Russia Ukraine WW3

[chartpolski 20,521]

53 minutes ago, WILF said:

Well there you go, they say every day is a school day and that’s some things I have learned today.

Much obliged mate 

Mon plaisir, mon ami .

Bon chance.

[mC HULL 10,465]

7 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

New Zealand isn’t a member of NATO .

NATO members would probably get involved but not under the auspices of the NATO treaty.

Just do some basic research , it’s all there on Google ! LOL !

Cheers,

i thought they was lol looked just partners some other initials anzus 

the yanks are only interested in there self and own interests that’s why they didn’t get involved in the falklands 

 

 

[chartpolski 20,521]

Just now, mC HULL said:

i thought they was lol looked just partners some other initials anzus 

the yanks are only interested in there self and own interests that’s why they didn’t get involved in the falklands 

 

 

New Zealand is also a member of “The Five Eyes” treaty, along with the UK, the US , Canada and Australia. Three of which are NATO members, two aren’t, but I’ve no doubt the would all act in the defence of each other.

Cheers.

[chartpolski 20,521]

4 minutes ago, mC HULL said:

 

the yanks are only interested in there self and own interests that’s why they didn’t get involved in the falklands 

 

 

Just like we didnt get involved in the Viet Nam War , even though the yanks asked us to. We didn’t ask the yanks to get involved in the Falklands.

As soon as Thatcher ordered HMS Conqueror into action, that was game, set and match, we didn’t need any help.

Cheers.

[Born Hunter 17,642]

Not much of f**k all has really changed in the past 12 months. Russia failed to achieve anything close to a successful invasion and Ukraine, with all the support the West dares to give, have failed to fully achieve the goals of their counteroffensive.

Wasn't it six weeks it took the coalition to completely invade Iraq?

This will continue now until both sides have had enough of the shit and stalemate and the new lines on the maps are accepted.

[Born Hunter 17,642]

6 hours ago, chartpolski said:

Just like we didnt get involved in the Viet Nam War , even though the yanks asked us to. We didn’t ask the yanks to get involved in the Falklands.

As soon as Thatcher ordered HMS Conqueror into action, that was game, set and match, we didn’t need any help.

Cheers.

The sinking of the Belgrano was a decisive and historic event.

But without the equally as decisive actions of many other elements of the task force the war couldn’t have been won. The entire Argentine navy was eliminated with that sinking but the land forces were still being supplied by hercs and the air war was still active from mainland bases.

If the harriers hadn’t completely outperformed what was expected from them, if 3 para hadn’t shown the grit and professionalism they had, if 40 Cdo hadn’t yomped when their rides didn’t turn up, if the Vulcans hadn’t put a big target on the mainland etc etc the argies would’ve just sat tight and waited us out. So many elements of that task force out performed what was expected of them.

[Lenmcharristar 9,187]

7 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

The sinking of the Belgrano was a decisive and historic event.

But without the equally as decisive actions of many other elements of the task force the war couldn’t have been won. The entire Argentine navy was eliminated with that sinking but the land forces were still being supplied by hercs and the air war was still active from mainland bases.

If the harriers hadn’t completely outperformed what was expected from them, if 3 para hadn’t shown the grit and professionalism they had, if 40 Cdo hadn’t yomped when their rides didn’t turn up, if the Vulcans hadn’t put a big target on the mainland etc etc the argies would’ve just sat tight and waited us out. So many elements of that task force out performed what was expected of them.

And now when labour get in, they hand over the falklands to the argies, Gibraltar to the spanish, and northern ireland to the shinners, after that the russians invade and charles sticks his thumb in his mouth and starts twirling his hair

[chartpolski 20,521]

7 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

The sinking of the Belgrano was a decisive and historic event.

But without the equally as decisive actions of many other elements of the task force the war couldn’t have been won. The entire Argentine navy was eliminated with that sinking but the land forces were still being supplied by hercs and the air war was still active from mainland bases.

If the harriers hadn’t completely outperformed what was expected from them, if 3 para hadn’t shown the grit and professionalism they had, if 40 Cdo hadn’t yomped when their rides didn’t turn up, if the Vulcans hadn’t put a big target on the mainland etc etc the argies would’ve just sat tight and waited us out. So many elements of that task force out performed what was expected of them.

Of course the war was multi faceted but sinking the Belgrano showed we were not afraid to use everything at our disposal including nuclear powered subs if necessary.

The Vulcan raid was in the same vein, it told the Argentinians that we could bomb their mainland if we wanted to.

Our land forces showed a professionalism way above the enemy.

All the elements came together but I still say  the sinking of the Belgrano was the decisive action that turned the war.

I don’t believe the Argies could just sit it out, they couldn’t be resupplied because of our naval presence and our land forces couldn’t afford a stalemate, so there was only going to be one conclusion, in my mind.

Cheers.

[Born Hunter 17,642]

1 minute ago, chartpolski said:

Of course the war was multi faceted but sinking the Belgrano showed we were not afraid to use everything at our disposal including nuclear powered subs if necessary.

The Vulcan raid was in the same vein, it told the Argentinians that we could bomb their mainland if we wanted to.

Our land forces showed a professionalism way above the enemy.

All the elements came together but I still say  the sinking of the Belgrano was the decisive action that turned the war.

I don’t believe the Argies could just sit it out, they couldn’t be resupplied because of our naval presence and our land forces couldn’t afford a stalemate, so there was only going to be one conclusion, in my mind.

Cheers.

100%

Yeah conquorer was the first big ‘f**k around and find out’ statement of the war.

My comment regarding sitting it out was in reference to conquorer not being singly conclusive (game set and match). The occupation force wasn’t dependent on naval resupply so although a hugely impactful event there was much left to do.

[chartpolski 20,521]

11 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

100%

Yeah conquorer was the first big ‘f**k around and find out’ statement of the war.

My comment regarding sitting it out was in reference to conquorer not being singly conclusive (game set and match). The occupation force wasn’t dependent on naval resupply so although a hugely impactful event there was much left to do.

How were the occupation force going to be resupplied ? They couldn’t have brought enough with them to withstand a siege/ stalemate situation , they were looting houses and shops for food.

I didn’t think Conqueror was singly conclusive, I thought it was the single incident that convinced the Argies that we were there to win, the mood change in both countries, indeed around the world, at the time was palpable.

Thatches gamble to sink a ship outside the 200 mile excision zone worked, it showed negotiations were off the table.

Im not a military strategist, I’m just going by what I saw in real time back then and what I read, so it’s just my opinions.

Cheers.

[Born Hunter 17,642]

43 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

How were the occupation force going to be resupplied ? They couldn’t have brought enough with them to withstand a siege/ stalemate situation , they were looting houses and shops for food.

I didn’t think Conqueror was singly conclusive, I thought it was the single incident that convinced the Argies that we were there to win, the mood change in both countries, indeed around the world, at the time was palpable.

Thatches gamble to sink a ship outside the 200 mile excision zone worked, it showed negotiations were off the table.

Im not a military strategist, I’m just going by what I saw in real time back then and what I read, so it’s just my opinions.

Cheers.

They were being resupplied by plane, airport to airport without even needing aerial refuelling.

You said game set and match which means a conclusive victory. It wasn’t at that point.

Edited April 9 by Born Hunter

[WILF 44,411]

Fair play to the yids, they just offed an Iranian general ! 
We need them yids on the beaches of Dover !

[DIDO.1 21,036]

Fckin hell just seen that....this could get tasty. The yids are talking about sacrificing a red heffier, which then opens the way for flattening the mosque on temple mount. They are certainly pushing on towards an end game 

[WILF 44,411]

33 minutes ago, DIDO.1 said:

Fckin hell just seen that....this could get tasty. The yids are talking about sacrificing a red heffier, which then opens the way for flattening the mosque on temple mount. They are certainly pushing on towards an end game 

So we mean to say the yids are not worried about being called nasty names or scare words ?…..my goodness !

Good for them, I hope they rinse every last f***ing Arab who even looks at them wrong !

[DIDO.1 21,036]

36 minutes ago, WILF said:

So we mean to say the yids are not worried about being called nasty names or scare words ?…..my goodness !

Good for them, I hope they rinse every last f***ing Arab who even looks at them wrong !

It isn't that they aren't worried about being called names.....it's more the fact they aren't worried about the next stage of the Bible prophecies