Argentina’s noose on Falklands: Buenos Aires province bans UK flagged vessels
In what is seen as another step of Argentina’s noose-tightening of the Falkland Islands’ economy and development, the Buenos Aires Province Senate passed a law on Thursday banning British flagged vessels from calling at Argentina’s largest province ports.
Under the latest legislation the docking, supplying of or logistical operations of vessels that fly the British flag is banned and extensive to the fluvial and maritime coastlines of the province.
The law labelled ‘Gaucho Rivero’ was put forward by President Cristina Fernandez Victory Front provincial lawmaker Patricia Cubría and will be applied to oil tankers, drilling vessels and ships that exploit natural resources within the maritime area that form part of Malvinas Islands’ territory.
“This law is a tool in place to continue advancing step-by-step in the fight for sovereignty of natural resources in the Malvinas Islands” Cubría said on Thursday.
The bill had been passed by the provincial Lower House last June 14 and is supposedly named after Antonio Rivero, “a gaucho from Entre Ríos who headed the uprising in the Malvinas against the British occupation back in 1833”
“Not only did Rivero fight for our sovereignty and to have our flag flying in the Malvinas Islands, but also led the struggle against the exploitation suffered by the gauchos in the Islands which dared to fly our flag”, said Cubría during the Senate deliberations.
In May 2011 two vessels were found docking in the port of La Plata, (capital of the Buenos Aires province) that supposedly were heading for the Malvinas Islands basin which triggered a massive protest organized by unions, political groups and Malvinas war veterans that ended with serious incidents.
It was later revealed that La Plata and other neighbourhood Councillors said they were “English vessels heading for Malvinas as part of the program to search for oil” and this provoked the immediate reaction.
A few hours later the Argentine Foreign ministry and YPF announced they were actually Norwegian vessels on logistic support contracted by then Repsol’s branch in Argentina.
That was not the first incident of this kind. Last February P&O cruise “Adonia” and Princes Cruises’ “Star Princess” were prevented from docking at Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, allegedly because they had previously called in the Falkland Islands.
The media in Ushuaia at the time said that the decision followed the enforcement of the so called “Gaucho Rivero” provincial bill which impedes the docking of British flagged vessels.
However the decision was seriously questioned by the president of the Ushuaia Tourism Chamber, Marcelo Lietti who called for prudence and said “the cruise industry has nothing to do with the Malvinas dispute”.
“It’s an issue that must be addressed with utmost care”, said Lietti. “We all want the Malvinas Islands back under Argentine flag but the cruise industry has nothing to do with the Malvinas dispute” and recalled that the cruise industry is one of the main sources of income for the local economy of Ushuaia.
Lietti said the bill refers to vessels involved in tasks related to the exploitation of natural resources, and “we consider cruise vessels have nothing to do with that issue”.
In August 2011 the Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and South Atlantic Islands Province legislature, after long debate approved the “Gaucho Rivero” bill banning all permanence, docking, supplying or logistic support to all vessels flying the British flag, or convenience flag, which are linked to exploration, drilling or natural resources exploitation in the Malvinas Islands basin, on the Argentine continental platform.
The first of the two-article bill “rejects any colonization or claim actions over the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands, islands which belong to the province of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and South Atlantic Islands”.
Gaucho Rivero has been turned into a legend and Malvinas history hero by the official President Cristina Fernandez administration liturgy, although there are other versions as to his true personality including claims he was a murderer and a common rustler.
In 1982 when the Argentine military invasion of the Falklands one of the fist names to be changed was the capital Port Stanley for “Puerto Rivero”. However when more information surfaced about “Gaucho Rivero” outlaw reputation, the military garrison changed the name to Puerto Argentino.
Suggested Stories
-
Jun 19th 2013
India-Argentina pledge to improve trade; Timerman thanks Delhi support on Malvinas dispute
-
Jun 19th 2013
Malvinas C24 Argentina petitioners: Maria Angelia Vernet and Alejandro Betts
-
Jun 17th 2013
Falklands’ conflict depicted in opera ‘Allies’ based on Pinochet-Thatcher relationship
-
Jun 16th 2013
Falklands: Irish lawmakers support UN Resolution 2065 and dismiss recent referendum
174 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Am I reading it correctly] [lol]
Argentina is now banning all British ships, that fly the British flag, [red ensign]
If this is true, ][you tell me]
Then surely this now goes beyond the Falklands, and now includes all British cargo,
Thus, the only response the British can now do, [legally]
Is up the anti, and ban all argentine flagged vessels, from British and oversees ports,
Thus we would now have a trade war, with Argentina,
Do I have this right,
???????
.
I seriously doubt that any ship involved in the Falklands oil campaign was planning on docking at any Argie cesspits anyway. Yet another pointless, sulky, bawling, “We want attention! Wahhh!” childlike policy decision tee hee.
I suspect there is more shipping traffic between BA and Mar Chiquita than between BA and the Falklands oil fields. ...and what a coincidence that they passed the law on the anniversary of the day they had their arses kicked.
Impotent Argentines.
3rd world ideas from, well, a 3rd world nation.
Chuckle chuckle
falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/another-symbolic-gesture-from-argentina/
Is this what the glorious military history of Argtardia has been reduced to?
200 years ago 3000 people would have been a daily casualty report in their gloriously genocidal romp across the southern cone of america but now they've realised that a “crass world power in decline” still holds enough military might to snap them like the pitiful cowards they are, they respond with pointless impotence and worthless economic terrorism.
Wounded argtard pride is so predictable and yet so hilarious to behold :)
even Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Azerbaijan and Tapei have at least 1 medal.
i guess “Training on Argentine soil, to compete on British soil”, did not live up to THEIR expectations.
!!GOLD!!
Like I said, they are impotent.
Oh well, can't see it will have any effect at all, apart from denying them an opportunity to make money. Except that they don't need any nasty dollars from rotten imperialist countries. Guess we're all happy in that case.
ha,ha!!Pirate, the Training on Argentine soil, to compete on British soil is still right!! we have a lot expectations, Pirate, no worries!!! just look the olympic games!!!
haha!!! Still looking at the olympics. Lots of lovely British medals since we thumped you in the hockey.
Not interested in the Olympics = useless at the 28 sports represented
Peaceful nation = useless military and no money to improve it
Not interested in being part of the international markets = useless at working with other countries
Training on argentine soil then failing to compete on British soil more like it.
Kazakhstan: 3 golds
Georgia: 1 gold
Lithuania: 1 gold
Cuba: 2 silver, 1 bronze
Mongolia: 1 silver, 1 bronze
Taiwan: 1 silver
Azerbaijan: 1 bronze
Uzbekistan: 1 bronze
Qatar: 1 bronze
Argentina: nada, nothing, 0.
Lol.
Desecrating war memorials in training...bad karma?
Germany 20
France 15
Italy 13
Spain 5
UK 1
What was the excuse? Sometimes you got good olympics, sometimes bad ones. The UK usually performs below Germany, France, and Italy, check the other recent years, I think I only saw the UK over those other big European countries once...
And you, unlike us, really do care about the Olympics. In Argentina no one cares about Track and Field and Swimming... NO ONE. And those are the two sports that give an insane number of medals, to be quite honest, it cheapens the value of it really. Why should a 100 meter up and down a pool that last 50 seconds give a gold medal yet an entire team tournament played with more than a dozen athletes, 6-8 games lasting 60-90 minutes, for a total of at least 400 hours of competition get you only one medal?
The Olympics are not the end all be all of determining sporting dominance.
Joe Bloggs in particular seems to have a very visceral and depraved hatred of Argentina.
You people are full of friekin hatred. Wasted lives.
You don't care about those sports because you aren't any good at them.
You obviously care about hockey, or else your lunatic leader wouldn't have wasted so much breath praising that shocking ad. Too bad all that 'training on Argentine soil' came to nothing. I imagine you care about football as well. Never mind.
We won lots of medals in Beijing, and we'll win plenty this time, because we've starting trying harder. That means encouraging more people to take part and investing in sporting facilities and training. That's all.
If you think that's all worthless, then you're entitled. Fill your boots.
I for one was proud to be British today; proud of our people and the event and London- the whole lot.
And I couldn't give a flying f*** about Argentina.
Results:
No decrease in Brit flagged ships visiting the Islands
INCREASE in Brit flagged ships visiting Punta Arenas
100% Decrease to ZERO the number of British flagged Ships visted Ushuaia and large US$ losses of income
You call that a winner for Argentina???
Good for you, if that is what your country values. I'm not saying it is wrong or it is right... but why can't you tossers respect the fact we don't care about most Olympic Sports? The government puts 0 into it, and I'm glad that is the case. The government should not be wasting money on that. If privates want to do it, fine, good luck to them.
I love your logic though, we don't care because we aren't any good... really? How can you be good when you don't even try? We don't even try in swimming and track and field, simple as that.
And please, you people need to really cut it out with the hockey match... it was one game, I guess to you it was like winning the World Cup!! You guys look desperate.
Guess what, jerks, Argentina destroyed Great Britain in handball today 32-21, should have tossed in the mercy rule... and we beat Tunisia 92-69 in basketball, and the women's hockey beat New Zealand, and Del Potro is in the semis of tennis... SO????
Do you see the Argies here jumping on one leg?? It's just a game, one game!
And that will be the only time I'll mention those results.
Now back to legendirizing your epic 4-1 hockey victory. At the current pace the Brits should have turned a meaningless preliminary match victory into the Epic of Gilgamesh version 3rd millenium CE in about... a week.
RG have no long term goal, no strategy, no cards on the table, no international clout, no Falklands, no South Georgias, no South Sandwich, no cohones, no money, no medals!
Awwwwwww bless em'
At least one smaller cruise boat was doing passo exchanges in FI last October using the LAN flights.... should be more of it ...
ps I think KFC has an 'Ed Zackery' problem....
GB - Gold Medal in double trap shooting
RG's - Gold Medal in taking careful aim at both feet and pulling triggers
To be honest nobody here in the UK made any noise about GBR beating Argentina. In fact it was on one of the BBC sub channels, it had that little coverage. Contrary to your belief of how GB portray Argentina, we hardly ever mention you in the news. I'd hazard a guess that the reason some people on this forum rub the Olympics in your face is because you would do the same, especially in foozball.
Also we finished 4th in the medal rankings in Beijing, just pipped by mother Russia!
Because your nation decides that the Olympics is insignificant does not give you the right the cast judgement on its worth and also devalue its prestige. it's a magnificent festival of the worlds top athletes competing against one another, enjoy it!
In my opinion listening to you does come across as sour grapes.
As for this latest move by the Argentine government, I am guessing they cannot stand how much positive attention is going to the UK at the moment.
Funny how they are complaining about anti Argentine sentiment in certain British sectors when the whole CFK government is screaming anti British sentiment to the world at every opportunity and public forum using a loud speaker (regardless of the fact that no-one wants to listen).
Knowing the CFK government and their current grip on reality, they will probably issue a decree banning all British flagged vessels from docking at the Falklands soon.
While not really news...the ability of Argentine politicians to knacker themselves is gobsmacking. They had the perfect opportunity to take the moral high ground and two days later they prove to the world that they are the aggressors...rounding it off by making sure the law is named after a bloke who took part in the murder of his bosses over pay, who even murdered the chap who Lt. Colonel Pinedo had tried to make the Argentine Commander of the Islands when he left (Juan Simón), and who effectively ensured the end of the Luis Vernet business on the islands (if Marcello Luis Vernet knew his history he would have been blaming the plonker Rivero for the end of his families involvement in the islands at the C24).
At least this story provides the opportunity to reference honest and decent Argentinians. For example the Argentine National Academy of History considered in 1966 that Rivero and his followers were common criminals driven by no patriotic feeling. Argentine historian Laurio H. Destéfani wrote in his 1982 book:
“This is the true story of what happened proof of which is stated in 42 documents published by the National Academy of History. Attempts have been made to create a legend about courageous gauchos who attacked and defeated the British, but this is just imagination. The truth as recorded in those documents does not authorize the creation of myths or legends.”
So here's congratulating all honest Argentinians who have the courage to poke nationalistic politicians in the eye!
The only sanction that would hit home would be refusing ships and flights from Argentina to the Falklands. They'd soon kick up a fuss then.
We should encourage other nations to do the same. We should also block all Argentine bids to obtain loans.
Finally we would need to reinforce the Falklands garrison to deter CFK from making a last desperate throw of the dice to achieve some sort of military solution to distract her nation from the difficulties it is in, like in 1982.
And if they come, we should despatch the invaders to the bottom of the Atlantic before they can esatblish a beach-head.
Lets see who's economy will crumple first...
Oh yeah, in regards to the Olympics, just because Argentina does crap or does not take part in all events, it doesn't give anyone the right to criticize other nations that actually do love sports and competes against the worlds finest, to become Olympic Champions. Especially when they have trained halve their life if not all their life to have the honor of taking part and representing their nation/country, including the Argentine athletes.
Spin it however you like, as a nation you are competing in the games and you've got nothing to show for it. If you're refusing to support your atletes on principle and fielding them anyway when they aren't up to scratch then you just make yourselves look stupid, better not to send them at all.
It's a moot point but I suspect you wouldn't be so contemptuous of the Olympics if you had some serious medal prospects.
I wonder why uk does not act quickly. Perhaps it is a case of 'Fools rush in...' . Argentina is doing a good job of hanging itself with this noose around its ports, I guess they don't need UKs help.
@17, 19, 22. Perhaps you could answer some simple questions If you and your compatriots don't care about the Olympics, why did you send a team? Equally, why are you on here whittering on about it? If you are indifferent, be indifferent. You see, we don't care that you don't care. And one final note. Of course you would be good at handball. Didn't Maradona prove that?
@43 As you surmise, the UK tends to adopt “measured” methods. And I would surmise that the UK will either demonstrate how far above such petty action it is. Or will find something that will REALLY hurt argieland. In the meantime, wherever you may happen to be in the world, refuse to purchase any a rgie goods. Buy NO argie fruit, veg or meat. Buy NO argie manufactured goods. They are probably crap anyway. Lobby governments to ensure NO argie goods are accepted for import. Also that NO money is loaned to argieland. Check for companies that work in or with argieland and persuade them to pull out. Consider extending such personal “sanctions” to all other LatAm countries. Certainly NOTHING should be accepted from any mercosur member, except Paraguay. Consider excluding Chile and, possibly, Uruguay from such sanctions. But try to make sure Uruguay suffers anyway. But also try to make sure that items from “sanctioned” places aren't falsely represented.
Another blatant lie by Argentine politicians.
If Rivero was unhappy with British Rule he would not have stayed on 1n 1833.
Rivero and the other gauchos were persuaded to stay on by Onslow, and paid by him in Silver.
Rivero never flew the United Provinces flag, and did not object to the British flag.
Again the Argentines cannot research or they simply ignore historical facts.
Rivero had a dispute with being paid in Vernet's useless paper money which could not be used to trade with anyone visiting the islands. It was not currency issued by the United Provinces, but currency issued by Vernet.
His was not a rebellion against British rule, plain and simple, which can be easily checked by looking at historical records.
@36=Good post.
As for the Argentine ban on British flagged ships this is laughable. They are basically denying shipping companies the opportunity to spend money in Argentina which will be spent elsewhere.
In the case of cruise ships that dock in the Falklands and get refused in Argentina, this turns tourists with no beef against Argentina against them and they, not the Falkland Islanders, are affected.
That is an international own goal.
In fact if cruise ships cannot dock in Argentina after sailing from the Falklands, they will simply dock in Punta, or perhaps the cruise companies will keep the ships around the Falklands for longer, as there are plenty of wildlife and historical sites to explore.
And as for banning Argentine ships from UK ports. If those ships are spending money ashore, refuelling or whatever (provided they actually pay of course!), let them continue: We will gain financially, Argentian will lose financially-simples.
You're still doing it!.......''We couldn't care less about any kind of sport because we are way too cool for that...... but look at how well we are doing at handball!''
Is handball even a sport? It should be coached by Maradona if it is. You might well get a medal.
Good for you. You've got 137 competitors in 22 sports, so you should get something.
So, in reality, it is just a political statement based on very poor historical miss-information.
The only true damage is, once again, to Argentina's reputation and yet another indication of continuing portectionism over an Argentine Economy that Kirchner is dedicated to taking to utter ruination.
It only really hurts Argentines..and yet Kirchner has her people cheering this on.
Personally I think this makes her exceptionally clever...and utterly without any mercy or compassion towards the people of her nation: she looks good at their cost.
Bravo Cristina.
If you and your countrymen spent more time investing in being good athletes rather than wasting your time trying to steal an island that was never yours in the first place, maybe your country might put themselves on the map.
A little tip…. Move on, stop dwelling on dubious history and try utilising the plentiful resources which your large country already has but lacks the brains to cultivate it.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, etc.
CFK is trying very hard to hate them , ruin them , intimidate them ,
just goes to show, its the wealth of the land they want , not the people .
Only Argentina would name a law after a proved murderer and then advertise it to the world!!!
I suspect that all the maritime provinces will, one after another, pass a similar bill thus providing Kretina with more propaganda for longer!!
I would also expect some of our mediterranean provinces will pass laws that have a similar effect, to prohibit help over exploitation of resources.
It is all perfectly logical in Kretina's dream world, where right is wrong, left is right, black is white, etc.
Mediterranean=surrounded by land, or landlocked.
@46 It is utterly bizarre that they don't seem to have twigged that even their own historians think it is a “bad idea” to hero worship Rivero.
There was a POWER CUT in India that affected 600 millon people, it was not that they hadn't paid their electricity bill, tarado!!!!
Fishing in Ushuaia probably would be a good business, but nobody seems to do it, I wonder why?
If people were drinking Indian tea, they presumably paid for it thus producing a profit for... INDIA!!!!
Realmente sos un repelotudo PH.
Amazing match between Federer and Del Potro. I hope at least a few Argentines are supporting their countryman.
56- UK-Spain and France all have overseas territories that are EU associate members, this does appear to be something that Christina has not yet grasped!
Dont let facts get in the way of bullshit!!!
The British Overseas territories are recognised in the Treaty of Lisbon. Argentina protested at the time that the Falklands should be omitted because of the “dispute”. They weren't.
Gibraltar is a slightly different case; it is considered to be part of the EU, but there is a separate declaration by the UK and Spain that this status doesn't imply any change in the countries respective positions on sovereignity.
Another interesting example of how UK and Spanish governments have generally managed to behave like adults by finding pragmatic accommodations to a long term sovereignity dispute.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union
Interesting that Spain has arrested three suspected Al Qaida terrorists who look like they were planning an attack on the UK military base there - now that's pragmatic collaboration - park the dispute and focus on the things that *really* matter.
Thanks amigos!
Worst yet!.....Maldito Ketrino!
India has approximately 300 millons citizens that cannot afford to pay electrical services=poverty.
Where is UK PM Kamoron?
What is he waiting to stop diplomatic relations with my country Argentina.
It seems he likes to feel the argentine stiff one.
The crying child that is Argentina. Bleet...Bleet...Sob...Sob...
Have you both researched your dictionaries for the meaning of the word “collaboration”?
It means that both sides engage in the sharing or splitting of tasks, but which in the end benefit both sides.
WHAT the fuck could the UK do that benefits Argentina positively?
The UK says there will be no discussions on the Falklands (which is a respectable position, since the inhabitants want to be British)... so then what could you possibly offer if we did cooperate?
Nothing. So Argentina has nothing to lose really, since the UK has no power, resources, or diplomacy that Argentina right now sees as tempting enough to alter its behavior.
Spain and the UK are EU members, have far larger interconnections so it is natural it would be different in that relationship.
But down here, the UK is a distant and rather irrelevant country aside from the few potent navy ships.
“To fail to compete on British soil, fail to train on Argentine soil.”
@5 Joe, I suspect that there is as much shipping traffic between BA and the Falkland Islands as there is between BA and Ulaanbaatar.
For example, Britain and Argentina could conceivably collaborate in matters of hydrocarbons and fisheries management, but I know already that you favour a more KimJongUnista approach to economic management, so I won't waste time arguing the point.
@74 pgerman
I don't hate anybody. I just find that the Malvinista position on the Falklands is spectacularly dishonest from an intellectual and a moral point of view, and quite obviously more a question of psychology than history, legality, practical politics or territory.
I'll be brutally honest, at the risk of pissing other argies: the Falklanders have no obligation to collaborate in hydrocarbons with Argentina. Of course, the same is conversely true. And fisheries, well we've had this discussion before, the Argentine gov is extremely reluctant to sign any paper that gives the UK recourses to litigate activities in our territorial waters, given how most in Argentina view the UK's history of using treaties to gain territory.
That's the whole point isn't it - Argentina pursues an isolationist “we don't need anyone” policy and waddya know - it's 2001 all over again before you know it.
@74 pgerman
Most (not all, sadly) of the people on this board differentiate between the average, upright, honest Argentine citizen and the rabid, whingeing Malvinistas. You are welcome here amigo!
If you want to understand a bit about the Falklander's position then falklandshistory.org/sites/default/files/false-falklands-history.pdf crystallises the key points - I'm not saying it's unbiased but it does show that things are pretty complex!
The main point that I don't understand (and which you raise in your message) is that as far as I can see 3000 islanders would have their lives changed in a big way if sovereignty was to transfer to Argentina but, as far as I can see, no-one would suffer in a similar manner in Argentina if the status quo were maintained. This documentary falklandshistory.org/sites/default/files/false-falklands-history.pdf- taken from British and Argentine footage goes some way to explain the 82 invasion and war from the Islanders' point of view
If the current rhetoric were toned down then people from Argentina could visit the islands whenever they wished. Every time CFK opens her mouth then the clock gets reset in terms of normalising relations.
The other issue is that The Falklands are not a British colony - they are a self governing entity with the UK only looking after defence, foreign policy and good governance. If there was going to be any change of this status, it would be to full independence. Argentina wants to deal directly with the UK and the UK defer most matters to the FIG (FI Government)
As other have said Gib has its own situation within the EU and UK and Spain manage it in an adult manner.
Even Spain told Christina that as far a Spain is concerend the Falklands dispute is bilateral between Arg and UK - not a European issue.
Thus if talks between Mercosur and the EU ever do progress, Arg will find it has some unravelling and withdrawing back into it,s box to do.
again the sore loser has to cry, sob sob
And what is wrong with the belief that one's country should shy away from relations with others? No true cynic ever died from betrayal.
NEVER WE WILL GIVE UP OURS SOVEREIGNTY.
“The young nation of Argentina”--stop being so melo-dramatic, José.
You should say, the nation of Argentina that we stole from the native peoples, after we had murdered them.
That is much more factual, José.
Don't care what you will never give up, you will still never get the Falkland lslands because they are OURS & NOT YOURS.
With a bit of luck, Argentina will implode, break up into smaller countries & your ridiculous “claims” forgotten in the general melée.
One can only hope & pray.
Perhaps indeed you should withdraw from this cruel, cruel world which has so signally failed to accord you your rightful place. That would certainly show the rest of us.
And indeed you have more than a few elements of the North Korean model in place already : paranoia, xenophobia, personality cults, aggressive territorial ambitions, a national ideology, indoctrination of the young, a ruling dynasty, off the wall economics, breach of treaties whenever it suits , ....... surely all that's holding you back from top table rogue state status is some decent missile and nuclear programmes. But I do recall you have already advocated both, and I am sure you can get there if you impoverish yourselves further.
“One can only hope & pray” you say................................
You do your Ju-Ju.....
We do our Ju-Ju....
Best Ju-Ju wins...
Where have you been?
(up/down(?) to London to see the Queen?)
l've missed crossing swords with the exalted Turnip-in-Chief.
Black magic, mein herr?
That is not my scene.
Bracingly cold, isn't it? Love it!
Definitely rum in coffee weather.
lndeed one can only hope & pray for good.♥
the current attitude of Argentina to Falkland/Malvinas is the right one taking into account Argentine interests.
and that is why you will NEVER have the Falklands
#32 The Sun was gloating about it...
better for the fi how?
i just read the sun article i must have missed the gloating!!!
The Sun are dickheads and certainly don't project how most people feel. I would ban the paper and recycle it as bog roll.
Know this, your athletes were as welcome as any other. Deep down you know it too!
“Paranoia” - aren't the Brits and Euros always saying the rest of th world misunderstands them?
“Xenophobia” - we all know the hatred of foreigners in your countries, constant racial/ethnic tentions: Britain and “pakis”, Germany and “kanakes”, France and “algerians”, Spain and “moros”... etc, etc, etc, etc.
“personality cults” - Juan Carlos, Elizabeth II, Berlusconi, etc...
“agressive territorial ambitions”: I just looked in my famous Thesaurus I carry with me... the synonyms for this expression were: “European, Brit, English, Spanish, Deustch, French, Romans, etc, etc, etc...”
“a national ideology”: doesn't every european state believe they are the superior race?
“indoctrination of the young”: the results are visible here... Every Brit more brainwashed about their history than the next
“a ruling dinasty”: this coming from the continent that invented the concept??
“breach of treaties whenever it suits”: the Empire happened by the use of pure Honesty, right?
“off the wall economics”: check your economic indicators all over Europe
“decent missiles and nukes”: you and the French have nukes (for what? Penis envy.. we know), and all of you big EU states have long range missiles.
You are rogues, and every day more impovirished....
Congratulations to the UK and Europe: the world's first rogue “super-state”. Proud achievement, racist losers.
Do you feel better now thats out of your system, Tobias?
You need more hot coffee, my man.
If I have to choose between siding with foreigners (the entire rest of the planet even), and CFK, I'll side with CFK.
You people really misunderstand argentines, and our resolve to keep the same course for decades and decades, if the world tells us to do the opposite. We just won't give in to the opinions of others.
@98
No coffee for me, never had any.
Argtards gonna tard
If you want to see a racist, or a loser, look at yourself in the mirror........
If you don't like us in the UK, fine, but I have no idea what you have against the rest of europe, like the Czechs, Finns, Poles etc. Unless of course you are jealous of their relative wealth......
“You people really misunderstand argentines, and our resolve to keep the same course for decades and decades, if the world tells us to do the opposite. We just won't give in to the opinions of others.”
Keep on failing then!! Industria Argentina!!!!!!!
You've never had coffee? How can a person not drink coffee? OJ!
Thats the root cause of you problems, then.
l recommend a big steaming mug of strong, creamy coffee.
No sugar but a dash of good rum.
The colder it gets, the greater percentage of rum.
Up to 50%.
Old recipe from Finland.
“agressive territorial ambitions”: I just looked in my famous Thesaurus I carry with me... the synonyms for this expression were: “European, Brit, English, Spanish, Deustch, French, Romans, etc, etc, etc...”
Now I know you are a liar.
For some time I have been watching your slow spiral into a being so twisted and enraged that it is sorry to see witness it.
No thesuarus I could find has groups of words as the source. To use these useful devices requires that just one word be chosen.
You people really misunderstand argentines, and our resolve to keep the same course for decades and decades,
not at all, most posters on here are aware of youre choice of continually choosing shit presidents!!!
Little parting gift: this old argentinean classic soap intro, set at the height of the Argentine Golden Age, and at the height of frienship between Argentina and Europe, Britain, and even the Falklands...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA4awNduanQ
ps - the singer is argie-Irish.
For a brief second... I longed for that age of frienship between us. But now we are enemies. Enjoy the vid and your weekend.
For a brief second... I longed for that age of frienship between us.
so brief we all seem to have missed it!!!
indeed have a nice weekend
You know how the mind works, random thoughts you can't help. But that was another era, no chance of frienship and trade now. Laters.
Believe me - those Finns know how to drink. They may not say a lot but, boy, they can put it away. (Swedish joke: how do you spot a Finnish extrovert?: A. He's the one looking down at your shoes instead of his own. (Probably misses something in translation)
I was once in Turku at closing time (whenever that was) and people were attempting to “swim” across the main square they were so wasted.
Koskenkorva is the Finn's favourite firewater - a kind of vodka with quite a sweet taste
l know they do.
l've never met a Finn who didn't drink.
l suppose there are some, somewhere that don't.
l was in Rovaneimi, on the Arctic Circle, a group of us went to a nightclub & tried to out-drink the locals!
Ha, big mistake.
Don't remember much of that night.
l do remember that beer is called “olut”!
l know l had a sauna so hot that l thought my teeth were sweating.
Thank God a couple of Finnish women rescued me, even though they were as drunk as l was!
But with their climate you'd have to drink.
So let's recap.
Argentina has a claim for the Falklands (Malvinas) based upon a) the expulsion of a civilian population that never happened, and b) an inheritance from a third party that was never left to you, and was strongly contested by the Brits anyway.
Armed with this devastating case, some 150 years after the key events and some 120 years after Argentina has accidentally renounced any claim anyway, a military dictatorship notorious for the murder of its own citizens invades.
Thousands turn out to rejoice in the streets, although curiously few among the cheering multitudes have ever shown any desire to invest, settle, or even live in the islands.
1000 people get killed.
Some years later, the rhetoric starts up again. They key event in the whole business is the one of 180 years ago, even if hardly so much as a dog got kicked. The one with 1000 dead is just some aberration, not Argentina's fault, really, it was that nasty junta nobody liked. Argentina is a democracy now, and only wants dialogue.
Except of course, with the islanders themselves, who in the interests of decolonization and giving peace a chance are to be denied any voice in their own destiny.
Apparently, there are psychological issues on both sides.
That is the realistic effect of their policy.
Therefore, Argentina doesn't really want the Falkland Islands otherwise they would be pursuing a policy that would achieve their objective instead of one that has the opposite effect, excepting military invasion, which failed the last time, (unless you count 74 days in charge as a victory).
Those in the UK who wanted a war were in the minority. I was only 12 at the time, so I did'nt realise how serious it was at first. I lost my enthusiasm about a great adventure and an easy victory after the Sheffield was hit. After that I just wanted your lot beaten, I did'nt care how.
Most people, like my parents and grandparents were grimly determined to see Argentina seen off, like most people they thought that if we backed down in the face on an aggressor, we would be seen as weak and an easy target by anyone with an axe to grind. They did'nt want a war.
There is no doubt that Thatcher benefitted from the Falklands politically, and may have wanted conflict in order to reap the benefits, but on the other side of that coin she was well aware of the difficulties we faced in retaking the Falklands and what would happen to her and her govt if we lost the war.
Don't forget a professional soldier signs up in the full knowledge that they may be called upon to fight. Many of them regard doing so as the pinnacle of their career - on the basis of “that's why I joined up”. Some of them may relish a chance to prove themselves, but that is the same the world over.
The Falklands hopefully taught your country what WW1 taught us - war is'nt fun. There is no such thing as a bloodless, easy victory against a world power, like Imperial Germany in 1914, or the UK in 1982, or 2012.
Well said!
I 'll give you the story from my experience
I was about 22 when it kicked off. I had heard of the Falklands much in the same was as I had heard of Bermuda or St Helena - I knew it was off the coast of S America and that was about it.
I remember protests about the “scrap dealers” on South Georgia and then I heard on the radio that the islands had been invaded - this came as a surprise. I had always regarded Argentina as a friendly country.
Thatcher decided to despatch a task force but there was still time for some talking via the UN and the US and then the whole thing kicked off, the Belgrano and several British ships went down and nearly 1000 people in total lost their lives over a crazy adventure - mainly to distract attention from bad news in the Argentine economy.
When the sabre rattling started again last year, I started to do some serious research (still learning) and I have to say, the more that I do, the weaker the Argentine case becomes. Nothing is ever black and white, of course, but some of the claims and posturing by CFK are stretched to say the least. I think the big issue is that Agentinian schoolchildren are told “The Malvinas” are theirs and it becomes engrained in the national psyche
I'm sure that some of our history (not the Falklands - this was never part of any of our history lessons) are similarly oversimplified/ inaccurate. what did you think about the links I sent?
With best personal regards - Steve
The Argentinian bronze medalist was smiling and seemed to be quite happy. Is this permitted under Argentinian law - to be wrapped in a pirate flag.
I hope the poor man does not get into trouble back home.
#70
Why does CFK not break off diplomatic relations with the UK ?
There must be an advantage on her part. She could not send her whining protest notes if diplomatic relations were cut off.
The power failure in India had nothing to do with people not paying their bills. As India is accelerating into industrialisation, she does not have the capacity to keep up with the demand for electricity. The grid broke down under the strain. Simple !
The Argentine tennis player is Juan Martin Del Potro and he has already incured the displeasure of the CFK regime.
There is an article from Mercopress on 19th July 2012 entitled “Cristina Fernandez unleashes tax agency against opponents, claims The Economist.” And here is a quote regarding Del Potro:
”The tennis star comes from a rural area where the president was unpopular and declined to share his victory in a picture with the Cristina Fernandez. Ever since then, AFIP (tax revenue office) “has been around” the player and his finances.”
I would like to congratulate Del Potro for winning Argentina's first medal in these games and also to congratulate him for not becoming a political pawn in CFK's corrupt little circus.
Dear Steve, I have a busy professional life so I couldn't check the links. I haven't had the time to read the articles of your links but I promise I will do.
Your comments are very broad and include a wide variety of topics so I will try to reply them with my “humble” opinions with when I have time.
Dear Clyde15, I would like to clarify that there is not any law against the UK flag in Argentina. I played rugby many years and I still wear an old white English rugby shirt when I go to the gym and nobody bothers me.
Glad to hear it. My only “information ” on Argentina comes from these forums. Seeing the Union flag burned on the streets of BA, I assumed it was govt. policy.
Without trying to incur the enmity of other posters , I thought it rather touching to see the Swiss, UK and Argentine flag raised together at the medal ceremony. It's a pity that national fervour gets dragged into the Olympics. Originally the sportsmen competed as individuals.
I find it rather sad to have country medal tables - the athletes should get the credit for their own efforts and not wheeled out to bolster any countries reputation
Hey, say..... Zhivago and Conor Louden-Brown have completed their assignments long time ago, what are you pretending...I know you don't want to release your real name, location and phone number... because of you are scare of me!...Miedosa y asquerosa!
Many governments helped the Junta. Despite the fact that 13 citizens were kidnapped, tortured and their bodies are still missing, the French sold them aircrafts, missiles and armoured vehicles and trained them. The Germans sold submarines, frigates, and they together developed armoured vehicles and aircrafts. The UK government sold boats, helicopters, aircraft parts, marine engines. antiaircraft guns and missiles. The U.S. gave them aircrafts and helicopters in exchange for the Argentine military intervention in Central America.
They also sold weapons to Chile because all of them imagined that Argentina and Chile would fight a war.
The Governments of the UK and U.S. knew (well in advance) about the intention to occupy the islands because some Argentine military had leaked their intentions as way of studying the potential reactions. Both Governments let the Junta invade the islands so they had a excuse to start another war that could eventually help Thatcher to be re-elected.
When Argentina occupied the FI the British Government used the logistic support of Pinochet so, when he was detained in London, for crimes against humanity, Thatcher visited him, publicly defended him and the UK Government released him as a pay-back for his assistance during the war.
These is a kind of brief “check list” written in a sudden of questionable moral behaviours of some European governments, the UK and U.S. I’m old enough so as not to be surprised because of these things. It has always been the same in politics and I’m pretty sure you can find lots of regrettable attitudes from people of my country that I cannot see for ignorance.
Please, do not misunderstand me, I don’t want to offend you at all, but things have never been white or black.
Of course. You never did anything wrong, it was all somebody else's fault, and you were put up to it.
My country has plenty of very bad things, starting for our Government, but you mentioned that you found some attitudes of Argentine people dishonest from an intellectual and a moral point of view so. I just wanted to let you know that I also find some British Governments attitude regrettable. Just this.
I thought you were quite reasonable at first.
NOBODY in the UK took any indications of an Argentine attack on the Falklands seriously until a there was not enough time to do anything about it.
Think about it. If we had wanted to make a big political statement or fight a short victorious war we would have done the same as we did in 1977 and preemptively deployed a task force strong enough to discourage you - or destroy your forces before you got a foothold. Prepartaions were underway to despatch SSNs to the islands when the invasion happened.
Blaming us for what happened is nonsense.
The fault is squarley on your country - you chose to attack us, you underestimated our resolve and you underestimated how hard our armed forces would hit you.
You paid the price for your folly. There is no need for conspiracy theories.
It is widely accepted that the Thatcher government sent the wrong signals to Argentina and misread the signals coming from there.
It is a long stretch of the imagination to conclude from this that the wicked witch would risk defeat and the loss of the islands by seducing the poor innocent junta into launching an invasion, the expulsion of which was considered impossible by virtually every military specialist in the world.
But perhaps it's preferable to believe a conspiracy theory than to look dispassionately at the evidence that exists. We see plenty of that here, it's clear that for many Malvinology is a branch of the paranormal, like ufology or ghost hunting. Neither logic nor evidence is necessary to sustain belief.
It's widely accepted that both, the US and UK governments, sent wrong signals to the Junta (that's something different from Argentina since not any democratic government, not even CFK, would ever think about such stupid move). It's also widely accepted that the Pentagon was informed about this move months before it happened. Do you think that they hadn't informed the UK Government? I really doubt, taking into account the strong bonds between both defence forces. The lack of a strong rejection from the Pentagon was understood as a kind of “green-light”.
I have never said that the Junta were poor or innocent people, I've always held the contrary but for sure Thatcher was more clever and astute than the “Generals”.
I believe that, since the moment the Junta invaded FI they had not a single chance of winning the war. Just comparing both defence forces, the equiptment, the skills, the experience and influence of UK in this “issues” is quite evident.
The sinking of the ARA Belgrano (an old ship that had survived Pearl Harbour attack) is a proof that Thatcher preferred a war that UK was going to win to a UN-driven negotiation. Only the Argentine military could dream of such a fable !!!
I invite you to check data about the “leaks” of the Argentine militars, it's not a mistery at all and there are plenty of information available about this issue.
Thank you for your time
It was a close run thing... if the UK hadn't prevailed it may well have been the end of Maggie...
Her government did the right thing... no more .. no less....
”The sinking of the ARA Belgrano (an old ship that had survived Pearl Harbour attack) is a proof that Thatcher preferred a war that UK was going to win”
No PG that's not PROOF, that's YOUR opinion. The Belgrano was a threat to the British Task Force. The Captain of the Belgrano has already admitted that the Argentine Navy were moving into position to attack the Royal Navy.
Also with your 20-20 hindsight you say that Thatcher knew she was going to win the war.
Well, I remember well that in 1982 it was far from certain. In fact every Military EXPERT in the world said it was impossible for the British to retake the Falklands as their supply lines were too long and tenuous, and they didn't have a land platform from which to launch a counter-attack.
The US said they wouldn't even have attempted it, especially going into winter, and they had far more men and assets than the British had.
You also say that the British had better weapons. That's not true. The Argentine military in 1982 had some of the most modern weapons systems of the age, including Mirage's and Exocet missiles. It was the British that were using a fighter aircraft that was old, slower and not as well armed as the Argentinians. The addition of seawolf anti-aircraft weapons were last minute and had to be bought off the US (who had never let any other nation have them before the Falklands). So some of the British weapons systems were upgraded, but was courage, morale, professionalism and determination that won that war.
Now, the old Soviet Union were very interested in this war (Britain being a member of NATO and one of their potential enemies should war break out), and followed (literally using a submarine) observing how the British handled themselves.
The Falklands was the last time there was a naval battle (there hadn't been one since World War 2, and there has not been one since the Falklands). The British won against all the odds, impressing both allies and enemies alike.
Small correction for you Mr LEPRecon, the Seawolf anti-air missile is actually a British missile that was already carried by a good portion of the British surface fleet already. I believe that you are thinking about the AIM Sidewinder 9 which is the American air-air missile which we only had a small amount of, so we had to rush order a good amount of them form the Yanks's, but apart from that everything you have said is perfectly accurate as this Mr pgerman seems to think that the war was a clear run thing which as you have said-it was not.
Again, nobody took the idea of an Argentine invasion seriously until it was too late. The same goes for the USA as well as the UK. The USA did'nt take any unofficial talk about seizing the islands as a statement of intent by your govt. They would have risked damaging their alliance with us against the Soviet Union.
War is never a certain business, all you can ever do is stack the odds in your favour.
If the FAA and ARMADA aviation assets had concentrated on the amphibious ships in San Carlos, or the ARAMDA had used it's fleet more aggressively - say against the supply chain to Ascension island, our forces would probably have been defeated.
If the San Luis had gotten into an attack position against HMS Hermes or HMS invincible - again it would probably have been game over.
You had heavier artillery in place than we did. Plenty of HMG and AAA capable of engaging ground targets. What your troops lacked was training and decent leadership. If you had attacked 6 months later the conscripts would have been better trained. HMS Endurance would have been scrapped and HMS Invincible sent to Australia, the rest of the surface fleet would have been downsized as well.
We would have faced a much stronger Super Etendard force with far greater AM 39 Exocet stocks. You would have probably won.
You gambled and lost, just like the Arabs did against Israel in 1973, or Hitler did against the Soviet UNion in 1941.
The beauty of a conspiracy theory of course, is that it requires no real evidence and cannot be disproved.
And it's a nice piece of sleight of hand first of all to exonerate Argentina the country on the grounds that it was the junta wot done it, and then to exonerate the junta on the grounds that they were tricked into it by the UK and the US. And so the whole thing in the end was Margaret Thatcher's fault and the Malvinista Cult of Immaculate Victimhood can perpetuate itself.
But no conspiracy is necessary to explain the war, while there is plenty evidence of the US in particular trying to persuade the junta to desist or withdraw :
“This was neither about national pride nor anything else.The junta —Galtieri told me— never believed the British would respond. He thought the West World had gone corrupt. That British people did not have God, that the US had gone corrupted… I could never convince him that the British would not only fight back but also win [the war].”) La Nación / Islas Malvinas Online. “Haig: ”Malvinas fue mi Waterloo“”
(Alexander Haig quoted from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War)
Or to put it more briefly, it seems clear that the junta was rabid and stupid enough to start a war without needing any encouragement from the UK and the US, and was in fact discouraged by the latter.
But the conspiracy theorists will probably tell us Haig was lying.
As for the Belgrano, sinkings do tend to occur when a country starts a war, sends a warship into the war zone, and sets out to conduct wartime operations. No conspiracy theory is necessary to explain the event, although it is rather helpful to make one up if you have a myth to maintain.
You're are correct. I was mistaken. You learn something new every day!
Many thanks for educating me.
No bother it's also a mistake which would be common as the seawolf missile itself was quite literally bolted on to as many ships in the fleet, as the early 60's/ late 70's proved that ships needed anti-air missiles against the latest supersonic jets. Hence the reason why most 40's/ 50's built UK ships were retrofitted with these as many RN ships weren't designed to originally carry them:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Wolf_missile
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Cat
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Slug_missile
Still as you said that pgerman fellow seems to have over estimated Britain's chances during the war as the loses of HMS Sheffield, Coventry, Antelope and Ardent, Along with RFA Sir Galahad, prove that with out proper air defences even the Royal Navy/ Royal Fleet Auxiliary were vulnerable to Argentina's modern Jet aircraft.v Thats why all RN/RFA vessel of a certain tonnage must carry CIWS now. The Falklands war proved that.
The risk was taken and the prediction almost came true.
Actually, supersonic jets could not use their speed to attack ground/sea targets in this era. Apart from Exocet, the standard weapon was an old fashioned iron bomb delivered at low level and sub-sonic speed and fitted with a delay mechanism to allow the attacking aircraft to get away from the blast.
Also, the missile systems fitted to the ships were designed for use in the open sea - not land locked bays or narrow straits surrounded with hills.
My cousin was one of the designers of the system and the fitting of it to the Broadsword class frigates being built at Yarrow's in Glasgow.
#137
I have just come across an article which shows that Haig was rather pro-Argentinian in his sentiments - along with Mrs. Kirkpatrick.
Thankfully Weinberger leaned the opposite way.
The article appears in the Wall Street Journal of April 2, 2012
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454.html
“How the USA almost betrayed Britain”
Based on newly released documents from the Reagan library
I don’t consider something reasonable that the Pentagon, leaked with the intentions of the Junta, did not inform the UK Government. Do you?
The Belgrano was launched on 1938 (as USS Phoenix) and was one of the few ships that survived to Pearl Harbor. It has never been equipped with anti-submarine systems (either to sensor or to attack) because the engines were so noisy that this equipment would be useless. It was not able to operate with other argentine naval ships because the noise of the engines would neutralize the sensors of other ships and it would be easy to locate for the subs (which obviously happened) transforming it into a danger to the rest of the fleet. I cannot believe that you, or the T Force, could seriously consider it a threat. Considering that it could try to attack the T Force is simply an unrealistic fantasy.
I don’t consider something reasonable that Arg could defeat the UK with the assistance of the whole NATO. It might be that, in their fantasy and isolation from reality, the Junta did but, I remember that reasonable people in Arg though that invading the FI was an irresponsible decision without any chances of success.
I don’t share your cold acceptance about the loss of human beings simply “because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time”. In my case this reasoning is not applicable, not even in the case of the Sheffield, or any other ship from UK
Don’t forget that this discussion started because you had mentioned you think the Arg position is non-ethical.
Based on your lack of comments about others of mine, since the abandonment of the islands for the metropolis, following from the sale of modern weaponry to a genocide governments, until the release of Pinochet, I believe that you consider them non-ethical too. So, finally we agree.
“Human beings are guided by reasoning which is a mixture of information received and deductions so that we do not need to check all what we believe but simply what is reasonable and logical.”
Yes I agree with this comment, but your belief is NOT proof it's just your opinion, so you can understand why people challenge you when you try to present your opinion as proof.
No, certainly not. Whether the information was considered accurate enough to act upon is another question. The US for example had several indications of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbour. Does the absence of action mean that they sollicited the attack in order to get rid of a militaristic Japanese government?
> I cannot believe that you, or the T Force, could seriously consider it a threat.
Don't ask me, ask Captain Bonzo.
“No me gusta cuando se habla del Belgrano como un crimen de guerra. Si yo hubiese avistado un barco inglés en el momento del repliegue no tenga duda alguna de que hubiésemos atacado. No éramos un blanco inofensivo. El Belgrano tenía 15 cañones de 152 mm, estaba equipado con misiles Exocet?”
www.lanacion.com.ar/702442-general-belgrano-crimen-o-acccion-de-combate
Exocets not a threat?
> I don’t consider something reasonable that Arg could defeat the UK with the assistance of the whole NATO.
What whole NATO was that, exactly?
> I don’t share your cold acceptance about the loss of human beings simply “because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time”.
If you are referring to me, I said no such thing, and I don't see who else did either. For the record, it makes me sick that 1,000 souls died in pursuit of a pointless, false, and stupid myth that Argentine governments continue to push at every available opportunity.
> the sale of modern weaponry to a genocide governments, until the release of Pinochet, I believe that you consider them non-ethical too. So, finally we agree.
I don't know what you mean by abandonment of the islands. Otherwise I do agree. I also regret we had to get into bed with that vile old bastard Pinochet, but sometimes you have to go with the lesser evil.
.... to paraphrase Churchill when speaking of Stalin... 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'
Sandy Woodward the task force commander rated Belgrano a threat as it was thought to have exocet missiles and believe it or not he was concerned of the range of the Belgrano's guns.
The British made it quite clear (I believe from April 25th, excuse me if thisdate is not precise), that any warship deemed to be a threat, anywhere, (not just inside the 200 mile TEZ around the Falkland Islands) was liable to be attacked.
The Argentines were clearly warned of this.
What is outrageous is that the British informed the Argentine navy that after the Belgrano was hit they would not be attacking the escort ships, but despite this they ran away instead of picking up the Argentine sailors in the water.
The British paid the price as they had several ships sunk, and if the UK had wanted , they could have attacked the Argentine aircraft carrier earlier but permission was denied by the UK government. Also a Royal Navy request to shoot down the Argentine Boeing 707 reconaissance aircraft was refused by the UK government.
After the war the FI were a forgotten land supplied with fuel by Argentina at cheap prices, provided with ER air assistance from the continent and even granted with some study scholarships.
UK (and others) helped, and sold, weapons to the Junta and Pinochet because they imagined a war between Argentina and Chile.
The UK and U.S. knew about the intention to occupy the islands.
When Argentina occupied the FI the UK used the logistic support of Pinochet so, when he was detained there, for crimes against humanity, Thatcher visited and defended him and he was released as a pay-back for his “services”.
But I've never said the sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime. I said it couldn't be considered a threat because it was old ship, even at the Argentine standards. No matter what its Captain said, I don't understand how you can considered that a single old ship (50 year old !) could try to attack a fleet consisting in two aircraft-carriers. destructors, frigates, landing ships and nuclear submarines with the assistance of satellites. Is it a joke? It's sinking is a proof that Thatcher preferred a war that UK was going to win to a UN-driven negotiation. This is widely accepted and books were written and movies were shot about this issue.
This leads us to discuss about a supposed balance between the contenders. The Royal Navy was, at that time, the 3rd largest fleet of the world (the 1st of Europe and the UK defense budget was the most important in Europe). How could Argentina (a third world country) be a weighing opponent?
I thought about having a rewarding dialogue with people that may think differently but I ended dragged to a useless quarrel with extremist and hatefull people. You are not so different from CFK after all.
You keep referring to the Belgrano as “old”, so what? HMS Hermes was old during the war and she's still in service with Indian Navy as one of the most powerful warships in that part of the world! The Iowa class battleship's are old and yet they distinguished themselves during the Gulf war against modern day threats 50 years after their commissioning. HMS Victory was 40 years old at Trafalgar and she still led the British Navy to...well, Victory.
As you are not a Navy or Sea fairer man i'll go easy on you, it DOESNT matter how old a ship is- if it is a 50 year old Cruiser and very well armoured and armed then it has a perfectly good chance against a fleet of British Destroyer's/Frigate's, most of which didn't carry anti-ship missiles- only a light amount of Artillery, compared to the Belgrano which had an impressive amount. OK it didn't have Exocet's but it was believed it did, and the escort's that were with her did have them however we sank the Belgrano as it was believed that the two Destroyer's would pick up the majority of the crew not killed however those to ship's cut and run, meaning a great deal more men drowned then should have been. You are the ones who started the war, and if you don't wont to get shot at then don't send your conscripts and “old” technology to fight us, your the ones who tore up all the peace plan's and your the ones who pointed guns at my unarmed fellow citizens and their children so don't start bitching when we give you a bloody nose.
I also see non-ethical behaviours from the UK, loads of it down the years, but what you've presented here is a bunch of unsupported conspiracy theories, some irrelevancies, and a couple of things I already agreed with.
It's quite possible arms manufacturers were making hay out of a potential war between Argentina and Chile, but a necessary condition is that one party would want to make war on the other. It is well documented in this respect that Galtieri planned to attack Chile after a victory in the Falklands. This is about all you need to explain Chilean support to the Brits during the war.
I'm also a little surprised to learn that you know more about the Belgrano's capabilities and intentions than the actual Captain himself. But if movies were shot ....
As for Argentina going up against the mighty Royal Navy, you don't need a conspiracy theory to explain this either. It is widely documented, not least in the source I gave you earlier, that Galtieri believed the Brits wouldn't fight in the first place. When the Royal Navy did set sail, the junta should have taken one of the many chances they got to get their men out of harm's way, and they are doubly culpable for not having done so, and trebly culpable if they knew that Belgrano did not present any real threat.
Otherwise, I'm sorry you're not finding this a “rewarding” dialogue, but dialogue is what you're getting. You shouldn't expect just confirmation of your own position here or anywhere else, and you're quite welcome to argue back.
If the Belgrano task group had moved north east on 01 may, 1982 (the day she was sunk) it would likley have intercepted 3 RN warships carrying out a bombardment of Argentine positions near Port Stanley - HMS Galmorgan (county class) HMS Alacrity and Arrow (both Amazon class). All 3 RN ships were equipped with Exocet. The Hipolito Bouchard and Piedra Buena, the 2 FRAM II Allen M Sumner class destroyers escorting the Belgrano also carried exocet.
In a battle of the kind that would have developed in an encounter, the side that gets a targeting solution first and launches at the other will likely inflict a crippling blow. Niether side possessed the sort of sophisticated SAMs used today to bring down incoming sea skimming missiles, we had the advantange in EW equipment and sensors.
As I have said time and again to you, nothing is guaranteed in War - if the Belgrano group caught the Glamorgan group by surprise - (you would have known where to look - having reports passed to you from Port Stanley), more RN ships would have gone to the bottom. If we did detect you coming in, there is no guarantee that 2 or 3 exocets would have stopped the Belgrano or slowed her down enough to stop her crunching an RN ship with her 6 inch guns - we would have had to run away.
Suppose the Belgrano had wihdrawn and evaded attack on 01 may - Lombardo was using her as part of an pincer movement. Another 3 Argentine ships (Granville, Drummond, Guerrico) were in position to attack the task force from the north, while the Belgrano group moved in from the south. A4s from the Veinticinio De Mayo were to be used in airstrikes. The only reason that the attack was not launched on 01 may was because your carrier could not get enough wind over her decks to launch aircraft.
A much bigger battle would have developed, which would have cost us manpower and ships.
The Belgrano was a threat, and an enemy warship - we sent her to the bottom. This is the cost of war.
Inside the TEZ or not, Belgrano was a valid target. Don't like it? Tough. You lot started the war, whining about the counterstrike just makes you look pathetic.
www.facebook.com/Britain1592
A few months ago talking to a Canadian colleague about the FI issue, he told me that this is a typical case of “extreme nationalism of an isolated social group” (this was his expression). I seemed to me a little bit exaggerated on his part but reading your comments, and replies, it’s quite clear that CFK is your counterpart. She is fanatic, has contempt for those who think differently, believe that she is never wrong and that there is nothing to be listened or to be understood from the opponent. You are the CFK image reflected in a mirror. I just hope that you and the crazy and authoritarian president of Argentina don’t start another war. In Argentina we say “is a dialogue of deaf people”
Its obvious that we have proved you wrong as you have failed to actually counter any argument we have put forward. All you have done is accuse us of extreme nationalism and saying that we don't listen to any other points put forward which is untrue as the few arguments you have put forward you have been proved wrong on them by us. Instead of accusing us blindly without consideration why don't you try again with actual arguments next time.
You may be an engineer, but you know nothing about ships, tactics or warfare.
You have constantly put YOUR opinion forwards as PROOF of what happened in the Falklands War, using convenient 20-20 hindsight. You have stated that the British were somehow behind the invasion of the Falklands by 'encrouraging' the Argentine Junta. You have stated that the British government 'wanted' war and 'knew' it was going to win. Yet you have not offered ANY proof to your allegations.
Well pgerman if you had bothered to research the actual war (not just what you were taught at school in Argentina) you will understand what a close run thing it was.
Every military expert in the world said it was impossible for the British to retake the Falklands. The Military Junta refused to abide by UNSC resolution 502 because they truly believed that the British wouldn't fight, or that they couldn't win.
The loss of the Atlantic Conveyor sent most of the supply helicopters to the bottom of the sea, which meant that the majority of British supplies (ammunition, food, medical supplies, water) had to be taken by road (which were atrocious) or foot over land under the constant threat of attack. The British supply line what 8000 miles long. The Argentine supply line about 400 miles long.
The sinking of the Belgrano was a legal war time act. Argentina had effectively declared war on Britain by invading the Falklands (the invasion itself is seen to be a formal declaration) and under Article 51 of the UN Charter (which the UK invoked) the British were entitled to attack any military assets deemed to be a threat, not only around the Falkland Islands, but on the mainland of Argentina too. All of that is completely legal under the Laws of Armed Conflict.
Argentina lost the war, and it cost 1000 lives on both sides. Get over it. The Falklanders will never discuss the transfer of their sovereignty to a nation that refuses to acknowledge their existence, and denies them basic human rights.
I'm not whining for the lives lost in the Belgrano, I leave it to the relatives of the dead, something that, based on “malicious bloke” comments, seems to have fun.
I was not able to proff things because this is a forum of opinion and not a legal stand so opinions based on the reasonableness of things are perfectly valid. In the same manner, none of you were able to proff anything, just coments of other people and links of the media, these are not proff either.
Most of my statements are reasonable thoughts while those of you not only do not have it but can not be repeated towards the lack of seriousness. Following the same line of your comments the fishing vessel Narwal was also a threat to the third most important fleet in the world, including the training ship ARA Libertad also was. The Antarctic research base on the Thule Island, occupied only by scientists, was another terrible threat so it was emptied by force and dynamited (you know cientists are ver dangerous !!!).
In addition, the comment that the Royal Navy was at a disadvantage with respect to the equipmen compared to the Argentine forces is simply offensive to those who read the comments.
I only would like to suggest, without any evil intention, that you leave the island, travel around the world, meet people and open your minds.
Things are different outside there. Otherwise you would waste your time quarreling with people from the category of Chavez and Cristina Kirchner that seems to be your counterpart.
You say you came here looking for dialogue, but you seem to be having some difficulty with the expression of opinions contrary to your own. This sounds awfully like the CFK version of dialogue.
I'm all Belgranoed out now, but the Thule base is worth another contradictory opinion. Probably the UK's failure to evict the illegal occupation by “scientists” was one of the signals taken as a green light by the junta for further aggression. And that's why it was dynamited afterwards.
I would also suggest that you be a little more careful with unfounded assumptions. I bet I am not the only one here who is as well travelled as you are.
I am extremely well travelled, and have lived in different countries with different cultures as part of my previous employment.
You mention Thule island, but you fail to mention that the scientists were on British territory illegally, and since the Argentine invasion was repelled, the UK was within its righs to remove those scientists and destroy the base.
Not one Argentine poster has yet to prove a valid argument that supports your claim over the Falklands.
Claim 1. The 'supposed' expulsion of 'Argentine' colonists in 1833. This didn't happen, only the illegal military penal colony (which had already been protested by Britain) was removed, without a shot being fired. The ships manifests that removed the penal colony only shows 4 actual colonists leaving (of their own free will) and NONE of the were Argentine.
Claim 2. Argentina 'inherited' the Falklands from Spain. No you didn't. Spain dropped its Soveignty claim in the 1840's, yet it didn't recognise Argentine independence until sometime in the 1860's. That's over a decade difference, so once Spain renounced its claim, that left Britain as the only 'valid' claimant.
Claim 3. The Falklands population is transient. Wrong, this is a blatant lie told by your ambassador to the UN in the 1960's. Many of the Islanders can trace their lineage on the Falklands back 8 and 9 generations.
Claim 4. The Falklands belong to Argentina because they are closer than they are to the UK. Er no. If this strange 'claim' were upheld then every country in the world could claim its neighbour based on proximity. In any event the Falklands are actually closer to Chile by 4 miles.
In the 19th century the United Provinces tried their luck by claiming the Falklands and assumed that the British wouldn't notice or care. In 1982 Argentina tried their luck again under the sane assumption. That's twice you've lost, and under the law uti possidetis, means that whoever holds the land at the conclusion of a conflict keeps it.
LEPRecon,
No, not really. They couldn't claim any neighbour, but they could claim islands and archipelagos that are under the sovereignty of a more distant state, but closer to them. eg Channel Islands, St Pierre and Miquelon, Faroe Islands, Bermuda, Aruba, Curacao, etc
In any event the Falklands are actually closer to Chile by 4 miles.
Where do you get this?
Spain did not began to relinquish any claims in the Americas until 1836
A decree passed by the Spanish parliament 4 December 1836 enabled Spanish monarchs to do so as they had been forbidden by the 1812 constitution.
Spain recognised Argentina in 1859, but this did not include Buenos Aires, as it had seceded in 1852. A second amended recognition treaty was signed in 1863 after Buenos Aires rejoined in 1862. Neither treaty contains any recognition of Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands. The Spanish delegation that negotiated the new treaty spent 6 weeks in the Falklands as guests of the British Governor before going to BA to negotiate the 1863 treaty, thus accepting British sovereignty.
So generally, in order to accept Argentine's claim, you have to accept that what isn't in treaties is, and what is in treaties, isn't.
I think I get it now.
Why uk does not accept all UN resolutions, more than 40! which of the two parties does not comply with the resolutions! Argentina? nope you wrong !!The pirates !!!
Here are some more you have to accept:
You have to accept that the Pope could share out the sovereignty of territories over which he had never established any sovereignty.
(Papal bulls)
You have to accept that bilateral treaties are binding, not only on the signatories, but also on everyone else.
(Treaty of Tordesillas)
You have to accept that Spain had sovereignty over territories it did not occupy, even when Spain had signed a treaty accepting its territories were those it occupied.
(Treaty of Münster 1648)
You have to accept that a number of treaties meant Britain was forbidden to navigate in the South Atlantic, when in fact those treaties do the opposite.
You have to accept that you can inherit sovereignty by rebelling against the sovereign.
You have to accept that the territorial integrity clause of resolution 1514 is retroactive to 1833.
You have to accept that only indigenous peoples have the right to self determination.
You have that only peoples subject to alien subjugation, domination, exploitation are entiltled to self determination.
(which, if true, would mean Argentines are not entitled to self determination).
You have to accept that the UN asking to negotiate sovereignty means the UN is asking to negotiate the handover of sovereignty to Argentina, and that its request is binding.
DOubt they're as pretty =)
And you have to accept that contested events in the 18th and 19th centuries override 180 years of continuous occupation.
There are no excuses necessary for the sinking of the Belgrano.
lt was an armed, enemy warship & thus fair game.
lt was sunk by us & there the matter ends.
@162B_K,
You've got it bad, my friend.
knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law
I don't see anyone on the British side acting like a nazi. Where did you get that from? Who has offended you? Where was it? Name and post please - a quote would help.
I am convinced of the rightness of the cause of my country in this matter, based on historical research and wanting the antics of successive Argentine govts. The fact that I don't think that there is moral equivalance here (we are in the right and you in the wrong) does'nt make me a nazi.
That really is resorting to over emotional rhetoric becasue you can't land any solid blows on us using facts, or logic. That's because the cause of your country in this issue is so weak.
I don't actually see any insults about about the war, or any jokes for that matter. Most of the Brits on these forums think that the war was no laughing matter. Your country launched a senseless attack on us. Many of us suspect that you would do it again if you thought that you would win.
Argentina invalidated ALL those UN resolutions by invading the Falklands in 1982.
This means that Britain is no longer obligated to take any notice of them. You can't break these resolutions then complain that they aren't being followed.
pgerman - you seem very sensitive about something. Who has been insulting you? All we have done is put forward our viewpoints in opposition to yours. No need to get upset about it and start insulting people.
We have a saying in Britain - if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Just a small correction - it was actually president Harry Truman who made this quote.
You're far too pedantic! LOL
Besides, in my own defence, it is still considered a saying in Britain, I didn't say it originated there.
Yes I am !! It comes with old age !
#172
Yes we do use it, BUT Harry Truman made the quote.
If you're still listening.
Reading post 155 -QUOTE “Following the same line of your comments the fishing vessel Narwal was also a threat to the third most important fleet in the world”.
Are you for real?
Do you seriously think we let an enemy vessel calmly swan around passing on inteligence to the Argentine mainland so that you could launch air strikes against us?
In war the RN has the mission to destroy the enemy, no matter how big or small the target.
Then there was the bit about the Research station set up on Thule - without our consent. Tough luck, you got evicted.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!