB means being up at that crazy hour.

    Anything you want me to dig out while I'm here?

    Tbh I just keep coming back to find out what other bat sh1t crazy stuff you're posting. It's better than the Conspiracy Forum!

    Ah, yes, more flattery. :)

    (you do of course know that post times are listed with every post.... i.e one page back)


  • #201
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    ChicagoJoe wrote: »
    You should post over there buddy, anyone who believes the jingoist British media fairytales of a few Brit infantry men on a shore making a 3,000 ton Corvette class ship armed with medium- and small-caliber guns, surface-to-surface missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and antisubmarine weapons ' retreat ' way out into the ocean :D


    640px-ARA_Gomez_Roca_%28P-46%29.jpg
    ChicagoJoe wrote: »
    You should post over there buddy, anyone who believes the jingoist British media fairytales of a few Brit infantry men on a shore making a 3,000 ton Corvette class ship armed with medium- and small-caliber guns, surface-to-surface missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and antisubmarine weapons ' retreat ' way out into the ocean :D


    640px-ARA_Gomez_Roca_%28P-46%29.jpg



    If you think I've posted anything you think is wrong maybe you could post something up that counters it........other than your ill informed, ignorant opinions. Or do you lack the capability to dig out that kind of rebuttal information.......or is what I've posted beyond deconstruction because it's true?


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement