Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Didn't the Japanese teach you anything? Its all about the aircraft baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Air_Force

Theirs appear to be second-hand French aircraft. Ours are state of the art. Irrelevant really, as they have zero in the way of force projection.

Frazzled wrote:Didn't the Japanese teach you anything?

That tentacles are... wait, I shouldn't continue that sentence.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Didn't the Japanese teach you anything? Its all about the aircraft baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Air_Force

Theirs appear to be second-hand French aircraft. Ours are state of the art. Irrelevant really, as they have zero in the way of force projection.

A sight more than you have baby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Didn't the Japanese teach you anything?

That tentacles are... wait, I shouldn't continue that sentence.

Gott im Himmel!

I must admit I like how this thread has meandered almost from continent to continent. Somehow we have to get Antarctica involved...

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.

So thats the first target that goes boom. Got it.

Nope, just don't get your UK butt uppity. Its a new century and in the game of global world domination, you've slipped, badly.

What you mean we don't run the world anymore? Well observed. At least we managed 200+ years! You guys managed to make a hash of it within 60 years... Also, for future reference: don't become dangerously in debt to your main rivals.

Son, Britain am disappoint.

purplefood wrote:

Albatross wrote:

purplefood wrote:Alby you do have to remember we don't actually have any aircraft carriers right now...

Have you seen their Navy?

Fair point but one of the key reasons we managed to win the Falklands was because we had a carrier... of course we also had planes for it back then...

The key reason we won was because the Royal Marines yomped over the entire island kicking fething ass!

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.

So thats the first target that goes boom. Got it.

Nope, just don't get your UK butt uppity. Its a new century and in the game of global world domination, you've slipped, badly.

What you mean we don't run the world anymore? Well observed. At least we managed 200+ years! You guys managed to make a hash of it within 60 years... Also, for future reference: don't become dangerously in debt to your main rivals.

Son, Britain am disappoint.

Careful. Don't make us seize your country and sell the mortgage! France put in a bid last night...

mattyrm wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Albatross wrote:

purplefood wrote:Alby you do have to remember we don't actually have any aircraft carriers right now...

Have you seen their Navy?

Fair point but one of the key reasons we managed to win the Falklands was because we had a carrier... of course we also had planes for it back then...

The key reason we won was because the Royal Marines yomped over the entire island kicking fething ass!

I said one of the key reasons...
That was one of the others, and to their credit they did a damn good job.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Didn't the Japanese teach you anything? Its all about the aircraft baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Air_Force

Theirs appear to be second-hand French aircraft. Ours are state of the art. Irrelevant really, as they have zero in the way of force projection.

A sight more than you have baby.

Care to explain how? Or shall we just assume that you're talking out of your arse? Again.

Seriously, explain to me how a military with (as far as I can tell) no strategic bombing capability, one second-hand French carrier, no bases of any kind within several thousand miles of europe, and aircraft that were designed in the '70s, plans to strike the UK, or anywhere held by the UK for that matter?

Your idea of war seems to boil down to 'hurrr they has more mans!!' So what? It doesn't count for gak if they spend a third of the amount we do on defence, and have nowhere near the same capabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.

So thats the first target that goes boom. Got it.

Nope, just don't get your UK butt uppity. Its a new century and in the game of global world domination, you've slipped, badly.

What you mean we don't run the world anymore? Well observed. At least we managed 200+ years! You guys managed to make a hash of it within 60 years... Also, for future reference: don't become dangerously in debt to your main rivals.

Son, Britain am disappoint.

Careful. Don't make us seize your country and sell the mortgage! France put in a bid last night...

The USA hasn't seized a country with any degree of effectiveness since... I want to say Japan, as Germany was partitioned. I'll rest easy, I think.

Brazil has 750 aircraft...
Britain has 1000 that are at a much much* higher standard
*by requisition of Alby

I think you need an extra 'much' there, mate...

French aircraft...the ones with the bullseyes painted on them? Oooh, scary.

Also, learn something about the history and creation of Israel before you talk about "kicking people off the land to make way for Jews". The Hajs SOLD the land, because one piece of arid desert was much the same as the next to them. The Israelis irrigated and built it into something worthwhile - THEN it becaues "My People's ancestral laaaaaands!".
Oh, and those people there at the time (the ones who's leaders *sold* the land) were not "Palestinians". There hasn't been a "Palestine" in 3000 years. What you are calling Palestinians are largely Syrian exiles and (now) their kids. They were thrown out of their real "homeland" for being criminals and other kinds of undesirables. The Arab countries refused these refugees entry, and they squatted where they are now (where they became a hate-filled thorn in Israel's side). They are there at the behest of their muslim brothers, and have resisted naturalization violently and at all turns. If they were ANYWHERE else, they'd have been wiped out.

purplefood wrote:Brazil has 750 aircraft...
Britain has 1000 that are at a much much* higher standard
*by requisition of Alby

Some are. Some aren't. And how many are in the Western hemisphere?

Care to explain how? Or shall we just assume that you're talking out of your arse? Again.

Seriously, explain to me how a military with (as far as I can tell) no strategic bombing capability, one second-hand French carrier, no bases of any kind within several thousand miles of europe, and aircraft that were designed in the '70s, plans to strike the UK, or anywhere held by the UK for that matter?

Your idea of war seems to boil down to 'hurrr they has more mans!!' So what? It doesn't count for gak if they spend a third of the amount we do on defence, and have nowhere near the same capabilities.

***You have to come to them. The Falklands are on our side fo the pond, not yours. Absent you oblitereatedfiveminutesbeforethewarstarts air base you’re all alone on this side. No carriers, no advanced Aegis type ships. Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.

The USA hasn't seized a country with any degree of effectiveness since... I want to say Japan, as Germany was partitioned. I'll rest easy, I think.

Funny we kicked the crap out North Korea pretty well, fought China to a draw, defeated Serbia from the air, and obliterated Iraq 2-12 times. We just gave ‘em back up. In this instance, we just be turning over the keys for the note so we could burn the note in the Barbie.

Anywhere? Even in Wales?

purplefood wrote:Anywhere? Even in Wales?

Que?

I'm leaving this here, because Frazzled is getting into 'Yeah? Well, I fire my lazer!! Oh YEAH?! Well I've got a super force field that beats your lazer! PEW PEW PEW!' -schoolground nonsense.

However much you might want it to be the case, Brazil's military is not currently a match for the UKs, nor would they declare war on the UK at the behest of the Argentinians. This is all just fantasy talk. Boring.

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:Anywhere? Even in Wales?

Que?

Well he said if they were anywhere they would have been wiped out. This includes Wales, since it is a place and i don't think the Welsh would do that since they are very nice people with a strong tradition of hating the English (Only sensible really)

Albatross wrote:I'm leaving this here, because Frazzled is getting into 'Yeah? Well, I fire my lazer!! Oh YEAH?! Well I've got a super force field that beats your lazer! PEW PEW PEW!' -schoolground nonsense.

**Alby whines as he leaves the field to the victors. Viva America! LAALALALALALAALAL!!!

However much you might want it to be the case, Brazil's military is not currently a match for the UKs, nor would they declare war on the UK at the behest of the Argentinians. This is all just fantasy talk. Boring.

Unless Brazil is attempting to invade up the Thames it can handle itself just fine.
But of course its fantasy talk. Where the hell do you think you're posting? Its all fantasy talk here.

Oh and here's something you should be used to hearing from interactions with Latin America.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:I'm leaving this here, because Frazzled is getting into 'Yeah? Well, I fire my lazer!! Oh YEAH?! Well I've got a super force field that beats your lazer! PEW PEW PEW!' -schoolground nonsense.

**Alby whines as he leaves the field to the victors. Viva America! LAALALALALALAALAL!!!

Point proven.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:I'm leaving this here, because Frazzled is getting into 'Yeah? Well, I fire my lazer!! Oh YEAH?! Well I've got a super force field that beats your lazer! PEW PEW PEW!' -schoolground nonsense.

**Alby whines as he leaves the field to the victors. Viva America! LAALALALALALAALAL!!!

Point proven.

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!

Frazzled wrote:
Funny we kicked the crap out North Korea pretty well

Wait, what did the 600,000 SK troops do?

Frazzled wrote:
, fought China to a draw,

Again, what did the 600,000 SK troops do?

Frazzled wrote:
defeated Serbia from the air,

What did the ~30,000 KLA insurgents do?

Frazzled wrote:
and obliterated Iraq 2-12 times.

Really? We obliterated Iraq? What did the other ~450,000 soldiers do?

No, the coalition did that, then the UK and the US maintained a no-fly zone, and then we invaded a seriously weakened nation, got stuck on the ground, and are presently trying our best to escape a stupid mistake. I don't see much obliteration there, certainly none related to the US alone.

Your grasp of history is laughably bad.

I just want to give an amen to Voidangel's last post (& I don't even go to church!).
This so called "Palestenian People" thing is a media creation by a bunch of difficult people who were not wanted by Syria, Jordan or Lebanon (although the Lebanese got the worst of them).
Further the western world (U.S.A., U.K. & Europe) support of them & vilification of Israel is really just another form of the antisemitism so deeply rooted in Europe (& I'm not even Jewish!)

If we really want stability in the Middle East maybe we should support one of the few democratic, stable countries in that part of the world . . .

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:
This so called "Palestenian People" thing is a media creation by a bunch of difficult people who were not wanted by Syria, Jordan or Lebanon (although the Lebanese got the worst of them).

So its a group of people that you're able to delineate easily, but will continue to marginalize because you:

A: Don't like them.

B: Like Israel.

C: Don't like the people who advocate this group of people, who are easily delineated, but are not allowed to have a proper name.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:
If we really want stability in the Middle East maybe we should support one of the few democratic, stable countries in that part of the world . . .

Stable countries occupy territory and bomb targets in neighboring countries?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote: The Hajs SOLD the land, because one piece of arid desert was much the same as the next to them. The Israelis irrigated and built it into something worthwhile - THEN it becaues "My People's ancestral laaaaaands!".

There was a war that was almost entirely about driving people off of land, Arab, and Jewish. The war which made Israel a real thing. If you're going to lecture people on their knowledge of history, then you should probably know a few things about it.

And don't use the slur "haj", it isn't that hard.

VoidAngel wrote:
Oh, and those people there at the time (the ones who's leaders *sold* the land) were not "Palestinians".

They sold some land, land gets sold. They didn't sell all the land.

VoidAngel wrote:
There hasn't been a "Palestine" in 3000 years.

Ah, so that's the barometer of legitimacy, where has Israel been, then?

VoidAngel wrote:
What you are calling Palestinians are largely Syrian exiles and (now) their kids. They were thrown out of their real "homeland" for being criminals and other kinds of undesirables.

Really?

VoidAngel wrote:
The Arab countries refused these refugees entry, and they squatted where they are now (where they became a hate-filled thorn in Israel's side).

Wait, so they're refugees, and exiles? That's not possible.

VoidAngel wrote:
They are there at the behest of their muslim brothers, and have resisted naturalization violently and at all turns. If they were ANYWHERE else, they'd have been wiped out.

I made myself a drink because of this, just so you know.

Nothing you have said here is correct, and it saddens me to have read it.

@ Dogma, I have friends from Jordan, from Syria (only 2 though), and from Lebanon. I have heard their opinions of these "marginalized people". Many of the people forced out of Israel during that conflict have peacefully merged with the other nations and are no longer in the news. Those who would not do so were ejected from the kindly Islamic people who took them because of their actions.

If you have any friends from Lebanon that are not Palestinian, you will have hearc how poorly they have treated a peaceful country.

I don't particulary "like" Isreal any more than I worry about the futures of Malawi, Mongolia, or Belize, but if a neighboring people were perpetuating the terrorism and suicide bombing that the Palestinain people have, then I would want my government to "occupy land or bomb targets in foreign countries" to protect our citizens.

So Mr. Dogma, while I respect that you area an educated and intelligent person, I see things differently than you. I see alot of media antisemitism involved with the "downtrodden" Palestineans. Are innocents being hurt on both sides, yes. This is always unfortuante. I wish there could be peace in the area, but while I trust the Isreali government to control their populace, I have little faith in the new Palestinean government to do so.

I don't think their history for the past 30 years supports it. Believe it or not I have a few Palestinian friends, and thery are great people, but we don't talk politics

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:@ Dogma, I have friends from Jordan, from Syria (only 2 though), and from Lebanon. I have heard their opinions of these "marginalized people". Many of the people forced out of Israel during that conflict have peacefully merged with the other nations and are no longer in the news. Those who would not do so were ejected from the kindly Islamic people who took them because of their actions.

And? I never said that the Palestinians were good, laudable, or anything of that sort. I said that they're Palestinian, and that is their identity, and that they are marginalized. We marginalize criminals in the US, being a criminal does not mean that you are not marginalized.

You're saying the same thing right now you're just not willing to admit to it for reasons that I would love to have elaborated on.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:
If you have any friends from Lebanon that are not Palestinian, you will have hearc how poorly they have treated a peaceful country.

I have several, and the ones that do say it speak in the same vein as those people that speak of Mexicans, Blacks, or Chinese in the US, so I only listen to them with great skepticism.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:
I don't particulary "like" Isreal any more than I worry about the futures of Malawi, Mongolia, or Belize, but if a neighboring people were perpetuating the terrorism and suicide bombing that the Palestinain people have, then I would want my government to "occupy land or bomb targets in foreign countries" to protect our citizens.

You know that more people in Israel die of murder by Israeli citizens than die of foreign terrorism, right?

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:
I wish there could be peace in the area, but while I trust the Isreali government to control their populace, I have little faith in the new Palestinean government to do so.

Why would you trust the Israelis to do that? One of their number killed their former President.

Frazzled wrote: Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.

You do know that the Queen has a few cruise missles laying around herself, right?
i think you're arguing just hear yourself type. it would be a quick fight, that the UK would win.

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.

You do know that the Queen has a few cruise missles laying around herself, right?
i think you're arguing just hear yourself type. it would be a quick fight, that the UK would win.

She has one or two...
They are hidden under those bearskin hats the Royal Guard wear...

purplefood wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.

You do know that the Queen has a few cruise missles laying around herself, right?
i think you're arguing just hear yourself type. it would be a quick fight, that the UK would win.

She has one or two...
They are hidden under those bearskin hats the Royal Guard wear...

That's why they never smile! i imagine it's all they can do to keep from screaming!

alarmingrick wrote:

purplefood wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.

You do know that the Queen has a few cruise missles laying around herself, right?
i think you're arguing just hear yourself type. it would be a quick fight, that the UK would win.

She has one or two...
They are hidden under those bearskin hats the Royal Guard wear...

That's why they never smile! i imagine it's all they can do to keep from screaming!

It's actually a maniacal laugh...
They are quite insane, you think you guys play games trying to get them to smile?
It's actually them playing games with you trying to get you to come close enough so they can lick you...

Dogma,

You display your lack of sophistication on the subject in no clearer possible way than when you misinterpret my use of the word 'Haj' as a racial slur.

'Haj' refers to a holy leader - one who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca, and therefore speaks for his people (tribe) and can *negotiate* on their behalf and for their welfare.

In this context, one of those who sold the now contested lands.

Frazzled wrote:
1) Should the UK, France, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, blah blah have? Evidently there was some reason. Even the UN supported it.

Perhaps because there is an international norm predicated on the sanctity of sovereignty, it might even be in the charter of a major international organization, maybe even the one mentioned above.

Frazzled wrote:
Really? When? India and Pakistan have had how many wars over territory? Who controls Tibet now? Why are the Arab nations nervous about Iran-the historical empire maker- getting a Bomb? Why is Britain rattling sabres over the Falklands and vice versa? Everything has happened before and will happen again.

Wait, so a claim to "most" is now "refuted" with specifics?

I dare say that is something called a "hasty generalization".

Frazzled wrote:
You must have missed the terrorism in India in the last few years, and of course both countries getting nukes.

Wait, the terrorism in India was sponsored by the Pakistani government? That would be big news if true, I'm sure many people would pay handsomely for that evidence.

Frazzled wrote:
Bull fething gak it doesn’t.

Such eloquence, such tact.

Frazzled wrote:
Don’t push your luck Brit boy. The world has changed. If Brazil sides with them you’re fethed.

Yes, and if Canada sides with Mexico, so is the US. You can't just put two countries together and call it an argument, not if you're interested in being sensible.

Frazzled wrote:
It was originally conquered. All terriroties in Britain were originally conquered as they amalgamated from tribes into nations. Your country was built on slaughter. Live it, learn it, love it, but don’t be hypocrticial about it.

You can very easily claim that past action X is wrong while living in the present place in which said action was perpetrated without being hypocritical. Unless, of course, Fraz is endorsing all those murders on the Southern border of Texas.