- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/28/26 at 10:05 am to SuperSaint
Mexicans don’t even like other mexicans. Lol
Posted on 4/28/26 at 10:06 am to justaniceguy
quote:no they didn't.
The Americans went to war against Mexico to claim Texas.
Texans went to war against Mexico to gain independence. They were their own country for a time being, then joined the US.
This post was edited on 4/28/26 at 10:08 am
Posted on 4/28/26 at 10:07 am to engvol
Except the Royal Navy was incapable of even getting a ship to the med with a weeks notice.
The royal navy is a mess right now.
Britain needs to learn their place in the world they aren’t on our level and if they don’t support what we want we can give Argentina what they want
The royal navy is a mess right now.
Britain needs to learn their place in the world they aren’t on our level and if they don’t support what we want we can give Argentina what they want
Posted on 4/28/26 at 10:16 am to CarRamrod
The people were born in America, moved to Texas, fought for independence, and then 10 years later they joined America.
The plan was always to join America. As a Texan it is pretty obvious.
Would have been cool if the goal was actually to be independent. And some people did want that of course. The politicians had their way and we became America.
The plan was always to join America. As a Texan it is pretty obvious.
Would have been cool if the goal was actually to be independent. And some people did want that of course. The politicians had their way and we became America.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 10:26 am to justaniceguy
Perhaps a better comparison would be the Mexican-American war and how we got California.
The only problem is I think most of us would give up California.
The only problem is I think most of us would give up California.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 10:26 am to scrooster
quote:
Falklanders hate the Brits.
And this means they want to have to start speaking Spanish?
They may hate the Brits, but there's no way they "run out" the Brits and give Argentina an opening to take them.
And if you have actually been to the Falklands, you know this.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 10:37 am to engvol
quote:
During the 1982 Falklands War, the British lost seven ships to enemy action, including two Type 42 destroyers (HMS Sheffield, HMS Coventry) and two Type 21 frigates (HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope). Other losses included the container ship Atlantic Conveyor, the landing ship RFA Sir Galahad, and the landing craft LCU F4. "
This is the second time I've seen this quoted with no comment on what happened to the Argentian forces.
They had their airforce wiped out(85 aircraft vs35 UK planes) they lost a sub, a cruiser and various other vessels.
Their on the ground forces outnumbers the British army 2.5 to 1 and were defeated in 2 months despite holding the territory at the of the war. More than double KIA, double the casualties and the rest of their force - 11+k - were captured.
It was a clear cut victory.
They spend 0.5% of GDP on defence - 65th globally - have a massive 46 aircraft, no subs and rank 33rd globally
The Royal Navy alone have more firepower, 2.5x the planes so would have air superiority and once again win comfortably.
Of course it was a clear cut victory, and nothing I posted suggests otherwise.
But people posting here act like it would be a walk in the park for Britain...one poster said, and I quote, "Argentina isn't going to do jack shite". Sinking seven ships, including two destroyers, certainly qualifies as doing "jack shite."
Britain spent overt $1,000,000 PER INHABITANT on the war. They could have resettled all of them to the UK, given them each $1,000,000 in cash, and saved money. Of course, the Brits didn't anticipate losing 2 destroyers and 5 other ships, though.
Yes, Britain would win decisively...if the current PM has the balls to go to war. But the idea that Argentina couldn't inflict serious damage is just comical. So then, the ball-less Keir Starmer has to decide if he' willing to risk losses like those to keep the Falklands. There is no question that Britain would win.
But are they willing to risk significant loss? Thatcher was willing to. Is this guy?
This post was edited on 4/28/26 at 10:41 am
Posted on 4/28/26 at 10:54 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
They may hate the Brits, but there's no way they "run out" the Brits and give Argentina an opening to take them.
And if you have actually been to the Falklands, you know this.
I know that the voting there is fraudulent and that only certain pro-British Islanders are allowed to vote.
I know that most 19th century settler Islanders, Scotch and Welsh, despise the British loyalists with a passion.
I know that there is excellent rabbit and hare hunting there, and they treated us like royalty. (I'm not a fan of the seal hunting ... although they are overrun with them. I'm not a fan of the whale hunting either, but we enjoyed going out and sighting the whales.)
I know that Javier Milei is going to make a move, eventually, and that Trump will look the other way when he does.
I know that what's happening down there right now is going to boil over ... and that while the islands are mostly descendants of European settlers, the general mood is much like it was during the U.S.'s early history with regard to British loyalists and anti-British rule for the same reasons.
I know that the U.K. is nowhere near as strong now, militarily, financially and from a united cultural Patriotic standpoint, as they were in the 80s while, at the same time, Javier Milei has Argentina in a much better position to win a fight, from the same three perspectives.
Edited: spelling
This post was edited on 4/28/26 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 4/28/26 at 10:57 am to justaniceguy
quote:
The Falklands have been British as long as Texas has been Mexico. Giving The Falklands to Argentina would be like giving Texas to Mexico.
This analogy doesn't make sense.
If the falklands have been british as long as Texas was Mexico. And seeing that Texas is America, wouldn't that mean the Falklands becoming Argentina be more appropriate?
Posted on 4/28/26 at 11:36 am to BamaGradinTn
Argentina has less military power now than they did then.
They have 3 destroyers, 0 carriers and 0 subs, that's less than half what they had so it's reasonable to think they would do significantly less, especially as they have even less air power than last time.
The UK does as well but it would be even more of a mismatch than 40 years ago.
Edit: even from a defence perspective there is a small airforce kept there that wasn't there 40 years ago
There's a great irony in the idea the US should align with Argentina because Britain hasn't attacked Iran, so the US would side with a country who spends $700m on defence with minimal genuine investment and has the ability to do nothing vs a country that spends $90bn and has strategic bases across the world.
Any action by Trump is trying to belittle Starmer because he can't believe he's been told no, there will be no genuine chance of a change in favour.
They have 3 destroyers, 0 carriers and 0 subs, that's less than half what they had so it's reasonable to think they would do significantly less, especially as they have even less air power than last time.
The UK does as well but it would be even more of a mismatch than 40 years ago.
Edit: even from a defence perspective there is a small airforce kept there that wasn't there 40 years ago
There's a great irony in the idea the US should align with Argentina because Britain hasn't attacked Iran, so the US would side with a country who spends $700m on defence with minimal genuine investment and has the ability to do nothing vs a country that spends $90bn and has strategic bases across the world.
Any action by Trump is trying to belittle Starmer because he can't believe he's been told no, there will be no genuine chance of a change in favour.
This post was edited on 4/28/26 at 11:47 am
Posted on 4/28/26 at 11:43 am to engvol
On the other hand, in the Fortress Americas future, why let the Caliphate keep/get their foot in the door via Falklands
Posted on 4/28/26 at 11:54 am to BugAC
Texas was Mexico for 20 years. The Falklands have been British for 200. I meant since Texas has been part of America.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 12:50 pm to BamaGradinTn
I’m with you
Posted on 4/28/26 at 12:52 pm to scrooster
So you think the Scottish and Welsh* there want to be governed by argentines over Britain?
Regardless of if they want to be free from Britain or if they feel like Americans or whatever they could not defend themselves from Argentina I don’t think. Argentina is a shithole country. Everybody praises Milei but what happens in 5 years when they elect another communist?
And now that Trump is singing the praise of Britain again I wonder how many on here will change their tone?
Regardless of if they want to be free from Britain or if they feel like Americans or whatever they could not defend themselves from Argentina I don’t think. Argentina is a shithole country. Everybody praises Milei but what happens in 5 years when they elect another communist?
And now that Trump is singing the praise of Britain again I wonder how many on here will change their tone?
This post was edited on 4/28/26 at 12:54 pm
Posted on 4/28/26 at 12:57 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
On the other hand, in the Fortress Americas future, why let the Caliphate keep/get their foot in the door via Falklands
In this scenario, which is not really going to happen, the UK would already have unfettered access to the North Atlantic. Nothing in terms of what allowed the UK to become a preeminent seapower, in geopolitical terms, has changed other than the UK becoming a junior partner to the US. As in, they still have freedom to access the Atlantic with no way to limit that access, in contrast to a state like China.
The US and UK competed in that exact area when both were ostensibly aligned along cultural ties. In this supposed scenario of some caliphate, or any mildly competitive UK, why wouldn't the same hold true? I'm not understanding the belief that the Falklands is some sort of lynchpin to Western Hemisphere security. No one believes that.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 12:59 pm to engvol
quote:
Argentina has less military power now than they did then.
And they do not have an interest in taking their military seriously, given the fact that they still haven't really fixed their budget issues, their procurement issues nor their training issues. They are a long way away from projecting power to even the Falklands. Literally everything the tards say about Europe in terms of their defense spending is actually true of Argentina.
They have no pressing geopolitical need that actually drives interest in the military at the societal level.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 1:23 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
The Falklands have been British as long as Texas has been Mexico.
I completely missed this!
Posted on 4/28/26 at 1:23 pm to justaniceguy
quote:
I’m at work and was tying fast.
You are STILL “tying” fast.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 11:02 am to justaniceguy
quote:
It means we went into a war and lost thousands of lives with a country that was supposedly going to take over the world. But that country didn’t even have a navy.
Germany built 1100 U-Boats alone during the war.
The U-boats and naval forces sank over 2700 ships. Another 600 damaged.
How many vessels does it take to qualify as having a navy?
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News