MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, October 17th 2021 - 18:04 UTC



Falklands: Cristina Fernandez leads ceremony to honour 323 crewmembers from torpedoed ‘General Belgrano’

Friday, May 3rd 2013 - 05:48 UTC
Full article 171 comments

Argentine president Cristina Fernandez honoured the memory of the 323 crew members from the cruiser “General Belgrano” who lost their lives during the Malvinas war, “today, 31 years ago” and described the British torpedo attack on the vessel as “a criminal and coward action”. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Xect

    Only an Argentine leader could complain when her country illegally invaded a country, started a war and then cries about a warship being sunk in the very same war they started!

    This is just another good example of why Argentina is in such a state when the leaders acts in this hypocritical way.

    Even the captain of the warship and various high ranking Argentine officers agree it was a legitimate target heading towards the task group.

    It's mind bogglingly stupid.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 06:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    She describes the attack on the Belgrano as criminal and cowardly!!!!??!!?!?

    What about the invasion of the Falklands Islands?

    Illegal by international law, and Argentina ignored a LEGALLY binding UN resolution to leave. So a CRIMINAL act.

    10,000 Argentine troops sent against a 80 Royal Marines. Yup definitely cowardly.

    Also let's not forget WHY the death toll from the Belgrano was so high. It was the fact that the Belgrano's escort vessels ran like COWARDS and left Belgrano's crew to the mercy of the Atlantic, despite being reassured by the Royal Navy that they wouldn't be fired upon.

    The sinking of the Belgrano was a necessary evil. It was on its way to attack the RN Task Force. IT was engaged in a WAR!!!

    Typical of this Agentine government to FORGET that THEY started the war, and therefore ANY and ALL deaths can be laid at their feet.

    Oh but I forgot, the Argentine ecomony is tanking, and CFK is DESPERATELY trying to divert the public away from the fact that she has ruined the economy and by extension Argentina. She is like the boy who cried wolf. Sooner or later the masses will no longer care about the white elephant that is the Falklands, they will only care about the economy and it's effect on their livihoods.

    What a pathetic leader she is! Rather than address the very pressing concerns about inflation, foreign investment, and the economy, she refers to bury her head in the sand and 'hopes' and prays everything will just 'magically' sort itself out.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 06:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Boovis

    “Always, as in all wars those who die come from humble homes, humble families” added Cristina Fernandez.” Meaning “there's no way us politicians are sending our sons to fight, send the scum of the shanties”.

    Unbelievable. Even members of the British Royal Family went to fight in that war, they sent only the poorest of the poor, knowing they had no option but to go. Disgusting behaviour.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 06:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Pathetic, they send a warship into battle and cry foul when it gets sunk.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 06:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Hector Bonzo, last man to leave the stricken ship, and it's commander, - Always maintained the sinking was a legitimate act of war.

    If there is any cowardice involved, it's on the part of her two escorting destroyers who fled the scene without picking-up survivors.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Beef

    The loss of life is a tradgedy but saying the sinking of a vessel by a nation you have just effectivly declared war on as criminal and cowardly is disgusting.

    Cowardly is positioning your guns in civilian areas, effectivly using the civilians as.human shields, cowardly is painting ammunition stores with red crosses on, cowardly is booby trapping the homes of Falkland Islanders after kicking out the legal resident, cowardly is killing soliders after yourself waiving the white flag, cowrdly is damaging the water provision after your forces have just surrended, cowardly is giving an order to “Kill a Kelper” should one resist (thankfully not carried out).

    If you want to know about cowardice Argies then look no further than a mirror.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 07:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CJvR

    Actually ever since Aboukir, Crecy and Hogue you do not stop to pick up survivors from a torpedoed ship.

    Other than that KFCs stupidity is stunning as usual. Particularly the constant whining from Argies, ignorant pacifist and political prostitutes about the exclusion zone. South Georgia was also “outside” the exclusion zone and it was assaulted and recaptured and an Argie sub sunk there just days before the General was sunk.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Mmmm - Even more telling then that the argentine vessels commanders were on a war footing, and not just crusing around 'outside an exclusion zone' then.......

    May 03rd, 2013 - 07:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Speaking from the right end of the horse.

    Letters from readers

    “Mrs. Pierini framed the sinking of the cruiser General Belgrano as a war crime unpunished and unclaimed by our country.
    ”I have an obligation to make public my total disagreement. Was not a war crime, but a combat action, the 323 crew members who gave their lives were not murdered: died fighting for our country, which is the maximum that can make delivery military.
    “The integrated naval force was deployed for an attack on the British fleet forming a coordinated operation with other naval groups, the course that had momentarily away from the enemy fleet, as commander Admiral should wait a moment considered most suitable. The Belgrano and the other ships were a threat and a danger to the British.
    ”Its location outside the exclusion zone meant not withdraw from the war. All commanders at sea had been the British media establishment that area. The message stated in its final part:“ The government of His Majesty reserves the right to attack any ship or aircraft, within or outside the exclusion zone, which it considers a threat to its forces. ”Leave the exclusion zone was not to leave the combat zone to enter a protected area.
    “There was a violation of international law was an act of war and that was the position as head of the Navy in 1995 with presentations held in various courts.
    ”The internal political problems did not govern the conduct of those who fought. The Belgrano was sunk endowment aware of its risks.
    “To think that were poorly killed and not killed in combat is to offend the memory they deserve who fought for us.”

    Enrique Molina Pico
    Admiral, former Chief of
    General Staff of the Navy
    CI 4293994

    May 03rd, 2013 - 07:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Gordo1

    So - a real Argentine hero of the conflict with Britain over the Falkland Islands is denied by la Kretina and unmentioned - Captain Hector Bonzo. This true gentleman insisted that the sinking of the General Belgrano was a “licit act of war” and in no way was it a “war crime”. Furthermore, he also admitted that the fact that his vessel was outside the “exclusion zone” was neither here nor there as he was effecting a manoeuvre to enable the General Belgrano to better engage the British fleet.

    So, la Kretina is, again, shamefully remaking history! What a stupid woman!

    May 03rd, 2013 - 07:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    @9 & 10;

    Good posts!

    May 03rd, 2013 - 07:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CJvR

    I doubt any actual Argentine naval officer will willingly sign off on the “war crime” angle - because it will make them and the Argie navy look like complete idiots if they do. Professional pride...

    May 03rd, 2013 - 07:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    If the sinking of the Belgrano was anything remotely resembling a war crime, they would have taken it to the Hague decades ago. This is just more insulting propaganda, insulting to both navies.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DanyBerger

    British cowards sinking ships outside war exclusion zone.

    Just Pathetic...

    Well they were beating children in Iraq what can you expect from them?

    May 03rd, 2013 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    The Cult of Vicitimhood must be sustained. Otherwise, questions might get asked.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    LMFAO at you.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 08:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CJvR

    “Well they were beating children in Iraq what can you expect from them?”
    Well at least they weren't throwing them out of aircrafts like the Argentine did with their famous half-way airlaine tickets. No wonder the Falklanders prefer Chilean air travel!!! :-)

    May 03rd, 2013 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Faz

    No DanyBerger, the cowards were the captains of the two Argentinian escort ships that ran away instead of saving their comrades from the Belgrano. Cowardice runs in Argentinian blood.

    Anyway, we don't need to sink any more of your ships. You seem to be making a great job of that yourselves!

    May 03rd, 2013 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Some Arab kids got a kicking for throwing bricks at squaddies on active service, I find nothing wrong with that. The squadies were punished, I find nothing wrong with that. The kids families were paid compensation, I do find something wrong with that. Little sods got what they deserved.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 08:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob


    When you invade another countries sovereign territory your ships/aircraft/and soldiers are targets wherever they are. The exclusion zone was just a declared 'war zone'.

    As the Argentine forces only went into 'reverse gear' after the British landed, only one country can officially be declared as 'cowards'.

    11,313 prisoners taken (who didn't have a stomach for a fight).

    Take a look in the mirror.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve-33-uk

    “a criminal and coward action” = Invading a small island nation and imprisoning the inhabitants against their will.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @18 Just some “errors” in the article. The Belgrano wasn't previously the USN Arizona. The USS Arizona is still at Pearl Harbor where she was sunk during the cowardly Japanese air attack on 7 December 1941 The Belgrano actually used to be the USS Phoenix. Nor was the vessel accompanied by two missile armed frigates. They were destroyers.

    In addition:
    On 23 April, the British Government clarified in a message that was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government that any Argentine ship or aircraft that was considered to pose a threat to British forces would be attacked.

    On 30 April this was upgraded to a Total Exclusion Zone within which any sea vessel or aircraft from any country entering the zone may have been fired upon without further warning. The zone was stated to be “...without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in exercise of its right of self-defence, under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.”

    So the “exclusion zone” was totally irrelevant. The argentine government and navy were fully aware that argie “assets” could be attacked anywhere. In any event, the exclusion zone was intended for the benefit of neutral shipping, not the argie navy. The argies were aware of the UK attitude from 23 April. The Belgrano wasn't sunk until 2 May. Argies can lie all they want. It doesn't change the truth!

    May 03rd, 2013 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    @ DanyBerger, Perhaps you should address the issue of The Argentine officers who sexually abused the young Argentine conscripts who openly admit The British forces treated them better than there own officers

    May 03rd, 2013 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin Woodhead

    The belgrano was a relic from another time on paper and in theory a threat.
    But I sincerely doubt the argentine navy had the training or experiance to use the formdiable armanant to full effect or any effect really.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve-33-uk


    'A war crime is a serious violation of the laws applicable in armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include “murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps,” “the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war,” the killing of prisoners, “the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity.”[1]'

    The sinking of the General Belgrano was no more a war crime than the sinking of HMS Sheffield.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Rick Jolly Surgeon General in Ajax bay, commented in his memoirs, how shocked the argentine (prisoners) officers were that the British officers (as is tradition) let the men eat first in the dinner queue.

    The argintine officers even got different, high quality rations.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Whole story just reinforces- not that it is needed - that all Argentina,s Govt - and so many on here like DanntB and marcos etc are just a bunch of blatant liars and cowards totally incapable of ever facing truth and reality!

    May 03rd, 2013 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Mendoza Canadian

    The ship of state is sinking fast and you can bet cfk will be the first one to leave.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DanyBerger

    Criminals and cowards not much to say the world knows that...

    May 03rd, 2013 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Britninja

    @29 Yes we do know. At least you're admitting it ;)

    May 03rd, 2013 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Philippe

    If the Belgrano's two escorts had not escaped, as fast as they could, perhaps most of her crew could have been saved!


    May 03rd, 2013 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lord Ton

    Sorted !

    May 03rd, 2013 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Tobers

    Hector Vega who was on the Belgrano when it was sunk has commented in Clarin and got alot of recommends and comments in agreement for saying that there are many Argentines that are glad the ship was sink because it serves as a justified sacrifice to bolster the cause. And then says that these people are the worst kind.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • slattzzz

    Danny buggery in that case the firing of an exocet at an UNARMED civilian merchant ship is the most cowardly act of the war then ie The Atlantic Conveyor, dipshit!

    May 03rd, 2013 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Tobers

    Is it possible to be very stupid and manipulating at the same time...?

    May 03rd, 2013 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Hector Bonzo once said in an interview, that she was fitted with mock Exocets.
    I think that in itself was justification to sinke her. (they would have had to have been regarded as real from a British military perspective)

    May 03rd, 2013 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DanyBerger

    Oh! boo boo boo
    Take like a man idiot your PM well dead have started and you were lucky that the argie didn't spread over you Sarin gas and napal.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Napalm, with an 'm'.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Your English is breaking down as what you wrote means nothing The posts must be getting to you.
    The relevance of the video to the Belgrano is ?
    Lucky we did not nuke YOU !

    May 03rd, 2013 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • manchesterlad

    I can't believe that the RGs are still crying over the Belgrano after 31 years, you don't see the Brits crying over the Sheffield, Coventry, Ardent, Antelope & the Atlantic Conveyor

    Plus I'm sick of hearing how the RGs lost the war because they sent a bunch of poor, uneducated conscripts to fight, the air force were well trained & motivated & did a lot of damage, they were beaten by the superior sea harrier & the skyhawk missiles

    The navy had an aircraft carrier & it's destroyers were the sister ships of the Sheffield & Coventry, but they chose not to fight & spent most of the war in port. The army had a lot of conscripts but it had a lot of regulars too, don't forget that they were preparing for a war with Chile initially. The battles for Mount Longdon & Tumbledown were some of the most brutal since WW2

    So Arg it's time to complete your 31 year therapy & accept that the war was an error on your part, you lost a war that you started, all the deaths both Brit & RG are on your conscience & that the Falklands are not, were never & will never be Argentinian!!!

    May 03rd, 2013 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • War Monkey

    “On May 7th, 1982, Argentina complained to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva which ruled that the vessel, though outside the TEZ, was within the security zone of British ships in the area; was fully armed and engaged in operations and that therefore there was no breach of the Geneva Convention. The action was perfectly legal.”

    Ho hum.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Gordo1

    DanyBerger - not only are you illiterate but you are apparently totally lacking in intgelligence.

    It is accepted by the Argentine Ministry of the Navy that the General Belgrano sinking was a “licit act of war” - Hector Bonzo acknowledged this. That's the end of the story! He was a true “caballero” - one of few!

    May 03rd, 2013 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “The army had a lot of conscripts”

    A soldier is a soldier. Germans in ww2 were conscripts, did that make them any less of a soldier? no.

    It's a crap excuse that Argentinians like to use. The Germans has conscription up until a few years ago and there troops are very good. Many nations still do and it has no impact on how well the solider is.

    It's a crap excuse used by a failed nation.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • slattzzz

    @37 Oh Danny I bet you take it like a man eh, usually from men. Anyway have none of your presidents died are they all still alive festering somewhere out of public view, CFK certainly looks dead, and by the way you did use NAPALM delivered by Pucaras against the Paras at Goose Green, only effect it had was to make them angry and we all know what happened then don't we dipstick. Now be a good boy and get back to kindergarten

    May 03rd, 2013 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve-33-uk

    'Meeting of senators with officials of the European Union by Falkland -
    The diplomats met with the European delegation for relations with the Mercosur countries that requested his intervention to ensure that the United Kingdom feels to dialogue with the country for the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.'

    'Further Falklands census results - More new homes than new people'

    'Explorer on road to huge gas discovery in the Falklands'

    'Argentina reiterates commitment to fight for the Falklands sovereignty'

    'Municipal support to one million signatures by Falklands campaign'

    May 03rd, 2013 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    Gosh. Now it turns out according to Filmus that the EU is guilty of aggression against Argentina for complaining about the nationalization of YPF.

    Is there no end to the plotting, scheming, and attacks against this poor, innocent country?

    May 03rd, 2013 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Further to #26;

    Even had whiskey!

    May 03rd, 2013 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Faz

    Please Mr Timer man send some decent trolls. We only have DanyBerger and he has been on that Mate stuff again and is incoherent....

    May 03rd, 2013 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • darragh

    To quote Joseph Chamberlain about Lord Beaconsfield

    “He only tells the truth by accident”

    For Lord Beaconsfield read CFK

    May 03rd, 2013 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    “British soldiers were issued with the same rations regardless of rank; however the Argentinean officers had different rations to their men. The officers ration pack was twice the size of the other ranks. It also contained items such as writing paper and a miniature of whisky.”

    May 03rd, 2013 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido


    From a Falklands vet post on ARRSE.

    “Yes.Small bottle of ”Breeders Choice“ ”Scotch” whiskey(product of Argentina,with picture of a bull on the front)
    Also available was Johnny walker Red Lable (which was not on sale in UK at the time)---much more palatable,especially to a non whisky drinker.”

    May 03rd, 2013 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    Dear Crisitina

    What you should have said:

    We the Argentine Government apologise WITHOUT RESERVATION to the families of the 323 crewmen who died on the Belgrano due IN TOTALITY to the dishonesty, myths and lies perpetrated by the Argentine Government of the time.

    We the Argentine people had no right to invade the peaceful Falkland Islands in 1982, and have no historic, legal or geographical claim to said territories. The Argentine Government of the day LIED to the Argentine people, and used Nationalist Propoganda to start a war. For this we are truly sorry.

    Furthermore, successive Argentine Governments have further disrespected the death of these 323 souls by again LYING to the Argentine people and pretending that the Belgrano was not active in the theatre of war at the time of it's sinking. This Lie was for political capital and should be beneath any country. For this we are truly sorry.

    In the honour and remembrance of not only the 323 who died on the Belgrano, but also the total war dead on both sides, today's Government of Argentina, totally and unequivocally renounces any claim, however spurious on the Falkland Islands and promises to leave these brave and peaceful people to their prosperity. The Government of Argentina would also like to take the opportunity to apologise to the people of the UK for its decades long “smear campaign” of lies and propoganda concerning the islands. the Government of Argentina commits, with immediate effect to eliminate all “Malvinas” propoganda from our school curriculum, which we recognise as shameful, and to punish all acts of thuggery aimed at harming the economy of the Falkland Islands to the full extent of the Law.

    Once more, on behalf of the Argentine Government and People I apologise, and tender my immediate resignation, together with those of Putridjelly, Tinpot and Castro.



    May 03rd, 2013 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zool

    The whole world from the UN to the Redcross knows that the Argi government lied & the Belgrano WAS on a mission to attack the British fleet & not heading home as they claimed. Still the Argentine Ego wont accept they lost so they have to make up lies to hide behind & now Captain Cristina has well & truly sunk the good ship Argentina & she's going down in a sea of lies what better time to drag out Belgrano Sabre & start rattling it around.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @22 ... Thanks Conch... but let's never forget.

    As the Phoenix, she fought AGAINST fascism, as the Belgrano she was fighting in service OF fascism.

    The Belgrando was operating to give the Junta a few more years of torture, disappearance of dissidents, forced additions of dissidents children to connected friends of the Junta and overall a “reelection” of the Junta by the masses to keep on keeping on doing what they had been doing to them so long as they could do it to the Islanders too. There was no price too high to pay so long as the jackboot was also on the Falklands necks. Everyone who calls the sinking of the Belgrando a war crime by broader implications of a successful capture and subjugation of the islands is supporting an graphic alternative history where the Junta prevailed over Argentina.

    Morn the conscripts. Regret the perversion of the Phoenix's and her sailors' memories to the service of cowardice, cynicism and fascism. But don't EVER call hampering the crimes of the Junta by sinking their capital ships a war crime.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund



    May 03rd, 2013 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • screenname


    The Belgrano had no ordinance, just freshly cut flowers on board.


    The ship didn't have any military personnel on board, it was taking leukemia stricken orphans and and puppies on a luxury cruise.

    I can be much better at this lying lark than CFK, maybe I should run for president!

    On a more serious note, I'm sure there were conscripts in the armed forces of Nazi Germany. I don't morn these as I didn't morn them. You fight for evil, you get what you deserve, volunteer or not.

    It seems to me that, unlike Germany, Argentina's Fatherland was not given enough martyrs to make them see the error of their ways.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • trenchtoast

    It strikes me that “operation Algeciras” was a little bit out of the exclusion zone too.

    But it failed, didn't it Argentina..? Ultimately, just like everything you do !

    May 03rd, 2013 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    Although i was a baby in 1982, i always thought the sinking of the belgrano was a war crime, due to it was sealing away from the islands, and outside the exclution zone.
    However, during my investigations in relation to the historic and the legal aspects of this conflict, i could know last year that in the end of april of 1982, the british government had decided to change the roles, and notified the pertient authorities about that new decision. Since that moment i have started to have doubts about wether the sinking of the belgrano can be considered like a war crime.
    The point is that there was never any investigation by justice in order to determine wether the sinking of that ship was a war crime.
    In a country like argentina, were militar and civil responsabilities of the genocide that we suffered during the last dictatorship are being judged and sentenced, it's absolutly necesary to make a serious investigation by justice about the sinking of the belgrano.
    That's the best way to honour the people who lost their lives not just in that event, but in all the war of 1982.
    Everybody here know what i think about the behaviours of both nations during the conflict.
    The war of 1982 was the result of miserable and mediocre politic leaders who were able to do anything in order to save their pathetic governments.
    With the invasion of 1982, the junta tried to save the criminal process which had started in 1976. Beside, the militars were so idiots and houghty that thought that the u. k. would never do a war in order to recover the islands.
    In the case of the u. k., objetive facts like the readley's mission of 1980, and the warns ignored by thatcher in relation to the cuts that her administration had determined for the defence in south atlantic, show that the wishes of the islanders weren't a priority for her government.
    However, the militars gave thatcher a great hand, in order to save her miserable administration.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Haven't you posted this very note several times ?

    May 03rd, 2013 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • surfer

    Expect a massive ramping up of rhetoric about the failed invasion of the Falkland Islands.


    Yankeeboy day/Messi dollar day is almost upon us, currently 9.95!! Inflation must be 30% plus now too.

    Arg. Govt will be working overtime to distract from this.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Gordo1

    @58 If the person most closely involved with the unfortunate event, Captain Hector Bonzo the commanding officer of the General Belgrano, acknowledged “rotundamente” that it was a “licit act of war” and he was supported in this by the Admirals of the Argentine Navy High Command then IT WAS NOT a War Crime.
    The International Red Cross also agreed with this interpretation.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Tobers


    Thatcher made mistakes or miscalculations and she bathed in the glory of winning the war but -she didnt start the war-.

    As her memoires show she was very anxious about recovering the islands and was very disappointed with Reagan's trying to distance the US from the matter. In the end even if ineffectual at least she got Reagan to warn Galtieri that the UK would reclaim the Islands if Argentina didnt pull out. She tried to avoid the conflict.

    It seems a common trait of many Argentines to say 'well yes The junta was bad and the invasion was wrong but the UK is responsible for the war too'. Thatcher like Galtieri only used the recovery/invasion because her popularity was so low. This is utter bollocks. She bathed in the glory yes. But she was not responsible for the war.

    Take the freaking responsibility Argentina.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • manchesterlad

    There will never be an investigation in Arg about the sinking of the Belgrano, it`s too valuable a political tool to be used in bad times to increase the nationalist rhetoric & distract the people from the real problems at hand

    The Belgrano was sunk during a war, just as the Sheffield, Coventry, Ardent, Antelope & Atlantic Conveyor...... tragic as it was you (as a country) have to accept the fact, move on with your lives & stop living in the past!!!

    May 03rd, 2013 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    29 DanyBerge

    “Criminals and cowards not much to say the world knows that...”

    You got that right Ollie, who breached international law, and who surrendered?

    May 03rd, 2013 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Xect

    It's interesting because everyone involved has said it was an act of war and not illegal and so have international bodies and even the simplest person would understand that if you start a war and are an active serviceman there is a good chance of death, especially when faced by the British.

    Now here's the interesting bit, so CFK starts mouthing off and trying to re-write history but only with the aim of getting those who are clearly not very bright to applaud her, an example here is Danny.

    So what we are seeing is yet another publicity stunt to deflect attention away from an utterly failed country in every respect and the only people who will believe these words are the easily lead and the intellectually challenged.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Dr. Jeorbbels

    “the best way to remember these men and their families” is not to use them for CFK's personal and populist propaganda, but to remember them for what they were, patriotic young men who died in vain, sent to their deaths by another failing administration striving to achieve popularity.
    Has nothing been learned in Argentina?
    CFK's “ diplomacy” is a complete failure. This is only to be expected from a second rate lawyer.
    When she finally realises that her propaganda has failed she will in a temper tantrum lash out.
    Its only a matter of time before the BITCH sends more young men to their deaths.
    And there lies the pity of the matter. More deaths to satisfy the ego of a failed lawyer and politician
    The Falklands have never belonged to Argentina and never will.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    Yet again, you write utter utter shit.

    Firstly, you seem to suggest that Britain reducing its defences in the South Atlantic somehow makes Britain culpable for the war. Makes an interesting juxtaposition to your claims that we are “militarising the South Atlantic now”.

    Secondly, you seem to suggest that Ridleys mission was another weakness, so again an interesting juxtaposition to your request for ”negotiations now.

    By your logic, if we reduce our defences in the South Atlantic and send diplomatic missions attempting to negotiate...that is tantamount to inviting an invasion...point taken.

    Similarly, it is quite clear that Churchill going to war with Germany (who attacked British territory), Roosevelt declaring war with Japan (after Pearl Harbour) weren't actually (according to you), responding to an agreesive attack on their sovereign territory, but simply attempting to win future elections....Jesus axel...that's dumb even for you.

    As far as the Belgrano is concerned, your own military leaders are quite clear that the Belgrano was active in the theatre of war and indeed posed a clear and present danger to the British fleet.

    Sadly, axel, until you face the real facts, you will keep missing by so far.

    1) the 1982 war was 100% the fault of the Republic of Argentina (not the Junta, or Galtieri and certainly not the UK or Margaret Thatcher).
    2) negotiations prior to the 1982 war, we're not a sign that Britain accepted sovereignty of Argentina, or even that Argentina had a just claim, they were to try and find a solution that suited everyone. There isn't a solution that's suits everyone.
    3) the 1982 war finished perminantly any wish or likelihood that the sovereignty of the islands would be discussed by the UK. 900 people died, you may wish to ignore that..but we don't. If you want someone to blame see point 1.

    As far as Britains actions in 1982 were concerned, we were both professional and merciful. We did the bare minimum necessary to recover our islands.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Viscount Falkland

    “We have defined the “Gotcha”action many times as such, because the ‘General Belgrano’ was absolutely going for the task force when it was attacked”, said the Argentine president on Thursday during the celebration of the sinking of the Casa Rosada and all who worship there.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • sesbessu

    In or out of the exclusion zone doesn't really matter as we were at war with argentina, all vessels were game as were mainland targets if we wanted to escalate the war.
    Remember two argentine special forces were arrested and deported back to argentina, they were found in Spain and their plan was to limpet mine ships in Gibraltar harbour. They had the mines, the boat and the cover story.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    I don't understand why La Vieja (viuda del Tuerto) is harping on about the exclusion zone. Everyone knows the exclusion zone was implimented for the benefit of neutral shipping, and there was nothing at all neutral about the Belgrano.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • slattzzz

    simps clutching at straws again this woman is so far up her own arse she needs a toilet brush to floss

    May 03rd, 2013 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anbar

    It must have been illegal otherwise the ship would not ahve been sunk.

    How is this hard to understand?

    The ONLY way that the Belgrano could be sunk, and the entire pincer-movement Naval attack foiled, is if the British did something nefarious.

    It is that simple.

    How can you all not see this?

    May 03rd, 2013 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    72 Anbar

    You look really stupid claiming this when all qualified opinions state otherwise.

    See 9 Terence Hill for the opinion of Enrique Molina Pico Admiral, former Chief of General Staff of the Argentine Navy
    and 32 Lord Ton for the International Committee of the Red Cross “there was no breach of the Geneva Convention. The action was perfectly legal.” Also her Captain said it was legal.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • slattzzz

    @73 I think you'll find anbar was taking the piss

    May 03rd, 2013 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • screenname

    Is attempting to attack ships in Gibraltar (even if a failure, the intent was there) a war crime?

    I wonder what CFK's opinion on that is?

    May 03rd, 2013 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @58 I'll tell you something. You may have been a baby in 1982. I believe you. You're still a baby now. If you don't like that, you can shove it where the monkey shoves its nuts. In 1982, I was a grown man. I couldn't go. It started too quickly and it was over too quickly. But I wonder about your ability to grasp reality. Just how many “investigations by justice” do you imagine went on during WW2 about the losses of aircraft, ships, submarines and so forth? Here is the reality. YOU started a war. Not “the junta”, YOU, the people of argieland. WE, the people of Britain started nothing. YOU had NO right to invade a peaceful community in its territory. YOU were told the get out. By the UN that you like to whitter about. YOU ignored it. But, I'm glad to say, OUR armed forces finished it. On the subject of war crimes, herding over 100 civilians into a building with out food, water or protection IS a war crime. Siting artillery pieces between occupied civilian homes IS a war crime. Painting Red Cross symbols on buildings and vessels that had no connection with casualties IS a war crime. In 1982, YOU killed 255 courageous British servicemen. And still YOU persist with your stupid, invalid, illegal, illegitimate “claim”. Do YOU wonder that YOU are hated? And you can have the Islands. When the Sun is a cinder! Until that day comes, don't even think about. Because we don't care what you think, or feel, or believe, or say. And WE don't care how many of YOU have to be killed.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • José Malvinero

    The pirates, pirates are. This would not be the only action to betrayal of the invading force, that of attack cruise back and violating their own rules.
    They also used the hospital ship Uganda to land troops, and thus avoid being attacked by the defenders.
    Also with planes strafe survivors Narwall fishing and of course there's more.
    But if true the version that says that Sheffield was fatally shot May 1 and not 4 (as officially declaring England) means much more about the attack the Belgrano: to save the government from “deceased Maggie”.

    May 03rd, 2013 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    What a total load of bollocks, this guys off his tiny Argie head.

    What next, they never surrendered, they made a strategic withdrawal from the islands to prepared defences on the mainland!!!!!!

    They sank both aircraft carriers, whoops! That is an old one!!!!

    May 03rd, 2013 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • darragh

    @77 Jose

    Well Joe if you believe the crap you just wrote then you are even stupider than I thught you were and I already thought you were pretty stupid.

    We have a saying here in Ireland - “an idjut is still an idjut even when he's in church”

    May 03rd, 2013 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Gordo1

    @&& José Malvinero - first of all, your English is close to unintelligible making it difficult to understand what you are trying to say. However, I think that you ought to be told that everything you try to say “es pura mierda”!

    May 03rd, 2013 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Faz

    Jose, we're you working late shift selling the Big Issue tonight. Sounds like you squandered the proceeds in the pub! As for those defenders where were they? Cowering in Stanley.? Surrendering? They weren't anywhere close to the British were they, they ran mostly. Surrender Monkeys..

    May 03rd, 2013 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @77 José, tell us next about the nuclear threat to Cordoba. Or the sinking of the Invincible. Or anything else you can come up with to avoid just admitting you lost. (And deservedly so)

    May 03rd, 2013 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • slattzzz

    @58 you may have been a baby in 1982, I wasn't and I was there, with a wife and two month son at home so do yourself a favour and shut the fuck up
    @77 Jose stop making yourself look stupider than normal, what a prick you are, lets make a few things up shall we, your brave air force never sunk any of our ships we did it ourselves to make you look good, PRICK

    May 03rd, 2013 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anbar

    “”“72 Anbar

    You look really stupid claiming this when all qualified opinions state otherwise.”“”“

    but perhaps not as stupid as the person who cannot spot somebody rather blatantly taking the piss....


    ”“@73 I think you'll find anbar was taking the piss”“”

    indeed ...


    “ This would not be the only action to betrayal of the invading force, ”

    That may have made sense in your head, but it doesnt “on paper”... a bit like the number of times the Invincible was sunk and how the UK started the war... the Belgrano was really a cruise ship spotting penguins and that nobody in Argentina cheered the Junta on.

    It will not be long before the official Government re-write of the 1982 war shows that Argentina won, liberating the subjugated indigenous Spanish population from the Tyranny of the perfidious British...and all by a solitary Gaucho who never raped nobody in his life!

    May 03rd, 2013 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • José Malvinero

    Although it weighs to the pirates of shit, never get rid of us. As an example of our unwavering feeling the Malvinas Argentinas is the video. Especially the 4.30 minute.

    May 04th, 2013 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Boovis

    We never doubted the power of your country's brainwashing, Jose. Have they told you about Santa or the Easter Bunny yet? If not, you've a hell of a shock coming...

    May 04th, 2013 - 04:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Not speaking Spanish, I am guessing that the guys in the white track suits are meant to represent their dead in the war? Or are they the next batch volunteering to be crucified at the hands of the British Army? Either way, they are striking the right pose.

    Just get over it for Christ sake, you lost! morbid demonstrations like this just make you look even more pathetic.

    May 04th, 2013 - 05:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • britanico

    Oh, men dressed in white holding their arms in the air! Are we supposed to be scared?

    May 04th, 2013 - 05:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    It's their latest combat uniform, saves money on flags.

    May 04th, 2013 - 05:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tapestry-of-grapes

    One lives by the sword, one dies by the sword.

    The dancing around in white afterwards, complaining how you getting your arse kicked in a war you started is a 'war crime' simply shows how unlimited their capacity for shamelessness really is. I'd be very embarrassed if I was argentine, however, I suspect they're pathologically incapable of feeling shame of any kind.

    Did anyone tell her that Operation Algeciras was outside the circle of truth too, and pissing land mines everywhere was quite literally a crime against humanity?

    May 04th, 2013 - 07:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • darragh

    @85 Jose

    Wow! I'll bet the Brits are crapping themselves after watching thet.

    The Italians have a phrase for this sort of thing - they call it “opera Buffo”

    The guys dressed in white with their arms stretched out looked like a convention of anglers all saying “the one that I caught was this big”!!! but then wew all know about Argentine lies and exaggeration so presumably their anglers are just the same.

    May 04th, 2013 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    @77 Joseph:
    “They also used the hospital ship Uganda to land troops, and thus avoid being attacked by the defenders”

    That is a lie, but you are to blind to realise it.

    The Uganda did no sutch thing.


    May 04th, 2013 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    The Belgrano was fair game,
    An armed enemy warship.
    C'est la guerre.
    Dry your eyes, Argentina.
    Can you imagine the jubilation in Argentina if they had sunk one of the Carriers?
    l'll lay good money that they wouldn't regard that as a war crime.

    May 04th, 2013 - 09:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Further to 92:
    There were regular visits by Brit representatives to the Bahia Paraiso, and visits by argentinian reps (plus Red Cross reps) to the Uganda throughout the conflict, to ensure all was done above board, and no violation of the Hostpital ship's status.

    The only violation was committed by the Bahia Paraiso, during a British Raid.

    ”The SAS, along with men from the SBS, attempt to carry out a diversionary amphibious raid on Port Stanley harbour on the night of June 13th. The plan was, as 2 Para attacked Wireless Ridge, 4 rigid raiders, piloted by Royal Marines and carrying SAS soldiers (a troop from D Squadron) and 6 SBS men (3 section) would travel across the harbour and attack the oil storage facilities. The assault force was illuminated by a spotlight on an Argentine hospital ship before it could reach its objective. A massive volley of fire including AAA batteries arced down onto the SAS/SBS flotilla from positions along the shore, causing the raiding party to sensibly withdraw. The Rigid Raiders were badly shot up but miraculously none of the men had been seriously hurt”

    A Hostpital ship involving itself in an armed conflict, is illegal.

    Don't accept popular argentine myth about the Falklands conflict, - Do your own research.

    May 04th, 2013 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    77 José Malvinero

    You should be celebrating!!! Rejoice!!!

    The General Belgrano was the first ship in history to be torpedoed and sunk by a nuclear powered submarine, so those 323 sailors did not die in vain!!! they are part of history now.

    That's a story to tell their children isn't it? “Your dad was killed on the first ship in history to be sunk by a Nuclear submarine” although, at the present rate of inflation, they would probably have to morgage the house to buy a round of drinks..................

    Happy days!!

    May 04th, 2013 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Rather fitting, that HMS Conquerer used her old 'WW2' era 21” mk 8 torpedos to engage her, isn't it.

    May 04th, 2013 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    96 Escoses Doido

    There were some concerns about the reliability of the newer “Tigerfish” torpedos. The fact that the Mk8's carried a bigger warhead was the reason why they were fired. But yes, I hear what you are saying brother, VERY fitting...

    May 04th, 2013 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    I think what they were saying was, “Altogether now, we were this far outside the exclusion zone!”

    May 04th, 2013 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @85 Lovely video. Can I just mention a few points? Cavalry charges are a little dated, as is pig-sticking. Although I gather that argie-sticking can be quite popular. Then, I noticed quite lot of white flags. No surprise there! As we moved into the later stages, when the white flags had been replaced with people all in white (thanks, much easier to shoot), wasn't that a lot of people to get to lay a carpet? Or was it a shroud? And that bit with all the guys standing there with their arms outstretched, are they a new secret weapon? Do they flap their arms and fly? Or are they just practicing being scarecrows? Have to admit that they looked like a load of pansies.

    However, you must never say “never”. What you need to understand is that, 31 years ago, Britain did no more than was necessary. If you will, we gave you a sharp slap on the wrist. However, you are getting to be more than annoying now. So that, if we have to come down there again, we will leave you without the means to annoy anyone for about 50 plus years. No army, no air force, no navy, no bases. Just read up on comparative strengths and technological capability, and its obvious. So be sensible.

    May 04th, 2013 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tapestry-of-grapes

    What I want to know is, why not sink the other two vessels at the same time? Then why not just coast around and sink a few more of their ships, including the aircraft carrier?

    If you're on a roll, you're on a roll.

    May 04th, 2013 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • darragh


    The MoD in London when announcing the torpedoing of the Belgrano stated that “the two accompanying destroyers were not attacked so that they could give aid to the Belgrano but they were seen to leave the area at high speed. Consequently HMS Conqueror broadcast the position of the Belgrano 'en claire' so that other ships in the area might come to her assistance”.
    The carrier Vienticinqo de Mayo was actually tracked by another British sub which somehow managed to lose it. If not the carrier would also have been sunk.

    May 04th, 2013 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    I was talking to a retired submariner who was down there, he said that there were two subs stalking the Belgrano. Both fired on her at the same time, Conqueror claimed the hit, but they were not sure which of them hit her. Does not sound right to me, but that is what he said, retired as a CPO, so do not think he had any reason to embellish the circumstances, but you never know. Secret lot the Submarine service, maybe it was the carrier they fired at and missed? Who knows?

    May 04th, 2013 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think


    The 323 young Argentinean men of the cruiser General Belgrano lost their lives unnecessarily….

    As the 444 young British men killed in Afghanistan did….

    Anyone rejoicing over the death of any of these young men only shows the moral fiber he is made of…………

    May 04th, 2013 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    103 Think-me-not

    Gosh!! Is think playing the “I am more moral then you” card?? A bit late for that wouldn't you say Think-me-not??

    But I will cut you some slack and agree with you on that one.

    IF the captain hadn't been such a kn*b and had kept the crew at “action stations” and IF the ship company had practiced “damage control” more regularly and thoroughly AND IF the ship had been taking evasive action KNOWING that there were british submarines in the area then YES, the ship would have probably not sunk so quickly ( if at all ) and those 323 sailors might still be alive.

    The one thing you do not do ( as any school boy will tell you ) is sail in a straight line when you KNOW or suspect that there are submarines in the area.... You just don't do it.

    But, like I said, as the Captain was a kn*b and was treating going to war as a south Atlantic cruise,then 323 of his sailors died.

    I hope he could sleep at night, knowing that 323 of his crew, that he was responsible for died by his hand...............

    Still, you pay peanuts, you get Monkeys....

    May 04th, 2013 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    Wether the sinking of the belgrano was or not a war crime, it can be determined by justice only, not by us. All the information that we have is too partial.
    Anyway, beyond i don't agree in absolut on most you expressed in your comments, i decided to answer your comments because unless you were respectfull when you expressed your opinions. However, i decided not to answer the comments of some other people who just express reactionary and mediocre thoughts.
    I have never justified the argentine invasion of 1982, it was such a stupid thing to do.
    There are many people in this forum who often emphasize the support that our people gave to the war, when many of our compatriots celebrated the invasion in plaza de mayo. However what many of you ignore is that during the dictatorhip, all the chanels and radios were under the control of the junta. Beside, all the information that came from the islands, was distorted on behalf of the interests of the junta, in fact, it was said all the time that we were wining.
    On the other hand, galtieri had said before people in plaza de mayo that we had recovered the islands without any rancour, which was absolutly false.
    Beyond anybody's opinions, what was really relevant was that resolution 502 asked the retire of our troops, and asked also both nations to solve the dispute by mean the negotiations. In the case of the junta, despite the imbecility of the militars, they were disposed to negotiate about the sovereigntgy.
    In the case of the u. k., if thatcher wa so interested in recovering the islands, she could have sent after the invasion, a huge militar mission to the archipelago, in order to avoid the islanders to be victim of any of the violations that the junta commited in the mainland against our people, and the same time, find a negotiated solution with the junta and avoid a war.
    However, she knew that a militar victory only would save her govt.

    May 04th, 2013 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • agent999

    @ 103 Think

    If Argentina had complied with resolution 502 there would have been no deaths !

    Argentina is responsible for all the deaths in the war !

    May 04th, 2013 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    What Argentina never mention is that when the Haig peace shuttle was in full swing Margaret Thatcher refused permission, when requested, to sink 25th de Mayo and an Argentine Boeing 707 reconnaisance aircraft before the Belgrano was sunk. The difference was they were not a direct threat as the Belgrano was.

    Even before the Belgrano was sunk the Argentines were not interested in peace as Haig found out to his intense frustration-they rejected the Peruvian peace plan.

    “The best way to honour these men and their families is to continue building an Argentina.”

    Obviously CFK is angling at being a stand up comedienne as that statement is farcical. She seems hell bent in dismantling Argentina rather than 'building' anything.

    May 04th, 2013 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tapestry-of-grapes

    I fully believe that whoseover caused the war, claims responsibility for the lives lost as a result of the war.

    There was no need for the British to do anything had the Argentines not invaded the islands which were in breach of international law and was in itself an act of war. Argentines like Axel pretending it was all as a result of the British not letting Argentina get whatever it wanted, are just simple imbeciles.

    The fact we didn't sink all of their navy simultaneously is a direct example of how restrained Thatcher was actually being.

    May 05th, 2013 - 05:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    @108 -tapestry-of-grapes

    Indeed the British were very restrained. Since Argentina declared war on Britain by invading sovereign British territory we had every right, under the Laws of Armed Combat, to attack ANY Argentine military vessel, vehicle or installation ANYWHERE in the world.

    The Argentines should be thankful that we decided not to bomb military targets within Argentina itself.

    Should they ever be foolish enough to declare war again, the British WOULD attack military targets on the mainland. The fact that we didn't take out their airfields in 1982 meant that we lost RN vessels, and the lives of too many good men. Unlike Argentina we LEARN from our mistakes.

    As for the loss of the Belgrano, it was probably the most important action of the war, as the rest of the Argentine Navy ran like cowards back to port and stayed there.

    In comparison look how the British handled the sinking of HMS Sheffield. No running. The crew fought to save the ship, but when it was realised that they couldn't save her, the crew calmly evacuated (the Captain last to leave), and they were RESCUED by other RN vessels. No running. No panicking.

    The British were fighting for a just cause - freedom. They knew it, and were willing to sacrifice themselves for this cause.

    The Argentines were fighting for an unjust cause - murder and thievery. They knew it, and weren't willing to sacrifice themselves for it.

    May 05th, 2013 - 06:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    @105 axle

    “In the case of the u. k., if thatcher wa so interested in recovering the islands, she could have sent after the invasion, a huge militar mission to the archipelago, in order to avoid the islanders to be victim of any of the violations that the junta commited in the mainland against our people, and the same time, find a negotiated solution with the junta and avoid a war.”

    Is Axel saying MT was not sincere, that she should have sent a much larger task force to the islands to hang about menacingly to intimidate the junta into peaceful negotiation??
    In other words, it is her fault there was a violent war because Britain did not make the appropriate, correct response to a sneak invasion of the Falklands by an enemy that did not even declare war and was disdainful of the articles of War??

    Ha ha, very funny Axel - ”yes, we Argentines invaded and refused to leave (resolution 502) but you British reacted all wrongly and brought about violent confrontation. We wanted to just confiscate your islands and your people's homes and freedom nobly without violence and death.”

    Honestly, I think one of his wheels fell off!!!

    May 05th, 2013 - 07:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Launch an armed invasion and expect the victims not to fight back, when they do, brand them the aggressor!

    Got to love the Argentine logic.

    May 05th, 2013 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • agent999


    Argentina believe the junta were evil, they have and are prosecuting the leaders.
    Are these the same leaders we were supposed to trust and negotiate with ?

    May 05th, 2013 - 08:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    What the hell was that video about ? It looked quite pretty, the horsemanship was good but the relevance to the Falklands is what. The next attempted invasion will be with cavalry ?

    May 05th, 2013 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    Axel...absolute rubbish.

    Argentina is right now..(TODAY), claiming that the minimal defences we have on the islands is “militarising the South Atlantic”, NOW you are claiming that because we had only minimal defences in 1982 we “invited the invasion”.

    That is a disgraceful comment, axel.

    Interesting that you are prepared to blame the Junta, and blame the British...but save no blame for yourself. This would appear to be a common trait with you axel. You refuse to see your own failings. The death of the 900 is wholly due to the people of Argentina, starting with Peron, through the Junta to today...and their entirely fabricated “Malvinas myth”

    Thatcher didn't go to war to win an election you “mediocre” bafooon. she went to war because the republic of Argentina invaded a peaceful British territory, and ignored binding UN resolutions to leave. THERE IS YOUR WAR CRIME.

    As I said to you axel, the blood of those 900 is on your hands. It SHOULD be on YOUR concience. it is sickening that you blame everyone but yourself.

    May 05th, 2013 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DanyBerger

    A clear invitation...
    BTW who gonna be the DJ?

    May 05th, 2013 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @105 Axel,

    May 05th, 2013 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anbar

    Axel is nothing but an indoctrinated fool.

    Sorry to be blunt but the truth often is.

    He like many other thoroughly indoctrinated Argentines have the resources of the entire Internet to verify what actually happened and yet chose not to do so.

    “Wilful Ignorance” is the term for this.

    The very idea that defending the attack on the Falklands was the reason for the war is so astonishingly puerile and insane it defies belief.

    That Axel claims to be a teacher merely exenplifies why the process of continuing indoctrination of their own children is the root cause of any “conflict” between Argetnina and the UK over the Falklands.

    The ENTIRE conflict is a result of targeted and deliberate indoctrination since WW2... whereas reality and history clearly, and undeniably, and legally, shows that any and every claim of Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands ended in 1850.

    However, until the various Argentine government stop this state-sponsored indoctrination, the “conflict” will continue...and we will see every mores asinine claims, like this one about Britain being responsible for the war, from ever more desperate Argentine Government cronies.

    May 05th, 2013 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    Sadly, the truth is SO unpalatable, that the average (mediocre) Argentine could not accept it.

    1) The ENTIRE blame for the 1982 war lies with the Republic of Argentina (not the Junta, not some Argentines, not Mrs Thatcher, Not Britain). 100% the Republic of Argentina.

    2) All Potential war crimes (misuse of civilians, human shields, indiscriminate minefields) were perpetrated by the Republic of Argentina. Britain was professional and merciful, far more than the Argentines deserved (if not the poor kids they sent to fight).

    3) the Belgrano was in the theatre of war and posed a clear and present danger. Calling its sinking a “war crime” is pathetic.

    4) Most importantly, these people died because of a Peronist lie (not Galtieri, not the Junta). Peron made up a bogus claim to the Malvinas and spewed propoganda all over a generation, CFK continues to do it. It is sad to see that level of indoctrination, and that folk were sent to die on the back of it....

    Most markedly though, and axel is good to point out the Argentine psyche for us. In the minds of the Argentines,

    A) if you reduce your defences it is an invitation to attack. lesson learnt axel...thanks.
    B) if you send diplomats to negotiate, it is a sign that you feel your argument is weak...once again axel, lesson learnt.

    It's a horror show to be fair, I don't think axel is stupid, but like all Argentines he wants someone to blame (but not himself) he blames the evil Junta (who didn't represent Argentina) and the boogie man (the UK) because although the innocent and peaceful's a lazy and mediocre way to get off the hook.

    May 05th, 2013 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    “All the information that we have is too partial.”
    The reason for the sinking of the Belgrano has been explained to the nth degree. It was a legitimate military target - end of story. Your naval command agreed. There was no conspiracy to start a war - that was started when your troops invaded.
    Any IMPARTIAL historian would come to the same
    “resolution 502 asked the retire of our troops”
    This you failed to do ! Did you expect the UK govt. to “negotiate” the handover of the islands when you held the people as hostages ? Did you not continually reinforce your positions while talks were proceeding ?
    Given your “juntas” treatment of its own citizens, had we not a right to expect that they may have done the same to the Islanders ?
    You are correct in saying that her government would have collapsed if she had left your forces there and negotiated a surrender to usurpation of UK territory. I was forty years old at the time and I can remember the absolute fury in the country at the thought of what had been done. Come hell or high water, you were going to be kicked out. Going to war to save your skin is applicable to your junta.
    Leaving our people to their tender mercies was unthinkable.
    No conspiracies, just the way it was.

    Your penultimate paragraph does not make sense.
    “ she could have sent after the invasion, a huge militar mission to the archipelago, in order to avoid the islanders to be victim of any.......”
    That is exactly what she authorised and the result was that the Argentine forces were soundly defeated and they were returned to Argentina.
    Do you not understand why we get so annoyed when we see and hear the same lies about the Belgrano coming from the head of your government ? Do you still think that we should hold talks with people whose grasp of the truth is non existent ?

    May 05th, 2013 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nigelpwsmith

    You might want to read this:

    May 05th, 2013 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    Cristina Fernandez wins slander case in Rome
    and described the British torpedo attack on the vessel as “a criminal and coward action”.
    Perhaps we should SUE her foe bloody lies and slander against us and the Falklanders.

    But we wont, were to

    May 05th, 2013 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @105.. “However what many of you ignore is that during the dictatorhip, all the chanels and radios were under the control of the junta.”

    Axel. The only person you are trying convince is yourself.

    You know it beggars belief that the Junta had better control over the airwaves than the Soviets of the time. No hidden shortwave radios to catch news from the outside? No samizdat? No whispers? No clue? What a perfectly cowed population, one that North Korea would envy. But that is not the truth is it.

    The fact was that lie you've told for decade on decade about the Islands being yours made the news of the invasion too good to pass up no matter what it meant for them -- and what it meant for you. Your country knew what it was like to live under the Junta and you hated it -- so much so that the Junta saw the writing on the wall knew exactly what would buy them more time . You knew that no one would opt to live like that voluntarily but you didn't care. It pleased you that the Islanders would get to live under the same jackboot so long as they got the that heavy feeling on the back of their necks -- even if it meant that it would solidify the Junta's hold on you for a while longer.


    May 05th, 2013 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    AXEL see #120 above.
    Read this and the last comment !

    May 05th, 2013 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    119 Clyde15
    UN General assembly resolutions are not binding:
    “While the Assembly is empowered to make only non-binding recommendations to States on international issues within its competence, it has, nonetheless, initiated actions—political, economic, humanitarian, social and legal—which have affected the lives of millions of people throughout the world.”
    That was taken from the UN website at:
    However Security Council Resolution are, Article 25 of the Charter reads:
    “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
    This is available here:
    502 was a Security Council Resolution, with all due respect it was not a 'request', it was mandatory!

    May 05th, 2013 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    103 Think-me-not

    And what of the other Argentine war dead??? So are you saying that they lost their lives necessarily???

    The British war dead, did they loose their lives necessarily as well?
    Are you so ghoulish to suggest that the sailors on the Belgrano should be singled out for special rememberance above everyone else???

    In my humble opinion, the ONLY branch of your armed forces that came of that conflict with any honour is your air force.... May be they should be hailed as hero's instead????

    May 05th, 2013 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • MagnusMaster

    @117 “However, until the various Argentine government stop this state-sponsored indoctrination, the “conflict” will continue...and we will see every mores asinine claims, like this one about Britain being responsible for the war, from ever more desperate Argentine Government cronies.”

    Well, it's not up to the government. It's up to the people. You see, to the people it's not indoctrination, it's a history class.

    May 06th, 2013 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Unless of course you are only too willing to grasp with both hands an alternative to the unpalatable reality, as in this case. What is amazing is the scale of it, a minority? yes, maybe! But an entire nation? There is something wrong there somewhere.

    May 06th, 2013 - 07:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Mandatory. Would that not require simultaneous action.?
    Argentina refused to move their troops out of the islands.
    Were we supposed to propose talks in a hostage situation ?
    As a member of he security council, did we not have a veto on this ?
    The subject of this discussion is the continual claim of “war crime” by the Argentine government, as such I brought AXEL's
    attention to the posting about the reasons for the Belgrano being sunk. He is always hinting that it was a war crime and this was to show him that it was not.

    May 06th, 2013 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    128 Clyde15
    Security Council Resolution 502
    The Security Council Recalling the statement made by the President of the Security Council at the 2345th meeting of the Security Council on 1 April 1982 calling on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),
    Deeply disturbed at reports of an invasion on 2 April 1982 by armed forces of Argentina, Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),
    1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;
    2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);
    3. Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Nations to seek a diplomatic solution to theirdifferences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nation.
    See no mutual withdrawal of forces.
    Negotiations were ongoing , page 49 on-wards of this document refers:
    UK does have a veto but cannot vote when they are party to a dispute, article 27 of the UN Charter refers; The UK did vote on 502 because it was brought forward under Article 40, page 224 on-wards of this document refers;

    I acknowledge that the subject of this thread is the sinking of the General Belgrano and was it a 'war crime'?
    I was just trying to emphasis that 502 was not a request for Argentina to remove its troops immediately, without conditions, but a DEMAND.

    I totally agree the sinking was no 'war crime'.

    May 06th, 2013 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    So, what have we learnt?

    CFK says the sinking of the Belgrano was criminal
    The international Red Cross, the captain of the Belgrano, and any rule of law says it isn't.
    conclusion: CFK is a liar.

    CFK says that Argentina has inflation of below 10%, the IMF quotes nearer 30%.
    Conclusion: CFK is a liar.

    CFK says that Britain is in contravention of UN resolutions. ban Ki Moon says Britian isn't.
    Conclusion: CFK is a liar.

    There are so, so many more of these. We could talk about “squatters”, we could talk about shopping trips, we could talk about YPF, we could talk about exchange rates, we could talk about usurption.....each and every one CFK is a liar.

    With so many examples of provable lies. Lies that she knows to be lies...why do so many Argentines “support her” or “vote for her”

    The answer is to do with “suspension of disbelief”. The truth, that Argentina is a corrupt, lying, thieving, murdering rogue state is too much for them to handle. The truth, that Argentina squandered such a fantastic opportunity of fertile and mineral rich land and pissed it against the wall. The truth, that IT IS THEIR OWN FAULT, and there is no Junta, no UK, no boogie man to too much for them.

    Vote CFK because her lies are more palatable than facing the truth.

    Sad..very sad

    May 06th, 2013 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    And lets us all [exept argies]
    remember that it WAS argentina that started it,

    so it was then , and it still is now,
    their fault.

    full stop.

    May 06th, 2013 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    Respecting the sinking of the belgrano, i just can say that like us or not, we don't have the necesary academic knowledge in order to affirm wether the sinking was or not a war crime. Accept or not, only justice can do it.
    On the other hand, many people often accuse argentina in this forum of indoctrinating us, in order to make our people believe that the islands are argentine.
    If i decided to investigate deeply about the historic and the legal aspects of this conflict, is because i have never believed in our mendacious offcial history. If you think that only our politic leaders omit information before int. forums, then it means that you have been perfectly indoctrinated by your so loved empire in decadence.
    When i read the statementes of leaders from both nations before the u. n., i conffirm that both tell just what is convenient for them.
    In reference to the behaviours of both nations in 1982, i want to say that i have never blamed on the u. k. only for the war. Only an idiot would do it. I just say that if arg.. and the u. k. were called to negotiate by mena resolution 502, it should have been respected by both.
    While it s true that resolution 502 asked the retire of our troops, it's also true that they had started to retire from the archipelago.
    You alredy know what i think about the argentine invasion, but despite it, and beyond the imbecility of the militars, they were disposed to negotiate with the u. k. about the sovereignty.
    They didn't want a war, in my comment 58, i tell what was their thought, and their true purposes in relation to the invasion of 1982.
    However, everything changed after the sinking of the belgrano.
    Sending a militar mission by thatcher, in order to protect the islanders, didn't implicate a war, she could have done it, and at the same time, negotiate a solution.

    May 06th, 2013 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    Axel..pointless responding to you.

    1) you have been given quotes from the International Red Cross and the Captain of the Belgrano CLEARLY stating it was absolutely NOT a war crime, or anything like it...You choose to ignore the evidence. that makes you STUPID.

    2) Axel, you clearly have no clue how history is taught in the UK. if anything, the emphasis of the 30-40 years has been too weighted on feeling guilty, playing down positives and overstating negatives. It's a pity your research hasn't recognised that. however, when it comes to the Falklands, the TRUTH is taught in the UK, in fact again, if anything too much reliance is put on the self-determination response..and not enough PROVING THE FACT that no population was ever expelled (I.e. the ARGENTINE LIE).

    I note your “empire in decadence” quote. Quite pathetic axel, to be honest and betrays your “argieness”. You think Britain wants an Empire. this shows just how detached you are from reality. Argentina wants an Empire, it stole Patagonia, tried to steal the Beagle Channel and wants to steal the Falklands and South Atlantic Islands. Britain has peacefully chosen to rid itself of 1/3 of the surface of the Planet. We didn't lose wars of Independence like Spain and France...(US aside), we gave it away and have excellent relations with 99% of it, through the Commonwealth. Like I say, highlights your total ignorance of Britain.

    3) Again you are deluded trying to put even 0.1% of the blame for the war on the UK. ARGENTINA (you) invaded. The UN resolution 502 DEMANDED you leave, YOU DIDN'T. Axel, DO NOT LIE about negotiations and withdrawals...IT IS BULLSHIT. Every time you tell those lies Axel, you (and folks like you) piss on the graves of the war dead.

    YOU (Argentina) are 100% to blame for the war dead, just as Germany were 100% to blame for WW2. Sadly, they've manned up to their history, and built a prosperous and successful future. you've wallowed in lies and self-pity.

    You feign debate axel..but repeat lies.

    May 06th, 2013 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    i fully agree with you..

    May 06th, 2013 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    Comments like the ones axel makes are offensive, not just to the British dead, but also the Argentines. The Captain of the Belgrano admits he was trying to performer a pincer manoeuvre on the British fleet, axel thinks they were taking peaceful choirboys on outing about to declare peace.

    Axel YET AGAIN, claims UN resolutions calling on Britian to negotiate sovereignty. NO SUCH RESOLUTION EXISTS. UN resolutions call for peaceful settlement...which Britain actually ensures with its defence of the islands.

    However, the binding resolution 502 told Argentina to withdraw, IT DIDN'T. in fact it sent the Belgrano to carry out a pincer movement on the British fleet...hardly fucking withdrawing is it axel??

    It's such a shame, to see a country and even a teacher like axel, completely bewildered, and unprepared to accept his countries shocking history. was the Spanish
    Patagonia...we made AMMENDMENT in our constitution
    1832..Argentine population (sic) authorities (sic) expelled
    1982... It was the Junta and Margaret Thatcher
    Default...we were tricked by the international markets

    Time and time again, they won't face the truth. Argentina is a perrenial pariah state, it has a history to be utterly utterly ashamed of. The future can only be bright by accepting it (as Germany did) and moving on.

    May 06th, 2013 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    132 axel arg

    I would give up now if I were you........ Writing more on this subject only makes you appear more stupid.......

    You would do well to listen to what MonkeyMagic is trying to tell you.

    Me?? I like his last sentence, don't you? so it is worth repeating:-

    ”The future can only be bright by accepting it (as Germany did) and moving on.”

    wise words wouldn't you say huh?

    May 06th, 2013 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    axel arg
    I realize that addressing this to you is likely a waste of time but here goes anyway.
    Please refer to my post #129 above it tells you exactly what Security Council Resolution 502 says.
    It DEMANDS that Argentina withdraw its forces from the Falklands IMMEDIATELY, no conditions,excuses, negotiations etc. IMMEDIATELY. Far from complying Argentina was in fact building up its defenses and trying to impose 'conditions' on the withdrawal of its forces.
    The last UN Resolution which was a General Assembly Resolution, which are not binding, was in 1988.
    The Secretary General of the UN stated last December that in his opinion the UK was not in violation of any UN Resolution. How much plainer can it be put?

    May 06th, 2013 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @133 @ 135 Monkeymagic,
    @137 Biguggy,
    You gentlemen have hit the nail squarely on its head.
    Could not have written it better myself if l had tried.
    Afraid it will be all wasted on our resident thickhead, Axel though.
    @132 Axel arg,
    Are you still with us, dear Axel?
    l know that you cannot accept that your precious Argentina was not only wrong but also defeated, but, in fact that is precisely what happened.
    Argentina IS wrong,
    Argentina IS the aggressor,
    Argentina IS a colonialist, wannerbe empire. trying to expand at other people's expense.
    Argentina WAS in breach of UNSC Resolution # 502.
    The war & the destruction of property & resources,
    ALL the deaths are the fault of Argentina.
    And finally, dear Axel, Argentina WAS defeated.
    Don't care if you don't like it.
    That's the way it is.
    lt was ALL Argentina's fault.
    Hang your head in shame & live with it!

    May 07th, 2013 - 07:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    As i always say, everybody have right to think whatever, but there something which is much more important than our opinions. I mean objetive facts.
    Beyond i don't invalid the information that some of you posted in relation to the thinking of the belgrano, however, like us or not, only justice can determine wether it was or not a war crime.
    On the other hand, since some time ago, i have started to think that thatcher acted like most british people expected from her, and i understand it, but it doesn't mean that i have to agree on it, accept it or not, nobody is the owner of the truth.
    Objetive facts which happened before 1982, like the readley's mission of 1980, or the warns ignored by thatcher, in relation to the cuts that her administration had determined for the defence in the south atlantic, show that the wishes of the islanders weren't a priority for her. These facts show also that she just used the invasion, for her politic ambitions, like the junta, but they lost. Anyway, it doesn't mean that only the u. k. is responsable for the war. Only an idiot would say it.
    I know perfectly what resolution 502 asked both nations, beside, i already told you what the militars had started to to do after that resolution, and i told you also how thatcher could have recovered the islands without making any war.
    On the other hand, the day you investigate, or get better information, you'll stop making the stupid and pathetic comparisons that many of you often do, in relation to our claim and colonialism, anyway you missinformation doesn't change the facts either.

    May 07th, 2013 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    Axel..just how thick are you? Really?

    You wanted were provided with the statement from the Captain of the Belgrano and the International Red Cross. You ignore have a closed mind...and are blind to evidence.

    You claim that Thatcher waged war for political gains. That again is crass ignorance. We went to war becasue YOU invaded. The gentleman you refer to is Nicholas RIDLEY (not readley) he was trying to find a compromise, and “militarising the South Atlantic” is expensive and thanks to the socialist governments of the 1970s we didnt have a lot of cash.

    You see us trying to negotiate, and reducing our defences as a sign the islanders werent important to I said before axel...that is not a mistake we will repeat.

    Now, the final part of your spewing...

    Argentina invaded a peaceful territory
    Argentina refused to leave
    Argentina BROKE binding RESOLUTIONS of the UN Security Council
    Argentina committed war crimes using human shields
    Argentina sent the Belgrano into battle it was sunk whilst attempting to sink the British fleet
    Argentina is 100% responsible for all the 1982 deaths..every single one.


    Had Thatcher wanted a war as you suggest, we wouldnt have accepted the Argentine surrender and would have followed your ships back to Argentina and sunk the fucking lot. We would have carpet bombed BA so that no ridiculous notion of “Malvinas” dared ever be repeated...but we didnt want war...

    We rescued the islanders with the minimum casualties, we treated the POWs with more dignity and respect than they got from their own commanders, and after our victory, we tried to engage Argentina in rebuilding relationships as soon as they returned to democracy.

    to be honest axel, I think you are sick in the compare the thatcher government with the Junta makes you as stupid as Dany Burger and not worth anyones time to respond

    May 07th, 2013 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @140, Axel stop drinking the chunky milk for your Junta and its apologists. The war is 100% AR's fault with or without a pre-invasion Fortress Falklands. If you want to pull a “Roosevelt/Bush/Thatcher knew” meme to somehow spread the blame for the war that YOUR Junta, YOUR problem started, you have no one to lie to here.

    May 07th, 2013 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    Just as an afterthought does anyone know exactly what the terms of the Falkland Islands 'permission' actually say?
    It may not require the research vessel to actually have the 'permission' on board. A bit like not having your Drivers License with you when stopped by the Police.
    Let us be honest the C.O. of any warship or Marine detachment that boards the vessel should know exactly what the 'permission' states. Should the vessel be caught doing anything else then it is in contravention of its 'permission' and should be dealt with accordingly.

    Now if the 'permission' requires that a copy be kept on board the vessel and the vessel does not have it that is a different story.

    May 07th, 2013 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    Poor axel.

    He knows that if Argentina is to blame for the 1982 invasion, and therefore 900 deaths, then the “Malvinas” myth is utterly contemptible. Which it is anyway, due to the hypocrisy of an implanted population denying self-determination to another implanted population...but with 900 deaths on their hands, even axel can see that the eviction of 50 or so militia (incl rapists and murderers) in 1833 is insignificant.

    So, what to do...

    Pretend the 900 deaths is the fault of the Junta (not Argentina) and Britain (because they let the invasion happen)?

    What he can't understand is that this is UTTER UTTER BOLLOCKS.

    Whilst 1832 can become greyed by time, and insufficient primary data for Argentina to exploit with their lies, 1982 is very much ripe in people's minds.

    Argentina is the only country who blames someone else.

    The Iraqis don't blame “Saddam” for the invasion of Kuwait, and they certainly don't blame the Kuwaitis.
    The Germans don't blame Hitler for the invasion of Poland, and they certainly don't blame the Poles.

    Only Argentina.

    Axel can't face it, it must be someone else's axel, its yours, and everyday you don't accept it, you urinate on the graves of the poor lads that died.

    May 07th, 2013 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    like us or not, only justice can determine whether it was or not a war crime.

    You have seen all the available evidence, What is your point ?
    Who do you wish to investigate this “war crime”. Your own people ? Your own government keeps parroting the same mantra - Belgrano = war crime. Hoping that if they say it long enough, it will be accepted as truth despite the evidence to the contrary. Why don't they take it to the ICJ - if that is the appropriate court. It's because they know they will lose.
    Your “research” will get you nowhere as you have no access to official records either in the UK or Argentina. You have a biased opinion which you are trying to prove as fact.
    I think it is time you moved on and picked another cause - you have lost this one.

    May 07th, 2013 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    only justice can determine whether it was or not a war crime.
    [you really mean you ]
    The captain said it was not, full stop]
    Unless of course YOU were there.
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, i have started to think that Thatcher acted like most British people expected from her, and i understand it, but it doesn't mean that i have to agree on it
    [or put it this way]]
    ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, i have started to think that the junta, acted like most Argentine people expected from it , i understand it, but it doesn't mean that we have to agree on it
    it doesn't mean that only the u. k. is responsible for the war. Only an idiot would say it.

    [IDIOT yes, but as it was Argentina that instigated the bloody war, then it must be Argentina that takes responsibility, is it not////


    May 07th, 2013 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @143, let's be fair... Axel only partially blames the UK for the war. It's the pox on both houses approach. To be exact, if you look deeply into his answer he's tossing some of the blame on what the Falklands (and the UK) were wearing that night.

    May 07th, 2013 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    You've heard reasonable comments, Axel
    Now lets heard some more stupidity from you. lol!
    You are wrong, Axel
    Your country is wrong, Axel
    Argentina is completely responsible for ALL the deaths in the Falklands War, Axel.
    Argentina is guilty of war crimes, Axel & you are an ldiot.

    May 07th, 2013 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    139 axel arg

    Oh, axel, son!!! son, son, son!!!

    Do you remember when I wrote to you and said:-

    “You would do well to listen to what MonkeyMagic is trying to tell you”

    Do you remember that? I do cos I was there when I wrote it......

    You see, I remember the news reports of the time, the pictures of all of those Argentinians dancing and hugging each other in the street when the news was announced that Port Stanley had fallen.

    These are not the actions of a population who disaprove of what their government is doing!!!

    Those that danced and sang and hugged that night are just as responsible for the invasion and for the deaths of the soldiers on both sides..... In fact the Junta was only kicked out of office after they lost, if they had won, they would have STILL been in government to this very day!!

    So don't you go and try to shift the blame, we both know that there was no way that:- “thatcher could have recovered the islands without making any war” because the Junta ( that you and everyone else in Argentina approved of ) where in no mood to listen and war was the only way to get them to leave.

    The upshot of all this is, you FAILED to listen to what friend Monkeymagic was trying to tell you and you FAILED to not make a pr*t out of yourself......

    In fact, for you, this has been a total FAIL!!!


    May 07th, 2013 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    poor axel,
    we thinks you need a new set of wheels ..

    May 08th, 2013 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    As i said in another comment, if i decided to investigate, is because i have never believed in our mendacious official history, if i believed in it, i would invalid most you say, as many of you often do with almost everything i say, this is evident that you are projecting on me what actually many of you are. Beside, as i said in another comment, if you think that only our politic leaders omit information in relation to the historic and the legal aspects of this conflict, is because perhaps some of you have been perfecty indoctrinated by your so loved empire in decadence. Like it or not, both parts tell just what is convenient for them.
    On the other hand, none of you has no right to say anything about my investigations, because you haven't read it yet, as some other people in this forum have, So, you have no idea about the sources that i included in my works. When i finish the revision, i'll offer it to you, only in that way you'll be able to get your conclusions. I should have finished my revision some months ago, but i have been very bussy with my work and studies, because fortunatelly i have so much work to do.
    I won't never invalid wha you say in reference to the thinking of the belgrano, because i think your sources are very relevant, but in my opinion, an investigation by justice would be much deeper, beside, in a country which is judging and sentencing the criminals of the dictatorship, is absolutly necesary to investigate about the sinking of the belgrano.
    Respecting the support that many people gave to the invasion in plaza de mayo, i recommend you to read what i said in my comment 105, so you stop repeating the usuall too partial truths that many of you often repeat.
    On the other hand, i respect if most you agree on thatcher's behaviour in 1982, but i don't agre on it, i have been very clear respecting what boh parts could have done in order to avoid a war.

    May 08th, 2013 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    Your opinion=

    our opinion=
    And yours is wrong.

    May 08th, 2013 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    sadly axel, you haven't grasped the first principles of research and therefore you studies are valueless.

    Your example that Mrs Thatcher went to war in order to win the 1983 general election is just plain stupid. You might as well say that Churchill went to war in 1940 in order to get himself a state have used a positive effect, and assumed it was the motivation. That is basic ignorance.

    Your next ignorance of research, is very basic. Primary data from a source that if anything would be partial the other way. The Captain of the Belgrano says his ship was actively seeking to attack the British fleet...end of story...

    The proportion of Argentines supporting the war is debatable, but irrelevant. It's like asking how many Germans supported Hitler, how many Iraqis supported Saddam etc etc, the war wasn't Britain against the Junta, it was Britain against Argentina...hearing you and your current government trying to duck responsibility or pass it on is disgusting.

    What you are doing is weasel-like. It's “argentine”. Blame the Junta, Blame Thatcher, Blame the British....

    I repeat to you axel...the blame belongs to Argentina.

    900 people died because of Argentina. I accept this is small numbers compared to your genocidal conquests, but it's in living memory.

    Argentina committed war crimes, Argentina cost 900 lives, Argentina lies about it.

    And you are so thick that you can't see why the Islanders despise you, and want nothing to do with you?

    May 08th, 2013 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    Want a war crime, try the indiscriminate scattering of land mines in the Falklands without mapping where they are located. That is a war crime and they are still being cleared, at the very real risk of further human casualties.

    May 09th, 2013 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    150 axel arg

    wow Axel!!! when you dig yourself a hole, you just keep digging don't you!!!!

    I would stop now if I were you..........

    May 09th, 2013 - 06:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    As unpalatable as it is to you, the truth is, it was ALL Argentina's fault.
    1) the Falklands are NOT yours, no matter what you have been taught.
    2) the Falklands have NEVER been yours.
    3) Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982.
    4) Most Argentines celebrated that fact, witness dancing, laughing, cheering the Junta.
    5) Argentina was defeated & the Falklands reverted to their rightful owners.
    Ergo, Argentina caused ALL the deaths & Argentina is solely responsible for the war.
    lts ALL Argentina's fault, Axel, so you are talking absolute rubbish.

    May 09th, 2013 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trying to be impartial

    If Cristina Fernandez says that the people who live in the Malvinas/Falklands should not have the right to self-determination, I would expect her logic to say that people who are decendants of foreign immigrants living in Argentina whould probably also have no right to vote in Argentine elections...
    Fernandez??? Sounds a bit Spanish to me... what would you say?

    Regarding the invasion - I believe it should have never happened. The Thatcher Government should not have ignored the islands in such a way as to give the Argentines the impression that we didn't care. It was a waste of lives on both sides.

    May 09th, 2013 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Raul

    Malvinas Peoples:
    A million signatures for bilateral dialogue:

    Peoples Malvinas “seeks to give social depth of continental mass to the Cause Falklands.'s One million signatures will be presented to the UN Secretary General, looking” people fill the UN “to highlight the crisis of representation system this international organization, highly conditioned by geopolitical bids of the permanent members of the Security Council, especially the UK.'s one million signatures aims to create a political precedent in an international organization where ”people” does not take place, but whose decisions seriously affect their long-term collective future. Y Malvinas is a question of the future.

    See the following link:

    May 09th, 2013 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    The comparison between churchills' decision and thatcher's is really mediocre, due to the contexts were very different.
    Objetive facts, like the ridley's mission of 1980, and the warns ignored by thatcher in relation to the cuts that her administration had determined for the defense in the south atlantic, show that the wishes of the islanders weren't a priority for her, you can agree or not on it, but like it or not it was the truth.
    Anyway, i understand that perhaps thatcher acted like most british people expected from her, but it doesn't mean that i have to agree on it.
    Beyond what people in both countries expected from their governments, resolution 502 is much more important than our opinions. That resolution asked the retire of argentine troops, and asked also both countries to solve their controversies peacefuly.
    Our troops started to retire after that resolution, in fact, the junta didn't want a war with the u. k. for the sovereignty of the islands, actually the junta was so idiot that thought that the u. k. would never do a war to recover the islands.
    What the junta pretended to do, was a touch and go. The militars wanted to take the islands, expeal the british governor, and leave a small garrison in the territory. They were so stupid that thought that with the invasion they would push the u. k. to a negotiation.
    Anyway, despite the junta's stupidity, they were disposed to negotiate with the u. k. about the sovereignty.
    In the case of the u. k., thatcher could have sent after the invasion a huge militar mission, in order to protect the islanders of the terrible abuses that the junta commited in the mainland against our people, and at the same time negotiate with the junta, like resolution 502 asked both nations. However, if she negotiated with the junta, it was probable that she wouldn't win the election in 1983, only in that way it can be understood her repentin wish of recovering the islands.

    May 09th, 2013 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    Excuse me sir,
    Is it true that talking to certain items is not only a waste of time,
    But a waste of energy,
    You cannot talk to
    A mirror or a wall, the dead or the dumb
    The deaf or the brain washed, the indoctrinated or the loyal believer,

    Why then, other than to educate them, why do we bother?
    If the wall and mirror think they are alive,
    The dead or the dumb wake up,
    The deaf and brain washed think they are right,
    And the indoctrinated and loyal believer thinks –
    CFK is a goddess, Argentina won the war,
    And we are as guilty as sin,

    Who are we mere mortals to argue?
    But to say, their mind, their little world, their fantasy, let em get on with it,
    For it fair to say, when they get their balls back=we will surely burst them again.
    My book on this item is now truly closed…cough cough.

    May 09th, 2013 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    You keep repeating 90% of the same posts.
    It may be that the Thatcher govt. did not place a high priority on the Falklands but no way would they allow it to be annexed by Argentina.
    Your statement that the“junta” would have returned the main force to Argentina “and leave a small garrison in the territory.”would mean that you would expect to negotiate sovereignty from a privileged position. If you did not like the outcome, send the forces back in.
    “ thatcher could have sent after the invasion a huge militar mission” To do what ?
    You obviously have no understanding of naval warfare.
    What was this task force supposed to do ? Sail around the S.Atlantic awaiting negotiations being dragged out until the onset of Winter. The fleet would have been out of supplies with no friendly port withing sailing distance. A few heavy storms could have damaged some of the vessels and they would have had to return to the UK for repairs. Troops aboard getting unfit from continual confinement to quarters. All this time the Argentinian forces would be getting themselves better prepared for the conflict.
    History teaches us that you do not negotiate with people who use armed force to get their way. If you do the you may as well surrender all your self respect and authority.
    You still ascribe your interpretations of the actions by your standards - Argentinian !
    Do you not just think it possible that she wanted to recover the islands from a moral point of view and do what was right for the Falklands and her country. Don't you think that it was possible that she took the action she did with no real thought of her own political career ?
    I realise that this notion would be foreign to any Argentinian president but do not judge others from your own flawed viewpoint.
    Don't you think it is time to move on? You have been flogging this for months with nothing new to add to your own prejudiced view. You have seen all the evidence available but you still have conspiracy theories.

    May 09th, 2013 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    You are a complete idiot. Your Country started the war & your country was defeated.
    We do not have to talk to you & we will not.
    You have no valid reasons for Argentine “rights” because there are none.
    Just go away you annoying little insect.
    Come back when you can make sense.
    Remember this:- Argentina has NO RIGHTS in the Falklands.
    @159 briton,
    Your post is almost poetry,
    Thank you.

    May 10th, 2013 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    The context is no different at all. Sovereign territory was invaded by an agressive and beligerrant force, and the UK Prime Minister made the difficult decision to face that force with military action.

    The republic of Argentinas invasion of the Falklands is exactly the same as Germanys invasion of Poland or Iraqs invasion of Kuwait. Rounding up civilians and holding them at gun-point must be very proud.

    As for Argenina withdrawing from the Falklands in line with UN resolution 502. IT IS BULLSHIT. You continue to maintain the myth that the Belgrano was carrying lukemia sufferers and choirboys to a meeting of the peace-corp....BULLSHIT. Argentina had NO PLANS to return the Falklands to their rightful owners.

    Argentina had no interest in negotiating its withdraw, just as it has no interest in negotiating today. IT HAS INTEREST ONLY IN LAND-GRAB AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE POPULATION.

    Your analysis is shit.

    We knew Saddam was nasty, the US could have put a massive military force in Kuwait. We knew Hitler was nasty, what the hell was Chamberlain doing trying to negotiate the Munich agreement, with the benefit of hindsight, you could have avoided every war in history with a massive defence force before an invasion...WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE A DEFENCE FORCE ON THE ISLANDS TODAY.

    Hitler=Saddam=Galtieiri=Kirchener as far as we are concerned.

    Let me spell it out to you one more time.

    Argentina is 100% responsible for the 1982 war.
    Argentina STILL doesnt take responsibility for this.
    Until Argentina takes responsibility, the defence will remain.
    Argentina has no rights to sovereignty of the Islands, and Never will.

    May 10th, 2013 - 09:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    162 Monkeymagic
    Almost totally agree, except for the 'never will' at the end. I believe that 'until the Islanders want it' should be added.
    Mind you I do not see that happening until at least my great-grand-children's time and then only if Argentina alters its stance towards the Islanders. The way things are developing, at the moment, I believe some sort of Union with Chile is far more likely but even then not for decades to come.

    May 10th, 2013 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    161 lsolde
    we do

    May 10th, 2013 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    In relation to what you think about thatcher's behaviour in 1982, sorry, but i wasn't born yesterday in order to believe in such an inocent hypothesis. As i said before, objetive facts like those that i mentioned in my different comments are very clear respecting the relevancy of the islands for her. Anyway i respect your opinion, but i really dont agree on it.
    Accept it or not, beyond the expectations of the populations from both countries, if arg. and the u. k. were called to negotiate by mean resolution 502, it should have been respected by both nations.

    ...general secretary from the u. n. Javier Perez de Cuellar, offered an action of good offices, which was accepted by arg. and the u. k. With the purpose of participating of negotiations of may 6th, subsecretary Enrique Ros, and secretary (Roberto) García Moritán, travelled to New York, according to a work made in the Chancery by the Direction of Antártica and Malvinas.
    General secretary from the u. n. proposed as a previous step for the begining of negotiatons, the retire of the forces of both countries in the archipelago.
    Following day, friday 7th, Great Britain amplified the naval blockade to 12 miles from the argentine maritime litoral, and took the decision of transfiring infantery forces which were in the Ascension islands to the front of war. It was a clear mesage that they thought about an unshipment.

    Source: 1982 By Juan bautista Jofre. Pages 360-361.

    As you can see, the u. k. wasn't interested in a negotiated solution. Respecting the evidences that you and some other people posted, i said in my comment 150 that i would never invalid your sources, because i think they are very relevant, but i also expressed that an investigation by justice would be much deeper, i recomend you to read my comment 150.

    May 11th, 2013 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    @165 axel arg

    Try reading the following and see what Mr Haig says and what Argentina kept demanding. Sovereignty. Sovereignty. Sovereignty. from page 72 on-wards.

    May 12th, 2013 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    You poor soul. You are desperate to find some snide, underhand, conspiracy theory that doesn't make Argentina the 100% wrong, perpetrator of war and responsible for 900 deaths in living memory....thus totally and finally eliminating any shred of sovereignty claim, and any shred of hope the islanders would ever want to trust them.

    You understand (which I admit is a step up from most Argentine posters on these boards) that were Argentina 100% responsible for the 1982 war, then the British position of being totally unwilling to negotiate sovereignty is fully understandable, and in fact it's willingness to discuss fisheries and hydrocarbons with Menem was generous.

    So far, in order to pass the buck for 1982, you have tried the next series of Argentine myths...they are as ludicrous as the 1833 myths, but easier to disprove:

    1) it wasn't Argentina, it was the Junta
    2) thatcher wanted a war for political reasons
    3) the Junta didn't want a war
    4) Argentina was withdrawing in line with 502 but Britain attacked
    5) the Belgrano sinking was a war crime
    6) the Belgrano wasn't actively seeking to attack the British fleeet
    7) Thatcher encouraged Argentina (ooops the Junta) by lowering defences
    8) Negotiating in the 1970s a sign Britain does care about the islanders

    Etc etc etc

    All of the above is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

    YOU (Argentina) militarily attacked a peaceful island. We (Britain) went to the UN and got a resolution DEMANDING you (Argentina) withdrew. You (Argentina) didn't.

    We (Britain) sent a task force to remove you (Argentina). This involved protecting our (British) ships from your (Argentine) attacks. Unfortunately you (Argentina) sent the AR Belgrano into battle and 323 people died (most due to the fact the rescue boats were cowardly running away).

    We (Britain) recovered the islands and sought no further revenge. We treated POWs better than their own commanders.

    You (Argentina) committed war crimes (previously listed)

    I am sorry there is no conspiracy axel

    May 12th, 2013 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    You are a prime example of an oxygen thief.

    May 12th, 2013 - 07:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nigelpwsmith


    I agree with virtually everything you say, but have to point out that the majority of the sailors who died on the Belgrano, did so because the water-tight hatches had been left open in the operational area.

    Warships are built so that they can survive damage caused by conflict. They are heavily compartmentalised. Each compartment is capable of being isolated from the others by hatches to increase survival from fire or flood.

    Every crew has to be trained to operate their vessel & it’s one of the standard drills to prepare your ship for various ‘states of readiness’. These states depend on what the ship is doing.

    In war time, water-tight hatches would be sealed to prevent fire or flood from spreading. This can make moving about very time consuming, because you not only have to open each hatch, but then seal it tight after you’ve gone through. It might take only 5 minutes to walk from the bow to the stern when the hatches are open, but it might take an hour when they are sealed.

    When the Belgrano was attacked, Captain Bonzo & his officers had neglected to ensure that all the hatches were sealed. They were still in the operational area (as per the rules of engagement notified to Argentina) so it was the Captain’s duty to ensure that his ship was prepared to survive an attack.

    When the torpedo detonated in the engineering space, it set off secondary explosions which caused a fireball to travel through the ship. Some died in the engineering room, but the majority of deaths were caused when the fireball entered the 'Soda Fountain', the crew rest area. Hundreds died, but they would not have if the hatches had been closed.

    Many of the survivors already had burns & shock, so when they were left in the life rafts for a prolonged period in the South Atlantic winter, they suffered exposure too.

    The blame for the loss of the Belgrano has to fall on Argentina. However, the reason that there were so many deaths was down to poor seamanship by the officers & sailors.

    May 12th, 2013 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Compared to me, you were born yesterday !

    Do you really think that “negotiations” are possible with a nation that has invaded your territory, held their citizens hostage, attacked their armed forces with intent to kill, refused to remove their troops under res. 502 and who demand the handover of the invaded territory?

    As a precursor to negotiations both countries were requested to withdraw their forces. For Argentina, about a days's sail, for the UK, back to the British Isles - six week's sailing time.
    You gain -we lose.
    There have been many TV programs on the BBC about the Falklands campaign and the lead up to it.
    Secy.of State, Haig talking later on his shuttle diplomacy, said that the junta were playing for time and had no intentions of removing their troops. All they wanted was sovereignty.
    In December 2012 documents released under the UK “30 Year Rule” disclosed that Haig planned to reveal British classified military information to Argentina in advance of the recapture of south Georgia. The proposal, which would have revealed British plans for the retaking of the island, was intended to show the military junta in Buenos Aires that America was a neutral player and could be trusted to act impartially during negotiations to end the conflict.
    That was the crooked deck we were dealt !
    I know that whatever I say or give you information of, in your soul, you still will never accept that Britain had to take military action or reward aggression.
    I did not vote for Mrs. Thatcher, I disliked her personality and policies BUT I would never accuse her, in this case, of putting her own political survival before the moral decision to free the islands from the Argentinian yoke.
    It would appear that this moral stand does not resonate with politicians in Argentina so cannot be understood by your populace.

    May 12th, 2013 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    NIGEL: Thank you for your information, i think it's interesting.
    I recomend you to read my comment 58, where i said what i think about the sinking of the belgrano, beside, i expressed my doubts also about wether it can be considered or not like a war crime.
    CLYDE15: I already told you more than twice that i can understand that perhaps thatcher acted like most british people expected from her, but it doesn't mean that i have to agree on what your people think, i respect them, including you, but i don't agree on your opinions.
    The question is too complicated, and i think it must be analized deeply.
    I saw also many documetals which refer to the war.
    In the book that i dated in my comment 165, it's told about a memorandum, where thatcher manifested that she was convinced that her government would fall if she negotiated with the junta, in relation to the sovereignty of the islands, i'm going to date tomorrow the pages and some more information.
    Thatcher said that she would negotiate, only if the argentine trops left the archipelago. It was obvious that the junta was never going to accept it, becaue if the militars took the islands, it was because they thought that they were going to be able to push the u. k. for a negotiation.
    I know perfectly that the postures of both governments were hightly arguable. But in my opinion there are some aspects that i can't ignore.
    Despite the imbecility of the militars, and their spurious interests, they were disposed to negotiate about the sovereignty, in fact, they were disposed to accept the three flags proposal.
    In the case of the u. k., if i take into account the objetive facts that happened before 1982, which i mentioned in all my comments, show that thatcher's repentin interest in recovering the islands, was just based on her politic ambitions. She could have recovered the islands without making any war, and i already explained how.

    May 12th, 2013 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!