MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Under Kirchnerism the Air Force lost more aircraft than in the Falklands' war
Argentine defense minister Julio Martinez criticized the previous government policies towards the Armed Forces saying that during the Falklands/Malvinas conflict the country lost 72 aircraft, but under the administrations of Nestor and Cristina Kirchner over a hundred went out of service or were decommissioned. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesBring back Krisssie... a few more years and she could have dispensed with their entire military machine.
Jul 07th, 2017 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse +3The name plated Hercules in the backdrop is interesting - defeated airforce in 1982, almost decapitated military system under the K's, and still living the dream and remembering battleground and air war losses across the Falklands.
Martinez will expend his energy endeavouring to leverage out dug in Carlos boy.
The money that could have been used to maintain 100 aircraft went instead to buy a lot of choripanes.
Jul 07th, 2017 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +5People, you have to learn how to read the news. The Air Force planes we are talking about were built in the 60's. They were 50 years old and belong in museums. The fighter planes were 2nd Generation and we are in the 5th generation.
Jul 07th, 2017 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Julio Martinez statements were designed to gather support from Argentines to increase defense spending. He could not blast the Macri administration, because he will need their support in running against Menem. It is obvious that he is utterly frustrated with this administration. Macri has no intention in spending any money for the armed forces. Therefore, what is he doing as Defense Minister.
Cristina could not replace the planes because the vulture funds. Has she done that, they would have come after with a vengeance. The problem with the vulture funds has been resolved not to y liking. However, what is Macri's excuse, now?
There were three people I liked in the Macri government. One was Constatini in Argentine airlines - he was fired. The second one was Malcorra as Foreign Minister - she either quit or was fired The third one was Julio Martinez - he quit.
Hektor
Did the Ks also lose more ships? In the Falklands war, Argentina lost the Belgrano (were there any other losses?) while under the Ks there was the ARA Santísima Trinidad that sunk at its moorings, the icebreaker that Macri recently restored to working order and they almost lost the Libertad. I'd count that as 1:2.5. Have I missed anything?
Jul 07th, 2017 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Hektor
Jul 07th, 2017 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“People, you have to learn how to read the news.”
Patronising old goat. We were here all through the K's administration and know the truth. Don't try spinning it because you make yourself look moronic.
@Zaphod
Jul 07th, 2017 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Argentina did lose other ships in the Falklands War, but they were support minor vessels. The Navy after the Belgrano sinking put all their main ships in port.
I do not remember about the ARA Santisima Trinidad.
Macri did not restore the Irizar in less than one year. That was done during the Cristina administration. The work was finished during Macri's time, but he had nothing to do with it although he took the credit.
Hektor
@ Hektor
Jul 07th, 2017 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +5There was also ARA Santa Fe (the submarine that was crippled by helicopters off South Georgia) and PNA Islas Malvinas (the coastguard patrol boat that was renamed HMS Tiger Bay).
@ElaineB:
Jul 07th, 2017 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0““People, you have to learn how to read the news.”
Patronising old goat. We were here all through the K's administration and know the truth. Don't try spinning it because you make yourself look moronic.”
Here you go again insulting and disparaging posters. The problem with you, if you do not mind me telling you, is that you do not know how to behave in public.
@Rufus:
You are right. I remember about the Santa Fe after I posted the message. I had to wait of a new post to be able to post again.
@Zaphod Beeblebrox
I remember now. The ARA Santisima Trinidad was a type 42 destroyer and sister ship to the ARA Hercules. After the embargo of parts imposed by Great Britain, the Santisima Trinidad was decommissioned and cannibalized for spare parts for the Hercules. The latter is no longer a destroyer but a command ship and I have no idea why. It is not that we are going to send our naval fleet into the great blue yonder and need an Admiral to command the fleet from the Hercules.
Hektor
Sadly, the only full functioning part of the Argentine armed forces is their splendid officer's clubs, of which one of the most elegant in the world is in Buenos Aires.
Jul 07th, 2017 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The condition of their marine fleet, their aircraft and their land forces are all an outrageous disgrace due to corruption.
@Chicureo
Jul 07th, 2017 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Everything is due to corruption. Argentina, until now, could not afford to buy any arms. Period. Listen, you do not have to tell me about the disaster of our armed forces.You are preaching to the choir. My whole family, including my father and uncles, are career army officers. Two of them (not my father) achieved the rank of division generals. I grew up as an army brat and I've been to the Circulo Militar - you know weddings.
Argentines have no idea what corruption is. In the second gulf war, 30 billion dollars (I emphasize billions) disappeared. Bush said, “we cannot find the money, but we have to look forward and not back.” End of story - no investigations, people charged with crimes, nothing. In the 2008 Financial meltdown, a trillion dollars went up in smokes due the illegal banking practices. Any investigation? Anybody charged with a crime? Nope. Nothing. What we are talking in Argentina is chump change.
Argentina is beginning to look like a banana republic, where the present administration puts members of the previous administration in jail, because they are afraid they might not be res-elected.
Do you think that Tony Blair is so innocent? His price to take Great Britain to the Iraq war, was to become a member of the Carlyle group and some devious dealings. Before anybody jumps on me, I have many relatives in Great Britain and I talk to them, very often. Most of them were ardent Blair's supporter. Are they disillusioned!
If in Argentina, a friend gets you a job in his company. Corruption! Acomodado. Ñoquis. In other countries it is called “Networking.” Lobbyists are part of everyday life in the US Congress. In Argentina it is called, Corruption. In the US, democracy in action.
Hektor
@Hektor
Jul 08th, 2017 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse -1Why do you even want an airforce? Worried Paraguay will invade again?
And we didn't all support Blair, I always thought he was lying about the Iraq war, but what can we do?
In my company, if you recommended a friend for a job and they got it you received a big bonus. But they had to pass the interview like anyone else, it's not corruption at all. On the other hand, many people in the US are concerned about lobbyists and how much influence they have. Trump promised to 'drain the swamp', but unsurprisingly has not delivered.
@DemonTree:
Jul 08th, 2017 - 02:27 am - Link - Report abuse -4BTW, I love England and especially London. It is one of my favorite cities.
Regarding Trump. He did not clean up the swamp; he made it much bigger and deeper.
I do not know who the present Japanese Prime minister is. They keep falling like flies because of corruption. Yet, the Japanese do not go around screaming: corruption, corruption, corruption. Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, “democracy is a horrible system of government, but it is the best we have.” Corruption is endemic with democracy; we have to see it as the cost of doing business.
Argentines have to stop throwing dirt on themselves. Who is going to go or do business with Argentina, they are so corrupt. If the Argentines say so, they must really be corrupt.
Macri is really very corrupt, btw. However, if Cristina is elected President, she should not go after him or members of his administration; we can no longer afford it or the country will not have any goodwill left.
I do not think we need a navy, though. What do I know? I'm army and we do not talk to the sailors. That is one quick way of getting rid of our nemesis.
Yes, we need an air force to keep what is ours, ours. The Fighter I want is the 5th generation Grippen. Brazil is getting it and Cristina tried to work with Brazil and Saab to purchase some jets and make the rest in Argentina. Britain vetoed the proposed deal, because they make ~ 30% of the components. We should try again and if Britain vetoes the deal again, we should head to Russia and get Sukhoi-35. If Britain screams bloody murder we have the response: “we tried to get the Grippen and you said no. We need planes and we have to get them countries that say ”Yes.” In addition, Cristina had a deal with Israel to get the Kfirs, but they left the decision to the incoming administration.
Hektor
Hector,
Jul 08th, 2017 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse +4The icebreaker was a perpetual cash cow, money funnelled into it endlessly.
Under Evita K, it would never have been completed - too great a source of unaccountable revenue.
Macri has ended that.
Hektor: “...where the present administration puts members of the previous administration in jail, because they are afraid they might not be res-elected. ”
Jul 08th, 2017 - 04:38 am - Link - Report abuse +6Actually, the ones in jail are but a tiny sampling of those who have committed rather significant crimes. But then, so long as there is peronismo, Argentina will be known as The Large Crime Scene.
Hektor, your manners are sadly lacking. To insult everyone by suggesting they are unable to understand the situation in Argentina and therefore you need to spin it for them is patronising. We observed and experienced the Kirchner years first hand; every step of the way. You sound like a fool.
Jul 08th, 2017 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse +1we should head to Russia and get Sukhoi-35.
Jul 08th, 2017 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse +3Where will you get the money ?
@Hektor
Jul 08th, 2017 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“Corruption is endemic with democracy.”
It really isn't. We've had corruption scandals in the UK but they are mole hills compared to the mountains that have been uncovered in Brazil. There are countries that have successfully dealt with it, and changing public attitudes that say 'corruption is inevitable' is as important as anything else. Whoever is president should go after anyone who is guilty, but most importantly those in their own party and administration.
As for the airforce etc, how much do of a military do you really need? You have good relationships with all your neighbours, and you settled the disputes with Chile. The US is not going to let anyone outside the Americas invade, and if they wanted to invade themselves you couldn't stop them anyway. So who are you defending against?
Seems to me your main requirements are dealing with the narcotraffickers, search and rescue, and resupplying the Antarctic bases. Those planes aren't cheap and neither is maintaining them or training the pilots. The money might be better spent elsewhere.
@EB
If you really want him to improve his manners perhaps you could set a good example by NOT calling him a 'patronising old goat'...?
@DemonTree:
Jul 08th, 2017 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let me answer you in two or three parts. If I run out of space, I'll wait until I can post again or tomorrow. I just do not have the time.
We do not have any problems with all our land neighbors.
I'm in partial agreement with you. In all seriousness and kidding aside, I do not think we need a navy. All we need is a much better coast guard (Prefectura Maritima.) Like you said: “your main requirements are dealing with the narcotraffickers, search and rescue, and resupplying the Antarctic bases.”
We cannot afford the new ships with the very sophisticated technology. We are talking ~ 1 billion+ per vessel and we need more than one. Therefore, all we can afford are old technology vessels. If we face a sophisticated adversary, those ships are going to be blown off the water, like it happened with the Belgrano. It simply could not see the atomic powered submarine. It is not just the money, we are putting a lot of lives at risk, unnecessarily, like we did with the Belgrano.
What is the main purpose of a navy? IMHO, it is to project power beyond our shores or protect our commercial vessels in case of a major world conflagration. All we need is to protect our shorelines and Patagonia. A good air force and very mobile army will do that. As I see it, let's get rid of the navy, transfer all the personnel and vessels we can transfer to Prefectura Maritima. That is easier said than done, though.
The Argentine navy has a long tradition. It has more than 200 years history or it is as old as independent Argentina. The present naval officers and enlisted personnel will consider the move an insult and a come down. There is going to be a lot of resistance.
Our armed forces are there to defend and serve the country. As I see it, if we no longer need the navy, why are we keeping it? Because of traditions and that is nice to have one?
Of course, I might be wrong with my assessment.
Hektor
The gallego above is right...
Jul 08th, 2017 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -3We don't need no navy...
No air force...
No army...
We need to rethink that whole Armed Farce farce, and create a modern, unified Defense Force that serves the whole of the Argentinean people...
@Hektor
Jul 08th, 2017 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I forgot, you need to be able to scare off and/or sink those illegal Chinese fishing boats, but your coast guard should be able to handle that. I don't think there are any issues with piracy in South America, but you might get people smuggling drugs by boat, so you do need some kind of force. Does it make much difference whether you call it a navy or a coast guard?
@Think
Why do you call Hektor 'gallego'?
If you look further up he doesn't agree with you about the army and air force, but wants to buy those planes that first CFK and now Macri have been dithering over.
What would your Defence Force consist of?
Q...: Why do I call Hektor 'gallego'...?
Jul 08th, 2017 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -3A...:Becaus his family is Iberian... ergo “Gallego” for us “Non Gallego” Argies...
Q...: Why el gallego doesn't agree with me about the army...?
A...: 'Cause his family is army... They hate each other...
Q...: What would my Defence Force consist of...?
A...:Good equipment..., and better people...
@Think
Jul 08th, 2017 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well that makes no sense seeing as he said his family were Catalan. What do they call Scandi-Argentines? Gringo?
“Good equipment..., and better people”
That's nice and vague. Better people than Hektor's family? And would it have Gripens or Sukhoi-35s? Would it have naval ships or just a coastguard? Would you keep the Libertad?
@ Demon Tree
Jul 08th, 2017 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -4“It really isn't. We've had corruption scandals in the UK but they are mole hills compared to the mountains that have been uncovered in Brazil. There are countries that have successfully dealt with it, and changing public attitudes that say 'corruption is inevitable' is as important as anything else. Whoever is president should go after anyone who is guilty, but most importantly those in their own party and administration.”
Very good, in accordance with Demon Tree.
@DemonTree:
Jul 08th, 2017 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The CoastGuard is an intermediate force. It is to the navy what the gendarmerie is to the army. Their training is patrol of the continental waters, apprehension, and rescue missions. The navy is trained in naval warfare tactics.
Yes, we should keep “Libertad.” For example, the US naval academy does not have a tall ship for training cadets, but the US Cost Guard Academy does.
Hektor
Mr. DemonTree
Jul 08th, 2017 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Q...:What do they call Scandi-Argentines?
A...: Alemanes...
Q...: That's nice and vague. Better people than Hektor's family?
A...: Possibly..., as I never met an Argie general worth anything... (San Martin died before me time)...
... No fancy fighter jets..., no fancy battle ships... no fancy expensivo stuff...
Just the adequate tools of the trade necessary for a Defence Force...
The Libertad..., we could keep..., with a serious overhaul of the cadet selection...
The Argentina coast guard is practiced in the art of sinking unarmed fishing boats.
Jul 08th, 2017 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Hektor
Jul 08th, 2017 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Okay, that makes sense. But if you don't need a navy then why do you need an air force? Just because the latest planes are more affordable than modern ships?
@Think
Lol. Okay, Alemán. ;)
If it doesn't already exist I should make a map showing 'the world according to Argentina'. Galicia takes over all of Spain, Germany now includes all of Scandinavia plus Austria (Netherlands and Switzerland also?) Turkey gets its empire back as it now covers most of the Middle East. What do you call people from Ireland, and how about Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe?
How many generals have you met? I do agree that you've had trouble with your armed forces in the past, but is the problem the people they are recruiting, or the culture, or the leadership, or what? I didn't join the army, so I have no idea what could make soldiers or pilots agree to shoot their fellow citizens.
Okay, no fancy expensive stuff, but what do you consider adequate tools? Some kind of planes or helicopters? Just the current coast guard boats or should they get the remains of the navy as Hektor suggested? Who is your Defence Force supposed to defend against?
Mr. DemonTree...
Jul 08th, 2017 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -3What do we call people from Ireland...?... = INGLESES
And how about Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe...?...= RUSOS ( that includes most Jews)
Who is our Defence Force supposed to defend against...?...= The Baddies...
@Think
Jul 08th, 2017 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“INGLESES... RUSOS”
I bet they love that! Do you call Israelis Russians then? That's totally weird. What about people from Portugal?
“The Baddies”
If only I knew how to make an eye-rolling smiley...
Anyone who looks slanty-eyed oriental here is a “ chino” (chinese). Be they Mongolians or Koreans or Vietnamese or Japanese or whatever. But a “ china” is not necessarily a female chinese here, because in the far south in the patagonia it's also an indigenous word meaning “squaw” or indigenous common-law partner of a gaucho or other low-class looking fellow, which is to say the low servant class, and in some places it still means the female of a larger animal. Not far from here but on the chilean side of the frontier there is a Río de las Chinas and naturally visitors to the region incorrectly assume it has something to do with the chinese. Oh, and a chino or super-chino can be a .. supermarket.
Jul 09th, 2017 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse +2BTW, “gallego” is basically pejorative around here. Like calling someone a “spic.” And a “negro” is used somewhat as the US uses “nigger” but just as in some parts of the English speaking world nigger can be used affectionately, so too in Argentina.
Anybody suspected of having origins from east of Poland could be a “ruso.”
The country is full of this stuff, a deliberate and inculcated sort of ignorance, xenophobia, and resentment. Even though people here knew that Menem was Syrian (Syrian-Lebanese parents) they still call him The Turk (el turco). And so on and on.
It speaks volumes about Argentine understanding of what is beyond its frontiers, and its high degree of classism and racism.
DT seems to have become Wanks best friend? How snowflakes melt under warm compliments..
Jul 09th, 2017 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse -1Argentina has no enemies, but wary neighbours and onlookers who shrug with a wry smile of despair at it's hopeless state. In spite of massive natural resources it's still a military, financial, industrial and social basket case with the vast majority of its inhabitants even poorer than what is defined as poverty in the UK. One thing holds it back, the attitudes of its people.
@The Voice
Jul 09th, 2017 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, how strange it is that I prefer someone who doesn't call me a 'naive snowflake'.
You'll be telling us water is wet next.
PS. I haven't been to anywhere near 45 countries. Yet.
@Hektor
Sorry, this thread has got a bit off topic. But I'd still like to know why you think Argentina needs an airforce if it doesn't need a navy. I'm not seeing any big difference myself.
Interesting discussion.
Jul 09th, 2017 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I applaud Kirchnerists for spending less on military equipment. Argentina needs more hospitals and schools--no tanks or war planes.
Those who live in Malvinas should be happy for it. No armed conflicts in sight.
Traditionally, as Hektor pointed out, military spending has been a source of unjustified expensive and millions funnelled to those working on related contracts--and this happens in most countries.
Specifically, the Macri administration plans huge expenses on military equipment--no surprises there--but leaked information and some diligent media made these plans public.
For any impartial reader, the defence minister's political intentions behind his speaking at this time should be more than transparent. Instead, we have the usual suspects gloating about how bad Kirchnerists were for not spending more in weapons. Martillazo's disparaging comment about “choripanes” being bought instead of maintaining planes is sadly more revealing about his personal traits than about his intended targets.
Between food and war equipment, the choice is clear.
Sr. Massot...
Jul 09th, 2017 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“Between food and war equipment, the choice is clear”... you say...
Not if your name happens to be Hermann Göring..., Rudolf Hess... or Marti Llazo..., I Think...
https://www.amazon.de/Kanonen-statt-Butter-Wirtschaft-Dritten/dp/3406675158
;-)
@EM
Jul 09th, 2017 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -2So far, Macri's plans to buy fighter jets sound exactly like CFK's plans to buy fighter jets. Possibly there is slightly more chance that he will close the deal.
Dunno about the Falklanders, but I would be perfectly happy if Argentina abolished its navy and its air force, since our armed forces use any (remote) threat to the Falklands as an excuse to beg for more funding.
It's all very well to choose butter over guns as long as everyone else does too, but unfortunately there are always people who prefer guns. If you don't defend yourself against them, you may well end up with neither.
Argentina doesn't even have the minimum air force needed for a peacetime visit from the US president, as witnessed in 2016. Press note : “La Argentina se quedó sin aviones militares aptos para proteger el Air Force One de Barack Obama” The note went on to say that the US would need to send four of its own F-16 aircraft.
Jul 09th, 2017 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A true país de cuarto mundo.
Mr.DemonTree...
Jul 09th, 2017 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You say...:
“So far, Macri's plans to buy fighter jets sound exactly like CFK's plans to buy fighter jets.”
I say...:
What CFK's plans to buy fighter jets...???
Disregarding the “fantasy” stories from the arms lobby and their Associated Press... one can see reality...
And reality is that..., during the 12 years of Kirchner administration..., there was a clear and consistent policy of dismantling the killing capacity of the Argie Armed Farces whilst continuing paying the high salaries an pensions to the whole green&blue officiality..., so they wouldnt rebel...
It worked..
You say further...:
“There are always people who prefer guns. If you don't defend yourself against them, you may well end up with neither.”
I say...:
The old Arms Lobby argument...
Like it or not..., you lads could use Argentina as an example...:
Decades of right wing military dictatorships in Argentina cemented our image as an agressive neighbour whose stupidity was to be feared... They even managed to go to War against the World fifth Nuclear Military Power...
Against those near impossible odds..., the political decision of the Kirchner couple was to disarm...
And what happened...? We are still here..., non of our rightly distrustful..., better armed neighbours has grabbed the chance to grab anything from us... and confidence between us is growing by the day...
The Arms lobby doesn't like such...
@Think
Jul 09th, 2017 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“What CFK's plans to buy fighter jets...???”
Let's see...
Gripens from Brazil:
en.mercopress.com/2014/10/29/argentina-hopes-to-renew-air-power-following-brazil-s-deal-to-manufacture-gripen-fighter-jets
Kfirs from Israel:
en.mercopress.com/2014/03/25/argentina-ready-to-sign-for-the-israeli-kfir-block-60-fighter-aircraft
China's FC-1/F-17 'Thunder':
en.mercopress.com/2015/03/01/argentine-technical-mission-to-china-to-assess-the-purchase-of-jet-fighters
And the Mirage F1 Spain:
en.mercopress.com/2013/10/01/argentina-buys-16-mirage-f-1-from-spain-half-have-air-refuelling-capacity
And those are the more sensible versions. I'm sure you can imagine the spin the British tabloids gave to those stories.
Since nothing ever did get bought I assume they really were fantasy stories, even though the Spain one claims it was a done deal. But then why should I believe Macri is any more serious about it? It's not like he can spare the money either.
As for disarming, sure sometimes it works, but it very much depends on your neighbours. Back when Argentina was the crazy aggressive neighbour, would it have made war more or less likely if Chile had decided to unilaterally disarm? Britain had almost no forces on the Falklands in 1982 and we all know the result of that. After the USSR collapsed, Ukraine agreed to give up the nukes stationed there in return for a guarantee from Russia to respect its independence, sovereignty and existing borders. How well did that work out for them?
@Demon Tree The context is different, the iron curtain fell, Argentina is a democratic country, but it minimally needs a defense force, not to go to war, but to exercise police control over its great extent of territory. (Pirates, illegal fishing boats, drug trafficking, etc.)
Jul 09th, 2017 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Chile doesn't keep those 50+ F-16 aircraft and 300 Leopard main battle tanks because they look pretty, but because Argentina's recent history is one of aggression and expansionism.
Jul 10th, 2017 - 01:29 am - Link - Report abuse +2My suggestion for the Argentinian Air Farce is to purchase lots of drones. Drones make a whining noise which Argentinians are very familiar with so they should be very comfortable with that. Coupled with their force of roll over and ramming destroyers and their canoe invasion farce this will make a neat solution to policing their borders.
Jul 10th, 2017 - 06:23 am - Link - Report abuse +2@Malvi
Jul 10th, 2017 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I said something similar above: “Seems to me your main requirements are dealing with the narcotraffickers, search and rescue, and resupplying the Antarctic bases.” And I added dealing with the illegal fishing boats too.
For Argentina it may make sense to disarm to a large extent, for countries with threatening or unstable neighbours it may not.
It appears that Macri's defence minister, Julio Martinez, as with so many argie officials, can't count.
Jul 11th, 2017 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse +1The minister claims that 72 argie aircraft were lost during the Falklands war. The real count appears to be between 100 and 102, depending on the counting regime.
@Marti LLazo:
Jul 11th, 2017 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0You said:
“Chile doesn't keep those 50+ F-16 aircraft and 300 Leopard main battle tanks because they look pretty, but because Argentina's recent history is one of aggression and expansionism.”
Can you please tell us what Argentina has done in “recent history” to be considered a policy of “aggression and expansionism.”
Another question: can you please tell us something nice about Argentina?
Hektor
Maybe I could elucidate. Falklands 1982 plus a cancelled invasion of Chile thereafter.
Jul 11th, 2017 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Choripans? And some bottles of Malbec?
Jul 11th, 2017 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +1South America is characterised by political instability, drugs and poverty. But, a few countries are advancing whilst looney lefties go backwards. When will they learn?
Hektor, if you are unaware of Argentina's recent history of aggression and expansionism, then no-one is going to be able to make you understand. Perhaps a course in reading comprehension could be of some help.
Jul 11th, 2017 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Part 2: ¿ querés algo lindo? Déjame pensar..... ¿la cerveza Beagle, de Ushuaia? ¿qué opinás vos?
@Marti LLazo:
Jul 11th, 2017 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Hektor, if you are unaware of Argentina's recent history of aggression and expansionism, then no-one is going to be able to make you understand. Perhaps a course in reading comprehension could be of some help.
Part 2: ¿ querés algo lindo? Déjame pensar..... ¿la cerveza Beagle, de Ushuaia? ¿qué opinás vos?”
I Know Argentine History. Thank You. However, I wanted to know know what you meant by Argentine “recent history of aggression and expansionism” and you are unwilling or unable to do so.
All you can say nice about Argentina is a beer from a small brewery in Ushuaia, not even Quilmes. That shows how biased and virulent your Anti-Argentine feelings are. For heavens sake man, you live in Argentina. That is how you go through life hating everything that surrounds you.
Hektor
Hasn't Chile had disputes with Peru and Bolivia in the recent past too?
Jul 11th, 2017 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Hektor, Marti would surely be totally miserable if he had nothing to complain about. Living in a country he hates is perfect for him.
Me: “Did the Ks also lose more ships?”
Jul 11th, 2017 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have just checked the facts. These are the fates of Argentine ships damaged or sunk during or after the Falklands war:
1. ARA Comodoro Somellera, patrol vessel - Survived the Falklands war but sank in a storm in 1998.
2. ARA Isla de los Estados, transport - Sunk by HMS Alacrity
3. ARA Bahia Buen Suceso, transport - Ran aground in storm, damaged by UK forces, sunk after the war.
4. ARA General Belgrano - Sunk by HMS Conqueror
5. ARA Santa Fe, submarine - Sunk
6. Islas Malvinas GC82, patrol craft - Damaged and captured by UK forces
7. Rio Iguazu GC83, patrol craft - Damaged and captured by UK forces
8. Formosa, cargo - Damaged by “friendly” Argentine fire.
9. Rio Carcaranea, cargo - Attacked by both sides, sunk
10. Yehuia, oil tanker - Captured
11. Narwal, spy trawler - Captured
So, I'd count that as 9 Argentine ships lost during the Falklands war, so the K's may not have lost more since (although the Comodoro Somellara count be counted against them).
DT: “Hasn't Chile had disputes with Peru and Bolivia in the recent past too?
Jul 11th, 2017 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Hektor, Marti would surely be totally miserable if...”
Missed the boat again, DT, as always. Despite repeated explanations. Truth of the matter is that opportunities here have greatly enhanced my wealth, which has hardly made me miserable. But for more than mere misery-dispelling lucre, Argentina has provided enormous free entertainment. If I could bottle Schadenfreude I would be wealthier yet. Where else in the world can you observe such tremendous resources and potential so splendidly wasted on fratricidal and self-destructive measures, with a culture so predisposed to such immense corruption and self-deception? This country is the perfect laboratory for How To Do It Wrong. And I have a front-row seat that, ironically, pays me decent dividends and locally grown bife chorizo. Nay, the civilised nations are simply boring when compared to Argentina, in much the same way a war correspondent quickly tires of reporting banal peacetime trivia, preferring instead a raucous environment reflecting the deep sleep of reason.
Do the neighbours have disputes with Chile, DT? Ask yourself this question: why does Chile still have minefields near the frontiers with Peru and Bolivia, and why were they installed in the first place? Hint: these minefields are defensive in nature and were intended to slow down invaders. And while you are at it, explain to Hektor why there are minefields in northern and southern Chile opposite the frontiers with Argentina, so that he might better understand the aggressive and expansionist nature of Argentina in recent history. He is demonstrably unable to grasp this on his own.
----
Hektor, it is so very disappointing that you lack any sort of foundation in the recent history of Argentina. That your taste in music is so peronist and pedestrian. That your appreciation for good beer is sadly absent.
So as you admit, Chile does not keep those tanks and F-16s around just because of Argentina, but because of its other neighbours as well.
Jul 11th, 2017 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Remember Marti: on the internet no one knows if you are a dog, but everyone knows if you are an ass.
Not too many years ago I got to meet the commander of the mechanised infantry unit at Rospentek (Sta Cruz province) and we discussed Chilean armour deployments, including their tanks just across the frontier at Puerto Natales. The commander told me that Chile keeps their best and greatest number of tanks near avenues of approach to Argentina. Some years later I met the Chilean executive officer for their “Lanceros” unit and asked about the same deployment question, but he just gave me the little “ lips sealed” gesture. Not that you can really hide a bunch of MBTs.
Jul 11th, 2017 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DemonTree:
Jul 11th, 2017 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Hasn't Chile had disputes with Peru and Bolivia in the recent past too?”
Yes, in ~ 1880's in the so called “War of the Pacific.” Bolivia lost its corridor to the sea and Peru a lot of its southern territory with many cities ad towns including the cities of Antofagasta and Arica.
Argentina's only war since the 1860's was the Falklands War in 1982 and its only territorial conflict with a South American neighbor was in 1978 with Chile that did not result in a war.
In 1978 the British Crown decision on the Argentine-Chilean dispute gave all the islands in dispute: Picton, Nueva, Lennox to Chile. It is hard for us to understand these findings. These islands are next to the city of Ushuaia. They can block the access to the city. However that was not the main dispute that arouse from the findings.It completely ignored the treaties between Argentina and Chile, of 1880's and early 1900”s, which established that Argentina was an Atlantic Ocean nation and Chile a Pacifi Ocean Nation.
As a result of the findings, Chile almost immediately claimed most of the Argentina's Southern Atlantic Ocean territory including the platform. This was something that Argentina could not abide by.
Argentina came within two days of invading the islands in question. Chile's plan (according to Pinochet's autobiography) was to invade Argentina, in the province of Chubut, and capture the city of Bahia Blanca, separating Patagonia from Argentina. They were also going to poison the Buenos ires water supply causing ~ one million deaths,
Argentina knew about these plans. One half of the 5th Army Corp, deployed south, started to move north. In addition, the 3rd Army Corp deployed south. Chile would have been caught between the two corps and divisions,
Pinochet did not want to accept the mediation from the Vatican, but when he saw the mess he got Chile into, he relented.
The Vatican ruling gave the islands to Chile, but Argentina kept its rights to the Southern Ocean.
Hektor
Such flawed, biased, erroneous, and incomplete notions of history, as we expected.
Jul 12th, 2017 - 01:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0@DemonTree:
Jul 12th, 2017 - 06:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Talking about what type of iplanes for the Argentine Force. Argentina is the President Pro -Tempore of the G-20. In ~ 11 months, we are supposed to host the next G-20 meeting in Argentina. I follow a very interesting website. One ion the best when it comes military weapons, policies, etc. I've been following this site for years. We have a problem! We have no interceptors and they are losing their minds in the site.
Why do we need interceptors. Firstly, there are going to be leaders and head of states from the G-20 Members and sort of others from all over the world. Remember the World Trade Center and a couple of hijacked airliners. That's the reason for interceptors and fast ones at that to be flying overhead 24/7. We might only get a few minutes notice that a threat from an airliner or any other air threat is imminent. We do not have the time to purchase the interceptors and train the pilots.
Solutions: Change the city from Buenos Aires to Mar del Plata, Bariloche, Mendoza, Ushuaia, San Martin de los Andes, and others.
Lease the planes.
My solutions: Hire F-16 planes and pilots from the US, just for the meeting. Transfer the meeting to another country. Hold the meeting in Iguazu Falls or Calafate.:) Hold the meeting in a maximum security prison.:) Of course. We transfer inmates before the meeting.
I knew this was going to happen. I almost posted about it, but I never thought about the planes before going to this site. We are not ready for such high-risk international meeting with so many head of states. Hamburg was a battle zone and that was in Germany
Macri wants it looking forward to his re-election in 2019. My advice to Macri is to hold the meeting in Buenos Aires and if something happens, he will not be able to finish his present mandate.
Hektor
@Hektor
Jul 12th, 2017 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0I knew about Chile taking Bolivia's former coastal provinces, Bolivia still complains about it constantly. And there was an article on here quite recently about Chile and Peru resolving their maritime boundary, so I thought Argentina might not be the only neighbour they were worried about.
The Paraguayan war didn't end until 1870, and you forgot the Conquest of the Desert from 1878 to 1884, but since that was successful there is no angry neighbour to worry about there. Also Argentina has had an ungodly amount of coups and attempted revolutions since then.
What I don't understand is why Argentina kept asking Britain, a country it has a well known territorial dispute with, to arbitrate its territorial disputes with other countries. But according to Wikipedia the five judges were agreed by Argentina and Chile in advance so the UK government had nothing to do with the decision anyway.
Another interesting thing from Wikipedia:
“The Argentine newspaper Clarin wished to show that the UK government had taken a substantive role in the arbitration, so that it could be criticized as biased in this by its own dispute with Argentina over the Falklands. To buttress this suggestion, on 3 May 1977, just as the arbitration award was announced, the newspaper put on its front page a cartoon of Queen Elizabeth II eating a Cap of Liberty, an Argentine emblem.”
Anyway, Argentina rejected the arbitration and decided to see what threat of force could do instead. They came very close to invading Chile, but then agreed to the Papal Mediation. However it says the dispute wasn't finally resolved until 1984, giving the islands to Chile but maritime rights to Argentina.
Considering that having narrowly averted a war with Chile, they then went on to start one with Britain, I think Argentina's neighbours would have good reason to worry if the military government was still in power. But they're not.
I've run out of room to reply about the G20 meeting.
Mr. DemonTree...
Jul 12th, 2017 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse -1I Think... young galleguito Hektor (... in his writings..., he somehow reminds me of “Manolito” a little boy from the quite popular Argentinean cartoon “Mafalda”) has an issue with the negativistic abuse of the worlds “recent history ”and recent past”...
Argentina..., under the rule of a right extemist military Junta was quite agressive some thirtyfive years ago... but...
... In comparison..., I remember the United Kingdom joining Ze Germans into an economic and political union some thirty years after THE worst war my feeble memory remembers...
You may now reply Hektorcito about the upcoming Buenos Aires G20...
@Think
Jul 12th, 2017 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hektor mentioned a wife and children in another thread, he can't be that young.
As for the recent or not so recent history, you said yourself:
“Decades of right wing military dictatorships in Argentina cemented our image as an agressive neighbour whose stupidity was to be feared [...] non of our rightly distrustful..., better armed neighbours has grabbed the chance to grab anything from us... and confidence between us is growing by the day...”
Do you think your neighbours remain better armed because confidence has not grown enough yet, or because they still have other potential enemies to worry about?
And sadly confidence has not been growing with the Falkland Islanders, rather the reverse.
Thanks for letting me reply though.
@Hektor
About the G20, I am all in favour of holding it in a maximum security prison. Perhaps you could lose the keys for a while afterwards too. ;)
More seriously, I have read that certain countries like the US and China tend to bring their own security with them. If planes are really necessary then leasing them sounds reasonable, or I suppose if you moved it to somewhere less important you could ground all normal air traffic in a wide radius which would give more time to react.
At least, based on what I have heard, the residents of Buenos Aires are used to protests and people setting things on fire. Maybe the police will cope better than those in Hamburg since they have had more practice.
@DemonTree:
Jul 12th, 2017 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem I have here is that I only 2000 characters to post and that includes spaces. Therefore, I have to generalize. For example I only 1825 characters left. Let me answer one topic at a time.
Bolivia just lost its corridor to the Pacific. However, I'm not that familiar with the war. I do not want to get more into the conflict than what I wrote.
I know about the 5 judges agreed upon by CH and ARG, but it was under the sponsorship of the BR Crown. Therefore, it is a BR Crown ruling. I did not pass any judgement on it, just the facts. Why GB. We had to get CH agree on it.
We were not going to “Invade” CH, just the 3 islands in dispute. It was Pinochet (this is in his Autobiography) that was going to invade ARG taking the city of Bahia Blanca. Do not forget that CH was also under a dictatorship at the time.
Pinochet fancied himself as a great strategist and he really screwed up here. Everything worked for the better. No war
I never considered the Conq. of Desert a Foreign War, just an internal conflict. Just like I do not consider CH's persecution of the Mapuches a Foreign War:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Araucan%C3%ADa
If we use this standard, then Chile is a very aggressive nation. To me, it is an internal Chilean problem
We judge AR under one standard and others by a different one. For example, here is a list of BR wars and conflicts since WWII:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Araucan%C3%ADa
Clarin is a lying piece of garbage. So is La Nacion. They supported the Falklands war and lied to us about it. Nothing surprises me about Clarin. That is why K tried to breakup the CL mono
We cannot have it both ways. Clarin is horrible when it comes to the Falk War and fantastic when it comes to Cristina
When I said since 1860's I meant the Paraguay War. I stand corrected. OK. One is a 120 years since the last war and the other is 110 years. No big difference
Hektor
PS: I hope the links work. I cannot test them
A perfect opportunity to reveal not only Hector’s nationalistic indoctrination but also reminders of Argentina’s aggression and rejection of binding arbitration during the 1970s and 1980s.
Jul 12th, 2017 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The three Beagle Channel islands in question had been considered Chilean territory until the failing Argentine military dictatorship needed to drum up support. The islands are geographically part of the larger Chilean island of Navarino and Argentine maps and charts had recognized them as part of Chile until about 1900. Argentina and Chile voluntarily submitted to a third-party (the British Crown) for binding frontier determinations and agreed to abide by the commission’s decisions. I have an original map from about 1903 that shows the frontier limits proposed by Chile and Argentine, and the claims by the latter are simply laughable, applying the most ludicrous sort of geographic legerdemain, arbitrarily claiming territory to within a few metres of the Pacific Ocean waters. The frontier commission was easily able to see through the Argentine nonsense and instead applied objective measures that included the previously agreed-upon criteria of watersheds and highest peaks.
As we see time after time in Argentina’s recent history, it selects an arbitration agency and pledges to abide by the outcome, then when an outcome is not fully favourable to Argentina, it pulls out the knives and throws the chessboard and pieces into the air and rejects what it solemnly promised to accept. That is precisely what happened when the arbitration commission selected in 1971 by both countries, determined once again that the three islands belonged to Chile. Argentina declared this unacceptable in 1978 and prepared to go to war with Chile over the matter, sending an amphibious invasion fleet to the Cape Horn region late in December 1978. The defensive minefields, many still in place in this part of Chile, are in response to Argentina’s unambiguous threats to invade that country.
Srto. Hektor...
Jul 12th, 2017 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You say...:
“We were not going to “Invade” CH, just the 3 islands in dispute....”
I say...:
As our Engrish friend..., Mr. DemonTree..., often says...:
“On the internet nobody can see if you are a dog..., but everybody can see if you are an ass...”
Argentina had big plans to invade Chile..., all the way from Valparaiso to Punta Arenas...
I could tell you stories about that december 78 at the Chubutean border... but this auld Patagonian doesn't want to bore a young lad with dusty tales of wars that were not...
Ps...
Dejá de tratar de hacerte el “piola” con tu historia selectiva...
Lo único que lográs... es quedar como un gil...
No sé si me explico...
Saludos...
El Think.
@Hektor
Jul 12th, 2017 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The War of the Pacific is relevant because Chile and Argentina signed the treaty defining their border in Patagonia while Chile was busy fighting Peru and Bolivia. Clearly Chile was not in a good position to object to Argentina's demands at the time. But Argentina didn't start claiming those three islands until a few years later.
I only know what Wikipedia says, but it claims Argentina planned to invade the disputed islands and then depending on Chile's reaction proceed to invade continental Chile. And I wouldn't say Pinochet screwed up here, he prepared to defend Chile and convinced the Junta that a war would be very costly even if they won, which was probably a major factor in them agreeing to the mediation.
IMO it was Thatcher who screwed up by not sending a few ships down to protect the Falklands in 1982. If the Junta had believed Britain would be willing to fight then that war could have been avoided too.
I suppose it's debatable what counts as a foreign war. AFAIK the US considered its wars against the native tribes to be foreign ones, but they liked to sign (and break) treaties with them; I don't think Argentina bothered. And what if part of a country declares independence and fights the rest, is that a foreign or internal war? Probably it depends on who wins.
Anyway, I don't think any South American country would be considered particularly aggressive compared to European ones. There is a bug on this site where only the first link appears correctly, so I can't see your link. But Britain was in the middle of a major war when it was born, and hasn't stopped much since. At least most of Europe is peaceful now.
It doesn't surprise me the papers lied and supported the government during the dictatorship, if they hadn't they would have been censored or closed down. Now if they lie it's their own choice.
@Think
I'd like to hear some dusty tales of wars that weren't. What was happening in Chubut in '78?
Marti Llazo & Think:
Jul 12th, 2017 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Let reiterate that AR had no intentions other than occupying the islands in dispute. I know that for a fact. And then wait for Chile's reaction. In the meantime we were tracking Chile's troop movement along the Patagonia more explicitly along Chubut. Chile's excuse was they were repairing roads, or something like that. Curiously, this troop movement started before we knew the findings by the BR Crown. Read Pinochet's book. He freely admits that Chile wanted to invade AR through Chubut and capture the city of Bahia Blanca, separating Patagonia from AR. This is no secret only here.
The main problem was not the three islands, s that Chile claimed the most of the Argentine southern maritime rights. That was unacceptable.
Do you think that wee do not know what we were facing? We were rejecting binding arbitration that we freely entered to. We were going to become a renegade nation, but we had no choice.
IN the 1984 treaty with Chile, AR kept its maritime rights and Chile the islands, which they agree not to militarize. The three little islands block the entrance to Ushuaia. That was it. That is all we wanted. 82% of the votes approved the referendum of the treaty.
I have ~ 800 left. I did my studies of history and Political Sciences in the US, therefore I have been indoctrinated and turned into a gil and piola in the US or Georgetown University.
It seems that posters here cannot exchange opinions without insulting people they do not agree with. I really do not have the time to waste. I was really making an effort to make a contribution. Do not worry. This idiot, gil, piola, poster indoctrinated in Georgetown University is out of here for good. Good bye and godspeed for everyone.
Hektor
PS: @DemonTree:
This is the link that I tried unsuccessfully to post before regarding the British wars and conflicts after WWII:
https://www.historyguy.com/british_wars_1945present.htm
It was a pleasure chatting and exchanging opinions with you
Tinkle, let Hektor dig himself a still bigger hole, for all the world to better appreciate the heart and soul of true argentinicity.
Jul 12th, 2017 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Nota escrita en cristiano, pa que el boludo este aprenda algo
”Operación soberanía u Operativo afianzamiento de la soberanía fue el nombre en clave del plan de invasión a Chile que el gobierno militar de Argentina planificó ejecutar en los últimos días de diciembre de 1978, pero que fue suspendido a último momento por la intervención del papa Juan Pablo II. Para solucionar el litigio por la soberanía de las islas y los derechos marítimos en el área del canal Beagle, Argentina y Chile acordaron en 1971 recurrir al arbitraje del gobierno británico, árbitro formal establecido en el Tratado General de Arbitraje del 28 de mayo de 1902, pero que solo podía aceptar o rechazar el fallo de un tribunal nombrado de común acuerdo entre ambos países. Basándose en el derecho internacional, los jueces dictaron sentencia el 22 de mayo de 1977, asignando las islas Picton, Nueva y Lennox a Chile. El 25 de enero de 1978, el gobierno argentino declaró el laudo arbitral «insanablemente nulo»1 y movilizó su poderío militar para obligar a Chile a dejarlo de lado y negociar una solución al conflicto más favorable a la posición argentina. Al no lograr ese objetivo por la vía negociada, Argentina planificó una guerra de agresión contra Chile...“
same stuff, in engrish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Soberan%C3%ADa
Other summary:
”.....in 1978, Argentina came within hours of invading Chile. The scheme arose as a result of a conflict between the two countries regarding the ownership of the Picton, Nueva and Lennox islands, which are situated at the western entrance to the Beagle Channel ...The plan envisaged the seizure by the Argentine military of these and a number of other islands, to be followed shortly after by an invasion of mainland Chile......”
What is wrong with folk these days...a few insults and off they go...
Jul 12th, 2017 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Try years of insults...
Water off a duck's back....
Eh...Mr. Think....;-)
How ironic that it was Think's insults that finally made him leave. And a pity, I'd like to know how he 'knows for a fact' that Argentina had no intention other than occupying the disputed islands.
Jul 12th, 2017 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are we to believe that in 1978, under threat of war, Pinochet refused to compromise on the maritime rights, but in 1984, after Argentina had lost a war with Britain, seen its armed forces considerably reduced, and returned to democracy, Pinochet was willing to give them what they wanted?
Or is it more reasonable to think that Argentina was more willing to compromise the second time around?
As for Britain's wars, I think we should at least cover the major ones in school. The more I learn, the more I think my education was very lacking.
@Voice
It kind of sucks, because it scares off most of the decent people who join, and only less agreeable ones are willing to stick around. It's self perpetuating.
TWIMC...
Jul 13th, 2017 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse -1The Spanish terms “hacerse el piola” and “quedar como un gil” can best be translated to Engrish as “trying to be smart” and “look foolish”...
I find it difficult to believe that those words alone povoked the intempestive exit of Srto. Hektor...
I Think... it was mostly the fact that he encountered an old humble Patagonian with a memory who had no problems contesting his sanitized & airbrushed version of Argentinean history...
Well. It might have been because someone on his 'side' was criticising him too.
Jul 13th, 2017 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0What he said - his version of history - is that what people learn at school in Argentina?
And, are you going to tell me some of the non-sanitised and airbrushed version that you saw?
DT: “....what people learn at school in Argentina? ”
Jul 13th, 2017 - 04:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Answer: Not much.
I put the teaching of the Casi Guerra to a retired teacher friend of mine in Esquel and here is a summary: for the most part, the subject is avoided. The events are considered “shameful” for Argentina's role and the less said in curricula, the better. What young people learn is essentially from their parents or other extra-curricular sources. While the domestic literature may feature several titles on the Falklands war, there is almost nothing dwelling on the Casi Guerra era. So it is reasonable to expect that people like Hektor receive half-baked jerkwater notions that attempt to minimise the shame that responsible argentines feel about their country's abysmal behaviour during this period. Not unlike how Japanese schools avoid mentioning the Rape of Nanking.
The thinly-veiled movement of troops to a frontier area is one of warfare's oldest ruses, and it worked for Chile in 1978 and in 1982, as a means to draw Argentine troops and materiel away from regions that Chile really intended to defend. Some of those feints were intended to lure potential Argentine attackers into “kill boxes” through terrain channelisation, in the event of cross-border forays. During the Falklands war, the Chileans, in concert with British tacticians, fooled the Argentines once again by massing troops near the frontiers, causing the Argentine military planners to be deceived into thinking they had to keep their better troops on the continent (leaving more expendable conscripts to be slaughtered on the islands) -- for fear of invasion by Chile. But Chile had neither the means nor the intention to get into a ground war with Argentina. The outcome? Despite Argentina's aggressive maneuvering, they ultimately lost all hope for all of the islands - Picton, Lennox, Nueva, and the Falklands - because none of them belonged to Argentina.
@Hektor In 1982 Operation Rosario was a precursor to a much larger attack on Chile. The Argentine Junta had their eyes set on acquiring the southern part of Chile. This was confirmed by your own High Command in the late 90s. Operation Rosario had two objectives, the first was to remove the British presence in the region and secondly appease the Argentine population. They needed to ensure that Britain could not respond to an attack on Chile.
Jul 13th, 2017 - 05:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr.DemonTree...
Jul 13th, 2017 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
“What he said - his version of history - is that what people learn at school in Argentina? ”
I say...:
When you try to “hacerte el piola” you risk to “quedar como un gil”..., lad...
If memory serves me well... you didn't know nothin' about the Amritsar massacre before I happened to mention it in a previous post... is that what people learn at school in Engeland...?
But..., at least..., you are not “dropping names on me” and claiming to have a History and Political Sciences degree from Georgetown University....
Srto. Hektor did...
If so..., he should either know better..., paid some attention at class or file for a tuition refund...
@Think
Jul 13th, 2017 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've said before that I learned almost nothing about the British Empire in school, and as far as I know that hasn't changed since then. The only thing we really covered was the slave trade.
I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert; I only did history to GCSE level (age 16) and even that's not compulsory. I know very little about India and anything I do know I learned on my own.
But I take it from you're saying that Marti Llazo is right about this?
Hektor said his whole family are army officers. Perhaps he learned about the almost-war from them and that is why he didn't like you contradicting him?
@Capt Rockhopper
That makes no sense at all. Why would Argentina think Britain could or would respond to an attack on Chile?
Mr. DemonTree...
Jul 13th, 2017 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I take it from what you're saying..., that what people don't learn at school in Argentina is quite similar to what people don't learn at school in Engeland...
Sounds like it, although we have a good deal more history to leave out, both good and bad.
Jul 13th, 2017 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But judging by old novels I have read, people must have learnt a lot more in the past and focused on different things too. More about kings and battles and politics; our history was very focused on ordinary people. I guess history has fashions like everything else, eg like that revisionist stuff LukeDig was repeating.
Since Hektor is still lurking, perhaps he'll appreciate the contents of a US government (USG) cable in December of 1978, when the US was privvy to argentine plans to invade Chile, and somewhat diplomatically condemned Argentina's aggressive plans. It's interesting that Chile had proposed taking the matter of the islands to the ICJ, and Argentina would have none of it. Sound familiar? Likewise, Argentina did not wish the matter to be debated in the OAS. The following cable content was originally in all caps, as was customary, and includes the original spelling errors.
Jul 13th, 2017 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0-FOR AMBASSADOR CASTRO: YOU SHOULD SEEK IMMEDATE INTERVIEW WITH GENERAL VIOLA TO DELIVER FOLLOWING MESSAGE.
[...] IF ARGENTINA WERE TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION, AND WE WOULD UNDERSTAND OCCUPATION OF UNINHABITED ISLANDS IN DISPUTE TO CONSTITUTE MILITARY ACTION, THE USG AND THE WORLD COMMUNITY WOULD BE FORCED TO VIEW SUCH A MOVE AS AGGRESSION. -- IF SUCH AGGRESSION TOOK PLACE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT IMMEDIATELY TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES. -- THE USG WISHES ONCE AGAIN, IN THE STRONGEST TERMS, URGE THAT ARGENTINA SETTLE THIS TERRITORIAL DISPUTE WITH CHILE IN A PEACEFUL MANNER.
That don't prove nuffin...they could have sent that based on a rumour...
Jul 13th, 2017 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You dealing in hearsay now...?
Another argie in denial. It's just so sad.
Jul 14th, 2017 - 12:11 am - 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!