MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, August 12th 2022 - 18:30 UTC

 

 

“Without Chile's help, we would have lost the Falklands”, says former RAF intelligence

Tuesday, July 8th 2014 - 07:25 UTC
Full article 120 comments

Chile's support for Britain during the Falklands War has been revealed for the first time by the man who was dispatched, with only hours notice, to secure a South American ally, according to an article in the Daily Telegraph credited to Harriet Alexander. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Room101

    ...But that, as the saying goes, is History...

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 08:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • zathras

    So much for South American solidarity.

    Funny how many SA counties will publicly support Argentina, but in reality will do the right thing.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 08:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    Put another way,

    Without Typhoon fighters, a hunter killer submarine and two Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft carriers...we might lose them again.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lord Ton

    Everyone has a book to sell :-)

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Of course Chile secretly supported the UK.

    Argentina were attempting another land grab of Chilean territory, haven't they admitted that if they had not invaded the Falklands they would have invaded Chile?

    Had they been successful in occupying the islands, you can safely assume, that fired up with nationalistic pride in their military prowess, Chile would have been next on their radar!!!!

    My enemies enemy, is my friend.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Voice

    ....reminds me of book or movie plugging on chat shows.....
    ...in my opinion....or I think......according to me....
    as Lorton says... book selling...

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    True, but it's not really a surprising revelation is it?

    If anything it's just confirmation of what everybody already knew.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    Chile and the UK CONTINUE to have a close relationship, even though Pinochet has long gone.

    No surprise there either.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • brucey-babe

    Why are we being represented by a bunch of losers, militarily and governmental.
    Reagan implored Maggie not to attack the Argies in '82', and she, much to our grief now, did not and left us with dead and injured combatants. Now, if the argies invade The Falkland Islands again we should give them 24 hours to depart or we will start plonking missiles on their military airports followed by civilian airports, then docks, power stations, fuel (LNG, liquid etc !) and lastly, (by then they would have left F.I. !) water supplies.That's for starters ! A humpty great £1,000,000 per person for the agro, plus the eradication of the F.I. off their constitution and teaching school children the truth about the Islands. And not another service man / woman killed or injured.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Mr Ed

    I've seen an interview with General Matthei in which he says he did whatever he could to ensure that Argentina lost that war. This is not news, but confirmation of the least-kept secret of the war. Here is the vid in Spanish, the excerpt leading up to 4 minutes in.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKqjBnnGtww

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @9. Have too agree with what you say. We don't have all those submarines and missiles for nothing. They are MEANT to be used. But why wait 24 hours? There's a good chance they'd never get on to the Islands in the first place. If that's the case, a couple of hours should be quite adequate for them to turn around and run. And then we should start with city centres. Let “the people” know that they are in a war! Then it's on to roads and railways. Cutting transport links and making the people walk. In argieland, military and civilian airports are much the same thing. Fuel depots and storage next to incapacitate the military. On to water supplies to make it difficult to put fires out. and finally any power stations that haven't already burned down or exploded. May need to make a judgement on whether to explode a nuclear power station. But, if it has to be done, the farther south the better. Obviously all military equipment, or civilian equipment in military use, should be destroyed. Necessarily, argieland would have to be informed that British forces would be paying no attention to red crosses purporting to represent the International Red Cross. Except as aiming points. Fell for that one last time.

    Thanks a lot, Chile. But didn't we manage okay from 1939? And now, at the first sign of any “problem”, Typhoons should start to be ferried south. Four Typhoons per Voyager. 15 hours should see about 3 squadrons landing plus about 2,500 troops and their equipment. That's all 9 of the “core” Voyagers. There's another 5 from the “surge capability”. Meanwhile, submarines move to their launch points.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • pgerman

    ”When I asked Patricio Perez (an air force official) about the journalist, he smiled and said 'Don't worry – he is alive, but very shaken up,'“ Mr Edwards said.......in other pharagraph he The fact that Pinochet was a dictatorship made things easier“....

    Guahhh...

    I have already been said that Margaret Thatcher was a ”freedom figther” and we, argentine people, would have to be thankful since due to the war we could get rid of Galtieri.....poor chileans...chileans would have to be grateful for having strengthened Pinochet....

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Condorito

    Victories in Las Brujas ... such fond memories.

    @pgerman
    Our involvement in FI was unknown to the public at the time so it neither strengthened nor weakened Pinochet's rule. Also remember that unlike Galtieri, Pinochet left us with the strong uncorrupt institutions that have been the foundation of our political and economic stability of the last 30 years.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brasileiro

    They will lose anyway, will only be more painful. The English economy will suffer more by blocking of South America to their interests. The Falklands remain isolated and without perspectives 32 years after the invasion. And we South Americans are bound to see a piece of our territory by fighting against ourselves.

    The best would be for all the Argentine victory. But the Argentines were unable to hold the conquest of Falkland.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • pgerman

    Dear Condorito,

    I have a very different concept of dictatorships such as Galtieri, Pinochet, Franco or Mussolini. Chile's current success is the result of chileans honesty, efforts and willingness to work. I don't see it related to a bloody dictatorship.
    Don't fall into the stupid temptation that the war brought good things to Chile, the UK, the FI or Argentina...let these stupid ideas to “Conqueror” or to “brucey-babe”...

    “Conqueror”, “brucey-babe”...still missing another war?...1.000 casualties was not enought?....well, well don't worry good boys.....it's easy to imagine wars and victories, to plan destruction with a keyword confortable at home...it is quite easy to dream with heroes from home....try playing games such as “call of duty”....

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Condorito

    @pgerman
    I am not saying the war brought good things to Chile. I said that it “ neither strengthened nor weakened Pinochet's rule”. In other words it made no difference.

    I think there are as many good, honest people in Argentina as there are in Chile (ok, maybe not quite as many :)), but we have huge economic freedom and very low corruption, Argentina doesn't. Where are the roots of our economic freedom and strong institutions?

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • pgerman

    @16

    The fact that the Pinochet support to the United Kingdom was not made public does not change things at all. Take for instance, that Galtieri did not make public the Argentine participation (with special forces) in the El Salvador civil war or the support given to nicaraguan “Contras” at the request of President Ronald Reagan.

    Pinochet got, among other things, impunity and protection from the United Kingdom when the Spanish justice asked his extradition for human rights violations and the killing of some Spanish citizens.

    As you wrote there are honest people in Argentina, not in the current government for sure, there are honest people in Chile and in the FI.

    In the specific case of Argentina I see its current economic situation as a result of having peronist governments that are fascist with old ideas. Don't forget that Peron decorated General Pinochet, General Stroessnerr and General Franco among other “democrats”......quite a bunch of freedom fighters !!!!

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brasileiro

    Freedom is plaything in the hands of irrational philosophers on duty.

    Speak of oppression as if it were a party. Speak of reason as if it were a well itself.

    Fools!

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    The British do not have any intention of blockading south American countries , at this time, or in the near future,

    you argies should not believe everything you are told,

    but on the other hand, if south American countries wish to blockade all British commerce, then that is their problem and thus their future..

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Condorito

    @17 pgerman
    Pinochet's detention in the UK was 8-9 years after he had stepped down.

    Whilst in power, his grip was total and totally secure. Remember in 1976 he assassinated Letelier in Washinton DC to the ire of the Americans. In no way did he require the approval of the British government to maintain his power.

    Chile's participation in the FI was a matter of national defence priorities (as perceived by the dictatorship) not about strengthening their own hold on Chile, which was already total.

    Anyway, we are off topic on this one, so, we might just have to agree to disagree on this one.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • pgerman

    @19

    There are lots of issues between Argentina and the UK. Take for instance that nobody seems to find the way to solve the FI issue 32 years after the war. Both countries are in the same point as when the war finished. Plenty of resuorces are being wasted on both sides to keep the current status...

    The UK cannot blockade SA countries' commerce while, to the contrary Argentina is doing so. I'm not saying that argentine attitude is a benefit but the current argentine government is succesfully doing it.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    You cannot dwell on what might have been,
    think of the future.
    Chile is friends with the British,
    And that irate CFK..

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brasileiro

    I think there is no voluntary lock. Only the natural breakdown of choices made for us through the years. Choices that reflect the level of trade that have. That is, NOTHING.

    We are so different, strange and unimportant that if one of us did not exist would not miss.

    Longitudinally opposite. We are English and South American.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • brucey-babe

    pgerman @15.

    Read my last sentence :- “And not another service man / women killed or injured”.
    I do not believe in promoting war but preparing for war. Remember Argentina attacked us, should we let a bully get away with their transgressions > , no, otherwise they will do it all the more. Are you a bully pgerman, do you think the U.K. should not protect it's people and lands, should we just sit back and take whatever the despots throw at us ? What would you recommend if the roles were reversed ?

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    @21

    What is it that Argentina successfully doing?

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brasileiro

    Brasil X Argentina in final countdown. Woooooooooow!

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • pgerman

    @24

    Please, read yout own comments again “we will start plonking missiles on their military airports followed by civilian airports, then docks, power stations, fuel and lastly, water supplies. That's for starters ! ”...for God's sake !!!....how old are you? 14, 15 years old...dreaming plans for destroying a country....attacking civil targets...grow up boy.

    Read “Conqueror” childish posts.....he seems to be a bit mentally ill and emotionally unstable.

    @25

    In this site I only can read complains from FI people for Argentine attitude rejecting any cooperation between both countries. If the UK, and the FI people, complains it is sensible to think that it's harming FI economy. From my point of view I can see that FI economy developement is being delayed because of the current situation and is making UK to waste its resources. Doesn't seem to be the position of someone who won a war....usually those who win a war impose the conditions to the defeated one.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Some truth but a bit exaggerated. Chile,s quiet help helper certainly- but wrong to say UK would have lost without it-Plenty of times when the fight could have gone either way.

    Pgerman - please give me some examples of effective blockade?

    Ok you refuse charterflights that overfly your airspace but they are not vital
    We have Charter flights as and when we want and need them from elsewhere, we have regular scheduled international flights, 3 a week. We have regular scheduled shipping links with Uruguay and Chile as and when we want them.
    We have a regular shipping link direct to the UK
    All these are paid for by us and not subsidised. by UK

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    @27
    The UK is not wasting any resources on the islands, if your referring to the cost of defending the islands, it has been pointed out on here numerous times, that if the forces were not deployed there, they would be deployed elsewhere and the cost would be the same. They would still need to be paid, fed, equipped and trained, wherever they were.

    The UK does not run the Islanders Economy, it has not done so for several years, the islanders run their own economy and despite Argentine attempts to stifle it, are doing a good job of it.

    As for the war, what was the objective of the UK forces in that war. To remove Argentine forces from the Islands. Where are those forces now? Back in Argentina.

    Objective achieved, hostilities ceased.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • pgerman

    @28

    The term “blockade” is currently being used by UK diplomats in their complains about the current argentine policy. So, don't blame on me, if I am wrong blame it to them...

    In additoon, based on your comments, everything is OK between both countries. Much better them....let's go ahead this way during the next decades.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • gordo1

    @ 14 Brasileiro

    Are you fully in charge of your mental faculties? What nonsense! Dream on!

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @14. Could you help us with a little bit of clarification? Who is “They”? How is the English economy supposed to suffer? On the last stats that I could find, the UK exported US$473 billions of goods. That would be stuff we sell. Brazil managed US$256 billion. And that was the highest ranking latam exporter. Argieland managed US$84 billion. This is why England is successful. And also why Brazil is a long way behind. Shouldn't mention argieland. Embarrassing for them. It's difficult to see how the Falklands are “isolated”. May not be having much to do with latam, but that's good. Just a tip. Argieland will NEVER “hold the conquest” of the Falklands. Even today, the UK could wipe the floor with argieland. Our first new aircraft carrier is already afloat. 70,000 tons. Three times the size of the last ones.
    @15. You try playing “Call of Duty”. I don't have a games console. A lot of good things happened for the FI and the UK. We both learned how good “we” are. I don't remember 1,000 casualties. WE had 775 wounded and 255 regrettably killed. On the other hand, WE killed 649 and wounded 1,657 of the invaders. Also took 11,313 of them prisoner. In other words, we inflicted more than twice as much damage as we received and captured the rest. Not too bad. But we have better capabilities now. And before you whitter on about being warlike, remember who started it.
    @21. If what the argie government is currently doing is “successful”, keep it up. The FI is doing okay and the UK is doing okay. Isn't it the argie government that sees trouble wherever it looks? LOST at the WTO. LOST at the Paris Club. LOST at the US Supreme Court. LOST in NY. That's “success”?
    @24. Just look at his comment. He believes in computer games. And the Royal Navy's motto is.......? At least, back in '82, we could respond, comparably, better than we did in '39. We're always learning. IF there's a next time, we'll have what we need. The Voyagers, jets, subs, missiles, carriers and air supply!

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • pgerman

    @32

    Are you fully in charge of your mental faculties? What nonsense! Dream on!

    Have you received any feedback from the letter you sent the UK PM? When are you going to cut the connection with the SA continent? Have you already started donating YOUR money to defend the islands?...remember....remember ....taxes are mandatory but donations are voluntary SAS boy !!!!

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The_TroLLing_Stone

    Ok so it was United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland / Republic of Chile / United States of America / Commonwealth vs Argentina.

    So it wasn't such a “humiliating” defeat afterall. Still a conflict that we started against people that didn't deserve it.

    Hopefully we learned our lesson not to start wars against those that don't want you there. If so we are already more culturally advanced than the Brits, who have yet to grasp this concept (2003 invasion of Iraq).

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Without Chile's help, we would have lost the Falklands”,
    That’s the blog, We won , you lost end of,,,,,,,

    On the other hand, you Argies could say==
    With the help of etc etc, you could have won the war,
    You did not and you lost,
    Stop dwelling on the past, pay your debts and get back some self respect that you so easily and humiliatingly lost…
    .

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • pgerman

    @35

    I'm far from being a nacionalist/fascist but your point is not clear at all.

    This piece of information is comming from the UK and not from Argentina so, it seems that, at least this time, the dwelling on the past is comming from your side. In addtion, I truly believe that chilean assitance was not taht important. Argentina would have lost the war anyway.

    As regards the consequences of the war my point is that, 1.000 lives were lost in (if you agree with “Conqueror” in his reasoning of ignoring argentine lost lives “WE had 775 wounded and 255 regrettably killed”), thousands million of pounds lost in equipment, another thousands million of pounds in the maintenance of the garrison just to keep the same situation as the previous one to the war. Were was the benefit? On top of everything the defeated enemy still keep on bothering you !!!

    PD: please, don't argue that “the resources spend and invested in the FI garrison would have been spent and invested in other garrison anyway”. This is not a valid reasoning in budgetting.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    @26,
    Aye, and you'll be cheering argentina wont you, cause you ain't a Brasilian, that's for sure.

    Every single Brasilian I know can't stand argentina by the way.
    Some actually want to be beaten by Germany today, as they prefer that to the possibility of being beaten by a group of people they dislike immensely.

    So much for the SA brotherhood, - eh?

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CaptainSilver

    #36 Yes, but you still havent got the Falklands 30 years later and you wont be getting them this century. And as for Tit Toby, culturaly superior, in your dreams! You have nothing whatsoever to offer the wider world, wheras Britain is a world leadee in music, art, literature, architecture, science, and is the cradle of the modern world. Compare that with corned beef and the Tango idiot.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • pgerman

    @38

    Your insult is a proof of your frutration. Anyway don't worry I really love british culture so it's quite clear for all of us that your culture “is superior” to the argentine one.

    Maybe it's time to grow up and act as an adult for both sides.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Sergio Vega

    On ' 82 UK would be victorius in the long term anyway, but the Chilean help avoid a lot of casualties from both sides and a lot of material losses........It was done because the possibility of a turn back to the Pacific Ocean would be dangeroous to us and would be meant a war between Chile and Argentina with unknown result.....
    The present stability in social, economic and political areas is given by the changes done during the military government that transformed our counrtry from a state dependant society into an active citizen leaded society opened to the world and with the confidence in our own ability to develop us as a leader in LA.....Our institution were re-founded as transparent, clean and modern for a modern world and, even the political wings at the Gvt. (read it as leftist) during 20 years after Pinochet, it have been kept unchanged because it have been successful..... The ppeople in Chile were the same before and after the military Gvt. but the country wasn´t......so its successful is due the new leadership from the Military Junta.......
    We, at the Southern Patagonia were informed about the help we were giving to the UK and we all were happy with it because it meant we won´t be under conflict with Argentina in the future......The same decision was made by Argentine Gvt. about the natural gas supply to us when Mrs. K´s husband closed the valves thinking in his own people safety first as he declared....
    The 82 conflict give us the possibility to get new battleships that otherwise we never could afford, but nothing more......

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    I agree that the information regarding Chile's support of the UK was well known and I tend to agree with most of Condorito's comments, but I'd add a few more from the perspective of serving in the Chilean Armada after the Falklands war.
    I knew many of the naval officers that were involved in providing support and intel to the UK and many anecdotes were shared over a bottle or two of wine.
    Chile at the time of the conflict had a pathetic small outdated and ill maintained airforce, a very strong well trained army and navy that were threatened by, what seemed to be at the time, a vastly superior Argentine navy and airforce. We always doubted the effectiveness of their army, but they still had a larger number of soldiers which was intimidating.
    At the academy in Valpariaso, we cadets studied numerous battle scenarios, and frankly few were advantageous of Chile's armed forces winning. The Junta's decision of quietly supporting the UK resulted in our airforce receiving desperately needed new aircraft and substantial upgrades to our radar.
    It was mutually beneficial for both nations and Chilean Intel and support was critical for the retaking of the Falkland Islands.
    As far as the situation today: Argentina has a pathetic airforce, incapable of attacking anyone (perhaps with the exception of Uruguay...), an ill trained demorialized army with one of the worst modern tanks in history, a Navy who's frigates turbines cannot produce more than 40% rated power and their German submarines are unsafe for submerging past periscope depth.
    The Falklands are easily defended with the current compliment of defense they have with or without a carrier force.
    Agrentine people are generall good and they have been blessed with a country of incredible potential, but they've been cursed as well with governance from hell, which they continue to maintain in control.
    I plan to buy the book on Amazon.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CaptainSilver

    #26 Suck on that!

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussiesunshinee

    Argentina lost the war because The UK had nukes and Argentina did not..as simple as that.....Thatcher told the Argentinians that if they did not pull out of the Malvinas/Falklands. Cordoba, which is Argentinas second biggest city would be nuked like Hiroshima and Nakasaki were...so Argentina surrendered...not like Hong Kong where The British surrendered Hong Kong when facing China with Nukes of their own.....and do not tell me they handed Hongkong because ¨The Lease¨on the island had expired as that is all bull crap......ummmmmm

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    @26 Brasileiro

    “Brasil X Argentina in final countdown. Woooooooooow!”

    How's that working out for you?

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    Ah, Señor Sunshine,
    Your argument is about as stong the the current Brazilian defense is right now.
    Germany just shot it's 7th megaton goal into Brazil's net....
    Pathetic defense from the both of you...

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Voice

    Who's taking bets on a European World cup final in SA...?
    ...anyone...?
    36
    The info is not coming from the UK...it's a book selling exercise by the publishers....
    ...but yeah that old chestnut about UK defence spending would be spent anyway....
    ...certainly not the building of the base and roads and runway and infrastructure and weekly flights and upkeep of that particular base....
    The soldiers would still be based somewhere else...but that is a huge difference in the defence costs....

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    And the alternative was?

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    It would be hard for me to imagine the Netherlands not playing in the final and the game should be amazing.
    The truth is that so far the Argentines have had an easy path. The Netherlands will be extremely challenging.
    It would be hilarious to see Brazil beat them and win third place...

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BOTINHO

    I would like to read a copy of this book of Mr. Sidney Edwards. A good resource for the home library.

    And good for Chile, who was also facing aggression and illegal claims of territory by Argentina under General Galtieri. What a murderous bunch of fascist thugs.

    Today, you ask ? A stunning defeat ! The only consolation I can think of is that this is a portent of what Argentina can expect from Germany in the finals: A severe, and embarrassing pounding.

    To be expected perhaps, with a less then stellar team, and our start player Neymar out after being targeted by the Colombianos. . Que merda.

    It's coming Argentina, it's coming !

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ynsere

    If it's actually just a book-selling exercise, then it's successful. I'm going to order the book as soon as it becomes available.
    Viva Chile!

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    Argentina is Latin America's last hope to win the cup, which tells me that they'll lose to the Netherlands. Chile, Columbia and Costa Rica can hold their heads high as they played well, but how Brazil preformed will leave them in infamy for decades to come. Argentina will lose against the Dutch and it will be interesting to see if the Brazilians will try to reclaim some semblance of respect and destroy the Argentines.

    Chile was able to give advance warning of 15 to 30 minutes before the Mirage jets arrived to attack... And yet they still caused frightful damage. Can you imagine what would of happened if the UK did not even have that information?

    There are some very accurate and ridiculously wrong articles on the WWW. I'd suggest you refer to: http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chile.htm as it's fairly accurate.

    In my opinion, “Britain” DEFINITELY ”supplied the S259 radar used by 1 Air Control Centre (1ACC) to Chile. The information obtained by the radar was quickly relayed back to the UK via a satellite link....”
    I know this true.

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Chicuero 51- You are correct re the radar- it was flown in by RAF C130- across to Canada,down the west coast and via an island in the Pacific where the plane was repainted in FAC colours - only - to quote the words of the Chilean base Commander where it landed in Chile- “you English cannot spell in Spanish- you got the A and the E wrong way round in Aerea- we had to get that plane under cover quick before someone with a camera spotted it!”

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Tik Tok

    RESPECT for Chile!

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 04:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Looks like the UK owe them a big one!

    Not that they need it now, but it's still there if it ever needs returning.

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 05:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    “Looks like the UK owe them a big one!”

    Gentlemen, I can assure you all that Baroness Thatcher repaid the debt several times over after the war. Kennedy and Haig tried to destroy us, but the UK helped us during the political wilderness until 1990.

    The UK generally remembers their friends. (PS: I like the Americans, but also know that they cannot be trusted to always repay their favors. I also like Argentines, but also know you can never trust them. Such is life...)

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 06:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @43

    And was this before or after a Task Force operating 8000 miles from home had defeated Argentine land, sea, and air forces by entirely conventional means?

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 07:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    43 aussiesunshinee (
    Argentina lost the war because The UK had nukes and Argentina did not..as simple as that.....
    And we all agree with you, but your logic is much to be wondered upon, like your wired view of the argentine world,
    Meaning?
    Perhaps thus Vietnam lost the war because USA had nukes,
    Iraq suffered because USA had nukes,
    Afghan was lost because USA had nukes,

    Your logic knows no bounds..lol
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    As for the future,
    The British Falklands will remain as such, as long as the islanders wish it, and there is nothing, but nothing you lot can do about it,

    You Argies should concentrate on keeping your country in one piece before it tears itself apart,
    Just saying like.
    .

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    The steely determination of Margaret Thatcher was far more dangerous than a nuclear bomb...

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Shame that twat Galterie didn't know that.

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • José Malvinero

    Smokescreen of the pirates to shift attention and sow division (divide and rule) between Argentina and Chile.
    Without the material and logistical support (remember the sinking of the tanker Hercules?) Of THE UNITED STATES, Britain would not have won the war.
    Do not let them listen to the cynics of the English.

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    We don't have to do ferk all mate, it wasn't us that was planning to invade Chile, it was you.

    Here's a history lesson for you. You had numerous chances of defeating UK troops in battle on the islands and you did not win a single one. Not a single one.
    You want me to list them?

    You were defeated, every single time, against all military logic that says, attacking forces should have a superiority of 3:1. I suppose what it should have said was, except when your attacking RG's, cos they're shite!

    So keep on making up excuses, it's the only thing your any good at!

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussiesunshinee

    *57 vietnam had no nukes..but China did :) North Korea had no nukes during the Korean War..but China did:)..syria is alive and well....because Russia has also nukes:)..
    As far as I know Afghanistan WAS NOT LOST....
    and if IRAQ had been a satelite of Russia it would not have been invaded.

    *58 ....and the help of the Yanks without Ronnie anything could have happened...

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    No excuses
    no changing the subjects,

    we won..

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussiesunshinee

    it is not over yet....it is not over till the fat lady sings..she has not sung as yet.

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Without Ronnie and the yanks anything could have happened.

    That's true, very, very true, its well known Ronnie asked Maggie to go easy on em, he didn't want us to hurt their itty witty bitty little feewlings!!!!! “ You can kick the shit out of em Maggie, but FFS don't hurt their macho Hispanic bullshit pride, I gotta live with the ladies when you've finished with em!”

    In that right ASS?

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • mikey48

    But as i was involved at the start,i arrived on ASI the 3rd april 24hrs after invasion.I built up the MTFlt.I listened to many stories and actions over the radio .I take this with a pinch of salt.!!

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    It's not over till the fat lady sings.

    What? they made a strategic withdrawal and have been regrouping for 32 years!

    Meanwhile, back on planet Earth!

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    http://en.mercopress.com/2009/11/23/chile-was-next-target-after-falklands-in-1982-admits-argentine-brigadier

    And this is also why Chile also lent support to the UK to defeat our Andean brothers.

    Regarding nukes... The UK knew that the use of any nuclear tactical weapons upon Argentina would result in not only international condemnation and devastating sanctions, but also cause a complete collapse of Her Majesty's Government. The Prime Minister would have been most likely prosecuted and vilified. Even Pinochet would have most likely change his support for Galtieri as well as Brazil doing the same.
    Anyway, in the end, Argentina is it's own worst enemy. CFK has wreaked far more damage upon the nation than any nuclear weapon could have...

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Chicureo

    True, there's nothing better than a nasty dose of fall out, poisoning your entire continent for generations, to help you change your allegiance.

    I mean, it's not like the horrendous side affects, that the use of a couple of nukes would have on millions of men, women and children and their children and their children and their children, would influence the Brits.

    They hurt our pride, let's nuke em!

    These people and their stupid posts on nuclear weapons, they do not have the slightest idea!!!!!

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    Agreed RC

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BOTINHO

    The facts are that Argentina as a whole supported the invasion, even though it was a deflection away from the facts of how poorly run that nation was under the Junta of General Galtieri.

    Was Argentina open to the diplomatic efforts of the Americans ? No, not at all. Having an old C-band sat dish then in 1982, we could watch the unedited news feeds uplinked from Argentina, throughout the invasion and subsequent defeat, and removal of the invaders. The amount of crowds in the street were clearly in favour of the invasion.

    One of the earliest news uplinks we saw regarding the American Al Haig arriving in B.A in the Winter cold rain, included interviews with Porteños, who were 100% against his visit and effort.

    One derisively stated the absurd: “ He even had the nerve to arrive down the gangway wearing an English wool hat ! ”

    I doubt seriously if Mr. Haig walking off his aircraft, wearing a sombrero, bombachas, and twirling bolas, would have been seen any better.

    The Argentines were committed to the invasion, were openly stating chile and the Beagle channel were next up on the target list, and Mr. Haig despite his best efforts, and repeated flights, was still seen as a meddling Yanqui.

    Deflecting away from obvious facts, or an issue of discussion at hand, continues to be a characteristic of Argentina. When confronted with facts, deflect away from reality to anything you can.

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    #71 is absolutely right on the mark:
    “Deflecting away from obvious facts, or an issue of discussion at hand, continues to be a characteristic of Argentina.”
    Even as they were loosing, the populace thought they were winning the FI war, and they wanted no compromise or mediation.

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    In 1982 the Argentine government knew the UK had allies.
    That was not a surprise.

    In 1982 the Argentine government knew the UK had nuclear weapons.
    That was not a surprise.

    In 1982 the Argentine government misjudged the UK's resolve.
    And in 2014 that is still a surprise.

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    I have said it on here many times, I still find it incredulous that the junta did not think that the Brits would fight back. What was their reasoning? invade, seize by force of arms and then negotiate a “peaceful” transfer of sovereignty at the UN!

    All I can think is that it must have been a macho thing, Thatcher being a woman, they probably, despite of the overwhelming historical precedence, thought she lacked the will.

    Sheer criminal stupidity and directly responsible for the deaths of a thousand people.

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Z-ville

    @74

    The Junta miscalculated a lot of things. The 1982 invasion happened just as the Reagan/Thatcher era was setting in, and the US/UK relationship was at its strongest since WWII. The notion that the US would suddenly turn around and slam the door on their closest ally in favor of a brutal dictatorship was insanity at its worst.

    But, the Brits also thought that the Junta would tuck their tail and run home at the first sight of the task force fleet...

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    I don't think we did. The politicians would have known that if the junta backed down, that would be the end of them. As for the armed forces, they are professional, they would have trained and prepared for combat, being professional some of them probably even wanted the chance to show what they could do.

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Z-ville

    @76

    Yes, the British military is well trained and professional. And I'm sure they sent the best of the best. I was only a teenager back in '82 when I heard of the invasion and the task force, but I had no doubt about the outcome. For me there was more at stake than just who owned those islands.

    The outcome of the war did change a lot of things. It flushed the dictatorships out of much of South America, and set the stage for democratic elections.

    How many more innocent people would have died in the Dirty War if the Junta had won? They could have stayed in power for decades. As I can tell you, it wasn't just Argentine citizens who disappeared and died under unspeakable atrocities...

    Jul 10th, 2014 - 01:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    I was 26 serving in the RAF on a Security Sqn in Germany. I had been in the RAF for six years. As you can imagine there was no way that any of us thought we would lose.

    On 2nd of April I was living in a 12 man room in a Barracks, one of the guys came in and said that the RG's, they weren't called that then of course, had invaded the islands anf been in a fight with the Royal Marines, the reaction, “WTF have they invaded Scotland for.” It's been said before, but it's true, none of us had any idea where the Islands were.

    Then came the photographs of them standing over the Royal Marines like they were trophies, and lording it round Port Stanley. That really, really pissed us off, it filled us, well me, with the resolve, that these bastards were not going to get away with it.

    Yes, I thought it would be easy, I thought the guys would wipe the floor with them, which they did, but as time went on and people started to die attitudes started to changed.

    Even on our unit in RAFG, plans were under way to support the war effort. We were live armed at all times. Our ammunition was withdrawn and replaced with sub standard crap manufactured in Pakistan, the bloody rounds wouldn't even clear the barrels of our SMG's. A stoppage we were trained to deal with, but none of us ever seen before.

    The fences were removed from the 25m range so that the scorpions and APC's of our Regt Sqn, could zero their machine guns on the vehicles. The Buccaneers were flying loads of sorties with practice bombs and free fall iron bombs from the conventional bomb dumps were shipped back to the UK.

    What had started out has a limited war, was changing and affecting our role within NATO, we were preparing for a long campaign. There was no way they could have beaten us.

    Thank god it was soon over, before any more has to die.

    As for Argentina, then I could not give a fuck about them and I still don't. They started the shooting and they got everything they deserved.

    Jul 10th, 2014 - 06:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    RC
    Interesting, I was being accepted at the time as a cadet in our naval school. We were surprised, but not shocked and initially thought they would succeed. None of us, including our instructors expected the UK to put up much of a fight. After all the Argentines even had a carrier...

    Jul 10th, 2014 - 07:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #62
    North Korea had no nukes during the Korean War..but China did:)..
    syria is alive and well....because Russia has ....

    How come the Chinese “nuclear option” affected the Korean war in 1950-1953, when the first Chinese nuclear test was in 1964 . Please explain.
    Are you really so thick that you think the Russians would use their nuclear arsenal to protect Syria ? Stop making up fairy stories and get real !!

    Jul 10th, 2014 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Had it been anyone else other than Thatcher, your instructors would probably have been right.

    Jul 10th, 2014 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    80@
    he knows not, just throwing mud to the wind.

    81@
    merely by reading British military /political history would have told even the dumbest person, that the British would fight,

    they would have save a lot of innocent peoples lives had they had the ability to read history, instead of diverting attention from their very own failures..

    Jul 10th, 2014 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    RC- The Arg Junta in 1982 had reason to believe they would get away with it UK would not bother militarily over the Islands.
    1.ALL signs from UK over previous 10yrs were of withdrawl from the area:
    No effective response in 1977 when Arg set up military base on Southern Thule Islands.

    Rejection of original Shackleton report and refusal to build larger runway at Stanley.

    Continual policy in 1970s to gently push” the Islands towards dependence on Argentina for Fuel- Airlinks- Medical(paid for though).

    Planned Withdrawl of HMS Endurance - only RN vessel in the area and closing down of scientific base on South Georgia.
    USA,s UN Ambassador(she was IrishAmerican and hated the Brits) had affectively tipped of the Argentine that she would keep USA neutral and look the other way if they invaded.

    Plus Arg plan was to invade-then immediately withdraw and replace their troops with UN ones from USA and Brazil and thus present UK with a “fete accompli” as no way could UK have done anything then than blather a bit!

    BUT 2 things went wrong!

    Galtieri was overwhelmed by Argies on the streets cheering so did not dare to withdraw his troops - AND - the invading ones took those pics of British Royal Marines face down in the street with hands on their heads and cocky Argies with guns pointing down at them!

    That one finished it for the Argentines! No way ANY British Govt could have survived had it not responded militarily.

    And the rest we all know!

    Jul 10th, 2014 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Is history...

    Jul 10th, 2014 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Yes and we owe it to those who lost their lives to make sure it stays that way.

    It's the least, the very least we can do.

    Jul 10th, 2014 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #83
    As you pointed out, the pictures of the Marines lying on the ground with guns pointed at their heads was the clincher.
    The general feeling was a cold fury against these cocky bastards and that we would have to go and sort them out....which we did.

    Jul 10th, 2014 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Joe Bloggs

    83-86

    ...and they still haven't learnt their lesson to this day. Look how the dopey deadbeats are taunting the UK, the US courts and the holdouts. They think they're being clever or tough or something.

    Jul 11th, 2014 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Like all bullies, they make the mistake of forgetting that, there is always someone out there who will stand up to them!

    Jul 11th, 2014 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    @88 RC

    Indeed.

    Of course these days all Argentina can do is whine to anyone who will listen to them, and they've even overplayed that hand, and everyone now just tunes them out.

    To all the Argentine trolls on here, who I know are desperate for Argentina to try and seize the Islands by force, there are several things you need to remember.

    In 1982 the UK didn't bomb Argentina at the insistence of the USA and a belief that it could draw other South American countries into the war on Argentina's side (a mistaken belief IMO).

    Because of that the UK suffered losses to the Task Force. But the UK, and indeed ALL of NATO learned from that lesson. Military Doctrine now states that air superiority is paramount. So should Argentina be STUPID enough to actually try to invade again, then the 1st targets the UK would take out would be ALL of your airforce bases, ALL of your radar installations, and ALL of your air defences.

    Then the UK naval group would seek, locate and destroy any Argentina naval vessel that could be considered a threat. That would leave any Army and Marine units that actually made it to the Falklands isolated and cut off from supply lines.

    In other words it would be a disaster for Argentina.

    The UK wouldn't be bothered about other South American countries reactions to us taking out Argentine military targets because the majority of those countries either hate Argentina completely, or are all talk and no action.

    This has been made quite apparent over the last few years when NONE of them attended the Argentine celebrations on invading the Falklands in 1982, and also when the Argentine government went around the continent begging their 'brothers' to help them retake the islands. The got a resounding feck off even from their good buddy Chavez.

    So all Argentina has left is the whining, the crawling and the begging. What it doesn't have, and will never have, are the Falkland Islands or any self respect for themselves.

    Jul 11th, 2014 - 07:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    The only fly in the ointment, [if indeed their is one ]
    would be if brazil - France get this carrier replacement , on,

    just a far distant thought.

    Jul 11th, 2014 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    “Without Chile's help, we would have lost the Falklands”, says former RAF intelligence”
    and without u.s. help
    and without gurkhas´help.
    and the list goes on.

    anyway, it seems the u.s. is not very likely to help the pirates again.

    Jul 11th, 2014 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    @91 paulcedron

    The UK is hardly likely to need anyone's help against Argentina. Argentina, and the current bunch of muppets you have in power, is all the help we need.

    Argentina, where your naval vessels sink IN PORT. Argentina, that needed international assistance to feed your people currently squatting in Antarctica. Argentina, where your ice breaker's repairs have so far cost more than a brand NEW ice breaker would've cost, and it still hasn't had a lick of work done on it.

    All Argentina has is lies, delusions and fairy tales, and even so you've overplayed these so often in the last few years that the minute TMBOA or any of her minions open their mouths everyone else switches off and listens to music in their heads.

    You are no closer to gaining sovereignty of the Falkland Islands today than you were 32 years ago. In fact, I say that you are even further away.

    But why don't you try putting your money where your mouth is, huh? Why don't you take your sovereignty claim to the International Court of Justice? Why is your government spending so much time and Argentine tax payers money on spouting nonsense at any international forum that will listen, when NONE of those international forums (and that includes the UNGA and the UNSC) has ANY power to decide on sovereignty?

    Only the ICJ can do that, yet your government avoids it like the plague. That can only mean one thing, paulcedron, and that Argentina's sovereignty claim is a LIE and your government knows it. But then again, why would they want this issue resolved when it's so useful for distracting fools like you, while they stuff their offshore bank accounts with YOUR money?

    And you're so stupid that you fall for it every time.

    Shameful.

    One thing I can predict though is that in 25 years time Argentina will be no closer to gaining sovereignty of the FI than it is today.

    The FI may, by then, be an independent country, and will have far better defences than Argentina will have.

    Have a nice day. :D

    Jul 11th, 2014 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    91@
    if the American did not like us, they would not have named one of their ships
    USS Churchill, the only American ship that flies the white ensign and has a royal navy officer attached to it......

    Jul 11th, 2014 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #92
    He's a one trick pony and even that is pathetic. All he can do is pretend that things will go in their favour . It's the only way he can rationalise the position.

    Jul 11th, 2014 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussiesunshinee

    *89 exactly!! why have so many useless planes....what Argentina needs is a few nukes...big mamas!! ten or fifteen that will take out the Falkands/malvinas and a few left over to take out a few cities in the UK...and you will see how quickly the Military brass in the UK will think twice before destroying Argentinian lives in Argentina with any military action...like Israel is doing with the Palestinians.GO NUCLEAR NOW!!

    Jul 11th, 2014 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @95

    Now that would be smart. Nuke the Falklands/Malvinas. And what good would sovereignity be then, exactly?

    Jul 11th, 2014 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussiesunshinee

    *96 bomb the bloody island and there would be no more bloody island to dispute about!!! problems solved. ( getting out the residents first (and sheep)
    :)

    Jul 11th, 2014 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    Now that would be a good reason to maintain a thunking great NATO nuclear base and some submarines, just in case the emotionally incontinent get out of order again.

    Fortunately, however, a pair or two of Typhoons and a military strength about one tenth of what Span has in Ceuta and Melilla are evidently scary enough already.

    Jul 11th, 2014 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    imbecile 92
    “The UK is hardly likely to need anyone's help against Argentina”

    the uk needs help even for wiping its own ass.
    without the u.s., you will have a dirty ass for ever

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 02:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ynsere

    paulcedron @ 99

    “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

    Argentina no longer has any sticks or stones, but the UK does. Get real.

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #99
    Dear oh dear. Go sit on the naughty step until you come out of your huff.

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Joe Bloggs

    99 Paulie

    Sounds like a win win situation then. The UK doesn't have the capability to defend the islands and Argentina doesn't intend to try anything. So the status quo will continue on peacefully.

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    @99 paulcedron

    Well, well, looks like the truth hurts and instead of coming out with a counter argument you just act like a petulant child, just like the Argentine government does.

    And yet for all your name calling, and sulking and threats what have you or Argentina actually achieved?

    NOTHING.

    Your military is a joke. Your economy is a disaster. Your politicians are an embarrassment to your country. Even your 'allies' laugh at you and don't take you seriously.

    And yet you all 'dream' that perhaps China or Russia will come to your rescue and kick those 'nasty' Brits from the Falklands so you can steal the land from it's rightful inhabitants.

    Well guess what, paulcedron, China and Russia don't have the capability to remove the British from the Falkland Islands, even if they wanted to, which the don't.

    China only ever does what's right for China, and pissing off one of its major trading partners (that's the UK not Argentina) wouldn't be smart, and say what you like about the Chinese but one thing they're not is stupid.

    Russia is currently reeling under international sanctions for it's illegal annexation of the Crimea. It's only a matter of time before Putin gives in or is pushed from power by all those rich powerful Russians who are being punished by these sanctions. Even so, Russia only has the military capability to attack neighbouring countries, it cannot project any military power of consequence beyond it's own borders.

    So perhaps you should beg your neighbours to help you out...oh wait, you tried that a few years ago and none of them seemed inclined to throw away the lives of their servicemen for Argentina's imperialist colonial ambitions. Even your bestest friend Chavez told you to feck off.

    Face it, paulcedron, Argentina is a never-was country that couldn't even make it to 'has-been' status, and considering how badly it is managed it always will be - great potential that is wasted by thieves and sycophants like yourself.

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    @103 LEPRecon.

    A very Astute summary. Well Done that man!

    Agree with everything you wrote in that post. Nothing further needs to be said.

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    @91 Paulcedron

    “Without Chile's help, we would have lost the Falklands”, says former RAF intelligence,
    and without u.s. help“

    From a country that used the following USA kit during its invasion:
    Beechcraft turbo mentors
    Boeing 707
    Chinooks
    Bell Huey helicopters
    Amtrack personnel carriers
    Learjets
    Hercules aircraft
    Skyhawks
    I won't bore you by completing the list of USA supplied kit Argentina used.

    @95 aussiesunshine
    ”....what Argentina needs is a few nukes...big mamas!! ten or fifteen ”

    You need a decent government that can run a country properly, not nukes.

    Also you'll have to launch these fairytale nukes when a T45 ship is not on patrol to avoid them being all shot down, by one ship.

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussiesunshinee

    *91 who mentioned that the nukes will be flying??!! :)

    *China DID MOVE Britain from Hong Kong!! and don´t give that 100 year lease bullshit!!:) Don´t underestimate your enemy. The USA did and look what happened to the New York Towers......ummmmmmm

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    aussiesunshine. You are a petulant fool. Just like mendocinovino, Kieth York and all the other silly little trolls that bleat on and on like the sheep you are.

    Grow up!

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Paulcedron- you do talk such childish tripe- you are actually worse than Conqueror!
    Who has said Chile,s help was vital and UK would not have won without it? An 80yr old pensioner!!
    Who has ever said UK would not have won without USA,s help?
    Chile was of great value yes but was not crucial! USA was of good assistance but at the end of the day all they did was speed up the supply to UK of missiles that had already been ordered and they were a formal military ally anyway!
    Asc Island - had they not made fuel stock available(paid for) I have no doubt UK would have kicked them off instead- it is a British Island!
    The retaking of the Islands would have been a bit more difficult and some more lives lost no doubt- but it would not have stopped it.
    The Islands were retaken by Britain due to the utter military incompetence of Argentina! Simple as that. Arg had superior numbers on shore - they were mostly useless. Arg had superior aircraft numbers- she used them stupidly and went for the wrong targets!
    HongKong- OK as an Argentine it is impossible for you to understand Intenational Law etc- we understand your failing! But Hong Kong Island was 100% british and in perpetuity. BUT - without the New Territiories it could NOY survive physically nor financially - that is why UK Leased them in the first place! That Lease was to expire in 1997 and China was naturally not interested in renewing it. Under standard Law(a strange concept to Argentina I accept), when a Lease expires and the Landlord says he wants the place back - he is entitled to get it back!
    ArseSunshine at 106 needs to learn that one as well.

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussiesunshinee

    *107 you need a little spanking..you do!!

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (41) Chicureo

    Firstly, nice to see you still vivido y coleando.....

    Secondly, when you say...: “Argentina has a pathetic Airfarce, incapable of attacking anyone ..., an ill trained demoralized army with one of the worst modern tanks in history, a Navy who's frigates turbines cannot produce more than 40% rated power and their German submarines are unsafe for submerging past periscope depth.....”, you make me cry..... of joy!
    Hopefully Mami will, in the near future, follow the Argentinean example in giving the Mapu Ches and the Armed Farces of Chile what they respectively deserve...

    (48), (51) & (55) Chicureo
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bIPNLteeQGs

    (79) Chicureo
    Well..... That goes to show, yet another time, that politics AND war are too complicated matters for feeble military minds...

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Falklands….
    Defence for 2015 and Beyond – Part 3 Other Sovereign Territories
    http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/07/defence-2015-beyond-part-3-sovereign-territories/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ThinkDefence+%28Think+Defence%29

    ,,,,,,,,,
    And for all you ARGIE know all abt the United Kingdoms that you think you know all,
    Please read this, laugh out loud..
    http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/07/defence-2015-beyond-part-3-sovereign-territories/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ThinkDefence+%28Think+Defence%29
    The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained
    ……
    .

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussiesunshinee

    110 you just wrecked a damn good song!!! shame!!!

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (112)

    Creedence “Thinks” differently...:
    ”It is a fabulous and a great honor that our song has become the soundtrack of the Argentine wins in Brazil. I thank the fans and wish you the best,” drummer Doug “Cosmo” Clifford stated. http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/164371/creedence-feel-%E2%80%98proud%E2%80%99-of-argentine-chant

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    Let's not forget the single most important fact about the above article.

    The British won the war in 1982.

    Nothing to worry about. The Falklands are free and the Argentine Junta collapsed.
    That is all that matters.

    Jul 12th, 2014 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @113

    Gosh. They usurped somebody else's song, and implanted new lyrics. Next time round, maybe they'll write their own?

    Jul 13th, 2014 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Turnip at (115) says...:
    “Gosh. They usurped somebody else's song, and implanted new lyrics.....”

    I say...:
    Where have we seen similar “usurpations” before?
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=77kcjBfghU4

    Get a life Turnip....

    Jul 13th, 2014 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussiesunshinee

    If Fogerty did not say it IT WASN´T CREEDENCE CLEARWATER REVIVAL!!!!

    Jul 13th, 2014 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    Let's get back on topic and talk about Chile assisting the British in their famous victory in 1982.

    Obviously the Chileans were thinking long term. I've heard that the Chileans don't trust the Argentine Government very much. Why is that?
    Please explain.

    Jul 13th, 2014 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussiesunshinee

    try using wikipedia!!!

    Jul 13th, 2014 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ynsere

    Ilsen @ 118

    The fact is that none of its neighbours trust Argentina, due to many different kinds of negative experiences over many, many years. CFK is worse than most because she's so shrill, but the country would be basically the same under any other government.

    Jul 14th, 2014 - 02:18 am - 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!