MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ dispute: Argentina sends diplomatic reply to latest UK note verbale
Argentina’s Deputy Foreign Minister Victorio Tacetti confirmed on Friday there is a formal presentation on the way in reply to the note verbale from the British government to the Argentine presidency in which restrictions applied to all Falklands-Malvinas-bound maritime transit are rejected. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesarticle 5 of the NATO treaty states an attack against one is an attack against all...the falkland islands are british territory, the u.s. military will intervene in any conflict where argentina is the aggressor. let me assure you, with the democrats about to lose the house of representatives and see their power reduced in the senate, they will be looking for a reason to demostrate their resolve. in addition, the u.s. military establishment has had just about enough of hugo chavez, a little demonstration of u.s. military capabilities might just be what he needs to see before he invites the russians into our hemi-sphere. da silva should mind his step also.
May 22nd, 2010 - 07:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0” .... the Argentine response will “vindicate the country's position regarding the Islands sovereignty.”
May 22nd, 2010 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hmm ... now I'm really looking forward to reading that :-)
“she would insist on the importance of complying with the UN resolutions”
I think we've complied with the Resolutions, those that have been passed. C-24 's proposals are not actually 'Resolutions' until adopted by the UN as a whole ... which they haven't been!
“ ... These are not one-day policies, we’ve been on this for years ...”
Something of an understatement that! Decades in fact .... talk about banging ones head into a brick wall :-)
“ ... have no doubts that finally we are going to reach our goal, but we must be patient”,...”
Those Argies do like a laugh, eh !
Regrettably, Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty refers only to Europe and North America. NATO has no mandate for action in the South Atlantic. This is one reason that Britain needs to re-establish the worldwide capabilities of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. The UK could, of course, ask to “borrow” US assets, but its not the same as having your own. Britain must have its own credible assets and forces for any eventuality.
May 22nd, 2010 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for 2 gdr. If the comment displayed any signs of intelligence, credibility or, indeed, intelligibility, it might merit a reasoned response. Unfortunately, it isn't intelligent, credible or intelligible. We should bear in mind that is made by an Argentine for whom neither English nor intelligence are important.
Mr. Tacetti, you should consider the posibility of sending other things to London apart from letters.
May 22nd, 2010 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Our objective is for that consensus to keep growing. These are not one-day policies, we’ve been on this for years and we will continue, and have no doubts that finally we are going to reach our goal, but we must be patient”
- We have no doubt that we're going to reach our goal, that's right!!!!
the UN Security Council has to be formalized newly..as :
May 22nd, 2010 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0( USA) + ( China) + ( Russia Federation) +(India) +
( a represantative country of South America) + ( a represantative
country of Turk Republics) + ( a represantative country of Arab World) +
(a represantative country of West Europe) + ( a represantative
country of African Countries). - 9- members enough !
plus a special agreements by Japan and Iran.
The security council is being made larger, but the old members will be the only ones to keep the VETO.
May 22nd, 2010 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain will keep it's security council status, when a crisis comes up, we are not afraid to put troops on the ground.
Also, under NATO the USA would not be obligated to help if there was another Falklands war, no. But in the first Falklands the USA offered to park a carrier group in between the Falklands and Argentina. The USA and UK have a lot of indifference about a lot of issues, but when it comes down to it, we usually stick up for each other.
@ zethe
May 23rd, 2010 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0“we are not afraid to put troops on the ground”
We either and also to attack any NATO member.
regards,
@jorge! Pray tell. What other things were you thinking of sending to London?
May 23rd, 2010 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ivo. Don't be daft. There are already 15 members of the Security Council and 2 of those are South American.
@NicoDin. So glad you're not afraid to put troops on the ground. Last time I looked the Argentine Army had 41,000 personnel. The British Regular Army is 114,400. Add in the Territorial Army and the Reserves and that ramps up to around 272,000.
As for NATO. Well it is a military alliance. It's first military action was the Korean War, when it had only 12 members, and faced the North Koreans, the Chinese and the Russians. Now it has 28 members. Which one(s) were you thinking of attacking?
“Our objective is for that consensus to keep growing. These are not one-day policies, we’ve been on this for years and we will continue, and have no doubts that finally we are going to reach our goal, but we must be patient”
May 23rd, 2010 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0So that would mean everything apart from anything that carries any real weight or actually puts your spurious claim to any real test.
NicoDin, your entire navy retreated into harbor last time after one ship was sunk, 80 marines held off your 10000 strong invasion force for 4 days, then your 10000+ strong invasion force surrendered to a British force of under half that number. Your air force failed to take out one single British plane.
May 23rd, 2010 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your armed forces are an embarrassment.
GDR, can you get it into your head that Arg has a written Constitution and a president. UK has an Unwritten Consititution that has developed over many hundreds of years since the days of absolute power of the Monarch 1000years ago - today in 2010 yes in theory the Queen can rule the country and sack the elected government - but she does not - nor would she be allowed to - in practice and by tradition she is the head of State in title and name - but NOT of power. Actual realistic power very democractically lies in the lected Government - same as in your country.
May 24th, 2010 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0The elected Govt makes and passes all the laws - the Queen then signs them, each week she meets with the elected Primeminister and they discuss affairs of government and she has a lifetime of experience and knowledge to offer and share with the Primeminister - but at the end of the day the PrimeMinister is the effective decision maker in the country - not the Queen. Many independent countries that used to be British territories like Canada, Australia and New Zealand have the same system - with the Queen as titular head of State - and she does this through a “Governor General” who acts for her and signs the Laws in those nations. Now are you going to try and tell us that Canada and Australia are not Independent Nations who run their own affairs and make their own foreign policy?? We , and several other countries have a Royal head of State because the majority of people in those countries PREFER it - and that is their democratic right!
To summarise - if British Govt has say a 30% share in a big company - that has NOTHING to do with the Queen and she has no 30% control! IF her family have some shares in a company in her own family name - then that is totally different and she is just the same as any other individual then.
We have a different type of Constitution to you - a much older one that has adapted and modernised with democracy over the years.
@zethe
May 24th, 2010 - 05:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are wrong
Your force (see down below) only entered into clash with 84 Argentina commandos.
57 marines
11 RN sailors
25–40 FIDF and some volunteer civilians.
The operations was called Rosario 84 personnel from special Task force under the command of “Guillermo Sánchez-Sabarots”
The rest of the 600 troops personnel landed later after the Royal Marines and the rest surrounded.
You don’t even fight not British casualties,
A very different story from what you have said, mate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands
And the force you are talking about was the whole contingent carrying out supplies and equipment to assure the Islands.
So 84 Argentineans “Buzo Tácticos special force” took the Islands, later came the rest of troops.
And your soldiers didn’t fight that is the whole story.
Regards,
“And your soldiers didn’t fight that is the whole story.”
May 24th, 2010 - 07:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0So was the Argentine soldier killed in the action killed by his own side was he?
Were the 3 Argentine wounded in the action wounded by their own side?
Was the Argentine Amtrac destroyed in the action destroyed by its own side?
The British troops did fight back as the facts clearly show. For you to say otherwise to win some cheap points dis-honours the bravery of your own troops who fought in the action, especially the soldier who gave his life. You should be ashamed of yourself!
NicoDin you are way of the mark. You should get your facts from a more reliable sorce.
May 24th, 2010 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes you goons landed about 80 commandos on 2nd April but what did they realy do, --- lets see? Oh thats right a very brave attack on the empty RM marine baracks at Moody Brook, what heroes! Then a bodged attack on Goverment House where you were simply checked. At this time your 4000 marines landed at York bay and started moving toward the town, Then BANG you loose an Amtrack with all inside killed. a few minutes later a landing craft enters the narrows and BANG that is hit and sinks, a lot of men go to the bottom. Now arround Goverment House your death toll grows to about 5, The RM are putting up stiff resistance and you lot start to piss gravy,
Any way the RM are finaly orderd to surrender with not a single casualty . Not bay A boy!!!
Shall we talk about South Georgia? LT MILLS and his men story was not that different.
So now it looks like it is your troops that could not fight.
Now go play with your train.
I've never understood their South Georgia claim.
May 24th, 2010 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That seems to be nothing more complex than “It's nearby and I want it”
@zethe, LegionNi & khh
May 24th, 2010 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0zethe wrote“80 marines held off your 10000 strong invasion force for 4 days, then your 10000+ strong invasion force surrendered to a British force of under half that number. Your air force failed to take out one single British plane. Your armed forces are an embarrassment.”
You are doing the same mates, are you ashamed? I don’t thing so.
Is my fault that your army didn’t want to fight? It’s not.
By the way I’m not ashamed why?
I’m very proud of what our army has done.
1-They took back the Island with 84 men and didn’t kill any brit soldier. That is quite amazing task to do.
2-They had defeated and fought your SAS, RN, etc several times.
3-They keep still a score record of “Argies: 3 Brits:1” and against the 2 most powerful Army in the world (You have said that not me) and helped all the time by the mayor power in the world (US).
Are not amazing?
By the way my train fine and yours?
Regards,
Nico are you pissed. what bit did you not get?
May 24th, 2010 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Read my last post slowly. you mite get it, thicko.
-They took back the Island with 84 men and didn’t kill any brit soldier. That is quite amazing task to do.
May 24th, 2010 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0-They had defeated and fought your SAS, RN, etc several times.
These two things did not happen, the 84 men came from a submarine, you said yourself right? They stormed an empty base nico, the force which took the islands consisted of six APC's, you can't squeeze six APC's into a sub mate.
SAS operations in the war were these:
South Georgia - Two garrisons taken over, no British lives lost.
Goose Green - Diversionary raid, no men lost on either side.
Pebble Island - 12 aircraft destroyed, no British lives lost.
West Falkland - One SAS death.
Mount Kent - Argentine patrol killed, no British deaths.
Wireless Ridge - Destroyed fuel tanks. No SAS deaths.
That was the full extent to the involvement of the SAS in the falklands, i'd hardly call that “beating them many times”
@zethe
May 25th, 2010 - 04:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Even the tale of how the RM surrender shows how terrible your military was. You lost an APC and your commander died along with a few of his men.”
You have surrounded mate so you were not able to defend your position, what do you want to explain?
The truth is that the first operation failed and your SAS commandos ended up in Chile after they was discovered by Argentinean defense.
The glorious retake of the South Georgia, a place occupied by a Naval Engineer Officer (Astiz) without any experience and training in battlefield and by kids of 18 old without training, don’t seem to me any major operation to be proud of. Do you?
Even your nationalistic propaganda recognize that “The Argentine force was commanded by a naval engineering officer named Lt. Commander Alfredo Astiz. Astiz had a poor reputation as an officer and a military commander, but to be fair the forces under him were insufficient to properly occupy and control the whole island...”
“The next day, 26 April, the 16 Argentines at Leith were invited to surrender by radio, but they refused. A personal visit from the SAS and Royal Marines, however, convinced them that they should do so without a fight. The presence of HMS Plymouth and Endurance in support assisted greatly with the process. The islands had been retaken without the ground forces from either side firing a single shot...”
“The only fatality was an Argentine Chief Petty Officer who was sadly shot while the submarine was being moved under supervision...”
“As the Argentine sailor complied with the command, the Royal Marine thought that he was about to scuttle the boat and so he shot him. Artuso was buried with full military honours in the graveyard that holds Sir Ernest Shackleton and many others who have died in the harsh climate of South Georgia.”
Source RAF
”Naval Engineer Officer (Astiz) without any experience and training in battlefield”
May 25th, 2010 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0He was well trained in the kidnapping and murder of women and children. Very nice chap that Mr Astiz.
“The truth is that the first operation failed and your SAS commandos ended up in Chile after they was discovered by Argentinean defense.”
May 25th, 2010 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong again...bad weather trapped SAS men on a glacier and a Wessex 3 and two Wessex 5s were sent to retrieve them. They ended up having to relocate to Chile.
@zethe
May 25th, 2010 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Even your biased and nationalistic documentaries that says not the whole truth of what happen in any war you have being involved. Recognizes that the helicopter in one of its attempts failed due to Argentina defense got them in the radar. You are making me to work so hard to find material in English and with testimonial from you own lads to show how silly and nationalistic wash head you are.
The point of this fragment (as the rest is crap and propaganda) is to show you that also they recognize their failure in one mission and to avoid to be captured they escaped to Chile.
Your lads in Chile said another story, just in case you don’t understand your own language.
“To avoid capture they flow on to neutral territory in Chile”
“... was left to the air crew to face Chilean’s TV...” with a lie of course.
The lie “Once on sea patrol we experienced an engine failure, due to... was not possible to return to our ship in this condition ... near neutral country” (Chile).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiMvUFKAeUE&feature=PlayList&p=C282257637083329&playnext_from=PL&index=23&playnext=2
What do you want a letter from Elizabeth Queen II?
What are you talking about is the first try on Georgia that they also failed due to their helicopter crash.
“What do you want a letter from Elizabeth Queen II?”
May 25th, 2010 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, I'm sure all Zethe needs is factual evidence and an argument that isn't backed up by YouTube.
@NicoDim
May 25th, 2010 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To try and convince us that the Argentine army is strong is a losing battle (pun intended). Yes you captured the Islands, congrats, you beat a handful of men with thousands, congrats. But you should be embarrased, why? I will tell you.
You outnumbered the British army, 2-1 at the least. You lost, on your so-called...“Argentine territory” against a force smaller than you, from a country 14,000kms away, that took two weeks to get to you, and it carried all its own supplies... I am applying Argentine logic here, you should be very embarrassed with your Army's performance in the Falklands War. I would like to see Argentine try and invade my country again, because it would just be another huge embaarrasses for Argentina, that can be added to their long list of embarrassments.
Well said M_of_fi.
May 25th, 2010 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One point i thought was really funny.
“Argentina defense got them in the radar.”
You're saying they retreated because of this. How did they know that Argentina had them on radar? It would be impossible for them to know. Are you sure it isn't your own press that is lying to you?
Your press released pictures of British warships in flames - many of them faked, bogus eyewitness reports of the Argentine commandos' guerrilla war on South Georgia, which never happened. and an already dead pilot's attack on HMS Hermes was reported, “Estamos ganando” was reported, when you was failing so hard with the war. HMS Invincible was repeatedly sunk in the Argentine press.
Our press did not lie.
“The art of war is making less mistakes than your opponent”
The UK had the odds stacked against it in the Falklands, by every account we should have lost, but we didn't, because you played the war so badly. your army embarrassed your nation.
To be fair it was the Argentine Navy that was the embarrassment. It was the only service capable of thwarting the recovery of the islands once the dice were cast - but was not prepared to pay the price. Nobody doubts the commitment of the air force to the conflict but the navy lost one ship and then fled.
May 25th, 2010 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only route to Argentine victory was preventing the British building a beachhead in the first place. Once the British forces had consolidated themselves ashore the rest of the conflict was inevitable. It became professional wolves vs conscript lambs. While led utterly incompetently they faced an enemy that was far too formidable for their capabilities.
I agree with you. I never questioned their bravery, misguided as it was.
May 25th, 2010 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina should be proud of how brave their air force was, they was the only section of the armed forces which gave our troops trouble. The harriers ability to stop mid air is a powerful one, it's the reason America got the design from us.
The troops themselves did as any would, they fought for their nation, which you guys should be proud of. The people in control of the war made a lot of bad mistakes.
I see that Nicotine deploys the full force of Youtube and fantasy Argentine military history.
May 25th, 2010 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Trying to keep this rant down to within a fraction of it's desired size but anyway.....
1. Invasion of Falklands Argentina had well over 600 marines with submarines, armtraks, helicopters, naval destroyers etc etc etc, the Royal marines had just under 50 Royal marines with about 24 members of the Falkland defense force, not the 88 “hero's” who got stuck at Government house and fucked up their original mission to just waltz in and “demand” govenor Hunt's surrender of the islands, the “arrest” turned into an 28 hour slug fest with the Argentines pinned down against the summit because they were trying to supress marine fire with sterling sub-machine guns, effective range 50 yards, marines distance 300 yards, they were bloody lucky that the cavalry came when they did, but they still lost a landing craft and Armtrak.....
2. South Georgia, an even bigger fuck up for the Argies, 2 heli's shot down, and a corvette having the unglamorous reputation of being the only warship in maritime history to lose a firefight against an infantry based Unit, and nearly sunk.
As for the coward and child murderer Astiz, his men surrendered after a quick demonstration of naval firepower, not exactly heroically holding out, although I am sure his men were relieved to be POW's, and lets not mention the Santa Fe.
It wasn't exactly a glorious recapture “liberation” nicotine, esspecially when the population despised you after day 1, many Argentine soldiers began to see their mission as one of occupation when they found out that the population weren't actually the Spanish speaking Latino's the Parrot-Tree's propaganda banged on about, but rather independent, stubborn English speaking Falkland islanders whose isolation has made them a distinctly difficult nut to crack and not some eccentric British folk which you ignorantly name......
@M_of_FI
May 26th, 2010 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I would like to see Argentine try and invade my country again, because it would just be another huge embaarrasses for Argentina, that can be added to their long list of embarrassments.”
Sure?
Argentina 3 Anglo 1 Where is the embarrassments mate because UK won 1 30 years ago you feel a superpower now?
@zethe
“It would be impossible for them to know. Are you sure it isn't your own press that is lying to you?”
Are you British? I’m really having serious doubts about it now.
The documentary is British not Argentinean, the Guys are British and it is the British version surely they know why. Why you don’t ask them?
But the point was to prove that the episode existed. May be they’ve got some arti-shots. Have you think about it?
“Our press did not lie.” Your press and your govt. always lie.
1- The boom and burst circle has ended in UK Gordon Brown, later total collapse.
2- WMD in Iraq, later nothing was found.
3- Afghanistan we can win, when?
@Rhaurie-Craughwell
Yeah, yeah but what about the truth for a while?
Your own media and testimonials from UK ministers and RN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An0GLH98OkU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An0GLH98OkU&feature=related
1-“The first attempt to Georgia end in disaster”
2-“Your fleet bombed Georgia”
4- Your submarine attacked the Belgrano out of the war zone when was heading away.
5- The Belgrano was not a threat as was an old ship full of conscripts for seal training.
6- That Belgrano was why Argentina lost so many lives else the number would be equal to brits.
7- That the Georgia operation was just a desperate attempt to gain some good news for your politicians. Etc.
8- And later our revenge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An0GLH98OkU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An0GLH98OkU&feature=related
You were sooooo lucky that’s all.
Please can you stop dreaming Rhaurie & co?
Thanks
Nicodin
May 26th, 2010 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“4- Your submarine attacked the Belgrano out of the war zone when was heading away.
5- The Belgrano was not a threat as was an old ship full of conscripts for seal training.”
The Captain of the Belgrano has stated that the sinking of his vessel was a legitimate at of war. What is your point?
There is no zone of war when it comes to vessels of the two opposing belligerent forces. The zone which you refer to was as a warning for civilian vessels and aircraft only, i.e. sale or fly into this zone and you may be targetted. Where the Belgrano was and what direction it was going is irrelevant. It was an enemy vessel and therefore a legitimate target, again something which the Captain of the Belgrano has stated himself.
You can't start a war and then complain when we fight back.
The Belgrano controversy is just a daft conspiracy theory.
May 26th, 2010 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Even the Argentines claimed it was a legitimate act of war in the 1990s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
However since then the captain and others have begun to change their tune on that to suit the prevailing political winds in Argentina.
They are a flexible bunch
@LegionNi
May 26th, 2010 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 01- The voice in off say “From a military point of view... but politically and diplomatic... caused much embarrassment... the ship was totally outside of the exclusion zone sailing away from the task force... the exchanged direction never reported to the war cabinet...”
Captain Bonzo later says “ when I go to toward the enemy force they allowed me to proceed.. when going away from the enemy zone I received the attack (he was always out of the exclusion zone)”
Later the irony “could be a tactic used with what I’m not familiar with”
In other words, would be like a survived from a concentration camp saying.
“well the Nazi didn’t want to hurt us really, may be they only want to warm me up in the oven for the could, a technique I was not familiar with” Do you mean that the survive wanted to say that literally? Of course not.
This is like to shoot you in the back when you living.
“There is no zone of war when it comes to vessels of the two opposing belligerent forces”
Yes it was a British-imposed exclusion zone they wanted to limit the conflict just to Island’s area and surrounding waters. And UK violated 2 times.
@ Idlehands dear,
Please try to say smart things and for god sake show a little bit of intelligence when you post.
You are a complete ignorant about British affairs or else you are a complete washed head as you don’t know that this action (Belgrano sinking) cost Margaret Thatcher her reelection as a primer minister in UK.
As you can see here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3Ia3k3RqJc
You were indoctrinated with a bunch of lies Mr. Idlehands
Regards
nicodin ““There is no zone of war when it comes to vessels of the two opposing belligerent forces”
May 26th, 2010 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes it was a British-imposed exclusion zone they wanted to limit the conflict just to Island’s area and surrounding waters. And UK violated 2 times. ”
Though the ship was outside the 200-mile (370 km) exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action—on 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read:
In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.
The Belgrano was a military vessel, which was a potential threat to our forces and was therefore a legitimate target.
As for comparing a legitimate act of war, targetting a military vessel of a nation against which you are at war, to what the Nazis did in the concentration camps is just pure idiocy! Your making a complete fool of yourself.
“This is like to shoot you in the back when you living.”
May 26th, 2010 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL, this is brilliant from the nation who waited until we removed our last ship in the area to invade the Falklands islands.
You start a war, then complain when we sink your ship? hilarious.
“Our press did not lie.” Your press and your govt. always lie.”
When did i say government? Show me a government that doesn't lie, there aren't any. Our press does not make stories up, about sinking ships and winning wars, they are extremely critical of even our own government. The BBC is the largest news organization in the world, it doesn't take sides.
1-“The first attempt to Georgia end in disaster” - do we have to go through this again, the video you posted me just said exactly what i bloody told you. Bad weather.
2-“Your fleet bombed Georgia” - Point?
4- Your submarine attacked the Belgrano out of the war zone when was heading away. The Belgrano was not a threat as was an old ship full of conscripts for seal training. - You in invade the islands THEN complain when we sink you're ship? LOL, your nation is ridiculous. The maritime zone is just to warn other nations ships that if they enter they will be fired upon, it stops third party from loosing troops in a war they aren't involved in. It does not mean that outside the war zone there is to be no fighting.
6- That Belgrano was why Argentina lost so many lives else the number would be equal to brits.
Numbers mean nothing. Either way we would have still won the war. Look at the russians in WW2, they lost millions, they still won.
7- That the Georgia operation was just a desperate attempt to gain some good news for your politicians. Etc.
NicoDin Wrote ”Please try to say smart things and for god sake show a little bit of intelligence when you post.
May 26th, 2010 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are a complete ignorant about British affairs or else you are a complete washed head as you don’t know that this action (Belgrano sinking) cost Margaret Thatcher her reelection as a primer minister in UK.”
Rather than it be idlehands hows 'a complete ignorant about British affairs' the charge can be safely laid at your door I'm afraid. It was not the lawful sinking of the Belgrano that cost Thatcher her premiership at all. She lost it over europe and the poll tax. The Falklands war actually saved her premiership in the 80's.
26 M_of_FI, we didn't invade your “country”, we just took what is our, you squatter!!!!
May 26th, 2010 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nicodin comment 31
May 26th, 2010 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your Southern Zone Naval Admiral in Command stated on Britsh TV in 1983 that the belgrano was a Legitimate target - the ship was on a holding pattern steaming around a triangle awaiting further orders - ideally to join in a joint attack mounted by your carrier aircraft from the north. It makes no difference the direction the boys were pointing as they change in moments when ordered - a few moments later the ship would have turned the next leg and been facing the islands again. He also stated publicy “In war it is your duty to sink the enemy ship before the enemy can sink you - if I had been in that submarine I would also have fired” - and that is exactly what happened - its just the reality of war.
Jorge - how long has your family been squatting in Argentina that used to belong to the indigenous people? Mine has been here for 9 generations - hardly squatters!
# 38 .... and then we threw you out of what is really ours .... again!
May 27th, 2010 - 06:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0”@ Idlehands dear,
May 27th, 2010 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please try to say smart things and for god sake show a little bit of intelligence when you post.
You are a complete ignorant about British affairs or else you are a complete washed head as you don’t know that this action (Belgrano sinking) cost Margaret Thatcher her reelection as a primer minister in UK.“
You can always discern how accurate your posts are on an internet forum in relation to the rabidity and mindlessness of the responses you receive to them. I always imagine NicoDin is close to tears when he makes his posts.
The Belgrano went glug glug glug in 1982 and yet Margaret Thatcher resigned in 1990 just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Linking the two events requires one’s imagination to be stretched beyond the limits of reason.
The sinking of the Belgrano is very well documented and to quote Argentine Rear Admiral Allara, who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of:
”After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano”.
I suggest you take the issue up with him rather than vociferously attacking internet posters while making up nonsense that has no basis in fact.
I assume you still believe that you sank HMS Invincible??
I look forward to deciphering your response.
jorge ; be careful the editor writes some comments by different names ..
May 27th, 2010 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do like the way you spam every comments section with your latest idea Ivo - no matter how ridiculous.
May 27th, 2010 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The reason your posts are repeatedly deleted by the editors is because of their content, not because the editors hold any particular view they want to promote on the topics being discussed.
If you really cannot determine why your posts are constantly being removed then you are beyond help.
@43 don't make gossip !!
May 27th, 2010 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you should discuss below link instead of Korea...
www.slate.com/id/2255170/
39 Tim, 8th generations??? The first one were squatters and you are their decendent.
May 28th, 2010 - 04:43 am - Link - Report abuse 042 ivo, I realise that Rorie comments are full with some words that I cannot use, those words are the reason to be deleted, but when they are used by Rorie, nothing happens.
Jorge - “39 Tim, 8th generations??? The first one were squatters and you are their decendent.”
May 28th, 2010 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is noted that you did not answer Tims question regarding how long your ancestors had been in Argentina which used to belong to the indigenous people.
The term “squatters” can only really be applied to the Argentine garrison that was rightfully expelled in 1833, after trying to lay claim to territory already claimed by Britain.
I await your usual verbal tirade.
Nicotine I doubt you have any relevant military knowledge other than what you wish to believe, as you said how about the facts for a change, rather than bias from a predispositioned dislike of anything British?
May 28th, 2010 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 01. Yes it was but no one was killed, and your “highly successful recruits” had very little input into that fuck up.
2. “Shelling” is the correct term, it achieved it’s aims, South Georgia was taken, with no loss of life for both sides? Something you failed to mention.
3. I didn’t know being a warship exempted you from attack?
4. Spare me the victimhood, if it was a training exercise why on earth would you do it in a warzone close to enemy vessels and subs around? Pretty odd bloody “training” exercise eh?
5. Pathetic! “Old ship!!?” the torpedo’s which sunk it were made in 1925, the moral of the story being if something is old it doesn’t mean it can’t kill! I suppose the 30 mile range 150 mm guns were just for display and the exocets launchers were for a fireworks show?
6. Come of it Nicotine! That’s like saying If the Argentine airforce hadn’t existed our casualties would be the same! You beguile ignorance to how infantry battles work, you can win one in many different ways, killing most of the opposition most effective, but not necessary capturing and injuring also works as demonstrated in the Falklands. Neither side had the luxury of air supremacy or artillery, hence the land battles had remarkably low casualties on either side.
7. If it was desperate then why the success? It gained good news for our politicians and bad news for yours.
8. So you sunk 4 British warships your point is?
We weren’t lucky mate, we just fought better. You don’t win wars through being lucky? You win them because the other side loses. I don’t think Woodward and Menezes got together and flipped coin to decide the outcome did they?
Nicotine and co please stop with your pshycological attempts to reassure your mental states that defeat wasn’t so bad with lies and halftruths.
NicoDin & co. Since you seem to be set on another armed conflict, despite the lies told by your government, because you don't think we actually believe all that rubbish they spout about only using peaceful, legal methods, do you?
May 28th, 2010 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, here's an option. Next time you try one of your sneak attacks and we've reached the point where your troops surrender, instead of using British vessels to repatriate your ill-disciplined animals, we'll invite you to send your own vessels. Then, when they're on their way back, due to bad weather and a technical error, we'll sink them. All of them.
I offer this solely on one basis. When you lost in 1982, your losses were obviously not enough to persuade you not to do it again.
Lastly, in 1982, we kindly said we would not engage targets in Argentina. Don't count on that in the future. Try to remember the period 1914 to 1945. In 1918, the Germans were left with a largely intact country. In 1945, it was effectively left as a basket case. This is the sort of response you get when you don't learn the first time around!
46 LegionNi, you didn't have a valid claim to the islands, you bloody pirate!!!
May 28th, 2010 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 048 agent0060, little man, if you are willing to give us a punch, why don't you come here now???? Without weapons, just naked hands, huh???
You will learn to respect little arrogant infant!!!!!
39 Tim, 8th generations??? The first one were squatters and you are their decendent.
May 28th, 2010 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina got it's independence in 1810, am i correct?
The British re-established rule of the falklands in 1833.
So ok, if Tim is a 8th generation squatter, what does that make you? a 9th generation squatter?
TIM HIS COUNTRY HAS A WHOLE GENERATION ON YOU! OMG
......“Argentina got it's independence in 1810, am i correct?”.....
May 29th, 2010 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0- No, you are wrong!!! 1810 is May revolution.
.......“So ok, if Tim is a 8th generation squatter, what does that make you? a 9th generation squatter?”........
- No, we didn't expell anyone here. There was no country here before 1810. There is no country claiming our territory. You instead, expell some argentines and the guarrison that was legally there. That makes them squatters!!!! and the current population in the islands (not all of them) are their descendents!!!
You did not expel the native residents by mass killing them in their thousands? I think you did. You are the decentant of a mass murdering squatter.
May 29th, 2010 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge ”- No, we didn't expell anyone here. There was no country here before 1810. There is no country claiming our territory. You instead, expell some argentines and the guarrison that was legally there. That makes them squatters!!!! and the current population in the islands (not all of them) are their descendents!!!”
May 29th, 2010 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0They weren't legally there Jorge. The settlement was supposed to be a private venture of Vernets. This is well documented. Vernet asked Britains permission for his settlement also documented. Vernet also accepted payment for loss of his investment in a British court. That settled the matter in regards Vernet.
As to your garrison, Argentina had no right to place a garrison in the Flaklands in the first place. Argentina were well aware that we claimed sovereignty of the islands, and ignored our protests at Argentina appointing a governor and setting up the garrison.
In 1833 Britain re-established its rights in the islands, removed your illegal garrison, and then allowed the settlers the option of staying or leaving. Some did, some didn't but they were free to make that choice.
Argentina then dropped any pretence to it's claim in the treaty of 1850 settling ALL differences between our two countries. If they didn't want the ALL to include the Falklands then they perhaps should have read how the document was worded more carefully and had the ALL removed before signing it. Always important to read the small print Jorge.
Argentina does not have any legal rights to the Falklands Islands now, nor did it every have any legal rights to the islands.
As we have said on many occasions on this forum Jorge if Arentina still believes it has a case then the should take it to the ICJ.
LegionNi is quite correct, and there is plenty of evidence to support what he says. Argentina on the other hand has not indicated the evidence it suggests that it has!
May 30th, 2010 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This forum is getting a little one sided, with nothing substantial coming from the Argentine side. After 7 years of the Kirchner's getting nowhere I'd have thought that even the Argentine population was starting to notice that the Falklands are a lost cause!
“There was no country here before 1810. There is no country claiming our territory”
May 31st, 2010 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My my the blood of Hitler flows strong through this one! I am sure Jorge the natives had something to say about “No country” As I am aware Jorge the indigenous did not have any concept of “Country” since it is a wholly European concept, but had a very advanced relationship between an ancestral homeland and a relationship with the land and it's creatures which did not involve taking as much as possible in a series of often violent land grabs to gain greater power and living space for the invaders.
This relationship would under any definition be identified as a highly advanced form of the country concept, until your descendants wrecked it of course and killed anyone who stood in the way of your imposed idealo0gdy of “country”. reminds me of this fellow who went around Europe in 1939 imposing an alien concept and idealogdy and destroyed anybody who opposed it?
civilization don't you love it ;)
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!