Venezuela vs Netherlands

Originally posted by INeedHelp

Irrelevant, as you know. The Harriers have somehow been proven to be superior to the French planes the Argentines were flying. As an Indian, you shouldn't mock our military, we've conquered India 2 centuries ago. We WON the war because we have a better military than the Argentines, not because they had stupid commanders. Name one war Britain lost since 1783. You can't. Name one war Argentina won (not counting the anti-Spanish uprising). You can't. And the Falklands war has happened 25 years ago. Not 224 years ago.

The Harriers have 'somehow' been proven to be superior to the French planes?

The rest of the post doesn't even deem a response.
..
Bits here and there..

Mitterand accused Thatcher of threatening nuclear action against Cordoba.
If that would've happened, for starters perestroika wouldn't have gained support(the Soviet military would've tightened its belt and indeed gained popular support as a fallout of nuclear-crazy woman) and it would've forced the Soviets into an even more aggressive posture.

The Mirage III and the Super Etendard(esp the Mirage III) is more than a match for the Harrier.
If you're going to use words like 'somehow' then I think you don't know what you're talking about.
The problem was that the Argies forced these jets to be operated at the edge
of the op environments while having minimal qualified operations on the same.

Yes, you won the war because you had a better military(read smarter not luckier) than the Argies and that itself is a case in point w.r.t. the Argies being quite stupid about the way they went about things.
Summarizing, if the Argies would've been smarter, Britain would not have won the war the way it did, and the Argies could have even forced a retreat.
This is what I said
Let me not teach you the language your ancestors taught mine over 200 years ago

About naming wars that Britain lost.. well I was never in the business of doing that in the first place, but for starters I don't see you 'winning' the war in Iraq as of now.
Plus I see you getting a tough break from Pak-supported Taleban with your ISAF contigent.
Not that others would do better in similar situations, but I'm just answering your Qs.

As an Indian I can do whatever the frick I want, and you'd better lay off any public display of such sentiment or you may suffer the same suicidal depressive bouts Miss Jade Goody is experiencing.


Don't let your ego get the better of you. I never said Britain lost the Falklands war.
I said that the Falklands war was fought by the British on extremely weak strings(purely because of the distance and not anything else). I said that the Argies could've done much more to get at these weak strings thus putting themselves in a stronger position to defend the island they had captured.

If you can't get that(or disprove it sensibly) then lay off and stop wallowing in
200 year old colonial grandeiur.

As for the Dutch deploying a number of fighters in the Antilles that would make a difference:

1)The airfield and Curacao does cannot support the numbers we're talking about; moreover concentrating so many fighters at one base would be a serious risk in any case.

2)The fighters would only be shifted in case the Dutch were confronted with a
Venezuelan invasion, and the conundrum is that the invasion itself would negate the possibility of shifting such assets into Islands.
The detachment present at Curacao would not be able to last long against the most obviously superior* Su-30MK a/c.

If you have problems believing that the Su-30MK is superior in most(if not all)aspects to the F-16AM then please feel free to tell me why..

Finally if you believe that air-exercises are not a gauge of an a/c capabilities then please do not cite such examples yourself.
Especially when you consider 'airshows' to be more helpful in gauging a/c than war games.

Originally posted by INeedHelp

Exercises are irrelevant. Only real combat and Plane Show history matters. During the 2001 Paris Plane Show the Russians were humiliated.

[edit on 29-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

And so the F-22, Typhoon et all(aircraft with no combat records) are inferior compared to a/c like the F-16,F-15(which incidently has a 100% combat record)?

Lets keep the fact aside that the F-22 has literally wasted a/c like the F-16 and F-15 in 'combat exercises'..


"Plane Show history matters in determining a/c capabilities.."


And I thought I'd heard it all..

kudos to you mate..

Originally posted by Daedalus3

And so the F-22, Typhoon et all(aircraft with no combat records) are inferior compared to a/c like the F-16,F-15(which incidently has a 100% combat record)?

I didn't say F-22s are inferior to F-15s and F-16s, because they are not. However, exercises are irrelevant. Only real combat and specs are relevant.

has literally wasted planes

And so were Su-30s and other non-American fighters - during exercises.

The Harriers have 'somehow' been proven to be superior to the French planes?

And just which planes did we station aboard our aircraft carriers? Which ships defended the fleet against the Argentine AF? Our aircraft carriers of course.

If that would've happened, for starters perestroika wouldn't have gained support(the Soviet military would've tightened its belt and indeed gained popular support as a fallout of nuclear-crazy woman) and it would've forced the Soviets into an even more aggressive posture.

Wrong. The Soviets would capitulate even earlier because they would be scared because they would know we used nuclear weapons against the Argentines. Aggressors attack only weak victims.

The Mirage IIIs and the Super Etendards are more than a match for the Harrier.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If they are superior to Harriers then why did our Harrier fighter pilots defeat the Argentine AF? They lost 99 planes, we lost 34.

Summarizing, if the Argies would've been smarter, Britain would not have won the war the way it did, and the Argies could have even forced a retreat.

Wrong. They Argentines wouldn't be able to force our TF to retreat. We had nukes, which they didn't have. We had better planes, helicopters and tanks. They would never be able to force our TF to retreat. Your theories are preposterous but they're irrelevant - every wise person knows that the British military is superior, and was superior 25 years ago, to the Argentine military.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Oh yeah, the only source you use is Wikipedia, whose autors write fallacious theories, just like Daedalus3 does.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

double post

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Daedalus3]

As I have been always saying (and I have been proven right many times), weakness only encourages aggressors to commit actions that they would otherwise not commit. If the Soviets would find out that a nation which has nukes would be unwilling to use them, they would have nuked that nation because they'd know that that nation would be unwilling to retaliate. Aggressors fear only those who are able and willing to retaliate.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

Originally posted by INeedHelp

I didn't say F-22s are inferior to F-15s and F-16s, because they are not. However, exercises are irrelevant. Only real combat and specs are relevant.

Well then you contradict youself because the F-22 has NO combat experience and the F-15/F-16 has loads of it.

And as for specs.. go ahead and compare the Su-30MK and the F-16AM..

And so were Su-30s and other non-American fighters - during exercises.

The Su-30 was never wasted by anyone or anything.. not so far..
in exercises or otherwise.
Which fantasy world are you living in?

And just which planes did we station aboard our aircraft carriers? Which ships defended the fleet against the Argentine AF? Our aircraft carriers of course.

You didn't get my point..
Let me s-p-e-l-l it out to you..
The Mirage III is a better aircraft for A2A combat as compared to the Harrier version of the same era.
The Argentines didn't use the Mirage III efficiently against the Harriers.
The Argie pilots were novices and they were flying their jets at the extreme edges of operational radii. The Harriers never engaged the Mirages at altitudes where the Blue Fox was ineffective.
The Argie MIIIs and Daggers couldn't use afterburners because they were operated at the edge of their reach(so they had to conserve fuel to be able to fly back)
Yes the RAF/RN pilots had better operational experience and they also had the AIM-9l sidewinder(hastily shipped in from the US after the outbreak of the war).
Still if the Argies had carried out saturation suicide missions agains the Invincible with exocets et all..things would have been different.
The Argies pilots were also known to wuss out by releasing weapons before
their specified operational ranges(it seems the pilots were more concerned about high-tailing it back home rather that mission success)

Again, the Mirage III and the Dagger are better(w.r.t. Harriers) at dogfighting if deployed under favorable conditions.

Wrong. The Soviets would capitulate even earlier because they would be scared because they would know we used nuclear weapons against the Argentines. Aggressors attack only weak victims.

Tell that to the Germans at the end of WWII..
Soviets.. sacred??!!

You never fail to surprise me!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If they are superior to Harriers then why did our Harrier fighter pilots defeat the Argentine AF? They lost 99 planes, we lost 34.

If you'd read what I'd written(and do a bit f research by yourself) then you'd understand why.
Let me put it this way:
If it were the French flying the a/c in a conflict over the English Channel and
the a/c involved were the Sea Harrier and the Mirage III.. things would've been different..
The harrier was at an obvious disadvantage in this showdown.
However better operational know how and the benefit of having a undertrained opponent is what helped the Harrier pilots through.

Ok.. Lets get one thing straight..
Are you saying that the British would've have won that war irrespective of the opposing forces' approach?
i.e. replace the Argentinians by say the South Africans, or the Israelis or even more tactically sound Argies and keep the same Argentinian weaponry(MIIIs,Daggers,exocets Etendards etc..)

If you say 'Yes' then maybe we can close this topic now. anything other than a yes means there is still room for discussion.

And btw.. not even a single utterance of any technical/tactical information on your part actually makes me think twice about replying to another post of yours.
Seriously..

Wrong. They Argentines wouldn't be able to force our TF to retreat. We had nukes. We had a superior AF. We had a superior navy. We had a superior Army. They would never be able to force our TF to retreat. Your theories are preposterous but they're irrelevant - every wise person knows that the British military is superior, and was superior 25 years ago, to the Argentine military.

~shakes head in bemusement~
you never really understood a word I said aye?
You DO need help..


[edit on 30-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

Well then you contradict youself because the F-22 NO combat experience

F-22s will be combat proven soon, just wait until the American-Iranian war starts.

and compare the Su-30MKs and the F-16s

Specs?

the F-16s’ maneuverability and combat radius exceed that of all potential threat fighter aircraft. With a full load of internal fuel, F-16s can withstand nine G's -- nine times the force of gravity -- which betters other current fighter aircraft.

Link

The Su-30s were never wasted by anything

During exercises, not yet. But one Su-30 has been during the 2001 Paris Plane Show.

The Mirage IIIs are better aircraft as compared to the Harriers of the same era.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! And why do you state such a ridiculous opinion? Do you realize that Argentine M3s were shot down EXACTLY by the RN’s Harriers? You are irrelevant, your preposterous claims are unreasoned. During GW1, American planes shot down many Mirage fighters too, even though Iraqi pilots were experienced due to the Iraqi-Iranian war (1980-1988).

The Argie MIIIs and Daggers couldn't use afterburners because they were operated at the edge of their reach(so they had to conserve fuel to be able to fly back)

If they couldn’t, it means they are crappy.
Yes the RAF/RN pilots had better operational experience and they also had the AIM-9s

True. So you have admitted our military was better armed.

Still if the Argies had carried out saturation suicide missions agains the Invincible with exocets et all..things would have been different.

Wrong. HMS Invincible’s ACW and the ships which were escorting that aircraft carrier would shoot down any Argentine planes. Our aircraft carriers were too well guarded. HMS Invincible’s ACW has annihilated many Argentine planes – the claim that the Argies would be allowed to attack that aircraft carrier it is stupid.

Tell that to the Germans at the end of WWII..
Soviets.. sacred??!!

The Germans were always weaker than the Soviets. Weaklings couldn’t scare Soviets.

If it were the French flying the a/c

They’d be decimated, as the Iraqis were during GW1. During GW2 they didn’t even dare to take off.

Ok.. Lets get one thing straight..
Are you saying that the British would've have won that war irrespective of the opposing forces' approach?

Yes, and as an Indian, you shouldn’t mock our military. We’ve conquered India 200 years ago and governed it until 1947.

Israelis

No. The Israelis have as many nukes as we do, and even if they didn’t use nukes, their military is well-equipped.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by INeedHelp]

Originally posted by INeedHelp

F-22s will be combat proven soon, just wait until the American-Iranian war starts.

Yea.. I can say the same about the Su-30s.
Definitely those in service with the IAF.


sorry your 'airshow arguement' is hollow and lame..

and compare the Su-30MKs and the F-16s

Specs?

the F-16s’ maneuverability and combat radius exceed that of all potential threat fighter aircraft. With a full load of internal fuel, F-16s can withstand nine G's -- nine times the force of gravity -- which betters other current fighter aircraft.

Not absolute specs; relative specs.. You know.. That's what you call a COMPARISION

This is IMHO by far one of the best sources of flanker info on the net.
And that too from the perspective of the Su-30 being a potential foe.
Read through it if you can. Notice the startling revelations w.r.t. the F-35 Lightning as well.

You might read this as well but I think you will dismiss it as biased:
vayu-sena.tripod.com...

During exercises, not yet. But one Su-30 has been during the 2001 Paris Plane Show.

And that means zilch.. nada.. nothing..

HAHAHAHAHAHA! And why do you state such a ridiculous opinion? Do you realize that Argentine M3s were shot down EXACTLY by the RN’s Harriers? You are irrelevant, your preposterous claims are unreasoned. During GW1, American planes shot down many Mirage fighters too, even though Iraqi pilots were experienced due to the Iraqi-Iranian war (1980-1988).

I still feel MIII is a better A2A fighter than the Harrier.
Specs say so. The American planes(F-14,F-15,F-16) that shot down the MIIIs were much better than the MIIIs.

The Argie MIIIs and Daggers couldn't use afterburners because they were operated at the edge of their reach(so they had to conserve fuel to be able to fly back)

If they couldn’t, it means they are crappy.

How old are you??!!
Really?

Wrong. HMS Invincible’s ACW and the ships which were escorting that aircraft carrier would shoot down any Argentine planes. Our aircraft carriers were too well guarded. HMS Invincible’s ACW has annihilated many Argentine planes – the claim that the Argies would be allowed to attack that aircraft carrier it is stupid.

I feel differently..

Tell that to the Germans at the end of WWII..
Soviets.. sacred??!!

The Germans were always weaker than the Soviets. Weaklings couldn’t scare Soviets.

How old are you?

If it were the French flying the a/c

They’d be decimated, as the Iraqis were during GW1. During GW2 they didn’t even dare to take off.

Who the French?!

Yes, and as an Indian, you shouldn’t mock our military. We’ve conquered India 200 years ago and governed it until 1947.

I'm not mocking your military. Just stating a tactical opinion of the war.
I never said any other military would've(could've) done better than Britain in that war. But I certainly say that about Argentina.

And you still seem to wallow in non-existant colonial grandieur.

Carry on.. I am not going to be intmidated into insulting other nations.
But do tell me how old you are

No. The Israelis have as many nukes as we do, and even if they didn’t use nukes, their military is well-equipped.

You are obessesed with nukes.



Anyways..
I think this discussion is over.
Your replies have dissuaded my hopes of pursuing a intelligible discussion here.
Thank you for your time.
Good bye

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
Well, to be honest, the editor of that magazine and James Dunnigan are stupid. Not only you Dutchmen never won a war against us, but the theory that the Venezuelans would win is preposterous. How is a conscript military going to win against a professional military?

History is repleat with examples of lesser military forces winning out against more professional ones. Weight of numbers is usually a good start and a conscript military is not a definitive measure of an army's ability to win.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
24 Su-30s - anyone remembers the 2001 Paris Plane Show?

So your basing your opinions on a plane from an Airshow where it was pilot error after attempting an ambitious loop that caused the crash. The SU-30 in question clipped the ground during the loop.

Plenty of other successful aircraft have had crashes at Airshows, one being a Nimrod MR3 in 1995 that just fell out of the sky, rather than trying to do anything ambitious. Never the less, the Nimrod is a hugely important and successful aircraft in the RAF inventory.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
No. They lost because we have a larger, better trained, better equipped military, and even if they defeated the task force we sent, we would nuke them.

No. We were lucky in the Falklands. If it had been properly planned and executed by the Argies, they could have held the Falklands. Not taking away from the men and women who served, they did a stand up job with a makeshift task force, but the Argies lost the war themselves. Rather like the Germans in WW2. Could and should have won, but some monumental balls up's cost them the war.

We also wouldn't have nuked anyone. The threats were all rumour and speculation anyway and Maggie wouldn't have dared, not with the geo-political climate of the time.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
An exactly who, except us Britons, is able to help the Dutch? The Germans? They had to lease planes from the Ukrainians just to be able to transport 3000 soldiers to Afghanistan. The French? Nowadays they have only one aircraft carrier.

Those Antonov's are leased by NATO, not Germany, under the Strategic Airlift Interim Solution. This is a stop-gap before the A-400's get delivered, which, combined, will give NATO/EU forces massive airlift capacity.

Also, we only have 1 "aircraft carrier" (it's not even a real one). The Charles de Gaulle is larger then our own Illustrious, which is the only Invincible class carrier that is ready. Ark Royal is being refitted (although should be back with the fleet soon) and the Invincible herself was mothballed.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
What the British military must and doesn't have to do is decided by us, British citizens, not you. If you're not a British citizen, we don't care what you ask our military to do.

Your British are you? Funny, because I thought Zibi was Polish!

That's right...we know who you are

posted by Wembley
Agreed the local people should have a say, but it doesn't always work out like that. I suspect a lot of folk in Hong Kong would have preferred to stay under British rule, but ti was still handed over to the Chinse...no real alternative.

Hong Kong was leased for 99 years off the Chinese. We had to hand back in 1997, no choice in the matter.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
So planes that were annihilated by a Communist military are good planes? Keep wishing.

Haha, whatever! So BF-109's were bad planes? The Soviet's took care of them. The US (and Allies) lost many jets in Vietnam and Korea to communists, but that is not to say they were bad planes. They were pretty damn good for their day.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
Exercises are irrelevant. Only real combat and Plane Show history matters. During the 2001 Paris Plane Show the Russians were humiliated.

You know, we've heard this exact same argument before, Zibi! If exercise were so lame, why do the world's best militaries do them all the time? Just for a laugh?

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
They are able to deploy them to the Dutch Antilles - just like F-16s from Texan factories can fly from the US to Israel. No tankers needed

That's ferry range with zero armament. Not much point sending the Jets out if they have no support crew, weapons or fuel waiting for them at the other end. The Dutch would still need to despatch logistical support for those fighters.

Having had a look at the Dutch base out in the Caribbean, I'm not that certain it is capable of supporting huge amounts of aircraft anyway. I may well be wrong about that though.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
How are the Venezuelans going to win if they're going to fly Su-30s?

SU-30's are good planes. I don't understand your beef with them.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
Wrong yet again, Thatcher threatened to nuke the Falklands.

No she didn't. What would the point of Nuking the Falklands be? If she did threaten them with nukes, it was Buenos Aires, not the Falklands.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
But we have the RFA. This means our aicraft carrier battle groups can act like independent nations which can sustain themselves until they win the war.

What's this "we" business? Your writing style and use of words betrays the fact your not English.

We don't have any Carrier battle groups. We have one "carrier" inservice, the Illustrious. even that isn't a "true" carrier and is really a modified cruiser hull.

Also, I think you'll find, any Navy worth it's salt will have an auxiliary service for logistical support, so the RFA is not unique.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
Irrelevant, as you know. The Harriers have somehow been proven to be superior to the French planes the Argentines were flying.

The fact the Argie planes had limited loiter or combat time due to range hampered them and were not really equipped to engage the Harriers.

Poor planning undid the Argies, as they truly expected us to yield.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
As an Indian, you shouldn't mock our military, we've conquered India 2 centuries ago.

Well, actually, the Indians mainly conquered themselves for us. Did you do British history in Poland, Zibi? The East India Company paid of the Indian princes to fight each other in return for favours and gold. In the end, we ended up controlling the lot, either directly or via satellite nations.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
We WON the war because we have a better military than the Argentines, not because they had stupid commanders.

Well, actually, our Navy was piss-poor in 1982 and not equipped to carry out the operation. The Navies primary objective was ASW in the GIUK Gap, not expeditionary operations at the other end of the Planet.

We were lucky... Even the C/O in charge of the Operation has said as much.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
Name one war Britain lost since 1783

I'll name a few:

The South American War 1806-1807. We were owned by the Spanish in this one.

The First Anglo-Afghan War 1839-1842. We were butchered by "uncivilised" Afghans.

The Suez Crisis 1956. An utter shambles and the last gasp in British Imperialism.

There are more examples of defeats I can produce if you like, but you really only asked for one and I gave three. There are also "victories" that proved too costly for the UK and had effects in later history.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
Name one war Argentina won (not counting the anti-Spanish uprising). You can't

Well, actually, the people who fought the South American War against the UK were "Argie" as they had almost no support from the Spanish mainland. Three years after they beat the British, the same people rose up against their Spanish masters.

There is also the 1864-1870 War of the Triple Alliance, where they beat Paraguay.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
I didn't say F-22s are inferior to F-15s and F-16s, because they are not. However, exercises are irrelevant. Only real combat and specs are relevant.

Hmm, nice contradiction there, Zibi.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
Wrong. The Soviets would capitulate even earlier because they would be scared because they would know we used nuclear weapons against the Argentines. Aggressors attack only weak victims.

We would never have used Nukes. Don't be absurd.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If they are superior to Harriers then why did our Harrier fighter pilots defeat the Argentine AF? They lost 99 planes, we lost 34

What? We didn't lose 34 aircraft, not in A2A anyway. We lost 6 Harrier's to ground fire, none to A2A. Many helo's were lost when a supply ship was sunk, though.

posted by INeedHelp (otherwise known as Zibi)
Wrong. They Argentines wouldn't be able to force our TF to retreat. We had nukes, which they didn't have. We had better planes, helicopters and tanks.

They had equally as good equipment as us, they just didn't use them properly. Also, no tanks were used by the British in the Falklands.

Well, look at that, I ran out of room to respond.... Crikey...


[edit on 3/5/07 by stumason]

Who is this Zibi??!

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Who is this Zibi??!

Aha!

He's a Legend, especially in threads such as Will the european's ever be powerful..

He has been reincarnated several times and I and other's believe INeedHelp is Zibi's latest clone..

But enough about him..

A thought occurs... Does Venezuela have any MBT or Armoured forces?

There's all this talk of their Air Force, but what about their Army?

I shall go digging methinks...

They do, apparently, but mostly obsolete AMX 30's and AMX-13's. These machines date from the 50's and 60's, so against modern MBT's (like the Dutch have), they would get creamed. They also lack any significant number, somewhere in the region of 80 MBT's and 40 Light tanks. They even lack any decent amount of APC's or IFV's. It would seem the bulk of their Army is Infantry (Motorised, but still infantry)

Wow. Now that neither of you guys can disprove me, and you know you can't legally insult me (unless you want to be warned), you are forced to accuse me of being ... whom? A repeatedly banned member, huh? Oh well, who cares. You guys have still failed to disprove me. If you reply, I'm not gunna respond, even if you declare victory because the lies you write will be unanswered.

Mod Note: Oh yes you are repeatedly banned member Zibi. Banned once again

[edit on 3-5-2007 by TheBandit795]

Well, it's a shame you've been banned (again) as I would have loved to see at least one reply to my post above which blew your claims clear out of the water.

But hey ho, I'm sure you'll be back in due course...

Originally posted by stumason
They do, apparently, but mostly obsolete AMX 30's and AMX-13's. These machines date from the 50's and 60's, so against modern MBT's (like the Dutch have), they would get creamed. They also lack any significant number, somewhere in the region of 80 MBT's and 40 Light tanks. They even lack any decent amount of APC's or IFV's. It would seem the bulk of their Army is Infantry (Motorised, but still infantry)

hmmm..
Something new everyday.. 'Zibi' it seems

I don't think tanks are going to any role in this scenario.
Not with the amount of land Aruba has.
Urban warfare would dictate the use of APCs and IFVs though.

But my point being that the Dutch would need to get a substantial ground force onto these islands in order to be an opposition to the invading Venezuelans already in place.

Here's a map of the Aruba Area..

Wonder what that 'restricted flying' zone is all about..

Venezuela is starting to become a problem in that area

it has raised its voice surrounding all the European colonies in that area, including the Falklands. Quietly, there are rumours that a potential conflict could be sparked by Chavez making a move against Europe.

I read an article called the "Second Falklands War", but against Venezuela, not Argentina.

you forget that venezuela has many friends in the region and while still not military strong even when put together could pose many problems would the us get involved with the military already stretched so thin...with one of venezuelas closest allies 90 miles south of us? mexico while a partner of the us is still very unstable ((a special forces squad joined a drug cartel at some point in the last fifteen years it was in this book i have called heavy traffic about the DEA))im not quite sure about what you guys were arguing about but the harrier even marines will tell you is hard to control and has the highes crash rate of any of our planes i live next to cannon afb which is now being transitioned to a special forces operation i have seen our f-22s and can say they are propably one of the best planes around i have friends that are pilots and they said theyve never flown anything like it....but back to venezuela like i said they have many friends in south america who knows how a conflict would go it wouldnt be good for the citizens of these islands though that much ill say for certain

Venezuela starting to become a problem - what did I miss?

As far as I'm aware, the only people who have a problem with Venezuela appear to be in the US, who as usual don't like the idea of socialists in their 'back yard' - even socialists who have guaranteed that the oil will keep flowing.

What's happened in the last few years between Chavez and Europe that looks like a problem?

I don't see Venezuela becoming a problem here either. I think it's safe to consider such a scenario (Ven attacking Aruba & The Netherlands Antilles) as unrealistic and fictional.