http://www.changingthetimes.net/samples/brooks/review_of_the_alternate_history.htm
QuoteReview of the alternate history: The Falklands War
The bandwagon of AH rolls on. We have seen the books on WW2, and the Korean War. Another author is attempting to cash in, this time in a near-present period.
This, however, is definitely an inferior product, clearly rushed out to cash in on the current popularity of AH. This is obvious from the sloppy proofreading. The author seems unable to decide whether she is referring to the Falklands War, or the Falklands Conflict. I will use the title, the Falklands Conflict, as that appears to be the formal name.
The book is best described as a modern Boy's Own Paper Heroic Action Adventure wet dream brought into the modern day. Plausibility goes out of the window, with logistics, politics, economics and common sense all being disposed of in short order. The author may as well have called the book "The Empire Strikes Back", and be done with it.
The premise
The background of the yarn is roughly as follows. A long dispute over the fate of a bunch of god-forsaken islands in the south Atlantic started to get interesting when the British Foreign Office decided that it was prepared to discuss handing the islands over, as the days of Empire were over. The Ministry of Defence chipped in by announcing that it was making a cost saving by planning to scrap HMS Endurance, Britain's only long-term permanent naval presence in the area, an obsolete and effectively defenceless survey ship.
Not surprisingly, the Argentine Government assumed Britain had no real desire to keep the islands, which were a financial burden to the British taxpayer. So, the Argentine forces invaded, with thousands of troops with all sorts of heavy equipment assaulting in a carefully planned attack on a handful (approx 30) of Royal Marines. Despite the odds, and despite the huge expenditure of ammunition, the Royal Marines hold out for about a day (outnumbered 100-1). Despite THIS, there is not a single casualty among the Marines. The Marines are returned to Britain - it appears that the Argentines haven't heard of the concept of prisoners of war.
Meanwhile, in an even more god-forsaken corner of the south Atlantic, Argentine forces attack South Georgia. The British defenders, using a single anti-tank gun, knock out a corvette, a second ship, a helicopter, and generally prove just how bloody difficult amphibious assaults are. Remember this point. The Marines surrender, and there is not a single British casualty.
Lesson 1. Huge amounts of ammunition being expended in close-quarter combat in confined spaces does not harm British troops.
The political consequences in the UK are immense. The Minister in charge of the Foreign Office, Lord Carrington (A Lord as Cabinet Minister? In 1982? Puhlease!) resigns because his department had blundered, and he took responsibility. A resignation from one of Thatcher's Ministers, on a principle of honour?
The consequences
However, rather than accepting a fait accompli, an outburst of jingoism sweeps the country, even affecting such notables as Michael Foot, leader of the Labour Party and CND member, who seems to regard this as a re-run of the Munich Crisis. The retaking of the Falklands is given top priority, regardless of cost. Right. The Thatcher Government, which was prepared to sacrifice industries wholesale and see unemployment rise to Great Depression levels, all in the name of keeping the tax burden down, is ready to sign a blank cheque to retake some rocks located, well, the average tax payer didn't know where they were.
Within days, a Task Force is formed and sent out in a blaze of publicity. Of course, no-one suggests taking a few extra days to make sure that the right people and the right equipment are on the right ships. Seemingly, the plan is to get everyone down south as quickly as possible, dump them somewhere on the islands, and let them get on with it.
A tiresome interlude
Trundle goes the Task Force. Just to make life interesting (and presumably to get a few sales in Australia), the single most important vessel in the Task Force has actually been flogged off to the Aussies. However, the Aussies raise no objection to Britain sending their kit into the middle of a war.
The British suddenly notice that supplying an army at the end of a supply line over 8000 miles long might be a bit of a problem. So a bunch of civilian merchant ships (is this a tip of the hat towards Dunkirk?) are called on to help out. This includes such high-profile vessels as the QE2 and Canberra. It also includes a Ro-Ro ferry - we assume that its captain is under strict instructions not to open the bow doors.
There is one notable absence from the Task Force. Britannia, which was always said to be used as a floating hospital in time of war, is nowhere to be seen. One can only assume that the Queen didn't want her nice floating hotel damaged. Still, she did allow Randy Andy to go down, presumably hoping to lose him. Keep Britannia, lose Andy, sounds like a good deal to me. Nonetheless, the author manages to get a Very Senior Royal Family Member involved in the war. Is the author aware that this is supposed to be the late 20th century, not the age of Monarchs?
Then there is an immensely long passage section. At least the author remembers that 8000 miles is a long way.
Getting to the good stuff
The Task Force arrives. It enters an area where air superiority is in doubt, and it is going to be badly outnumbered in the air. So what happens? The Task Force is split up, with some ships (with zero air cover) are sent to retake South Georgia. Despite being outnumbered, the Marines retake South Georgia, and the only casualty on either side occurs after the fighting is over. Mental note - in a war in 1982, it might be worth arming troops with Brown Besses, for all the good guns seem to be.
Back to the Falklands. Despite the long passage south, the British suddenly wake up to the fact that they are going to have to get troops from ship to ground, and some planning might be a Good Thing. By pure chance, they discover that one of the staff actually wrote a book on the Falklands, covering sailing and had detailed knowledge of the coastline. The book had never been published, but he had kept the manuscript. (This person is clearly written from the author's personal experience in being an unpublished author. Never a good sign!)
Now the British start planning. D-Day was two years in preparation, but without American help, the plucky British can do this one in two days.
Things now start to get seriously silly.
Is there no end to the implausibility?
First of all, there is aerial combat, in which the much outnumbered and amazingly slow Harrier outperforms fighters with proven combat experience. I guess the author is a fan of slow planes like the stringbags.
The author realises that the readership wants blood on the ground, so the ships go in to land Red and Green Berets. Yes, that's right. In this day of super-tough helmets that actually do protect somewhat, the British ground troops wear berets. Into combat. I presume the author is making a point about the location of brains in Marines and Paras.
Now, the Argentineans have been given five shots of a SuperWeapon, an air-launched Exocet from the Super Etendard. We get to see first use. Is it against a carrier? Do they go after the Black Pig or the Great White Whale? No, it gets used against Sheffield, a destroyer, commanded by the implausibly named Sam Salt. The ship is sunk, but despite the lack of warning (seemingly, British ships have this slight technical embarrassment that using a satellite to talk stops radar from working effectively), casualties are light.
Almost immediately afterwards, the WW2 era General Belgrano is sunk by a nuclear-powered submarine. The submarine uses an obsolete torpedo (which it just happened to have) which could do the job, rather than the ultra- modern torpedoes which didn't have enough power to do the job.
Now, at this point, the author would have us believe that there is much hand-wringing in Britain over whether the Belgrano was at point X or point Y, and what direction it was steaming in, when Thatcher could have just upped and said: "We are at war, so we sunk an enemy warship." In the appendix, it appears that, come the inquiry, the submarine had managed to lose not one, but two logs for the relevant period. Right.
The stage is set for the landings. The British are outnumbered 3-1, the Argentineans have air superiority. The British have a logistics train 8000 miles long. The Argentine forces have had a couple of months to prepare defences. Naturally, the landings proceed with the British easily victorious.
Having landed, what do the British do? Advance and get away from a confined killing ground as quickly as possible? No, they wait to let the ships unload. 8000 miles may not be a problem, but the 800 yards from ship to shore appears to be a major problem.
We then learn that the Argentinean air force has apparently never tested its bombs, because the bombs have a habit of not exploding.
At last, the British get moving. Presumably because the Marines and Paras are scared that if they don't, Sandy Woodward will personally and single-handedly capture Stanley by a solo paradrop.
Yomping, yomping, yomping...
The British are on the far west of the island, Stanley is on the far east, so obviously, the first push is due south. Never give a Para a compass. It's got a moving part.
The attack on Goose Green gets bogged down, the CO leads from the front, gets shot, (and is later awarded a posthumus VC). The No 2 takes over, changes battle plan in mid-battle, and wins the day in short order. (Isn't this clich� a bit old?) The CO is called a hero.
British troops now walk across mountainous peat bogs in the depths of winter. The author is now showing utter contempt for logistics. There is negligible helicopter support, and the only significant means of getting stuff forward is to carry it.
Just to add to British logistic woes, another use of SuperWeapon wipes out the Chinook helicopter support.
Then the author engages in a touch of whimsy. An obsolete Vulcan is launched from Britain, flies 8000 miles, drops its bombs and returns, in the longest bombing raid ever, with logistic support and complications like you wouldn't believe. The bombs miss, of course. Have I mentioned that the author doesn't like logistics?
Then the author gives the Green and Red Berets reinforcements. The author obviously has a thing for berets, however. The Scots Guards, after the cake walk it has been so far, have a damned tough fight on Tumbledown. The Welsh Guards suffer heavy casualties on disembarking. As for the Gurkhas, well, clearly the author couldn't do anything nasty to them, so has the Gurkhas, the finest light infantry in the world, and used to operating in these sorts of conditions, and fresh and spoiling for a fight, these are used - to guard prisoners.
The British reach the outskirts of Stanley. Is there a climactic last battle? No. The author is close to deadline, and has to wrap things up, so the Argentinean forces, still outnumbering the British, surrender. The author hits deadline, and another trashy novel is released onto an unsuspecting market.
Alison Brooks
I found this first ages ago but just saw it again, its rather good really.
Quote
Never give a Para a compass. It's got a moving part.
:lol:
terrible.. I have AH, this sounds almost as bad as the "Zionists" series where the JOO Übermenchen slaughter hordes of Arabs to found a functioning Liberal Democracy.
Quote from: Viking on February 02, 2010, 08:10:03 AM
terrible.. I have AH,
I'm sorry. What's the prognosis? Can it be treated? :(
:huh:
Ok, so it sounds like the AH here is: the British beat the living shit out of the Argentines.... which is different from reality how? :unsure:
I think we need to bring Turtledove ( :bleeding: ) in for a rewrite. In his version, the British will be advancing on Port Stanley and suddenly Roberto Eduarto Lee from the XXV century will show up with laser machineguns and wipe out the British army, Royal Navy, and then conquer London for El Confederacio. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2010, 08:38:37 AM
:huh:
Ok, so it sounds like the AH here is: the British beat the living shit out of the Argentines.... which is different from reality how? :unsure:
I think we need to bring Turtledove ( :bleeding: ) in for a rewrite. In his version, the British will be advancing on Port Stanley and suddenly Roberto Eduarto Lee from the XXV century will show up with laser machineguns and wipe out the British army, Royal Navy, and then conquer London for El Confederacio. :cool:
The novel ends with a graphic rape scene as the dirty argies rape Thatcher in her office.
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2010, 08:38:37 AM
:huh:
Ok, so it sounds like the AH here is: the British beat the living shit out of the Argentines.... which is different from reality how? :unsure:
It's a spoof. That was actually an exact description of how the Falklands War occurred. It is no Alternate History, but Real History.
It shows how the truth can appear most implausible. That anyone can say anything was "impossible" and justify his disbelief in a logical way.
They could have told even more utterly unlikely, but quite real, stuff - like an argentinian C-130 being used to drop heavy bombs on British ships trough its cargo bay... and actually hitting the target!
(the bomb failed to explode).
Can't be alt-his without Marse Lee. :contract:
Speaking of the Falklands, I got to play the war in a Harpoon (miniatures, not computer) game as the Argie. Put a dud bomb on Brit carrier. :(
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 02, 2010, 08:52:16 AM
It's an unfunny spoof. That was actually an exact description of how the Falklands War occurred.
FYP.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2010, 08:28:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 02, 2010, 08:10:03 AM
terrible.. I have AH,
I'm sorry. What's the prognosis? Can it be treated? :(
prognosis? well the main symptom is replacing "t"s with "v"s when typing.
The Argies already live & breathe their own alt-history re: the Falklands.
Quote from: Viking on February 02, 2010, 09:53:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2010, 08:28:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 02, 2010, 08:10:03 AM
terrible.. I have AH,
I'm sorry. What's the prognosis? Can it be treated? :(
prognosis? well the main symptom is replacing "t"s with "v"s when typing.
So before you came down with the AH was your name Tiking?
Quote from: derspiess on February 02, 2010, 10:57:51 AM
The Argies already live & breathe their own alt-history re: the Falklands.
Malvinas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111oenoneoneoenoneeoneoeneoeoe....
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2010, 11:43:13 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 02, 2010, 09:53:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2010, 08:28:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 02, 2010, 08:10:03 AM
terrible.. I have AH,
I'm sorry. What's the prognosis? Can it be treated? :(
prognosis? well the main symptom is replacing "t"s with "v"s when typing.
So before you came down with the AH was your name Tiking?
You're catching on quckly aren't you :hug:
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 02, 2010, 08:52:16 AM
It shows how the truth can appear most implausible.
Well ok, maybe if you're some sort of nationalistic gibbering Argentine idiot.... but the Royal Navy PWNING Argentina is anything but implausible in the real world. :bowler:
Quote from: derspiess on February 02, 2010, 10:57:51 AM
The Argies already live & breathe their own alt-history re: the Falklands.
Please do share. Here's a :bleeding: in advance. :)
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2010, 12:47:43 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 02, 2010, 08:52:16 AM
It shows how the truth can appear most implausible.
Well ok, maybe if you're some sort of nationalistic gibbering Argentine idiot.... but the Royal Navy PWNING Argentina is anything but implausible in the real world. :bowler:
Let alone the Royal Marines and Paras pwning Argentine conscripts.
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2010, 12:52:28 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2010, 12:47:43 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 02, 2010, 08:52:16 AM
It shows how the truth can appear most implausible.
Well ok, maybe if you're some sort of nationalistic gibbering Argentine idiot.... but the Royal Navy PWNING Argentina is anything but implausible in the real world. :bowler:
Let alone the Royal Marines and Paras pwning Argentine conscripts.
Well to be fair, there were more then 30 marines in that first battle. Closer to 60 I think.
What was the Argentine justification for war anyway? The Falklanders are all of British (IIRC mostly Scottish) descent, right? The Falklands never actually belonged to Argentina/New Spain, right? So was it just a claim based on geographic proximity? :bleeding:
AMERICA: OMG CAN I HAS BAHAMAS! U ARE: NEARBY.
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2010, 01:09:51 PM
What was the Argentine justification for war anyway? The Falklanders are all of British (IIRC mostly Scottish) descent, right? The Falklands never actually belonged to Argentina/New Spain, right? So was it just a claim based on geographic proximity? :bleeding:
AMERICA: OMG CAN I HAS BAHAMAS! U ARE: NEARBY.
There's
slightly more to it than that. The claim goes back to the early 19th century.
Still it was silly to invade an island inhabited mostly by sheep, economically unimportant and who's small human populace doesn't want to be part of your country. Also it's owned by a nuclear weapon state.
I think the Argentinians did have them for a few brief periods and Spain did for a considerably longer time but they've been overwhelmingly British mostly. The biggest period of Argentinian control that they claim was actually a Argentinian guy farming there who had actually first asked the British for permission to do so and was doing it under British law.
Argentinians are just nationalist eejits.
I remember that war. It ruled.
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2010, 01:09:51 PM
What was the Argentine justification for war anyway? The Falklanders are all of British (IIRC mostly Scottish) descent, right? The Falklands never actually belonged to Argentina/New Spain, right? So was it just a claim based on geographic proximity? :bleeding:
AMERICA: OMG CAN I HAS BAHAMAS! U ARE: NEARBY.
They were nominally part of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata at the time of Argentinian independence, IIRC.
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2010, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 02, 2010, 10:57:51 AM
The Argies already live & breathe their own alt-history re: the Falklands.
Please do share. Here's a :bleeding: in advance. :)
Well, it's probably not anything you guys don't know or wouldn't infer. In Argentina it's a universally accepted 'truth' that the 'Malvinas' have always been Argentine, and will always be Argentine. Every map produced in Argentina shows the
Islas Malvinas as Argentine territory (along with a generous slice of Antarctica), and said map is even embossed on their passports. Even the most non-patriotic Argentine will get their dander up over the islands belonging to them.
Everywhere you go, you see buildings & streets using the name 'Malvinas'. The
Museo de Armas has an entire wing dedicated to the Malvinas tragedy, replete with references to the Brits as "aggressors" & displays of 1982-vintage foreign newspaper headlines that had an Argentine slant. There's also wrecked military hardware & uniforms with bullet-holes (as if to say-- hey, look how badly we got our asses kicked!).
My wife is indifferent these days, but when I first met her I was able to get her riled up about it.
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2010, 12:52:28 PM
Let alone the Royal Marines and Paras pwning Argentine conscripts.
Argentina's big error was sending their own conscripts instead of cutting a deal to hire some Revolutionary Guards from the Islamic Republic. They should have known that the Royal Marine SOP is to slaughter Argentines at a drop of a hat but to surrender to the first guy that asks nicely in Farsi.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2010, 02:48:24 PM
Argentina's big error was sending their own conscripts instead of cutting a deal to hire some Revolutionary Guards from the Islamic Republic. They should have known that the Royal Marine SOP is to slaughter Argentines at a drop of a hat but to surrender to the first guy that asks nicely in Farsi.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2010, 12:47:43 PM
Well ok, maybe if you're some sort of nationalistic gibbering Argentine idiot.... but the Royal Navy PWNING Argentina is anything but implausible in the real world. :bowler:
No, I meant the UK rushing a force 8,000 miles away with minimal preparation, their elite troops wearing berets instead of helmets, managing a plan only because one officer onboard happened to had done an unpublished work about the islands, the Vulcan raid (totally unprecedented), the difficulties of supplying a force a mere 800 yards away, the fact that the logistical aspect of the operation seemed to have been taken out of a horror book...
That kind of thing, not to mention a C-130 bypassing the fleet's entire CAP and accurately dumping a bomb on a capital ship via its cargo bay.
Take another example: 9/11. If someone in 2000 had told you that a buch of Arabs armed with boxcutters would hijack four large US commercial planes in America and, their sole flight training consisting of flight sims, accurately ram two of them in the World Trade Center at low altitude and getting another plane to hit the Pentagon at an even lower altitude, and that a few minutes later both Towers would nicely fold unto themselves and totally disappear... what would have been your reaction?
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 02, 2010, 08:42:30 PMIf someone in 2000 had told you that a buch of Arabs armed with boxcutters would hijack four large US commercial planes in America and, their sole flight training consisting of flight sims, accurately ram two of them in the World Trade Center at low altitude and getting another plane to hit the Pentagon at an even lower altitude, and that a few minutes later both Towers would nicely fold unto themselves and totally disappear... what would have been your reaction?
Invade Iraq!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2010, 02:48:24 PMArgentina's big error was sending their own conscripts instead of cutting a deal to hire some Revolutionary Guards from the Islamic Republic. They should have known that the Royal Marine SOP is to slaughter Argentines at a drop of a hat but to surrender to the first guy that asks nicely in Farsi.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fn2.nabble.com%2Ffile%2Fn3132127%2FDAAAMN.jpg&hash=2a0c8f15282328df2c9a053eeedabe327008f591)
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on February 02, 2010, 09:18:17 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 02, 2010, 08:42:30 PMIf someone in 2000 had told you that a buch of Arabs armed with boxcutters would hijack four large US commercial planes in America and, their sole flight training consisting of flight sims, accurately ram two of them in the World Trade Center at low altitude and getting another plane to hit the Pentagon at an even lower altitude, and that a few minutes later both Towers would nicely fold unto themselves and totally disappear... what would have been your reaction?
Invade Iraq!
:lol:
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2010, 01:09:51 PM
What was the Argentine justification for war anyway? The Falklanders are all of British (IIRC mostly Scottish) descent, right? The Falklands never actually belonged to Argentina/New Spain, right? So was it just a claim based on geographic proximity? :bleeding:
AMERICA: OMG CAN I HAS BAHAMAS! U ARE: NEARBY.
It's... complex. Take this example from 1764-1774
- French traders establish a little base (1764)
- Spain protests. Traders are compensated and evacuate (1766)
- British Navy comes and builds an small fort (1766)
- Spanish Navy comes and forces them to surrender (1770)
- International mini-crisis. British return (1771)
- British bore to death, evacuate the damned islands (1774)
- Spanish navy returns and shortly afterwards leaves too.
Rinse and repeat.
The powers that be, at Madrid, Paris and London looked at the map and wanted the islands, but men sent there found them once and again to be barren, unbearably cold, and unprofitable. Only steam made the islands useful enough to deserve more or less permanent occupation, first by whalers, then by the Royal Navy, that needed a coaling station in the South Atlantic.
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2010, 08:38:37 AM
:huh:
Ok, so it sounds like the AH here is: the British beat the living shit out of the Argentines.... which is different from reality how? :unsure:
I think we need to bring Turtledove ( :bleeding: ) in for a rewrite. In his version, the British will be advancing on Port Stanley and suddenly Roberto Eduarto Lee from the XXV century will show up with laser machineguns and wipe out the British army, Royal Navy, and then conquer London for El Confederacio. :cool:
I bet Timmy is making a map right now!
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2010, 01:09:51 PM
What was the Argentine justification for war anyway? The Falklanders are all of British (IIRC mostly Scottish) descent, right? The Falklands never actually belonged to Argentina/New Spain, right? So was it just a claim based on geographic proximity? :bleeding:
AMERICA: OMG CAN I HAS BAHAMAS! U ARE: NEARBY.
LOL seeing how pretty much all conquests ever made by your own country were based on that justification, you shouldn't roll your eyes at it. :lol:
:huh:
Americans don't conquer, we liberate. :)
Quote from: Caliga on February 03, 2010, 06:17:42 AM
:huh:
Americans don't conquer, we liberate. :)
You move in your people, then you liberate the immigrants from their aboriginal oppressors (Texas, California, Hawaii etc.)
This thread is gold.
It's too bad we don't seem to have any one ready to defend the argentinian side of the dispute.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 03, 2010, 07:06:47 AM
It's too bad we don't seem to have any one ready to defend the argentinian side of the dispute.
Well, that's likely because we don't have any Argentine posters. We need spiess to get one of his cousins in law on here or something. :cool:
Quote from: Alatriste on February 03, 2010, 02:12:48 AM
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2010, 01:09:51 PM
What was the Argentine justification for war anyway? The Falklanders are all of British (IIRC mostly Scottish) descent, right? The Falklands never actually belonged to Argentina/New Spain, right? So was it just a claim based on geographic proximity? :bleeding:
AMERICA: OMG CAN I HAS BAHAMAS! U ARE: NEARBY.
It's... complex. Take this example from 1764-1774
- French traders establish a little base (1764)
- Spain protests. Traders are compensated and evacuate (1766)
- British Navy comes and builds an small fort (1766)
- Spanish Navy comes and forces them to surrender (1770)
- International mini-crisis. British return (1771)
- British bore to death, evacuate the damned islands (1774)
- Spanish navy returns and shortly afterwards leaves too.
Rinse and repeat.
The powers that be, at Madrid, Paris and London looked at the map and wanted the islands, but men sent there found them once and again to be barren, unbearably cold, and unprofitable. Only steam made the islands useful enough to deserve more or less permanent occupation, first by whalers, then by the Royal Navy, that needed a coaling station in the South Atlantic.
Goes back further than that even with various folk discovering them and claiming them but never doing anything about it or even not even knowing exactly where they are. Checking wiki it says Britain has claimed them since before there was a Britain in 1690.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 03, 2010, 07:06:47 AM
This thread is gold.
It's too bad we don't seem to have any one ready to defend the argentinian side of the dispute.
OMFG ITS JUST GEOGRAPHY! ITS ON THE ARGENTINIAN SHELF! ITS JUST ARGENTINA! HOW'D YOU LIKE IT IF THE SHETLANDS WERE ARGENTINIAN!! MALVINAS ARGENTINOS FOREVER...OS!
Quote from: Tyr on February 03, 2010, 08:19:22 AM
OMFG ITS JUST GEOGRAPHY! ITS ON THE ARGENTINIAN SHELF! ITS JUST ARGENTINA! HOW'D YOU LIKE IT IF THE SHETLANDS WERE ARGENTINIAN!! MALVINAS ARGENTINOS FOREVER...OS!
While funny, I'm more wondering how it would look written in none-japanese fashion.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 03, 2010, 07:06:47 AM
This thread is gold.
It's too bad we don't seem to have any one ready to defend the argentinian side of the dispute.
Seedy is on record as having taken the Argie side, but I'm not sure if that was trolling or not.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2010, 01:16:19 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 03, 2010, 07:06:47 AM
This thread is gold.
It's too bad we don't seem to have any one ready to defend the argentinian side of the dispute.
Seedy is on record as having taken the Argie side, but I'm not sure if that was trolling or not.
I will say one thing, watching the Brits take exocets in the ass back in '82 was comedy gold on the nightly news.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2010, 01:16:19 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 03, 2010, 07:06:47 AM
This thread is gold.
It's too bad we don't seem to have any one ready to defend the argentinian side of the dispute.
Seedy is on record as having taken the Argie side, but I'm not sure if that was trolling or not.
Violation of the Rio Treaty as well as numerous albeit liberal interpretations of the Monroe Doctrine? You betcha! *wink*