MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands approves £ 45.5million 2011/2012 budget with a surplus
The Falkland Islands ended the approval process for the 2011/2012 budget, following the positive report from Financial Secretary Keith Padgett to the Legislative Assembly budget session. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesno military spendings ??!!
Jun 06th, 2011 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Yul
Jun 06th, 2011 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“no military spendings ??!!”
£101,650??? What can you buy with it?
The whole Island GDP is like the turn over of a little Chinese market outside Buenos Aires.
Ha ha
We do have some military spending - our own Defence Force- part time like the UK territorials with a full time ex Br Army instructor and small arms. They are very well thought of by the regular British Army here - and often beat them in military training exercises. In addition there is an annual capital sum we pay to cover the costs of infrastructure building at the main base - usually in more houses each year for accompanied personnel. Its then something visible to show vising journalists that we do contribute finacially to our defence - had over a cheque for £200,000 a year to the MOD in London and it would dissapear and not even pay their cofee bill!
Jun 06th, 2011 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Happy to report that we did up the spend on defence for our local defence unit
Jun 06th, 2011 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yuk & Dim - what a pair of idiots. You know well enough that defence spending comes out of a different budget ..... how's the missile test gone this time anyway? Any complaints ?
Jun 06th, 2011 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In any event, you pair of plonkers, you should be more wary of what the MoD has on the islands, rather than what the FIDF can put in the field, since the MoD is ultimately responsible for providing the main defence of the Islands.
Jun 06th, 2011 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Try your luck, go on...
Ah! Guys how funny you are, last time Britain has to use 25.000 servicemen and all her toys to fight a little force of 10.000 conscripts without training, no food, etc. in 1982
Jun 07th, 2011 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0How much do you think will need today to fight against lets say half of Ar mil force around 50.000 professional soldiers?
You guys have a problem with measurement, proportions, etc.
UK forces lost around 350 soldier in 10 years in Afghanistan while UK forces reported 260 lost in 1982 in 22 days.
Can you see how insignificant and a joke is your defense?
Ha ha
But you lost the Falklands to an entirely amphibious force that sailed 8,000 miles and had only 28 aircraft for air support i'm failing to see the joke, only that you lost a war you on paper and in theory should have won :)
Jun 07th, 2011 - 07:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jeez louise talk about bad losers, you Argie fanatics take the biscuit :) Now your fantasizing about your rather badly equipped under funded army which has enough Ammo for only a 20 hour sustained intense battle going for round two? That is wishful thinking, so are these 50,000 troops going to pack into your one troop transport ship and 10 Hercules to go and have the dick swinging contest of the century...I think not :) dream on little child.
Dim lives in cloud cuckoo land :-)
Jun 07th, 2011 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0If our defence is so insignificant, why does your government complain about it being a threat to South American security?
Jun 07th, 2011 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0If it is nothing, just like you say, why not repeat the landings you made in 1982? eh? You scared of something? Or have you run out of white flags?
Doubtless Nicodume is going to know rabbit on about an ill fated British battle 200 years ago when they were still a part of Spain yet make it look like an Argentine victory, and a minor Skirmish which the Argentines lost yet still celebrate as a national holiday :)
Jun 07th, 2011 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 010.000 conscripts without training, no food, etc. in 1982
Jun 07th, 2011 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0No food? didnt you spout how the Argies feed the world
How long do you really think will take to the Argies troops to take the Islands?
Jun 07th, 2011 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0May be 2 /3 hours?
Come on don’t be sillies and stay calm you never know when someone can knock at your door.
Just be prepared
: )
@7 Sorry, NicoDumb, British combat strength in 1982 (3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines and 5th Infantry Brigade) was only 10,000!
Jun 07th, 2011 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse 02/3 hours guffawl and where prey are your military credentials for that prediction?
Jun 07th, 2011 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Because you completed Starcraft in under 2/3 hours perhaps :)
It took you lot 6 hours to take South Georgia from 22 men and 24 hours to take the Falklands from less than a hundred men.
Even just getting to the Falklands given the current state of the Argentine armed forces would be a monumental feat in its itself, getting there without getting noticed....well that would require the laws of physics to be re-written :)
Just wishful thinking from somebody with sour grapes about losing ze war :) poor poor Nicodume, do you need to fantasise about future wars to make yourself feel better?
No food? faddy eaters were they? what's wrong with mutton? there were half a million sheep in the Falklands in '82.....mind you....sheep can be pretty scary to your city boy, soft as shit conscript 'soldiers' I guess.
Jun 07th, 2011 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Back on topic I don't know why our councillors are looking so pleased with themselves over the balanced budget, it balanced because we had a far better than forcast Ilex fishing season and had additional tex revenue from industries supporting the oil exploration, it wasn't any policy or fiscal genius of theirs that achieved it, just luck. Without getting lucky with Ilex and tax we's have a 3-4 million defecit.
Well, on that basis, I'll be buying a EuroMillions ticket this afternoon, hoping that Islander luck is seeping through the screen here.
Jun 07th, 2011 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Luck counts too :-)
Jun 07th, 2011 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not as a government policy.
Jun 07th, 2011 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0;-)
@Nico
Jun 07th, 2011 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Ah! Guys how funny you are, last time Britain has to use 25.000 servicemen and all her toys to fight a little force of 10.000 conscripts without training, no food, etc. in 1982”
That is not a poor reflection on Britain Nico, that is a poor reflextion on Argentina. As many British football pundits say “you can only beat what is put in front of you”. Also, add in the fact that they had to travel 8,000 miles, your supply lines are much shorter. In truth as already mentioned, Britain were up against it. Also, I am pretty sure it was the Argentine soldiers who outnumbered the British. Plus, no food? I am remembering the story my parents told me of being held at gunpoint while your 'soldiers' stole as much food as they can.
Why should Britain honestly fear the Argentine military? All of your equipment is old and your record in wars is pretty shambolic. The Argentine patriotism is more like a mental illness. They are no superior than their bi-polar, crazy, corrupt, plastic surgery loving leader.
Hmmm. Very interesting. The Leg-ass councillors are doing their budget homework quite well, but I cannot see a word on what was left to refurbish the port area, an excellent plan that was knocked off by the MoD two years ago, even when the UK was not to contribute to it with a single penny. Is this a proof of UK colonialism, once again? Tell me, please (and stop the bickering on subjects which are not the subject of these news). Cheers!
Jun 07th, 2011 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argie, please elaborate on your UK colonialism comment. I dont see how the exclusion of a port development from the budget suggests UK colonialism.
Jun 07th, 2011 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The port project is being developed and discussed. We havent decided where to put it, let alone pay/budget for its construction.
22 M_of_FI.
Jun 07th, 2011 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Elaboration: As far as I know (I may be misinformed, though) a good plan to enlarge the main port's capacity, both to berth more ships (tourism and fishing boats separated from each other) and to have more built-in warehouse space, including room to allow passengers from tourism vessels to stay and relax (including perhaps a good welcome cuppa with ham and cucumber sanwiches), that was developed, discussed, approved and decided by the local Councillors, to be paid with the islands' own budget, was not allowed by the UK Ministry of Defence, even when no UK money, help or assistance of any kind was to be involved.
This means that the UK can overrule any Legislative Assembly's plans, even those that are closely related to the islands' own prosperity and future.
Meanwhile, the MoD has created a new port of their own in these faraway islands on which it stirs no apparent colonialism.
Happy?
Now you tell me, what would be the name you'd give to this MoD action: colonialism or pure and simple power abuse?
23 Argie:
Jun 07th, 2011 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Now you tell me, what would be the name you'd give to this MoD action: colonialism or pure and simple power abuse?”
Ohhh, this is an easy one to name: Complete distortion of the facts, deception, defamation, dishonesty, disinformation, fabrication, falsification, fiction, fraudulence or inaccuracy.
Pick one, they all mean the same thing.
2007 -
http://en.mercopress.com/2007/02/14/falklands-new-port-development-plan-moves-on
”The Falkland Islands Development Corporation (FIDC) this week announced the appointment of Scandinavian port experts Royal Haskoning to create a port development plan, which it is hoped will draw together the diverse needs of everyone using port facilities in the Falkland Islands.“
2009 -
http://en.mercopress.com/2007/02/14/falklands-new-port-development-plan-moves-on
”Economic situation allowing, the Falkland Islands hope to have a new deepwater port by 2012.”
Oops, left some out.
Jun 07th, 2011 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 02010 -
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/09/22/falkland-islands-fishing-industry-unconcerned-about-argentine-interference
“DUE to planned port developments in the Falkland Islands.”
“Although plans for a new deep water port are still being examined in the Falkland Islands”
“The proposed development of a new port is largely intended to facilitate the sustainable growth of fishing catch transhipments....”
@Argie. I see what you have done there. Basically you have added two and two, and got seven.
Jun 07th, 2011 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There were discussions with the MOD over the shared use of Mare Harbour, which was supported and encouraged by those at Mount Pleasant. However, when the big wigs in the MOD in London found out about, they decided they wanted to retain full control over a military port. I dont see this as an act of colonialism, and anyone with common sense wouldnt either. It is simply a case of they dont want to share their port. It is their decision. The Falklands will therefore look at other options. An act of colonialism would be if UK told the Falklands under any circumstances, they couldnt build a port anywhere on the islands. But what their MOD said was we dont want to share ours due to our military requirements. However this tune has changed and I believe the option is being looked at again.
So no, you are incorrect, no colonialism.
@26... 2+2= whatever.... (let's try to make ends meet)
Jun 07th, 2011 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(before saying anything else, I'll nod the barman for my round, and one for himself)
2 ...the big wigs in the MOD in London found out THEY decided they wanted to retain full control over a military port. Oops, where's that port they can decide freely upon...
plus
2 .... But what their MOD said was we dont want to share ours due to our military requirements' Their Mod? Whose? Don't tell me that the islands' government has a MoD of their own ;-D
equals
26566425476 which read on the mobile is....colonialism, or some other word you may build up with those figures.
We're squares I believe, or is this not a typical pub discussion?
Cheers!
“the big wigs in the MOD in London found out THEY decided they wanted to retain full control over a military port. Oops, where's that port they can decide freely upon”
Jun 07th, 2011 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In stanley.
“But what their MOD said was we dont want to share ours due to our military requirements' Their Mod? Whose? Don't tell me that the islands' government has a MoD of their own ;-D”
The one in london.
This does look like a rather rubbish attempt to salvage an argument after being proven completely wrong.
Millions are still being wasted.
Jun 07th, 2011 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Much of it is down to inept inexperienced top heavy management.
Very few know the rules as to how Public Funds should be spent and the correct controls.
Read the Pubic Accounts reports. Even Auditors do not know the correct procedures.
We are repeatly told we have a Vibrant Private Sector.
Nuts! most are propped up with Public Funds.
“It is clear that the 25,000 men of the task force that sailed from Portsmouth in April 1982 were one of the most experianced, and certainly best trained forces that Britain had ever sent to war.”
Jun 07th, 2011 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=es-419&spell=1&q=cache:lTTZhWMQh8YJ:http://www.coursework.info/AS_and_A_Level/History/International_History__1945-1991/FALKLANDS_WAR_L75277.html+25.000+servicemen+falklands+war&ct=clnk
“In all, more than 100 ships carrying 25,000 men were sent to the Falklands.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=es-419&spell=1&q=cache:lTTZhWMQh8YJ:http://www.coursework.info/AS_and_A_Level/History/International_History__1945-1991/FALKLANDS_WAR_L75277.html+25.000+servicemen+falklands+war&ct=clnk
Are you going to tell me now that this is also Argies indoctrination?
NicoDumb - that 25,000 included thousands of civilain ships crews,workers at Ascenscion etc etc and probably included the military staff in command and logistics back in UK!! On the ground on the Islands Arg outnumbered Britain - simple fact!
Jun 07th, 2011 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Simple military fact also is that the attacker has not much chance of success unless he outnumbers the defender by a good margin.
Also Arg as the defender had over 6 weeks to dig in and prepare defences on the mountain tops - and still you lost!!!!
Dimwit! We have a saying: If you don't eat, you don't shit, if you don't shit you die!
Jun 07th, 2011 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No Food. Please explain why the RG troops were shitting everywhere on 14th June. Running on a full stomach????????????
Nope Nicodume, I'm going to say your a complete numbnutts who can't tell the difference between Combat, Combat support and combat service support.
Jun 07th, 2011 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 025,000 men doesn't refer to the men who were involved in the fighting, it refers to ALL the personnel in the task force, so thats your soldiers right down to your Waiters.
Out of that total only 8,000 (2 brigades) were involved in any fighting.
I know your singularly obsessed with trying to restore some form of national pride to make up for your ass wiping in 82, but feebly trying to say that Chefs, Chinese Laundry men and housekeeping and waitering staff on the QE2 and Canberra when added to the 8,000 or so combat troops means our numbers of combat troops somehow magically becomes “25,000”, that scrapes the barrel...Do you recall if Argentine troops surrendered to chefs or waiters employed by Cunard? I don't but I wouldn't put it past the Argentine army :)
@Islander1
Jun 07th, 2011 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“included thousands of civilain ships crews”
“The Falklands Conflict lasted just under three months, 25,000 British servicemen and women were involved.”
http://www.veterans-uk.info/remembrance/san_carlos.html
“It is clear that the 25,000 men of the task force that sailed from Portsmouth in April 1982 were one of the most experianced, and certainly best trained forces that Britain had ever sent to war. Everyone who was sent to the Falkland's, from sailors to fighter pilots knew what his job was and therefore carried it out in the correct way that he was trained to do. Aswell as this the Brits had a very specialised and 'full proof' plan which fed the servicemen even when operating away from their bases.”
http://www.veterans-uk.info/AS_and_A_Level/History/International_History__1945-1991/FALKLANDS_WAR_L75277.html
“Coursework.Info is the UK's largest Coursework Library”
In the 10.000 Argies servicemen also where included civilians and not combatant personnel.
Conscripts to start with are also civilians they are not professional militaries.
So why you don’t make the same distinction?
“Also Arg as the defender had over 6 weeks to dig in and prepare defences on the mountain tops - and still you lost!!!!””
Remember that you fought against civilians conscripts and without combat training someone have ever had a gun and less a FN FAL in their hands before.
Comment removed by the editor.
Jun 07th, 2011 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As long as that includes ALL argentine pirates, silly boy,
Jun 07th, 2011 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the rest of you argie children, straws, just clutching at straws,
Because you have nothing else left, boy, how desperate you sound,
thank god we can’t hear you cry, lololol
Mercopress title says “budget with a surplus”
Jun 07th, 2011 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank God.
PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY, 26 APRIL 2011
“Lynn Buckland said that there are people on social welfare that dont seem to be getting the full complement of benefits”
Lidda Luxton asked whether there could be better Town Hall Access. She mentioned that there should have been a lift installed but nothing seemed to come of it, even though a lift had been imported years ago. Dick Sawle said that the lift had been found but it had been highly cannibalised and was now obsolete as well
Emma Edwards mentioned that the British should have been more accurate with their shelling during 1982 and we would have a new town hall.
Deep Water Port:
Jan Cheek mentioned that Port Harriet could be ruled out once and for all and the others agreed. He went on to say the project needed to move on but now it is stagnated.
Wind Turbines:
Norman Clark asked whether there were plans to add more wind turbines to the electrical grid. Roger Edwards said that none were planned at the moment”
http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=5940&source=3
Marcosssss you sound as if you wish you were a falklander,
Jun 07th, 2011 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0with all this interest in the ins and outs, have you thought of applying to become a falkland islander, mmmm i wonder if they would have you lol
Nico,
Jun 08th, 2011 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 025,000 sevicemen and women were NOT in and on the Falklands from UK - add in the civilian crews of merchant vessels etc, support workers at Ascension and several thousands of service personnel yes at airbases in Uk and naval bases working on loadin ships etc and you will I expect get to 25,000. But then on this ame argument you shoulsd also add the personnell based on your side at rioGallegos and RioGrande airbases and others, naval baes etc.
ON LAND- ON the ISLANDS were about 10,000 Argentines and by the ens about a same number of british - ON LAND. But only a couple of thousand landed on 21May - and even by 3-4th June there were still only 5000 ashore - it then gradually increased as the 5th Brigade came ashore ex QE 2 passenger cum troop carrier ship etc.
Arg had UK outnumbered most of the time.Yes you had some badly and poorly trained conscripts - but on several of the mountain tops you had your regular professional soldiers and marines - and even they did not bother to make proper defences! Nevertheless many of them fought hard- but not hard enough. Arg forces had better night sights and even better boots!
This is why even today visiting British veteran marines.paras and guardsmen marvel at how they got up those hills - and say - if we had been on top of these in 1982 - we would still be here on top of them - they should have been impregnable.
NicoDin: I know you're a bit dumb, but you can't be that dumb, surely?
Jun 08th, 2011 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0The 25,000 includes Airforce, Logistics Navy, Army and Civilian(All auxiliary ships are staffed by civilians). With between 6 and 8,000 ground troops.
Likewise there was 10,000 Argentinian ground troops. If you counted the entire number of Argentian people involved in the war the number would be a lot higher.
“Conscripts to start with are also civilians they are not professional militaries.”
They're trained. Conscription is not an excuse for lack of training. Many very well trained armed forces have been made up of conscripts.
Dim CAN be that dumb if he wants to ... an excellent product of Argentina's education system. Indeed, his grasp of simple maths should propel him straight into a fine carreer with Indec !
Jun 08th, 2011 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Seems to me that with the financial constraints currently restricting the world, that at least the FIG have a reasonably good grasp of their finances. Triple A rating from Moodys come independence :-)
@Islander1
Jun 08th, 2011 - 04:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why you guys always have your own version of the same thing?
This is from UK's largest academic Coursework Library its not Argie media, my work or something that you can question without based documentation.
http://www.coursework.info/AS_and_A_Level/History/International_History__1945-1991/FALKLANDS_WAR_L75277.html
25000 servicemen were sent down UK to intervene in the war.
13.000 including based in Argentina main land where the Argies forces.
“Britain defended it with 25,000 soldiers and 100 ships. The war was very costly in lives for such a small area: 1,000 dead and 1,700 wounded. It was also costly in terms of money. But it increased British patriotism and the popularity of Thatcher's government.”
http://www.coursework.inf
“Taking part in this vast undertaking were nearly 30,000 men and a few women, and a large proportion of Britain's Navy and Marines, fleet auxiliaries and merchantmen, aircraft and helicopter squadrons, plus five Army battalions and supporting arms.”
http://www.coursework.inf
Are you going to tell me that I made this information up like you always do?
And the question was how costly in human resource and material will be for UK to fight a force just of 50.000 professional soldiers while actually Argentina has 100.000 professional militaries at the moment in service.
And anyone with 2 neurones in his brain can figure out that UK has not the muscle any more to carryout such kind of operation.
You have to applaud Dim for at least quoting his sources, and I thought his 2 neurones comment very ironic :-)
Jun 08th, 2011 - 05:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0How good are those sources however?
The first appears to contain essays submitted by history students / schoolchildren. ..... the second is a list of lectures by a Lisa Lane (??) Only the last appears to have any 'weight'. It says, “ ... Taking part in this vast undertaking were nearly 30,000 men and a few women ...” Doesn't mention their status so I assume the number includes civilians performing a range of tasks.
Now I'm not very interested in the military side but I understand that the UK's mistake was allowing Argentine forces to land in the first place and establish a bridgehead. I'm assured that the current defences are arranged to prevent that from happening again. Running up the beaches is hard work if the defences are sorted properly.
So, how's the missile testing going ? Any complaints this year ??
:-)
“.Why you guys always have your own version of the same thing?”
Jun 08th, 2011 - 07:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's not our own version, it's the truth. Nico...There was not 25,000 ground troops in the falklands war. This is fact.
Firstly, we do not have 25,000 marines. It is an impossibility.
25,000 includes all personell including Naval and Airforce.
“Taking part in this vast undertaking were nearly 30,000 men and a few women, and a large proportion of Britain's Navy and Marines, fleet auxiliaries and merchantmen”
Says it right there, in your own quote.
Also, going through this list out of the “25,000”..Your list:
Jun 08th, 2011 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.naval-history.net/F18taskforce.htm
Notice how there are about 28 entrys for Airforce and Naval personel/Ships. Yet only four for Land forces? and two of them are SAS squads...SAS quads are 12 men teams.
Proven wrong with your own link:
Jun 08th, 2011 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Once 3 Commando Brigade was ashore, the Army's 5th Infantry Brigade would arrive to bring total land forces strength to approximately 10,000 men. Both brigades would then come under the divisional headquarters of Major General Jeremy Moore RM as Commander, Land Forces Falkland Islands. Even then, to retake the islands, he would be far short of the superiority of numbers needed to easily defeat the well dug-in defenders.”
http://www.naval-history.net/F24infbde.htm
Website needs an edit button.
Who cares Nicholas if there were 25,000 or only 25 men. We acheived what we wanted...we expelled a hostile invading army.
Jun 08th, 2011 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Great that they were“only conscripts with no food”. Now whos fault is that Nicholas? Your stupid government sent them here, not us.
Now don't tell me, its Britain's fault that they were “only”hungry conscripts.!
You had regular troops here also. Your“tough”marines were terrified when they heard that the Gurkhas were coming. l have found the Gurkhas to be charming.
l have said so before & l will say it again. l think that the reason the Argentines had no stomach for the fight was that for all their rhetoric, deep down inside they knew that they were invaders & had no right to be in the Falklands.
Gurkhas are very nice untill you piss them off. The whole conscription argument is a poor excuse born from inadequacy over loosing the war. He claims because they were conscripts they were not proper troops.
Jun 08th, 2011 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Germans in ww2 were conscripts, not a real army? Not trained well?
Conscription has only mostly started being phased out of most forces in the last 20-30 years, before this the majority of the worlds armed forces were conscripts.
Argentina only has itself to blame for loosing.
You see exactly the same thing in Germany after WW1. They didn't “lose”, they were “betrayed”. Its the same mentality setting themselves up for a re-run.
Jun 08th, 2011 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0The fact remains that the UK should not have won the Falklands War; on paper. A competently run military organisation should easily have defeated the British with the resources Argentina had to hand.
Worse still had they waited 6 months, the major naval assets needed would not have existed.
They lost for a number of reasons.
They forgot the basics. Logistics, logistics, logistics. They never got the supply chains sorted, they couldn't support the manpower in the field and made it worse by sending more than was needed.
They didn't extend and use the airfield on the island. Don't give me the excuses why they didn't do it. The effort was half-hearted. Contrast with what the British did after the war.
They consistently under-estimated the enemy. They assumed the British wouldn't respond, they did. They assumed that the British wouldn't launch military operations, they did. They made assumptions about the landings, got them completely wrong and never re-adjusted their plan to suit. They didn't employ air power sensibly, they didn't even try to achieve air superiority. The Argentine services didn't co-operate, there was a confusing command structure.
I could go on and on.
There was never any superiority in manpower achieved by the British on land, they were always outnumbered by Argentina. What got them through was superior logistics and command.
Oh dear Nugget brains affronted patriotism gene is going into overdrive on this one :) still can't tell the difference between combat troops and supporting elements :)
Jun 08th, 2011 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here you go numbnutts, here is the full Order of battle for all British ground forces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ground_forces_in_the_Falklands_War
bearing in mind a Brigade in the UK consists of 4,000 men, what is 4,000 X 2?
I will give you a clue, it is not 25,000 :)
Now here are the list of ships involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ground_forces_in_the_Falklands_War bearing in mind that on average each ship could have a crew of between 100-200.
So numbnutts 8,000 combat troops + 18,000 support perssonnel (chefs, cooks, waiters, sailors merchant seamen, medics etc etc), hey ho we get your magical number of 25,000 :)
So numbnutts, 18,000 support people + 8,000 combat troops does not equal 25,000 combat troops does it?
Oh yeah for good measure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ground_forces_in_the_Falklands_War
thats about 12,000 total, I don't see many civillians in that Order of battle do you?
And your airforce as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ground_forces_in_the_Falklands_War
So you had more combat units, more air units, and were only 300 miles away from the nearest friendly base....and you still lost :)
Oh yes and how prey are 50,000 troops going to take the Falklands in 2/3 hours when your combined air and sea lift capability can barely carry 2 battalions :), and even then, how are your aircraft going to land when the only runway capable of Hercules happens to be the British military airbase?
Serioulsy Nicodume your clueless :) go back to playing starcraft even thats more plausible than your fanatical ravings about invasions which Argentina cannot physically mount.
”Oh yes and how prey are 50,000 troops going to take the Falklands in 2/3 hours when your combined air and sea lift capability can barely carry 2 battalions :)”
Jun 08th, 2011 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even if they could. How are said transport ships going to dodge anti ship missiles on the two or so hour trip with four typhoons doing 5-6 runs an hour
28 Zethee: “the big wigs in the MOD in London found out THEY decided they wanted to retain full control over a military port. Oops, where's that port they can decide freely upon”
Jun 08th, 2011 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In stanley.
In Stanley?
And you hold that my argument was completly wrong?
The number that comes out is, again, 26566425476
You pay the next round...
“And you hold that my argument was completly wrong?”
Jun 08th, 2011 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, i do. Because it WAS wrong. And we proved that fact earlier in the thread.
The MOD at first did not want the islanders using the Military port in mare habour. They have since changed there minds. The islanders are free to use Stanley harbor. It is there port they can decide freely upon, you know...The one you asked for just before i answered you.
Argie,
Jun 08th, 2011 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mare Harbour is not in Stanley.
You've been proved wrong. Yet again.
42 NicoDin ------Hey dim wit even the Americans said at the time that it was an impossible task to retake the Falklands once your soldiers had dug in, just goes to show doesn't it how good we were. And as you well know not all Argy defenders were mere conscripts we met some strong defensive positions manned by good trained soldiers. Again it just goes to show how good we are when it comes down to war. Napoleon once said that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers. Even he got it wrong about Britain when he said that, we are actually a warrior nation with the art of war honed to perfection by over 1000 years of practice. So you see Nicodimwit your puny little pirate nation never stood a chance when it decided to try and steal British property. You can believe what you like if it makes you feel better that you had your backsides kicked by a bunch of chefs and waiters, it makes even better reading for us British. Oh I have another joke for you as well Nicodimwit.
Jun 08th, 2011 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Q - How does the Argentinian President review her military might, after the Falklands war (conflict!)
A = Using a Glass bottomed boat
TWIMC
Jun 08th, 2011 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About the ”Myth” of Malvinenses (Falkland Islanders) being in control of ”their” Oil and Mineral Resources…………..
Very little, if anything is available on Internet about who really decides about those resources……..
But……………… Let’s read some London Stock Exchange News from today, Wednesday 8 June 2011 about Falklands Oil and Gas Ltd.:
”Northern licence area approvals
On 24 May 2011, the Executive Council of the Falkland Islands approved a six month extension of Phase 1 of the northern licence area from 15 December to 15 June 2012. This extension requires the final approval of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office…….....”
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=10887201
This elucidates, once and for all, who really is in charge of the Oil and Mineral Resources on the Islands..........
And it is definitively NOT the Islanders.
Chuckle chuckle…….
Just like all new laws require the final approval of the queen.
Jun 08th, 2011 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yawn.
TWIMC
Jun 08th, 2011 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yet another little nail on Britain's diplomatic coffin on the South Atlantic..........
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100091346/another-slap-in-the-face-for-britain-the-obama-administration-sides-with-argentina-and-venezuela-in-oas-declaration-on-the-falklands/
Falkland Island Republic can constitute a weighty own army
Jun 08th, 2011 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0by importing 30 units Kalashnikovs ........
Same thing was signed last year. Anything change? Nope.
Jun 08th, 2011 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Britishbulldog
Jun 08th, 2011 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“we are actually a warrior nation with the art of war honed to perfection by over 1000 years of practice”
Warrior nation? Ha ha ha
And are you going to give your CV to our soldiers in battlefield? Ha ha ha
You are very funny, very funny.
Gurkhas? Still shocked and with nightmares about the war.
“when I hear thunder in the sky... I remember the Falkland Islands...I sow many horrible things at that time.. So I sometimes have nightmares...”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZVGKgvtRl8
You have to think in something much better than that, ha ha ha
I cannot stop laughing, ha ha ha
have you got more jokes like that?
Just ignore the part where you was wrong.
Jun 08th, 2011 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 058 Think
Jun 08th, 2011 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...''WELCOMES the reaffirmation of the will of the Argentine Government to continue exploring all possible avenues towards a peaceful settlement of the dispute and its constructive approach towards the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands''
That's the bit that made me chuckle. Which 'constructive approach' is that then? How could Argentina's approach be called constructive by anyone who knew anything about it?
If your people get the USA to sign up to some bogus declaration by lying to them, which they must have done, then what does that count for? Nothing.
It doesn't count for anything anyway.
Ok, Think, what avenues do you think your government has explored? Demanding the Islands are handed over to you doesn't count as one.
Which one do you think has been the most 'constructive'?
@58
Jun 08th, 2011 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Obamas administration is just pedaling a bit of soft soap to keep you suckers quiet, it's called realpolitik think. Did you think the US government is serious in supporting your claim? dream on Argies.
Gurkhas? Still shocked and with nightmares about the war.
Jun 08th, 2011 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sadly it happens to all sides
Julio retired from the navy in 1999 with a small pension, but like many of the 15,000 Argentine veterans, he found it difficult to adapt to civilian life and find work. The veterans were neglected by a country which had expected them to win the war.
Miriam said: ”Anyone who fought in the Falklands is considered unemployable because people believe they are mad. Julio could not stand the idea of not working and supporting his family. He was frequently depressed and had nightmares.
@58 Think, Very interesting!
Jun 08th, 2011 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0June 8th, 2011
“Another slap in the face for Britain: the Obama administration sides with Argentina and Venezuela in OAS declaration on the Falklands ”
It is hugely disappointing that the Obama administration has chosen once again to side not only with the increasingly authoritarian regime in Argentina, but also with an array of despots in Latin America against British interests”
What a nice kick in the rear, I wonder if Roger Edwards and Dick Sawle got the wonderful welcoming news already. Enjoy your trip to US next week :-)))
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100091346/another-slap-in-the-face-for-britain-the-obama-administration-sides-with-argentina-and-venezuela-in-oas-declaration-on-the-falklands/
Same old, same old Think .... and what did the declaration actually say?
Jun 08th, 2011 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anything about the UK handing the islands over to Argentina?
No? Just the usual cr*p about negotiations then. The diplomatic stuff that means nothing and commits the signatories to no real commitment.
Same old, same old.
As you well know !
67 Rotted,
Jun 08th, 2011 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact is that Britain doesn't count for anything.
Your empire has expired long time ago, Brits, and your perceived “Special Relationship” with the USA is only a legend in your own minds.
The world has changed and you have to come to grip with the new world order.
And Latin America overall is on the rise and much more important to American interests than UK's sheep in Malvinas.
Get used to it :-)
MoreCrap - regardless of the USA's attitude towards South America, the Falkland Islands will remain British unti the islander's decide otherwise. Nothing Argentina can do, nothing the USA can or will do !
Jun 08th, 2011 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Believe what you like, foll yourself all you like .... you have no hope.
There will be no negotiations. Get used to that!
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=21937
Jun 09th, 2011 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0this you may find very interesting, it will prove I think the death knell against any Argentina argument over the Falkland’s, it’s very interesting .
Argie blogers at it again, lol
Think and Marcos, well Think I expected better from you, but I fully understand politics is totally beyond the grasp of thickos like Marcos.
Jun 09th, 2011 - 01:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0What did you expect USA to do in an American States Meeting - vote against a simple soft statement asking both sides to negotiate to reach a solution?!! Idiots - the declaration is meaningless and holds no legal international value - it does NOT support either side,s claim!! - all it does is state the obvious - there is a dispute and both sides are called upon to negotiate to resolve it.
Now you and I know that such negotiations would be a waste of time and a farce under the present attitude of the Arg Govt - basically“- lets decide the early date you give us full sovereign control and to hell with human rights and what the folk who live there want”.
That IS your Govt,s well publicised clear policy. But the USA and all the others are not that interested in the detail. Its of no great interest or concern to them- and in the case of the USA they know that UK has no intention of giving in to such meaningless crap anyway - so they vote in support of a toothless statement for the sake of Inter-American relations - full stop.
Get It? Grow up into reality please! Arg can leap up and foam at its mouth until the cows come home - but unless you take us to the IJC - and win - there is nothing you can do that will ever affect who owns our homeland- because WE do.
Marcos - USA and UK will always standup for Selfdetermination-Human rights and Freedom when the chips are down - look around the world please.
Rotted, I love this comment on that article:
Jun 09th, 2011 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ The ”Special Relationship“ between Britain and the US is the same ”Special Relationship“ my dog has with me.
I tell him to sit, and he sits.
I tell him to lie down, and he lies down.
I tell him to roll over, and he rolls over.
The only difference is that my dog occasionally gets a dog bisquit.
The Brits get nothing.
I must say that the USA are the best poodle trainers I 've ever known”
:-)))
Roger Edwards Defends Self Funded Falklands
Jun 09th, 2011 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.sartma.com/art_8740.html
@59 Geo
Jun 09th, 2011 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why would they import Kalashnikovs? FIDF use Steyr AUGs and FN MAGs.
I can't see any change from the usual bluster from OAS, as I recall they were still passing resolutions condemning the British military actions as they were liberating the 114 civilians being held at Goose Green.
Islander1 “Marcos - USA and UK will always standup for Selfdetermination-Human rights and Freedom - look around the world please”
Jun 09th, 2011 - 02:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ok let me start at Chagos Islands hmmm You are wrong.
They only care about their selfish interest, self determination is just a smoke screen used by the Brits to cover up the non sense occupation of Malvinas in the 21 ST century.
Marcos, I think all agree that was not right- and it was the US and UK together in the bad days of the 1950'60 cold war era. By today I mean say 1990 onwards- and you may as well include 1982 if you like!
Jun 09th, 2011 - 03:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0What is this fantasy you folks prattle on about as non-sense occupation od the islands in the 21st century? get your facts a bit more into reality.
We- the people of these islands occupy them- full stop end of - don,t believe it - then do 1 of 2 things:
A - take us to the IJC
or
B- Shut Up.
Islander1 A- IC who? What about OAS? It didn't go that well did it?
Jun 09th, 2011 - 03:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0But no-one cares about the OAS MoreCrap. Even the South American states are drawing away from it as it includes the US and Canada. An irrelevant organisation that said nothing new.
Jun 09th, 2011 - 04:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0It'll say it again next year, and it'll make not an ounce of difference.
The ICJ are Argentina's only hope, but they fear to go. Why?
@Redhoyt
Jun 09th, 2011 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0“There will be no negotiations. Get used to that!”
Come on Red Uncle Sam say you do, and you are his best indoctrinated dog.
And dogs never say no to they masters you have to keep your special relationship, remember?
Oh! Poor Britons wannabe, no money, no empire, no hopes, no self respect, no jobs, no army, no special relationship, no flag?
Really depressing someone for less than that will commit suicide by jumping from Dover cliff I guess.
But as I always say you have to see the positive part of any tragedy, at least when jumping from Dover you will have the opportunity to see a respectable proud nation while falling, I mean France. And if someone of you are so lucky to survive you can swim toward France and try to reach her coast to find a better life.
No so bad after all!. C'est la vie
: )
So ... the OAS said something different last year ?
Jun 09th, 2011 - 04:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Easily ignored. We don't care. There is nothing Argentina can do.
The islanders choose to be British ........ and so they can be!
The OAS is irrelevant, hell, even the UN is irrelevant :-)
@72
Jun 09th, 2011 - 06:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Come and try to kick the British dog
I mentioned the war once, but I think I got away with it..............
Jun 09th, 2011 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 081 Roll over Stick.
Jun 09th, 2011 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mmm...France signed a Defence Cooperation Agreement with the UK last year, not sure they'd be your best example of an RG recognised 'respectable proud nation', they may even patrol British interests on behalf of the British, which could include Britain's South Atlantic Territories. In return Britain would patrol French interests on behalf of the French, including the South American mainland...
Jun 09th, 2011 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not your best example Dimmo, but then as you're Dim, what can anyone expect.
I made my point I aprove for the execution of “pirats and thieves” and the comment was removed, now we can all set to rest the ovius, people here like and cheer thieves and pirats. aparently there is no freedom of speech for minorities in mercopress. I wonder how MI6 works this things out. money anyone$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, theft anyone$$$$$$$$, expropiation of land anyone $$$$$$$$$$, theft of mineral and other resources anyone $$$$$$$$$, jobs anyone $$$$$$$$$$, ok no jobs for the rest but they have a great I-idiot for you to buy in exchange for any other resources left behind by the piracy.
Jun 09th, 2011 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@85 FULL MOON tonight?
Jun 09th, 2011 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NicoDin “Ah! Guys how funny you are, last time Britain has to use 25.000 servicemen and all her toys to fight a little force of 10.000 conscripts without training, no food, etc. in 1982”
Jun 09th, 2011 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hahaha How funny you needed six hundred troops to oust 70 British personnel and 40 civilian militia on the Falklands, yet you still lost on the body count (1-0).
Just as funny is how you needed 60 marines and a corvette to beat 22 Royal marines on South Georgia, yet you still lost on the body count
(3-0) and lost a helicopter.
did you know this thieves are in Canada next week to further divide our land as they did with the native Canadian land and resources. The execution of thieves and pirats is a must if we are to stop the theft of local wealth.
Jun 09th, 2011 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“no flag?”
Jun 09th, 2011 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nah, nico. Theres a nice big one flying over stanley.
“60 marines and a corvette to beat 22 Royal marines on South Georgia, yet you still lost on the body count ”
And the ship had to retreat! haha.
Like the Brits in Iraq zethe? haha
Jun 09th, 2011 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like the Brits in Iraq zethe? haha
Jun 09th, 2011 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Took all our weapons with us, unlike the Argies
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25063579@N08/2389566913/
NicoDin (#)
Jun 09th, 2011 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jun 09th, 2011 - 04:54 am
Oh! Poor Argentinians, no money, no empire, no hopes, no self-respect, no jobs, no army, no special relationship, no flag? No friends no back up not interested in human rights Argentina, wouldn’t, you be proud to live their [[do you]
next .
91 Nice link :-))
Jun 09th, 2011 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Jun 09th, 2011 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos- my spelling error - its ICJ- and you know it!
Jun 09th, 2011 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Wireless
Jun 10th, 2011 - 04:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0My example?
I guess you have ever been in Britain.
British elite, intellectuals, upper and middle class admire France and the French style of life.
Example
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-21058978.html
: )
@79 & 96 NicoDin,
Jun 10th, 2011 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're clutching at straws Nicholas. But if you really insist that we have an empire then l think Argentina would do. lf your last example in 1982 was anything to go by, then it shouldn't be too difficult to take the country.
But hey, Nicholas, look on the bright side. You could work for me as my gardener. At least you'd have a job.
Nicholas, look on the bright side. You could work for me as my gardener. At least you'd have a job.
Jun 10th, 2011 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nicotine is a lost cause,Remploy had to let him go
@85
Jun 10th, 2011 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“aparently there is no freedom of speech for minorities in mercopress”
Awwwwww...somebody pass me a violin. There's only 3,000 of us and there's bloody millions of you so don't give us any of that 'minorty' winge, so you've had a few posts deleted? get over it you sad, pathetic little cunt.
“Like the Brits in Iraq zethe? haha”
Jun 10th, 2011 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, planning to leave four years in advance, and then leaving is the same as you lot being captured and sent home without your weapons by enemy in a few short weeks.
@99
Jun 10th, 2011 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dont sugar coat it West,say what you mean lol
100 zethe “Yes, planning to leave four years in advance”
Jun 10th, 2011 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Forced to leave four years in advanced by a group of rebels, in a few words total defeat.
plucking straws again argies .
Jun 10th, 2011 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Forced to leave four years in advanced”
Jun 10th, 2011 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lmao. Just...Lmao.
back to sas then, back tomorrow
Jun 10th, 2011 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know your nation has a inadequacy over loosing the war. But our boys werent sent home after a few weeks with no weapons, captured as POW's. Our ships were not sent packing by small arms fire, our navy didn't sit in port hiding scared incase they lost another boat and our airforce certanly didn't loose almost half it's fighting force.
Jun 10th, 2011 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Our men left at a time arranged years in advance with there weapons and not as POW's.
The Argies lost the war with Chile before it started,after they got their arses kicked by the Brits
Jun 10th, 2011 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee, Told you :-)
Jun 10th, 2011 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Was the British military defeated in Iraq?
The facts on the ground are that Britain allowed the militias to take over Basra, and that the city was freed by the Iraqi army. The BBC article suggests some in Britain are in denial about that. Britain was unable to hold the most important city in their theater of operation, and ultimately required the Iraqi forces supported by the United States to do the job they were unable to do. Political support from Great Britain clearly eroded over time, which means the entire country carries the responsibility of the military defeat.
It should be noted that the majority of citizens are OK with being defeated. While this is a damning historical note that reveals the strategic priority (or lack of strategic priority) of the Iraq war, it would be foolish to ignore that in the fine historical tradition of weak political leadership the British government is accepting military defeat and attempting to turn defeat into a cultural victory. In politics this type of behavior can be expected, but how should we judge Generals who ignore defeat and instead simply declare victory and leave?
I believe the answer to the question asked above is yes. The British Army was not only defeated in Iraq by a militia supported by a third world country (Iran), but was broken in Iraq by that foe. The British continue to lose credibility in maintaining control of Helmand Province in Afghanistan, which suggests military defeat is viewed with cultural acceptance among current political leaders. With the Royal Navy at the smallest level in several centuries, it is possible that Great Britain is a technologically advanced paper tiger with a military nowhere near sufficient to support the strategic or economic interests of that nation.
Now a good old fashion defeat
Jun 10th, 2011 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After consolidating his position, Moore began the assault on Port Stanley. British troops launched simultaneous assaults on the high ground surrounding the town on the night of June 11. After heavy fighting, they succeeded in capturing their objectives. The attacks continued two nights later, and British units took the town's last natural lines of defense at Wireless Ridge and Mount Tumbledown. Encircled on land and blockaded at sea, the Argentine commander, Gen. Mario Menéndez, realized his situation was hopeless and surrendered his 9,800 men on June 14, effectively ending the conflict.
Aftermath & Casualties:
In Argentina, the defeat led to the removal of Pres. Galtieri three days after the fall of Port Stanley. His downfall spelled the end for the military junta that had been ruling the country and paved the way for the restoration of democracy. For Britain, the victory provided a much needed boost to its national confidence, reaffirmed its international position, and assured victory for the Thatcher Government in the 1983 elections.
@Stiky
Jun 10th, 2011 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Update yourself this was 30 years ago in a different political scenario, today is complete different.
All your fleet will be sunk before they realise what hit them.
: )
Update yourself this was 30 years ago in a different political scenario, today is complete different.
Jun 10th, 2011 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes 30 years since the Argies have been to war,not match fit nicotine
All your fleet will be sunk before they realise what hit them
you talk a good fight :-)))
Marcos Alejandro: Opinion/Fact.
Jun 10th, 2011 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We had this dicsussion the other day, you linked the same story then.
In this article however you tried to draw a comparison to Iraq and you loosing in the falklands, When it shares no commonality.
@Sticky
Jun 11th, 2011 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0You will discover how fit we are in the next match : )
The NEXT match Nico? PMSL, you held all the aces in '82, The British task force shouldn't have stood a chance of liberating the Falklands, you had EVERY advantage and you still managed to fuck it up. Now all you've got left are a few pathetic scraps of military hardware that have been rusting on the beach since '82....the next match? you're not in the same league mate...not even the same bloody sport.
Jun 11th, 2011 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0You will discover how fit we are in the next match
Jun 11th, 2011 - 06:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Netball?
(114) WestisBest
Jun 11th, 2011 - 06:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are 100% right on this one.........
Now please tell Cher Isolde....
She seems to suffer from apocalyptic delusions about Argentinean hordes invading her subantarctic paradise.
Well my dear Think, some of your countrymen, like “Pirat-Hunter” want to kill us all. Sans doubt when the chips are down there are others like him. You, yourself want to “remove” us. What would you have me do? Greet you all with bread, salt & flowers? You want us to roll over and have our bellies tickled. Well my lad, thats not the sort of reception that you're going to get if you dare to invade us again. You are right about one thing, Paradise it is.
Jun 11th, 2011 - 08:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well my dear Isolde, some of your countrymen, like “Typhoon” or “Britishbullldog” want to kill us all. Sans doubt when the chips are down there are others like them. You, yourself want to “take Patagonia” from us. What would you have us to do? Assist you in your development so you can perpetuate your squatter existence? You want us to roll over and have our bellies tickled. Well my lass, that’s not the sort of collaboration that you're going to get. You are right about one thing, paradise it is.
Jun 11th, 2011 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0No collaboration, no negotiation .. no Argentine squatters ... sorted :-)
Jun 11th, 2011 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think, You're not that old and decrepit to realise that she was not being literal when she stated we'll take Patagonia.
Jun 11th, 2011 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You will discover how fit we are in the next match”
Yeah, Not going to happen nico, and you know this. Wouldn't even be a contest now.
@Zethee
Jun 11th, 2011 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you mean this by the poor shape of your Armed forces or lack of confidence in your Royal Army?
This will be very disappointing for us, we want to test some new toys.
Wars are necessary time to time to test the strength of a nation.
And if we invade Scotland and Wales?
This will be very disappointing for us, we want to test some new toys
Jun 11th, 2011 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like the new argie tank, with unique gear system 1 forward 4 in reverse
Wars are necessary time to time to test the strength of a nation
charles atlas courses all round then
And if we invade Scotland and Wales?
300 miles away is too far for you now,what chance 8,000
“And if we invade Scotland and Wales?”
Jun 11th, 2011 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And if i fly to narnia and swim in a sea of chocolate?
It is not physically possible in the real world for your nation to send troops across the ocean to invade another country, you don't have the logistics, ships, trained men or even know how. You failed to retake the falklands 30 years ago just400 km from your country back in a time when your forces were much better equipped.
Taking somewhere over 10,000 km is an impossibility, even reaching the UK is an impossibility.
“This will be very disappointing for us, we want to test some new toys.”
I understand your armed forces would probably want more toys, they should ask your government to give them some money to buy some.
RG's don't know what Toilets are for.
Jun 11th, 2011 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No modern transport could cope with all their crap. Back to the Horse and Cart for them.
LOL.
Well they could use rowing boats.
Jun 11th, 2011 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and pretend they were going to the olympics lol
125. They could but then they could only afford one oar per boat and would end up rowing in circles. Their Generals would be on the docks yelling 'I'm right behind you'
Jun 12th, 2011 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0LOL
@121
Jun 12th, 2011 - 06:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0“we want to test some new toys.”
That's where you're going wrong Nico, you equip your armed forces with toys, the British still find that using real weapons is a better policy.
@118Think,
Jun 12th, 2011 - 08:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0But, dear Think, we were in Patagonia before you.
lts our“legitimate right” to claim it.
You are stealing “our resources”, you are in a land stolen.
You are usurpers & squatters. etc etc.
Heard it all before my dear Think?
Anyway, you should be more original instead of copying my postings.
@128 Isolde,
Jun 12th, 2011 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0But, Cher Isolde, I know that's the way you think.
Its your “legitimate right” to steal.
You are stealing “our resources”, you are in a land stolen.
You are Usurpers & Squatters. etc. etc. etc.
Told you all before my Cher Isolde!
Anyway, I'm not copying your postings; I'm recycling them.
Stealing land from the people living on stolen land.
Jun 12th, 2011 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0The hypocrisy! It burns!
@129 Think,
Jun 12th, 2011 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 01) Can you hear an echo in here?
2) Do you deny that we were in Patagonia before you?
3) l said our legitimate right to claim, not steal. You said that. ls that the way you operate m'sieur?
4) What you told me Cher Think are Argentine lies & propaganda.
5) How is it that a supposedly intelligent & travelled poster like yourself has swallowed all these lies?
6) Why do you, a Scandinavian, hitch your wagon to an Argentine mule?
7) Haven't you got enough land in Patagonia? Why do you want our land? Deep down in your heart, l'm sure that you know that your cause is not just.
8) Why should we make concessions to you or have to justify our type of government.
9) Finally, Herr Think, we will NEVER submit to you or your silly government/country.
10)l think that should be clear enough to even the dumbest Argentine
“l think that should be clear enough to even the dumbest Argentine”
Jun 12th, 2011 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wouldn't be too sure, iso.
(131) Isolde
Jun 12th, 2011 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) No.
2) Please define “We” and “You”.
3) You said “our legitimate right to claim”. Any British “claim” in South America is an attempt to steal.
4) What I tell you, Cher Isolde, are my deep-felt convictions.
5) You suppose too much………….
6) Because the mule is right on this one.
7) No British “Land” in South America. Deep down in your heart, I hope that you know that your cause is not just.
8) Why does anybody make concessions? Because they have to.
9) Don’t have to submit................ just go away.
10) Quite clear.
Don't have to go away either.
Jun 12th, 2011 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think is 1st generation .... nothing as enthusiastic, or indeed bigoted, as a converted prostitute !
Jun 12th, 2011 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”9) Don’t have to submit................ just go away”
Jun 12th, 2011 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let me help you a little bit...
http://www.despegar.com.ar/
@133 Think,
Jun 12th, 2011 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A very weak & unconvincing response, l'm disappointed in you, Cher Think.
We do not have to make concessions & we are not going to go away.
So, dear Think, what are you going to do about it?
lf you are the peaceful fellow that you would have us believe then you can & will do nothing. So, just accept us as neighbours. Just accept.
Just a curious thought...........you said“concessions” & you expect us to make them. What concessions are you willing to make? l'm curious because its a two way street. What would your country be prepared to offer us? lt would have to be very good, l might add.
@136MA
Take your own advice Marcos & go back to Spain or wherever you came from.
@135Redhoyt,
Think you hit the nail on the head. Like the 12th century English settlers in lreland, “more lrish than the lrish”
Either that or he's trying to curry favour with the other Argentines.
137 Señorita lsolde , I will love to visit Spain again but no thanks I love my country Argentina..including Malvinas.
Jun 12th, 2011 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0..including Malvinas
Jun 12th, 2011 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0now you are being silly
(137) Cher Isolde
Jun 12th, 2011 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry that my response disappoints you Miss…….................................
Do I get my spanking now?
I’m not going to do a thing about it…..................................................
I’m just an old mountain goat, remember?
I didn’t say concessions Cher Isolde; you did…….....................................
But, if it helps, we could consider to concede you a substantial remittance on your due fees for 178 years of illegal squatting.
Mmm...and how is it illegal, you lot won't go to the proper Court to settle the matter, wishful thinking on your part me thinks.
Jun 12th, 2011 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Innocent untill proven guilty
Jun 12th, 2011 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0nag nag nag is that all they do, according to them
Jun 12th, 2011 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the British are finished, washed up bankrupt and the navy is none existent the subs are out of action, the royal air force has lost most of its planes the British army is tired and shrinking, the British have lost all their friends, no one loves her ===
Argentina has lots of friends including the usa, she is strong powerful
And can kick ass, so again it seems Argentina once again has the advantage [SO WHATS STOPPING YOU]]
brag brag brag zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
@140 Think,
Jun 13th, 2011 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0No where near good enough Cher Think.
You are working from faulty facts anyway. We are not squatters, its our land.
You, however are squatters. The land that you occupy belongs to the Native peoples.
Try again.
l'm not going to give you a spanking, as l suspect that you would enjoy it too much.
So, really, man of peace, there is nothing that you will do?
Now we're getting somewhere. We may as well close down this site because its of no more consequence, is that so?
Except that l do not trust your nation.
144) Isolde
Jun 13th, 2011 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
We may as well close down this site because it’s of no more consequence, is that so?
I say:
On the contrary, Cher Isolde......
This site is an excellent instrument to document the steady advance of the Argentinean/South American position against British usurpation in the South Atlantic.
If, as I believe, the British Pirate Oil Exploration fails, you Islanders are going to face countless difficult years………….
Unfortunately that 'advance' shows a straight line of complete stagnation in Argentine position since the white flags in June 1982; only in the heads of the indoctrinated has any 'advance' taken place what-so-ever.
Jun 13th, 2011 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The facts dispute what you say, the Big Lie will always be a lie, no matter how many ribbons you tie around that particular turd, it will always remain a turd; and your belief in miracles would also appear to be on extremely dodgy ground.
You'll forgive me if I don't wish you good luck with that.
After reading all the postings here, I feel there's a way to end hostilities for good: the isles annexing the continent... (forget about 1806 and 1808). Look, we're all conversant in both English and Spanish, we adore the same god, we breed the same cattle and sheep and share the same taste for horses, darts, welly throwing and egg'n spoon races, we play football and rugby and tennis. No cricket in international standards I'm afraid, but we can change that as well. There are more things that can make us good pals than those that keep us apart. So what's the problem? That War? Ohh, come off it! Cheers ;-)
Jun 13th, 2011 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(147) Argie
Jun 13th, 2011 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jolly good idea mate.......
Lets unite in a fraternal embrace....
And then .................. all 40.002.945 of us take a little democratic vote about kicking Britain out of the South Atlantic ;-)
Hahahaha :-))))
Jun 13th, 2011 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not bad 'Think' & I have something to add now.
Jun 13th, 2011 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Few of you here read the Telegraph, do you?
Well, there are news today, so some should better toe the line, even if they may own Typhoons and other flying scrap. We have 'barbed wire' remember? ;-)
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html
and also
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8571442/Britain-can-do-nothing-to-prevent-Argentina-retaking-Falkland-Islands.html
The above was NOT published by us. Nor the old warning below!
'MADNESS IN GREAT ONES MUST NOT UNWATCHED GO.'
(W.S.)
Cheers!
You know, we're quaking in our boots...at least in your minds only.
Jun 13th, 2011 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0150 Argie, We read it, keep in mind that the first one is over a year old.
Jun 13th, 2011 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#148 - Argie is talking about the Falkland islanders Think .... not South Georgia or the SSI's. The UK cannot be thrown out of the south Atlantic .... we own a chunk of it!
Jun 13th, 2011 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Redhoyt
Jun 14th, 2011 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would be more concern about UK been thrown out from Europe since long time ago instead to claim things you cannot have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonistan:_How_Britain_is_Creating_a_Terror_State_Within
Be realistic you cannot hold and secure your own territory.
: )
And you cannot take it :-)
Jun 14th, 2011 - 01:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, and ..... Happy Liberation Day !
@ Redhoyt
Jun 14th, 2011 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0And why we should be interested in a tinny island full of Mohammeds sheep and countryside middle age style?
Do we look so stupid?
: >
Err ... now that you mention it !
Jun 14th, 2011 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0@156 ND,
Jun 14th, 2011 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not only look it, Nicholas, you are.
if one is not interested, then why do you lot keep harping on about them.
Jun 14th, 2011 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One supposes they have nothing better to do.
Jun 14th, 2011 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!