MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ HMS Conqueror which sank Belgrano to be exhibited at UK memorial centre
The first British nuclear submarine to fire at Argentine battle cruiser General Belgrano during the Falkland Islands conflict is to be exhibited at a memorial centre, the UK-based Sunday Express reported on Sunday. The HMS Conqueror — known for having contributed to sinking of the Argentine cruiser, at the cost of 323 lives — is due to be allocated in a commemoration to the British fleet used during 1982 South Atlantic conflict. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesLets be clear...
Mar 17th, 2015 - 08:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0There was an inner exclusion zone where any vessels (military or otherwise) would be attacked without warning.
There was an outer exclusion zone where only military vessels were targeted by our rules of engagement.
basically anywhere outside the inner zone or national territorial waters.
The Belgrano was in the outer zone, a military and legitimate target.
We had cracked the Argy coded and knew her orders were to move with her Exocet Armed Destroyer Escorts North and engage the Fleet.
If the Destroyer escorts had not run away when she was hit, many lives would have been saved.
1 zathras
Mar 17th, 2015 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Absolutely correct. Belgrano had clear intent and got put in her place.
I'll look forward to visiting Conqueror when she's open to the public.
Excellent riposte to the continuing pointless and stupid RG posturing. Well done HMG!
Mar 17th, 2015 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another 'truth' that people like to forget is that by invading British territory and refusing to leave the Argentines had in fact declared war on the UK.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0That meant that ANY Argentine military asset anywhere in the world could legitimately be attacked by the British. Just like any British military asset in the world could be attacked by the Argentines (see the failed operation Algeciras).
The Argentines are always trying to 'play' the victim. But they weren't the victims in 1982, that was the Falkland Islanders, and they certainly aren't the victims today.
HMS Conquerer did it's job. It protected he British fleet from an Argentine fleet that was headed to attack it. Just because the Belgrano was 'dipping' in and out of the total exclusion zone didn't make it any less dangerous, and didn't make it any less of a target. Perhaps in the minds of the Argentine Naval hierarchy it did, but all that goes to show is that they didn't actually understand what true war was about, they certainly didn't (and still don't if you listen to their government) understand the meaning of the Laws of Armed Combat and just how much that actually entitles (as well as restricts) nations at war to do.
So many men died on the Belgrano BECAUSE the Argentine Navy didn't understand the rules of war, didn't understand the Laws of Armed Combat, and were too busy saving themselves that they left those sailors to die.
But for the British is was a masterful strategic stroke. They got rid of a very serious threat to the Task Force and neutralised the WHOLE Argentine Navy with one action.
HMS Conquerer deserves her place in history - she saved an awful lot of lives...including many Argentine lives...by frightening the Argentine Navy into staying home and not getting involved.
Some facts first folks.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 01.War as such was never declared by either side
2Ever since 1982 both sides knew the Belgrano,s attack plan- she was holding position ready to enter and attack as soon as the Arg carrier had correct weather to launch her air attack on the Br Carriers.
3.Task Force knew where Belgrano was but did not know where the Carrier was- so attacked the one pincer arm they knew of.
4.Arg Naval Command publically stated after the war that the Belgrano WAS a LEGITIMATE target.
War tragically is a nasty deadly business - as Galtieri found out and many young men paid the price on both sides.
I know Facts will never shut up the silly Argie trolls on here but then Facts and Argentines are like two opposites!
@5 Islander1
Mar 17th, 2015 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Invading another countries sovereign territory is classed as an act of war.
I know in my previous post I said declared war, but I should've actually stated committed an act of war, which the invasion and subsequent refusal to follow international law and remove their military was.
Although there was no formal declaration it was a war. Too many Politicians prefer to call it a 'conflict' rather than a 'war', as if that makes it any less bloody, or the soldiers, sailors and airmen involved any less traumatised, wounded or dead.
Erm Operation Algeciras, not cricket also me thinks
Mar 17th, 2015 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Algeciras
zathras & LEPRecon: Belgrano's escorts did not run away and the Argentine Navy played an important part in the destruction of Sir Galahad on 8 June:
Mar 17th, 2015 - 10:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The two destroyers - Hipolito Bouchard and Piedra Buena - were unaware that the Belgrano had even been attacked, let alone sunk. They were out of visual touch in the gloom when the torpedoes struck, although in radar contact. The Belgrano's radio had failed when the torpedoes struck, and her distress rockets and battery operated lamp signals were not seen. One reason for this failure to detect that the cruiser was in serious trouble was that Hipolito Bouchard believed that she had been struck by a torpedo. Her crew felt a firm impact, although there was no explosion. The two destroyers already steaming westwards, continued on that course and started dropping depth charges. This took them well away from the scene of the Belgrano's distress ... It eventually became obvious to the destroyers that something had happened to the cruiser when she could not be contacted by radio and was no longer to be seen on their radar screens. The two destroyers turned back and commenced a search; but it was now dark, they had no clear idea of where the cruiser had met trouble, and a storm blew up ... The life-rafts were thus swept rapidly downwind and became well scattered.” (Martin Middlebrook, The Fight For The Malvinas, Viking, 1989)
“Another four Mirages carried out a decoy mission over the north of the islands, while the Argentine destroyer ARA Santísima Trinidad broadcast interference to jam the frequencies used by the Royal Navy's air controllers directing the Sea Harrier operations.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluff_Cove_Air_Attacks
@8 ....ARA Santísima Trinidad is a Type 42 destroyer of the Argentine Navy, the only destroyer of her class built outside Britain. She participated in the 1982 Falklands War. The warship is currently lying on her side, sunk at her moorings pierside in the Argentine naval base of Puerto Belgrano......and your point is?
Mar 17th, 2015 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Sant%C3%ADsima_Trinidad_%281974%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Sant%C3%ADsima_Trinidad_%281974%29
@1 Zathras
Mar 17th, 2015 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0The exact text of the diplomatic note passed to Argentina more than a week before Conqueror torpedoed the Belgrano read thus:
“In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.”
And the UK positively knew that the Belgrano had received orders to head north and engage (mainly because the Argentine ship-to-shore communications weren't anywhere near as secure as they thought they were) I would say that it would not be unreasonable to have regarded the Belgrano group as a threat, and dealt with it accordingly.
What does slightly surprise me is that Conqueror didn't at least take a potshot at either of the two destroyers (if for no other reason than to get rid of a couple of the pretty-universally-hated and unreliable Tigerfish torpedoes).
Buzzsaw: Yes it is embarrassing, the current state of the Argentine armed forces, thanks to the former Montoneros and ERP Marxist guerrillas and militants that have been in power ever since the presidency of Alfonsin. Hundreds of Malvinas War heroes in the form of the Carapintadas movement under the command of Colonels Mohamed Seineldin and Aldo Rico tried to put a stop to the deterioration of the Argentine Armed Forces and tried to take over the hierarchy, but British James Bond agents in Argentina intervened and the final Carapintada uprising failed. Otherwise Argentina today would still be the military giant of Latin America that nearly brought Britain to its knees in 1982. Had Seineldin's Operation Virgin of Luján succeeded in December 1990, the Argentine Armed Forces would've recovered the Malvinas in early 1992.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 11 Alberto Bertorelli
Mar 17th, 2015 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Had Seineldin's Operation Virgin of Luján succeeded in December 1990, the Argentine Armed Forces would've recovered the Malvinas in early 1992.”
Yeah, yeah! And if you had a pair of balls you would be a man.
A rarity in TDC admittedly.
Alberto- And the ARA played a role in the June 8th attacks on Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram? - Please - what and how?
Mar 17th, 2015 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0That was done- by your AirForce! Maybe the ARA were the spotters on shore high up on the hills who saw the ships and radioed their position?
After the Belgrano your Navy wisely realised it had no defence against the nuclear powered Hunter Killer Submarines so withdrew all major units to Arg coastal waters.
ChrisR your right of course, I should keep off this juice. What a mistake a to make a!
Mar 17th, 2015 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0“available for public visits ”
Mar 17th, 2015 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0I can see resident Troll Conqueror queuing up for his ticket...
Complete with anorak, sandwiches and fanny pack stuffed with kleenex for his ecstatic moment...
@11... In '82, no you didn't and in '92 no you wouldn't have. They are your opinions, not fact. It would have been a lot more difficult to get near the islands in '92.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@12 What was Operation Virgin of Luján ? I have read several books on the Falkland's War but never heard of this Operation.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I studied Latin American politics during my undergrad and wrote a paper about the war in collage.
16 Quite so, my post is all fantasy
Mar 17th, 2015 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A reminder to the malvinista trolls - just in case!
Mar 17th, 2015 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Capitan Hector Bonzo, the commanding officer of the General Belgrano, stated on several occasions that the sinking of his vessel was a legitimate act of war and that had the positions been reversed he would have acted in exactly the same way.
Furthermore, in August 1994, an official Argentine Defence Ministry report written by armed forces auditor Eugenio Miari was released which described the sinking of the Belgrano as “a legal act of war”, explaining that “acts of war can be carried out in all of the enemy's territory” and “they can also take place in those areas over which no state can claim sovereignty, in international waters”
@1 “If the Destroyer escorts had not run away when she was hit, many lives would have been saved”. This is a false statement, en escorts acted following all the reasonable procedures. They launched thier mines against the british submarine and left the area to avoid being new targets of the submarine (protect themselves).
Mar 17th, 2015 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact is that the Conqueror (a nueclear submarine with the assistance of satelites) attacked and sunk a ship of the beginning of the II WW...quite a achievement !!!!
@19...It seems tha you still have some doubts....about the act.
From my point of view showing off with the Conqueror is a mitake...it's bloodstained. It is stained with a lot of blood....as the argentine SuperEtendards...as the A-4....they are not things to show off with.
@18.... yes they are.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0FACT: Argentina lost the war in the Falklands, the UK were not on their knees
FACT: In '92 Argentina did not steal the Falklands.
Opinions/Fantasy: As they didn't happen they are purely conjecture/speculation/fantasy/supposition or opinion based on guess work
O/P: The UK were on their knees in '82
O/P: Argentina would invaded the Falklands in '92 and kept them.
So yes your post is fantasy as neither of your opinions happened, in fact the opposite happened.
Pity they clipped the top of her fin out of the photo.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That Jolly Roger looked smart as F!
“The HMS Conqueror — known for having contributed to sinking of the Argentine cruiser, at the cost of 323 lives — is due to be allocated in a commemoration to the British fleet used during 1982 South Atlantic conflict”.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact is that the “state of the art” Conqueror (a modern nueclear submarine with the assistance of several satelites) attacked and sunk an old ship of the beginning of the II WW that was about being sent to a USA musuem...quite a achievement !!!!
I hope the submarine will be displayed with a small kill flag of Argentina on its sail.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Little known trivia of the war: Although the plot seemed to be right out of a Peter Sellers movie, Operation Algeciras was an Argentine plan to severely damage or sink a Royal Navy warship in Gibraltar during the Falklands War.
@24 “I hope the submarine will be displayed with a small kill flag of Argentina on its sail”. They have the right to do so...as the A4 of the FAA and SE of the ARA have plenty of RN ship names.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By the way, I have always defend chilean attitude during the war but your arrogant and childish attitudes don't help my position at all.
I would ask you how many “killing marks” have chilean planes or ships? I know that two chilean planes crashed on the argentine side when they were sent by the britts to spy the argentine defenses in the Patagonia (after the war) becuase the argentine radars confused them....they crashed flying on their own...so nobody can show these “kill marks”
@20 pgerman “@19...It seems tha you still have some doubts....about the act”
Mar 17th, 2015 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have NO doubts at al that the sinking was a legitimate act of war provoked by Argentina. Any doubts/accusations that Argentina might have ought to have been allayed by Captain Bonzo and Señor Miari, especially the former as he was in the best place to confirm the circumstances.
I still do not understand the arrogant attitude of Argentina - their forces lost the war and had to withdraw from British territory “con sus rabos entre las piernas” yet still they act aggrieved. They provoked the war - not the United Kingdom.
20
Mar 17th, 2015 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enola_Gay#/media/File:Enola_Gay_on_Display_at_Udvar-Hazy.jpg
...the Yanks take some beating...
@23...The fact is that the “state of the art” Conqueror (a modern nueclear submarine with the assistance of several satelites) attacked and sunk an old ship of the beginning of the II WW that was about being sent to a USA musuem...quite a achievement !!!!
Mar 17th, 2015 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can only fight what is put in front of you, not the Conqueror's fault it was an old WWII craft, blame your government for not having a better fleet. The war was started by the Argentinian Government, any blood is on their hands.
@28 Their vanity and arrogance seems to blind them to the actual facts.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@26
Mar 17th, 2015 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I still do not understand the arrogant attitude of the islanders (not to mention of the few silly chileans that posts here) - British Forces (the third largest navy of the World at that time with the highest european Defense Budget) had to defend them with the assitance of EEUU, NATO and some Latam countries defeated a third word country yet still they act aggrieved.
As you can see sometimes it is very difficult to understand others...
Nagasaki museum has a replica A Bomb on show. Fimus's so called Malvinas museum whats that about? The truth? Vanity and Arrogance on show from a soundly beaten agressor. The Pope was spot on..
Mar 17th, 2015 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#25
Mar 17th, 2015 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Assisted by satellites ? The Conqueror was shadowing the Belgrano and was cruising beneath her hull. Just superior skill by the Captain and crew.
What would the Belgrano and her escorts have done if they had located the British fleet ? Exchanged pleasantries ?
The Destroyers left the area to prevent being targets !
In the RN their Captains would have been court marshalled for cowardice.
Their job was to protect the Belgrano. They should have carried out sweeps to detect the sub. and then attacked
It was WAR. They were just unlucky to come up against a more skillful and determined foe and paid the price for your govts. stupidity..
The other point you made about kill markings. The Argentine air force museum has just recently put on display a Mirage- I believe- with kill markings and no one in the UK is complaining.
@32
Mar 17th, 2015 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You had no idea about what you are writting about. Replyng your comments about the information received by the Conquerors and attitude of the escorts of the Belgrano would be a wast of time. You will have to read at least some serious information regarding these issues.
As regards the kill marks both, british and argentine, have the right to display them but as these killings claimed the lives of many people it is not an ethical attitude to show off with them. At least this is my opinion thinking about the relatives of those who lost their lives.
@30 pgerman
Mar 17th, 2015 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yup. It's real arrogant to be aggrieved about getting invaded by a fascist military dictatorship that caused 1000 deaths in a flagrantly criminal action that is still celebrated by their successors and large segments of the Argentine population.
@34
Mar 17th, 2015 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The invasion was quite clear a mistake, the reaction of the British Government was also another mistake and the current attitudes of both governments are wrong. The most important current mistake from both sides is to ignore the history.
The invasion is still celebrated by some poeple basically because some of them are fascist. Others because they consider it was a correct reaction agains something quite unfair.
From my point of view the reaction of some argentine people are not important at all.
Take for instance British people such as “Conqueror”...Do I have to judge the British society because of him? Do I have to judge the British people taking into account the usual stupid and hatred post I can read here against Argentina in general?..I won't be fair...
35 pgerman (#)
Mar 17th, 2015 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The reaction of the British government was quite correct.
Remember the fascist Junta that controlled Argentina and “dissapeared” anyone it didn't like.
Can you imagine what would have happened to the Falkland islanders if they had not been liberated.
The problem now is the current Argentinian government celebrates the invasion at every opportunity.
But at the same time claims the military action was nothing to do with them and that they are now peaceful.
The people of the Falklands are rightly annoyed by these attitudes from Argentina.
Little wonder in the free, fair and internationally monitored referendum they voted 99.8% in favour of remaining a British Overseas Territory.
Argentina is doing nothing to win favour with the Falkland Islanders.
The C24 meeting every year are a Joke. Having been invited to visit the Falklands on numerous occasions they never have.
@35....'the reaction of the British Government was also another mistake', ermmm in case you forgot the reaction of the British Government was because Argentina Invaded, not a mistake, the UNSC told you to leave the islands you did not, what reaction do you think would have been the correct one.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Typical Argentine victim mentality, 'not our fault, not our responsibility' 'if the UK hadn't reacted, every thing would have been wonderful'.
Your Government started it, your responsibility, your fault, the UK ended it. Grow a pair and face up to your responsibilities.
Your government not only ignores history, it rewrites it. Why has the UK or the Falkland Islands have to acknowledge anything Argentina does or says in 2015 regarding the Falkands, they are not yours, there were never yours and they probably (on current feeling) will never want to associate with Argentina.
#25 pgerman
Mar 17th, 2015 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...Maybe they can also display a retired Sea Harrier alongside the dock with a submarine kill sign on its fuselage....
I have no doubt that Baroness Thatcher would have ordered the Veinticinco de Mayo to the bottom of the South Atlantic if it were possible. A lot more sailors would have been lost for a fools errand.
The military junta was clearly responsible for the deaths of all the sailors lost due to the sinking of the Belgrano. They were the true war criminals responsible, not the U.K.
There was little sympathy in Chile for your loss of the light cruiser after your earlier ARROGANT Operation Soberania to invade Picton, Nueva and Lennox islands. With the exception of the Argentinian Air Force, who showed great bravery and resourcefulness, your army and especially the navy were cowardly.
Despite my government's official recognition of your delusional claim that “las malvinas son argentinas”, in truth you know it's CHILDISH.
@32,
Mar 17th, 2015 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In addition to your post, I'd like to also point out, that the 3 torpedos Conqueror fired at the Belgrano, - Were like Belgrano, of WW2 design.
Mk 8 Torpedos
@38
Mar 17th, 2015 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are acting as the thypical latam fascist.
Pinochet was as criminal as were those who belonged to the Junta. The UK and MT didn't feel any regret or shame of getting his assitance. Pinochet was a terrible fascist that cause lots of pain and suffering in Chile. You seem to forget that.
You also seem to ignore basic things of the war. If you had read about the war you would have never mentioned that the Navy sailors were “cowards”. Several air attacks were of planes that belonged to the Navy. The ARA Sobral (another old ship) was engaged in a fight with two Harriers. Several ships kept on shipping and bringing supplies during the whole war despite the satelites, the Harriers and the submarines. You quite clearly an ignore all these.
@40...Just like you ignore the facts that don't suit your argument, mainly the whole of the Falklands History. You don't seem to let it affect your rambling opinions.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Remember the enemy of my enemy and all that.....
I find it quite revolting, that even today, many Argentine journals and people still refer to Port Stanley as 'Puerto Argentino': a name given by an invading military force/ Junta to a defensless English speaking, inhabited small town; with a history and culture older than many parts of hispanic/Italiano emigrantant Argentina. Disgusting.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The dysfunctional politcal mess Argentina is, and will always be, means this mindset is unlikely to change - in my lifetime at least.
@35 pgerman
Mar 17th, 2015 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What would you have the current Argentine government do, instead of what it is doing?
@36:
Mar 17th, 2015 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Can you imagine what would have happened to the Falkland islanders if they had not been liberated.”
We don't really need to imagine. There was a news article here a couple of years back implying that a number of the legitimate inhabitants of the Falklands were to be removed to the mainlands, no doubt to be murdered.
Remember that when the Argentine forces were losing, one unit was ordered to take cover and fight in the Islander's homes - essentially using them as hostages/human shields - and murder any who resisted. I'd like to recognise the unit's honour in choosing to surrender over taking the ordered actions.
@42:
“I find it quite revolting, that even today, many Argentine journals and people still refer to Port Stanley as 'Puerto Argentino': a name given by an invading military force/ Junta to a defensless English speaking, inhabited small town; with a history and culture older than many parts of hispanic/Italiano emigrantant Argentina. Disgusting.”
It's another extension of the Malvinas Lie. Since they refuse to acknowledge that their claim to the Falklands is false, they misrepresent their illegal invasion and occupation as a “liberation”, which allegedly gives them the right to rename parts of the Islands over the wishes of the legitimate inhabitants.
They're essentially showing support for an illegal act that resulted in hundreds of deaths. As you say, disgusting.
@39 EscoSes Doido
Mar 17th, 2015 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Strictly speaking the mark 8 torpedo was pre-WW2 - they entered service in 1927.
21 Excuse me I lost my Voice.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Seems to me pgerman that the English here are being quite reasonable. My country is always sabre rattling about the Falklands, they have every right to feel aggrieved. Argentina should grow up and move on.
Pgerman says the invasion was a “mistake”.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, a very deliberate mistake, I suppose, that they blame on the junta.
However, they still celebrate the event with mock invasion re-enactments each year.
Not to mention, the videos we have seen of school children in Argentina putting on a school play of the invasion, shooting the British - heartily cheered on by parents, teachers, and classmates.
Vile and disgusting!!
Pgerman,
are these “fascists” too???
- or just ordinary Argentine citizens??
The play was in a government school - one would have to assume it was part of the approved school curriculum.
#4040 pgerman
Mar 17th, 2015 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, you want to compare countries?
Argentina Chile
Last war fought:
1982 1883
Lost Won
(It would be cruel to compare the economies)
You want to compare dictators?
Jorge Videla Augusto Pinochet
Number of civilians disappeared:
20 to 30,000 3,000 to 7,000
Pinochet was indeed was involved with human rights violations, but also saved my country from a similar nightmare that Venezuela is currently experiencing. You seem to forget that Allende was a terrible Marixist Socialist that cause lots of pain and suffering in Chile. He nearly destroyed my country.
Chile didn't feel any regret or shame of getting the United Kingdom's desperately needed assistance, including some very sophisticated radar after Argentina nearly invading Chile in 1978. (The British were a but irritating at times however: Unannounced border crossings, lack of filing flight plans, messing up our squadron inventories with terrible misspellings on aircraft fuselages, as a few examples...) A very nice thing that occurred however with our special relationship with Margaret Thatcher, was that any young lad that had received his education in an English Chilean language school was given priority to enter the naval academy and I took advantage.
And therefore, I do not ignore the basic things of the war, but instead have intensely studied it.
Do you know what's really cowardly?
It's sending a large number of poorly trained and equipped soldiers to invade with insufficient clothing, food, housing and leadership. You know what is also cowardly? Your admiralty sheltering the majority of its naval offensive ships in costal waters.
Not submitting to peaceful and neutral international mediation is the most cowardly of all. Saying that, I again mention that conversely your air force was brave and courageous.
@15. At least, unlike you, I'm not a faggot with his thumb up his arse. I'd gladly visit HMS Conqueror if I could. Just as I'd gladly visit HMS Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant or Vengeance if I could launch the missiles to wipe out England's enemies. Guess the locations of England's enemies. I don't have an anorak. Something wrong with sandwiches? I do like to carry equipment so that, after I've crippled an 'enemy' with a vehicle, I can step out, go through their pockets etc to pay for any damage to the vehicle, prise out their teeth for sale and then make sure they can never speak again. Wiggle that thumb, girlie!
Mar 17th, 2015 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@20. Ah well. Please describe how the two 'destroyers' circled the Belgrano for hours, darting in frequently to pick up survivors. And they picked up how many survivors? 'following all the reasonable procedures'. Really? During two world wars, British vessels frequently stopped to pick up survivors. The number of German U-boats during the wars vastly exceeded the number of British submarines available in 1982. Who thinks that, watching a rescue operation, a British submarine would have fired on rescue vessels? But it's an attitude that says a lot about argies.
@23. Indeed it was. Perhaps you could look up the identification of the torpedos used. What a shame that one torpedo missed. Wouldn't it have been nice to see it blasted into the air, split into three pieces and disappear in minutes?
@25. Shove it. Brits have always marked their kill record.
@30. Really? British forces had to sail 8,000 miles. Rely on what they could carry. Argieland could, and did, call on the resources of an entire continent. Please specify the EU and NATO assistance. Don't forget to mention the Chinese, Israeli and Russian assistance to argieland. In essence, the UK defeated latam and allies.
@33. Funny little girlie. Were you there? Then you know nothing except the lies you are told. Displaying kill marks is GOOD. Tell the cowards 'at home' the result of warmongering.
Argentina can be proud of having achieved something very few nations in the world, especially in the modern era, have done:
Mar 17th, 2015 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0complete indoctrination of its in habitants in the belief of something created almost entirely out of thin air: their claim to the falklands.
Alongside “we didnt start the war - Thatcher did by sinking the Belgrano”... and “The war was Britain's fault and started to give Thatcher victory in the election.....” and “We've sunk their aircraft carrier!” (again... and...again..and again...and again...and...again...)
Not to forget the entirely mythical “freedom fighter” who “resisted the British by force of arms..” that classic (non-argentine) Guacho fcukface Rivero....
the King Arthur of Argentine modern mythology.. fighting against the invaders (who werent there) on behalf of Argentina (which didnt exist at the time...)
stunning bit of national indoctrination that Goebbels and crew would have been delighted with - heck, as its Argentina some of his crew probably helped compose the set...
Which all goes to prove: that no matter how you empower people, with access to the truth all around them, they can still be led by the nose by unscrupulous politicians leading “the mob”...
@43
Mar 17th, 2015 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I won't like to write a single thing about the current argentine government just the fact that I'm quite happy to know that in some months they won't be ruling the country. FREE AT LAST !!!
I can tell you my idea that doesn't mean anything in terms of Argentina as a society. I guess I have told you this before: We both sides, must see the Hong Kong agreement. Another agreement like this would be the solution.
It would be a long term agreement of “one country two systems” to transfer the sovereignty in stages. It might be in 50 years, 100 year. This would protect the lifestyle of the islanders and giving them some authonomy regards “the continent”. It might include a free-trade and investment agreements between Argentina and the UK that would both to be back to the era when both countries were strong partners. It would allow Argentina to be back in the path of having Europe as its main ally.
51 pgerman
Mar 17th, 2015 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You live in a fantasy world.
Why would the Islanders give away their sovereignty and self Determinstion to Argentina, when it doesn't benefit them?
Why would they risk their freedom, self-determination, and their livelihoods to embrace a foreign culture, that has a long history of racism and broken agreements?
It simply makes no sense.
51 pgerman What possible benefit is there to the Falkland Islanders to be ruled as a province of Argentina? Why? Presently Argentina is regarded as a pariah state right across the world. It struggles with Democracy, it has severe financial problems. Its population, lead by the government is hostile to the Islanders and regards them as squatters whom it wishes to eject.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK looks after many small islands around the world that were once part of an Empire. The Falkland Islands are just one of those territories and like all the others it manages its own affairs. In addition to a 2oo year tradition of being British, the islands natural resources and location is useful to the UK and its allies.
The Islanders would have to be barmy to accept any Argentine control over their affairs whatsoever, and they wont, so stop dreaming you colonialist!
@52
Mar 17th, 2015 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not that the islanders would give away the sovereignty.
The United Kingdom, who hold a “de facto” sovereignty, would have to agree on that. They would have to do it based on potential bussines with Argentina and the whole latam continent (the same reason why the UK agreed with ROC over HK no matter the opposition of the people living in HK).
Money rules....a large country with plenty of resources and 40 million people is more profitable than an isolated island with 1.500/2.000 people that need expensive “protection”.
@48
You are wrong again. There were plenty of ships of the ARA operating in the Islands and the surrounding areas during the war. The ARA just avoided a frontal combat due to the technical advantage of the RN.
I noticed that you avoided the discussion of the two chilean “spy” planes that crashed on the argentine side (confused by lack of radar signals and hurried up by two FAA mirages)....that's the concept most of the people have about the chilean air force...
@51 pgerman
Mar 17th, 2015 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands is not Hong Kong. Argentina is not China: I dont mean in the military sense, but in the legal entitlement to certain territories; you're no way close.
Please tell us why the F.Islanders would ever feel the need to sell their children's birthright and future to you?
You simply don't get it: its about the people and what they want; and that is most deffinatly nothing to do with your spurious ambitions. Indoctranted Argentine fake grievances and bombast can only be sated by brute force. That's the only option you will ever have in your (and your children's) lifetime. Move on.
#33
Mar 17th, 2015 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What an arrogant load of crap you have posted ! Only YOU have been granted the wisdom and perspicacity to understand the TRUTH in this matter.
I was 40 years old when this incident took place and had been reading books and articles on military matters since I was a young teenager. Since then I reckon I have read just about everything published about the Falklands War.
I do agree that replying to me with your version of events would be pointless.
You are convinced that the USA and NATO were largely responsible for the UK's victory and ignore the aid you got from Peru, Venezuela, Israel and Brasil.
Initially the USA did everything to undermine the UK's position.
Kirkpatrick was downright hostile..
Were any troops, aircraft or ships made available to the UK? N.Z. offered a ship to allow the RN vessel to be released for duty in the S.Atlantic.
Apart from that, a resounding NO ! !
Then you have the gall to suggest that the Falklands should be handed over to Argentina at some future date siting Hong Kong as an example.
The difference being that H.K. belonged to China and was leased and returned at the end of the lease..
The Falklands BELONG to the UK and Argentina has no legal right to them so why do you think we should allow you to become involved in their affairs ?.
If you disagree, then your recourse is to allow the ICJ to adjudicate.
@55
Mar 17th, 2015 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With an agreement based on “one country two systems” most of the desires of the islanders will be protected in the mid term (50, 100 years).
It's quite clear that there have always been “small” details that make difference between HK and FI but it is essencially the very same issue. As regards the respect for the islanders desires (and rights) I don't want to make you remember the fate of Chagos Island people. In addtion, HK people were also against the agreement with ROC.
Anyway, I don't see that the current argentina leading class would agree on something like this..don't worry about that...in the meanwhile the best thing for you is to stay away from the Continent (a Berlin Wall in the middle of the Ocean..do you remember?)
@20 Pgerman...'It is stained with a lot of blood....as the argentine SuperEtendards...as the A-4....they are not things to show off with.'
Mar 17th, 2015 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well , Argentina does show them off, at the Tigre Maritime Museum..
@58
Mar 17th, 2015 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have already mentioned. Showing off with “killing marks” is wrong whether it is on the argentine side or on the british side.
Let's asume that the father, the mother or the son of someone killed in a british ship sees the “killing mark” of this ship in an old argentine plane. It will cause additional pain and suffering. It's a lack of humanity. On acount of what? I do not agree.
57 pgerman
Mar 17th, 2015 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0all I'm hearing from you is “ it's not fair!”
The HK situation has nothing in common with the FI / ARG scenario.
The FI never belonged to Arg.
FI have been under Brit admin longer than there has been an Arg
FI never had an indigenous population.
HK was purchased from China, the New Territories were leased.
Very straightforward.
Whereas, you SAY the FI sovereignty is “in dispute”.
Despite all that, if it's your opinion that a precedent has been set, the UK are under no obligation, legal, moral, or otherwise, to make a similar deal, in the case of the Falklands.
Ironic that your assertion the UK must disregard the Islanders, as you say they did the HK residents, is completely contrary to the rhetoric from your own government and people that accuse the UK of dispossessing the Chagos people of their homes.
For generations, not just recently, your society and your governments, have been demonising the Islanders to your school children and your population.
How many times have we heard from your President, that the Fslklanders are “Squatters” loving on “your” land?
How many times have we heard the shrill cries of those Argies like Pablo Cedron say they want the islands, not the Islanders - they want them “removed”.
BTW, Pablo also calls himself an Anti-K.
That makes it clear that these are the convictions of your long indoctrinated society, NOT just CFK's government.
pgerman,
You like to present yourself as an intellect and researcher, but it's obvious that you're just as indoctrinated and bitter as the other Malvinistas.
You know what they say about the Malvinistas', right?
They're like a fridge humming away in the background - not saying anything, but an annoying meaningless, noise, nonetheless.
#59
Mar 17th, 2015 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're probably right that the Argentine navy fought with incredible bravery and strategy and it was only because the world's imperialist powers used overwhelming advanced weapons that forced the ships in the island zone to be extremely discreet and virtually invisible. That aircraft carrier especially was active, using cloak technology it make it undetectable to the British fleet.
@60 Troy Tempest
Mar 17th, 2015 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly I dont' like to present myself as an intellect and researcher simplyh beacuse I am not. I just want to express my thoughts.
Secondly, I don't care what CFK said. I don't care what the argentine society think. I don't care the ideas of my felow countrymen. I only take responsability of MY thoughts, concepts and writtings.
I addition, I have always wrote here that, from my point of view, the islanders are honorable people that deserve respect. The dispute over the islands is at a different level. Between two countries. It doesn't reach the honesty of the islanders.
@61
How can you, confortable writting posts at home, consider that a Super Etendart pilot is a coward? Or a A4 pilot is a coward? or that the sailors of the ARA Sobral who fought against two Harriers are cowards? Or that the people of the several logistic ships that kept on sailing between the island and the continent during the whole conflict were cowards? That's simply ignorance.
60
Mar 17th, 2015 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“They're like a fridge humming away in the background - not saying anything”
As far as I'm aware...a fridge can't say anything...
Great analogy....Not!...
63 and rising,
Mar 17th, 2015 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0a rage that will last eternally, by the losers,
fact is, Argentine tried and failed,
Britain fought back and won,
its now history, but no doubt ironed into the argies history books as a victory,
go back to sleep,
China will soon own you lol
@57 Pgerman... How about one system one country, you know the way its been for more years than Argentina has been a country. The way the Falkland Islanders want it, what they voted for, what they are entitled too, what they chose through self determination.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to be under the impression that Argentina have a say in the matter, that their input counts. It does not.
You take Diago Garcia as an example of despicable British behaviour (although I suggest you read a little more about Diego Garcia, it's not as straight forward as you make out) and then suggest it is OK to do the same thing to the Falkland Islanders. Surely you should be supporting what happened to the Chagos Islanders because that is what you want to do to the Falkland Islands.
But just for your information, Diego Garcia was a privately owned Island, a coconut plantation, the workers were all imported from many countries, they didn't own their homes or land, the islands were sold to the british.......
Diego Garcia had no permanent inhabitants when discovered by the Spanish explorer Diego García de Moguer in the 16th century, then in the service of Portugal, and this remained the case until it was settled as a French colony in 1793.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia
Educate yourself, open your eyes and question what you have been indoctrinated to accept.
@30 Arrogant islanders? What utter nonsense!
Mar 17th, 2015 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As far as your other mis-informed comments are concerned surely you seem to ignore the fact that the armed conflict occurred ONLY - repeat ONLY - because Argentina illegally invaded the Falklands/Malvinas, a British Oversea Territory.
Not only that, Argentina totally ignored UN Security Council Resolution 52 viz.United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 3 April 1982. After expressing its concern at the invasion of the Falkland Islands by the armed forces of Argentina, the Council demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities between Argentina and the United Kingdom and a complete withdrawal by Argentine forces. (Wikipedia)
This failure led to the embarrassing surrender by the Argentine military commander in the Falklands/Malvinas and his troops' withdrawal with their “tails between their legs”!
Educate yourself
Mar 17th, 2015 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0these argies are controlled from birth,
they are told what to say , and when to say it,
clap and cry when ordered to do it,
just look at the argies on here,
typical textbook replies...lol
64
Mar 17th, 2015 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“China will soon own you lol”
Are they heavily investing in Scotland...?
ps...who is “rising”...?
...pgerman.. Unlike the usual 'malvanista' trolls on here you seem to have a more rational and reasonable approach to your argument. However, you still possess the usual 'historical blank spot', and sense of Argentinian entitlement that the lunatic fringe have. The fundamental flaw in all your points is that Argentina is irrelevant in the history of the Falkland Islands, a bit player at best (aside from the illegal and brutal invasion of '82) and anything beyond that is indoctrination or self-delusion. What beggars belief is that a nation who caused such damage to a defenceless people, cause the death of over a thousand souls and billions of financial loss, then go 'it's ours, we're the wronged people'...what mental vacuum do you people live in? It must be a parallel moral universe.... The islanders will never give up their independence to a country that caused so much misery to them... Wake up.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 062 Pgerman, you are a nut, Argentina deserves nothing other than the opportunity to humbly apologize to the British for the death of their soldiers. You should be grateful they didn't bomb Casa Rosada into rubble as they very well should have and could have. Your failed country has no leverage, nothing to offer up these people. You can't manage your finances, horrible corruption, so why would the islanders ever want anything to do with your shit hole country? The answer is they never would, move on put your energy into fixing your own problems instead of creating more in the world.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are they heavily investing in Scotland...?
Mar 17th, 2015 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0no idea,
ps...who is “rising”...?
70 and rising,
just thinking abt how far this will go,
was not the highest over 300 replies on a blog,
this looks like it could well go a lot further yet....lol
@57 pgerman
Mar 17th, 2015 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”.in the meanwhile the best thing for you is to stay away from the Continent (a Berlin Wall in the middle of the Ocean..do you remember?)'
I don't see much evidence of anybody erecting any Berlin Wall in the middle of the ocean.
UK/Latam links have seen 36% rise in trade and investment, says minister
om/2015/03/05/uk-latam-links-have-seen-36-rise-in-trade-and-investment-says-minister
I'd like to hear what the Commander thinks about this story. A man with his pedigree and naval experience surely has something to offer that is worthy of our full attention.
Mar 17th, 2015 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does anyone on here know how to contact him? Is there anyone who could pop down to the Dover branch of the RBL and fetch him away from his intellectual discussions with the poor old members?
Chuckle chuckle.
23 pgerman,
Mar 17th, 2015 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The fact is that the “state of the art” Conqueror (a modern nueclear submarine with the assistance of several satelites) attacked and sunk an old ship of the beginning of the II WW that was about being sent to a USA musuem...quite a achievement !!!!“
Are you kidding??
Perhaps Argentina should have thought about that before invading.
Is it ”NOT FAIR”?
Should the British have fought with one hand behind their backs, or only sent comparable vessels and equipment??
When someone is doing their best to rob or kill you, do you use only half measures ??
Should the British forces have had a handicap, or not engage the Argies at all, in case they beat them??
I don't see your logic.
Of course, you are consistent - blaming the British for 'unnecessary' military deaths, and sinking of a warship steaming to attack us.
All I can say is I am glad the US doesn't do Gringo Gaucho exercises with these kurepi anymore. ;)
Mar 17th, 2015 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://i1290.photobucket.com/albums/b521/imoyaro/chopperlaff_zpsamu9towd.gif?1426633442027&1426633443199
pgerman.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Again, one more time. Do you know what's really cowardly?
It's sending a large number of poorly trained and equipped soldiers to invade with insufficient clothing, food, housing and leadership.
You know what is also cowardly? Your admiralty sheltering the majority of its naval offensive ships in costal waters.
OK.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just for the record:
Does anyone really think that rotting roadkill would fair any better if there was a rematch today?
I propose that the aggrieved parties refight the war today with the gloves off. It's a street fight. Bring what you got. Whoops! It's already over and BA is glowing.
LOL.
rotting roadkillians:
You should seriously consider shutting up before the U.K. opens up a serious can of whoop ass on you!
Chicureo: insufficient clothing, food, housing and LEADERSHIP?:
Mar 18th, 2015 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Despite being a conscript army, Chris (Lt. Chris Caroe, X-Ray Company, 45 Commando) says the Argentinians were a force to be reckoned with because they were led by SKILLED REGULARS.“ http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/ex-marine-chris-caroe-chester-recalls-5179719
”3rd Commando Brigade commander Julian Thompson has commended the Argentinian officers and NCOs on their stubbornness during the mountain battles outside Port Stanley.” http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/ex-marine-chris-caroe-chester-recalls-5179719
@78
Mar 18th, 2015 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0“insufficient clothing, food, housing and LEADERSHIP?”
An Argentine federal judge considers the abuses allegedly suffered, --in over eighty cases-- by Malvinas war veterans during the 1982 Malvinas war as “crimes against humanity” and therefore “imprescriptible”, according to reports in the Buenos Aires press.
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/06/10/over-70-argentine-officers-face-trial-for-torturing-conscripts-in-malvinas
That's some leadership.
Claims of supposed torture cases in the Argentine Army during the Malvinas War, were no different to the rough punishment meted out to disobedient soldiers in the French Foreign Legion and Australian and New Zealand armies in the Vietnam War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_punishment
Mar 18th, 2015 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Also the claims of supposed torture cases in the Malvinas War, have in the last couple of days been thrown out of court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_punishment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_punishment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_punishment
Albert- Chico was right.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 01:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Had you Arg Army been:
Properly Trained
Equipped
Well led
It would still have been up on top of the mountains around Port Stanley!
Ask the Marines- The Paras and the Guards - even today they are still amazed they got up there!
Some fights were easier than others - the toughest- where the full time trained regulars were like Tumbeldown.
Young lads who had no rifle cleaning kit nor know what to do with it, did not have much chance.
Islander1: Sergeant-Major George Meachin of Yankee Company, later praised the fighting abilities and spirit of the Argentine defenders:
Mar 18th, 2015 - 02:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ We came under lots of effective fire from 0.50 caliber machine guns ...At the same time, mortars were coming down all over us, but the main threat was from those machine-gunners who could see us in the open because of the moonlight. There were three machine-guns and we brought down constant and effective salvoes of our own artillery fire on to them directly, 15 rounds at a time. There would be a pause, and they'd come back at us again. So we had to do it a second time, all over their positions. There'd be a pause, then 'boom, boom, boom,' they'd come back at us again. Conscripts don't do this, babies don't do this, men who are badly led and of low morale don't do this. They were good steadfast troops. I rate them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Two_Sisters
82 Alberto- total correct- where the regulars were - it was no picnic - they had the height and the time to make the good defensive positions - and they used them.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 02:51 am - Link - Report abuse 082 Alberto Bertorelli
Mar 18th, 2015 - 04:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please can you tell us all who were the victors in this conflict?
Skirmishes do not matter overall, only end-results count.
So, who won?
Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 05:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0pgerman
Mar 18th, 2015 - 06:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would like to add to what many of the other posters have added here.
You claim that the war was Britain's fault because we decided to fight back against a foreign invader. WRONG. The war was Argentina's fault. You broke international law by invading someone else's territory. You refused to obey a LEGALLY binding UNSC resolution 502 to remove your military from the islands. Therefore ANY and EVERY death is purely the fault of Argentina.
You also claim that Britain had an unfair advantage in weaponry. That is also an erroneous claim. In 1982 Argentina's military had, in most cases, far more advanced weaponry than the UK did. Your aircraft were more advanced. Your missiles were more advanced. Your small arms were comparable to the UK's. Your ships, some of whom were old, were still immensely powerful and capable of inflicting a huge amount of damage.
Yes the UK had submarines BUT so did Argentina. It's not our fault that your navy were inexperienced in actual war fighting and tactics. It's not our fault that your submarine the ARA Santa Fe decide it would rather play at being a surface vessel than a sub-surface vessel. And like any good military tactician we took advantage of the Santa Fe's mistake and fired upon whilst it was on the surface.
The UK also didn't ask your navy to attack us, which is what the Belgrano was on the way to do, and therefore we had EVERY right to self defence.
You suggest that the UK should've just stood back and let a murderous bunch of Argentines ethnically cleanse the islands because YOU WANT THEM. You suggest that we shouldn't've done anything and left that same bunch of murdering Argentines in charge of the islands because YOU WANT THEM. The opinions and rights of the people who have lived on the islands since BEFORE Argentina even existed have no bearing.
You are a foul human being. Thankfully for the Falklanders the UK have morals that we are willing to fight, and if necessary, die for.
Now crawl back under your rock.
LEPRecon: ethnically cleanse? murdering Argentines?:
Mar 18th, 2015 - 06:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The victims of the violence were 7,158-30,000 left-wing activists and militants, including trade unionists, students, journalists and Marxists and Peronist guerrillas and their support network in the Montoneros believed to be 150,000-250,000-strong and 60,000-strong in the ERP, as well as alleged sympathizers. The official number of disappeared is reported to be 13,000. Some 10,000 of the ”disappeared” were admittedly guerrillas of the Montoneros (MPM) and the Marxist People's Revolutionary Army (ERP).“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
”British war crimes are acts proven to be or allegedly committed by the armed forces of the United Kingdom that have violated the laws and customs of war from the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 to the present day. Such actions include the summary executions of prisoners of war, the use of excessive force during the interrogation of POWs and enemy combatants, and the use of violence against civilian non-combatants.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
Lol. Just like a rotting roadkillian. Bring a knife to a gunfight(that you incidentally started). Lol.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 07:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0LEPRecon: Without Chilean help, the Royal Navy would've ceased to exist:
Mar 18th, 2015 - 07:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Chile’s Westinghouse long range radar gave the vulnerable British armada early warning of Argentinean air attacks. So vital was this, that on the day the radar down for overdue maintenance, Argentinean fighter-bombers struck the troopships Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram, killing 53.” http://thebackbencher.co.uk/thatchers-dirty-little-secret/
@80
Mar 18th, 2015 - 07:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentiniain officers were allowed to keep their side arms, since there was a real risk they would be lynched by their men”
Russell Phillips: A Damn Close-Run Thing: A Brief History of the Falklands War
Meanwhile, for his leadership skills, “the Argentine Army's internal investigation, known as the Rattenbach report after the general who led it, recommended Galtieri be stripped of all rank, dismissed and face a firing squad”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopoldo_Galtieri
Summary of the Rattenbach report:
“Soldiers born in 1963 had just begun their incorporation. They didn’t have proper training. And they were poorly fed, which brought about undernourishment problems.”
“There were serious leading issues. Actions were not thought coherently within a group, changes of guard were not coordinated; control systems weren’t agile enough.”
“Lack of fighting spirit and the subsequent demoralization of the troops, which is commanders’ full responsibility.”
“Logistics were wrongly planned; they cannot be IMPROVISED (original emphasis) ... there were several limitations when it comes to transportation, techniques, artillery, and strategy.”
“We weren’t familiar with the geographical territory.”
“We underestimated the enemy and let them take the lead by constantly giving them a chance to take the initiative.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopoldo_Galtieri
Meanwhile the torture story is far from over. The Supreme Court did not throw out allegations of torture at all, it said that the torture of conscripts wasn't organised enough to be a crime against humanity as charged.
“Not one officer died of hunger,” argues the former undersecretary for human rights in Corrientes, “yet next to them were the soldiers, of whom at least three died [of starvation].”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopoldo_Galtieri
What was that about leadership again?
@89 Alberto Bertorelli.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why ignore the most simple question here?
Who won the War in the South Atlantic in 1982?
Just in case you missed it, here is Brigadier Julian Thompson on youtube praising the Argentine officers and NCOs of the Argentine Army and Argentine Marine Corps:
Mar 18th, 2015 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The Argentines on all objectives, actually fought, particulary officers, junior officers and their regular NCOs, who would man machineguns to the last, and would be killed manning the machineguns.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiP4PDDTvy0
And just in case you missed it, here is the Mercopress story, revealing the supposed torture cases in Malvinas have recently been thrown out of court in Argentina: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiP4PDDTvy0
The brutal punishment meted out to insubordinate Argentine conscripts are known in the military worldwide as field punishments, no different to the brutal punishment meted out to insubordinate soldiers in the French Foreign Legion and Australian and New Zealand armies in Vietnam. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiP4PDDTvy0
Here is an Argentine online news article with a video upload proving the chief prosecutor in the supposed Malvinas torture cases, Pablo Vassel, the former undersecretary for human rights in Corrientes, is a liar, an anarcho-communist lawyer that bribed unwilling Argentine conscripts to lie and speak badly about their superiors in the Malvinas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiP4PDDTvy0
89Alberto- Sorry that is total cobblers and fantasy by the silly wrter of the story!
Mar 18th, 2015 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0FACTS:
1. Fine Sunny Day excellent visibility.
2.Ships clearly visible to Arg mountaintop observation post well clear of any forward British army positions.
3. Errors on British side meant the 2 ships- which did not possess any air defence of their own(they were unarmed RFA landing ships not RN ships)
were stuck at anchor with no suitable landing craft to quickly offload their troops and wrong information and lack of to commanders there.Local AA defence had not settled down and become operational on shore in time.
4Early am harrier crashlanding on forward refuelling strip at port san carlos meant loss of forward refuelling thus temporary loss of combat air patrol cover over the islands by RN Sea Harriers.
5.Thus Arg Air Force was alerted by the Arg Obs post and able to fly in-find-and then bomb from correct height with no interference -with inevitable results.
6Air Raid was spotted by radar etc but due to above reasons RN SeaHarriers arrived just to late - but were able to shoot down 2 of the 4 attackers within minutes of the attack- they did not survive and get back to Argentina.
So there you are - facts- one of the errors of war that sometimes add up and happen. Bugger all to do with your fantasy source.
Islander1: Margaret Thatcher spills the beans:
Mar 18th, 2015 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0“During the Falklands War, the Chilean airforce was commanded by the father of Senator Evelyn Matthei, here with us tonight. He gave us early warning of Argentinian air attacks, which allowed the task-force to take defensive action. The value of this intelligence was proved by what happened when it stopped. One day, near the end of the conflict, the Chilean long-range radar had to be switched off for overdue maintenance. That same day - Tuesday 8th June, a date etched on my heart - Argentinian planes attacked and destroyed the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram landing ships, with heavy casualties.” http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108383
In other words, without Chilean help, the Royal Navy would've ceased to exist.
Just answer the question.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who won the War in the South Atlantic in 1982?
#92
Mar 18th, 2015 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Without Chilean help, the Royal Navy would've ceased to exist:
Pure unsupported conjecture.
Lets draw back a minute. The Argentinian excuse was that they had a bunch of untrained conscripts fighting a professional army. Now we are told that they had highly trained and motivated troops facing the British.
The result was that these troops were still defeated in hand to hand fighting.
The British had to attack well defended and dug in positions and eventually engage in hand -to-hand fighting. Military theory says that an attacking force needs three times the number of troops to have a chance of success.
The UK forces had parity at best.
So, even your best was not good enough. No excuses !
It's about time for the jingoism to stop.
Retelling the story 33 years later only opens old wounds and keeps the animosity alive. It's history and should be consigned there.
Argentina should move on and try to solve it's current problems without continually picking at a running sore as a distraction.
Love the censorship. Glad to see my comment at 85 hit home. The sinking of the Belgrano was a much deserved fate for a bag of would be fascists. Too bad the corpse count wasn't higher. The world would be a better place. ;)
Mar 18th, 2015 - 09:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://i1290.photobucket.com/albums/b521/imoyaro/chopperlaff_zpsrpl58kjd.gif
@92
Mar 18th, 2015 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Evidently, another graduate of the Malvinista Logic Academy, with two fine examples in the same post :
1) the Toby fallacy, the idea that if somebody else can be alleged to be guilty of X, then Argentina must be exonerated of it
2) who needs evidence when you've got a conspiracy theory
and in @94, the non sequitur by overload. The Royal Navy was helped by Chile, ergo without Chilean help, the Royal Navy would have ceased to exist. Given all these inflatable aircraft carriers we had, and the secret clone of HMS Invincible concealed from the world in the Tyne, this one is particularly hard to credit.
@95 ilsen
Let me just add a rider to that question :
Who won the War in the South Atlantic in 1982, and who disgraced themselves?
The Argentine destroyers were not cowardly to leave the sinking Belgrano. They had a duty to preserve their own ships rather than present easy targets to the submarine or submarines. In the Arctic during the 2nd WW a British Destroyer was attacked and sunk by a German submarine. A relative of mine was one of 12 survivors left in the freezing water. Covered in oil and freezing to death he spotted another British Destroyer speeding towards his general direction. The Destroyer wasn't stopping but instead threw out lines onto which, with great difficulty given the oil, my relative was finally hauled aboard with the other survivors. So to cut a long story short I have enormous sympathy for those Argentines who perished and understanding for those Argentines on board the two destroyers.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Clyde15: “It's about time for the jingoism to stop.”
Mar 18th, 2015 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fair enough, respect to veterans from both sides. I only came here to silence 1 or 2 individuals with their stupid comments about Latin 'machismo' and 'cowardice'. Now that I've given them a taste of their own medicine, I hope we can all act like grown ups and shut up those that step out of line.
@100 Alberto
Mar 18th, 2015 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0The majority of your navy were cowards. There is no doubt about that.
Your army were very brave pointing guns at unarmed civilians and threatening to shoot them.
Your airforce were the only ones that showed any true courage.
I just 'love' the way you trolls come on here and try to justify an illegal invasion by a murderous military junta (which you didn't support, honest!) and then blame the British for having the audacity to fight back.
No one will ever take Argentina seriously until you apologise unreservedly for your illegal attempt to steal their land and murder them.
LEPRecon: So according to you the British garrison on 2 April 1982 practically fought to the death and/or waged guerrilla warfare in the hinterland? Yes of course, the British Army would never have surrendered like Menendez did and they totally respect women, children and POWs.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0“One British army conscript recalled that “when we had an officer who did come out with us on patrol I realised that he was only interested in one thing: killing as many people as possible”. British forces also booby-trapped jungle food stores, burned villages and secretly supplied self-detonating grenades and bullets to the insurgents to instantly kill the user. Some civilians and detainees were also shot, either because they attempted to flee from them on the grounds that they could give the insurgents valuable assistance to continue to fight against British forces or simply because they refused to give intelligence to British forces. These tactics created strained relations between civilians and British forces in Malaya as they were counterproductive in generating the one resource critical in a counterinsurgency, good intelligence.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency#War_crimes
“On February 15, Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival, the British commander in Singapore, called for a ceasefire and decided to surrender ... More than 130,000 Allied troops became prisoners of the Japanese. ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency#War_crimes
@100
Mar 18th, 2015 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0By trying to extract some crumbs of comfort from the disaster, generally through mendacity, mostly what you've done is highlight the scale of it.
It is well known that the 1982 invasion had been planned by Argentina, on paper, for several years. And, of course, the malvinistas are not a post 1982 invention.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0But, the manner in which it was carried out was, let's be honest, totally “over the top”. First of all, why so many troops and so much armament to overcome some 3000(maximum) islanders plus a very small detachment of Royal Marines. Cowardly decision whatever the trolls say!
I believe that had Argentine in 1982 taken its case to the International Court of Justice then the archipelago would now be in their hands - Britain, at the time, was unprepared for a legal claim and, shortly before, had been negotiating a handover.
However, 1982 showed the true colours of Argentina - underhand, arrogant and cowardly operators who deserved the result of defeat. The only course of action that Britain could take was to challenge and overcome the cowardly Argentine offensive.
gordo1 : The British Royal Marines were handled with kid gloves:
Mar 18th, 2015 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0“It was still completely dark. We were going to use tear-gas to force the British out of the buildings and capture them. Our orders were not to cause casualties if possible. That was the most difficult mission of my career. All our training as commandos was to fight aggressively and inflict maximum casualties on the enemy. We surrounded the barracks with machine-gun teams, leaving only one escape route along the peninsula north of Stanley Harbour. Anyone who did get away would not able to reach the town and reinforce the British there. Then we threw the gas grenades into each building. There was no reaction; the barracks were empty.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Attack_on_Moody_Brook_barracks
@ 19 Gordo1:
Mar 18th, 2015 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Capitan Hector Bonzo, the commanding officer of the General Belgrano, stated on several occasions that the sinking of his vessel was a legitimate act of war and that had the positions been reversed he would have acted in exactly the same way”
A good and accurate quotation. Indeed, Captain Bonzo and several other members of the Navy shared the same thought. The sinking of the Belgrano was a sad, painful ACT OF WAR that took several lives from our sailors. But it can hardly be described as a war crime.
@ 48 Chicureo:
Well put. The only one to be blamed for Arg (and Brit and FI) casualties are the insane members of the military junta, not the UK. They were so eager to have their own “clean war” that they didn´t mind how much it could cost.
As for Chile, well, it´s a s you said: after what almost happened in 1978, who in his right mind would expect Chile to be on our side? I can only LOL when I hear the “chilean traitors” rant.
@51. Let's try some simple points for you. The Hong Kong agreement is not relevant. Thanks for telling us your long-term objective. Exactly why there will NEVER be any such agreement. Never mind 50 or 100 years. More mileage, perhaps, if you think in terms of 10,000 years. There are NO intelligent, legal or moral reasons for argieland to gain sovereignty.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0@54. Try these. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War
@57. Try to understand. It isn't the 'desires' of the Islanders, it's their rights. Argies have NEVER been on the Islands for long enough for them to have any rights.
@59. I don't think you have any understanding of intelligent people. Relatives of someone lost on a British ship would react on the basis that they were killed by an invader whilst defending a British territory. You see our country has been in many wars. We KNOW that it isn't 'glorious'. It's hard, dirty and bloody. Our troops know it too. It's just juveniles who only think in terms of soldiers in clean, sharply-pressed uniforms, bands and waving banners/flags.
@62. What a very poor point of view. The Islanders have their homes on those Islands. They farm there. They create and run businesses there. Very specific to their location. But, in just a few words, you explain a great deal. No wonder argieland was never honest with the Islanders. I wonder if you've ever dealt in reality?
@78. It's no good if the opposition doesn't fight. Tell us how your lot did against the Gurkhas.
@80. Of course they were thrown out of court. CFK wouldn't want her glorious armed forces besmirched with some truth. Don't you have a judge who managed to write a 63-page adverse judgment in a couple of days?
@82. Yeah, but argies had it easy. Read the beginning of the section.
@87. Victims again! How many Islanders did you ship to Montevideo? And the purpose of your generalism is what?
@105
Mar 18th, 2015 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Although there were no Royal Marine witnesses to the assault, British descriptions of the state of Moody Brook barracks afterward contradict the Argentine version of events. After the action, some of the Royal Marines were allowed to return to barracks to collect personal items. Major Norman describes walls of the barracks as riddled with machine gun fire and bearing the marks of white phosphorus grenades—”a classic houseclearing operation“.[8] The Argentines maintain that the barracks were destroyed in an air attack on 12 June that killed three conscripts and wounded Major José Rodolfo Banetta”
Now bother versions cannot be true, so clearly somebody is either mistaken, or somebody is not telling the truth.
Surely that couldn't be the people who brought us “Estamos Ganando”, the sinking of the Invincible, the nuclear threat to Cordoba, the biological attack on Buenos Aires, and the whole Malvinas/Vernet/Rivero fabrication in the first place?
BTW, and just for the record, I see no problem at all in preserving a valuable piece of history such as the HMS Conqueror. So sad no remains of the ARA Belgrano could be retrieved from the deeps.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe a good time to take a minute to remember the fallen in that specific action.
And, to honor them also, never waste a single second listening to any other malvinist again. Ever.
Alberto 84. Sorry the FACTS are as I stated. It was not down to a gap in Chilean radar.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Incoming aircraft were detected by the RN Type 42 long range radar pickets -All the Chilean radar was doing- albeit very good,vital, and useful- was advising of AirForce takeoffs - not exactly which part of the Islands they were then to head to. just there was no aircover over the Fitzroy area at the time and due to command errors and muddles there was a comms failure and the left was unaware of what was happening as compared to what they thought was happening.
Most of the Radar used in southern Chile was also actually British- flown out to Chile by the RAF specially for this use.I Don't deny it was very very usefull and saved many lives. But the Sea harriers on patrol were always diverted onto incoming attack flights by the RN type 42 air defence units themselves - that was their job as Area defence destroyers.
What the radar in southern Chile did was give early warning that a raid was coming to “somewhere”.
2nd April 1982- The defending Royal marines did what they had and needed to do- make a defence and force a fight to make it a just and lawfull right by the UK to use force to retake the islands. They had no option but to accept the order of the British Governor- their ultimate Commander - to surrender later that morning as amphibious armour started to arrive on the scene. They had done their job.
It is terrible that the Argentines haven't learnt from their mistakes. They still can't accept they lost The Falklands War.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now that infamous latin machismo has killed innocent French sports-stars.
When will they ever learn?
@106 SebaSvtz
Mar 18th, 2015 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with you that we should all be very aware of the human cost of the Falklands/Malvinas conflict - on both sides. It is truly sad that two countries which share so much should have endured the loss of their loved ones because of the evil aspirations of the military junta. But, I also recall the television images from Buenos Aires when Galtieri announced the invasion from the balcony of La Casa Rosada - the plaza below was packed with Argentinos from all walks of life and politics celebrating the invasion, malvinistas all! Shame.
(YouTube has various presentations of Galtieri's speech {diatribe})
@ 112
Mar 18th, 2015 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You hit the nail, Gordo1; it is true that the invasion HAD a wide support from the average guy down here. I ascribe that to years of brainwashing (“las malvinas son argentinas...”) since the early years of school.
A change of attitude from the gov in necessary, but a new mind set should be ingrained to people, specially to young generations. Otherwise, we will repeat the same song.
For instance, I went to elementary school during the 80s, and to high school during the 90. NEVER did they teach us the British side of the story, only the Arg.
Regards.
#110 Islander
Mar 18th, 2015 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spot on.
The Falklands war is especially fascinating for those of us here that had some personal experience. Not directly in my case as I entered the naval academy post war, but durning my career, I have had the privilege to have known many who were involved as well as the opportunity to have studied in the war college extensively.
Chile's support, especially it's British radar intel was of great help, but was not the reason for the task force's victory. Instead, it was the overwhelming determination of the British to succeed, led by Baroness Thatcher's leadership.
Also, the cowardice and incompetence of Argentina obviously contributed as well. I've already praised the heroic Argentine pilots, and have been criticized for declaring its naval cowardice, but let me remind everyone how important training and professionalism counts:
The ARA San Luis submarine reported three attacks on Royal Navy ships during the war, yet the German torpedoes did not explode even if they did hit a target. Later German engineers were sent to Argentina to discover what went wrong with their torpedoes.“The problem was so simple as to be unbelievable: one of the Argentine sailors who was in charge of periodic maintenance of the torpedoes had inadvertently reversed the polarity of power cables between the torpedoes and the submarine. This meant that when the torpedoes' gyros were spun up, they ran ”backwards“ and thus tumbled on launch, preventing the weapons from taking up their proper heading.”
From personal experience I can assure everyone is that the United Kingdom has repaid over tenfold the assistance Chile provided it's task force during the war. (Perhaps that's an understatement. Maybe it's been more like a hundredfold...)
@ 114 Chicureo
Mar 18th, 2015 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0¡Viva Chile!
109 from the ashes comes the voice of reason..... If I ever see a guy named Seba Svtz elected president in Arg I will start to have hope for the place. Your first act of duty should be to fire Filmus..
Mar 18th, 2015 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@116
Mar 18th, 2015 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Agreed!
#115 Gordo
Mar 18th, 2015 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Si vis pacem, para bellum”
God bless HRM!
@144
Mar 18th, 2015 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You really act as the thypical chilean fascist (as the Islanders in love with Pinochet) that made you be hatred by most of the argentine people. Which is not my case by the way.
At the time of the war the argentine navy was not prepared for a modern war. The only modern material were the two British ships and a German submarine on service that hadn't been in servcie enought time to get everything ready for a war.
In addition, you FORGET that there were many attacks carried out by planes that belonged to the ARA (Super Etendarts and A4). Were they cowards?
Were the sallors of the ARA San Luis cowards? They were able to attack the RN that had the “state of the art” anti submarine warfare pieces of equipment. No matter this, they succeded to penetrate the defenses and attack them.
And the sailors of the ARA Sobral? Do you know anything about its history? What do you know about the ARA Sobral?
And the sailors of the several logistic ships that, ignoring the risk of being attacked by submarines, planes or helicopers, kept on supplying the islands? Were they cowards?
You must be tought in the Navy schools that the “argentine sailors are all cowards” to make chilean sailors feel confident about themselves but nobody that had read a little bit about the war can, seriously, write that.
I had noticed that you kept on avoiding the discussion of the two chilean “spy” planes that crashed on the argentine side (confused by lack of radar signals and hurried up by two FAA mirages)....that's the concept most of the people have about the chilean air force...What do you thing about these incidents?
@119 pgerman
Mar 18th, 2015 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It appears to me that you really do not get the point that I and others are trying to make.
It doesn't matter whether the personnel of the Argentine Navy, Army and Air Force
were brave or cowardly - as the Nazis always used to plead “they were only following orders”. What you don't seem to understand is that the invasion of the Falklands/Malvinas on 02/04/1982 was illegal and cowardly and, above all, dishonest - furthermore from evidence available at the time this action was wholeheartedly supported by the Argentine public. The Argentine public has been brainwashed from a very early age, a la Goebbels, to falsely believe that the Falklands/Malvinas archipelago is Argentine territory - this propaganda is all fairy stories, myths, lies and misinterpretations of historical events.
What a gullible lot you are!
@119. How nice it would be if you made some admissions. Tens of thousands of argie scum dancing in the streets in order to celebrate how more thousands of argie scum overcame 60 British Royal Marines Only 60 because around 20 had been despatched to South Georgia to kill the argies there. What a shame that coward Astiz surrendered before the argies could be annihilated. I do think that, if the Marines had been properly aware of Astiz, his guts and brain matter would have been splattered across the Islands. What a shame that our Vulcans didn't obliterate Buenos Aires. Maybe, next time, there will be multirole combat aircraft launched from the Falklands. More arriving, following RAF Voyagers, a squadron at a time. Take the time to work out the weapons load of a Typhoon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Specifications
Mar 18th, 2015 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One Typhoon to destroy anything argie while the other 11 destroy everything. 181,500 lbs of destruction.
You keep on about these two chilean “spy” planes. Relevance? Everyone knows that argieland planned to attack Chile. Only the FACT that we British ripped argie guts out stopped it. Ever tried researching argie war crimes? Painting ICRC insignia on buildings and argie spy boats. War crimes. What do you 'thing' about your disgusting war crimes? I have this idea where we decimate your population. Please ignore the word 'decimate'. What I have in mind is to reduce the argie population by 90%. And then to remove the scum. Ready for some retribution?
121
Mar 18th, 2015 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“What I have in mind is to reduce the argie population by 90%. And then to remove the scum. Ready for some retribution?”
....that's the fantasy aspect of your mind talking...what you really have in mind is your meals on wheels arriving this evening...as you shuffle to the door of your sheltered housing on your zimmerframe...your swollen incontinence bag jangling against your leg as you amble along....dreaming of having a family to look after you in your dotage....
I wish I could afford a flight to the Falklands on my pension...I wish I had a car to visit HMS Conqueror...I wish someone would visit me....
I wish I wasn't going to die an embittered, lonely old man...
I want to be loved.....;-(
Now that is your reality.....
Children.
Mar 18th, 2015 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stop.
Play the game again.
Couple of cruise missles into the pink house.
Game over.
Can someone give me a scenario whereby rotting roadkill successfully maintains occupation of the Falklands other than by posting ten thousand butchers to the Island to stand in perpetual shifts with a razor to the throat of each and every Falkland Islander as a bar to expulsion?
Huh?
The war is fought in the South Atlantic.
The rotting roadkillians have no deterents to external attack.
rotting roadkill loses each and every time.
#119 Village Idiot
Mar 18th, 2015 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“At the time of the war the argentine navy was not prepared for a modern war. The only modern material were the two British ships and a German submarine on service that hadn't been in servcie enought time to get everything ready for a war.”
?????????????
I'm no longer even going to try and debate with this village idiot. The Argentines had been prepared for a war prior to 1978 with a substantial modernized force. They had superior numbers, extensive foreign support, close proximity and the element of surprise. With the exception of their pilots and a few other individuals, the Argentine government and their armed forces exhibited cowardice, ineptness and a near complete lack of civility that included lack of concern for the welfare of their own servicemen.
119 pgerman
Mar 18th, 2015 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Odd that you would suggest your military was not on a war footing and not prepared for war - hadnt they been involved in conflict with Chile in 1978, and planning the invasion of all British sovereign territory in the South Atlantic (offshore), before a planned attack on Chilé??
Your statements are not credible.
You are making excuses.
#125 Troy
Mar 18th, 2015 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pgerman is depriving a village somewhere in Agentina of their resident idiot.
@ 126 Chicureo
Mar 18th, 2015 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He even said (@119 in reply to your @114) ”You really act as the thypical(sic) chilean fascist (as the Islanders in love with Pinochet) that made you be hatred by most of the argentine people. Which is not my case by the way.“
Of course, if that is ”not my case by the way” just why did he post it in the first place?
I think I have to agree with your @126!
They lost,
Mar 18th, 2015 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0get over it.
#119
Mar 18th, 2015 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How about you telling us about the two Chilean“spy planes” that crashed in Argentina....factual details please not hear-say
The Super Etandards launched exocet missiles at long range and then departed before they were in any danger .
The A-4's had to run straight at their targets and take what was coming in either flak. missiles or the dreaded Sea Harrier chasing them. That took guts and they certainly paid for it.. Someone posted that the UK had NATO nad US help in the war while Argentina was alone....not so.....
”with the Peruvian Air Force even offering to fly combat missions. This was politely declined by the Argentine government. As the war progressed, Peru and Venezuela sent critical aircraft spare parts to Argentina, urgently needed by the FAA and the Brazilian Air Force leased two EMB111 Bandeirantes maritime patrol aircraft to the Argentine Navy.[5] Finally on June 4, ten Peruvian Mirage 5 with AS-30 missiles arrived to Tandil but the war ended before they could be used.[6] Israel Aircraft Industries technicians that were in the country under the 1979 IAI Daggers contract continued their work during the conflict.[7]
@119
Mar 18th, 2015 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any comment on this?
'“The aircraft is a single-seat, single-engine design capable of a top speed of Mach 1.8 at an altitude of 55,000 feet. It also has a combat range of 1,350 kilometers, which allows him to fly back and forth to Stanley from the base of Tierra del Fuego,” Rossi explained during an interview with Radio America. '
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/161951/argentina-confirms-jf_17-talks-with-china.html
Why does Argentina need a combat aircraft capable of reaching Stanley from Tierra del Fuego?
Both sides had help from allies in one way or another; this has already been proven,
Mar 18th, 2015 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Secrets on the other hand take much longer to materialise,
Some say Britain has a for or laser weapon to be used if it all went tipsy turvy,
Thus we could have put the other carrier into service,
Some say the Americans had actually got ready a carrier to be used if required,
The SAS had access to certain things that the American army did not [ at this time ]
Argentina apparently had help from some other South American sources and Russian help,
Either way, one this was certain in 1982,
We were determined to win at any cost and we did,
Argentina on the other hand was determined to risk all, and lost.
So they say..
#131 Briton
Mar 18th, 2015 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine Air Force took enormous risk and showed a high level of courage and skill. However, that was the exception to its armed forces and therefore I disagree that: “Argentina on the other hand was determined to risk all, and lost.” (Unless you were being ironic...)
Argentine's core fleet at the start of the Falklands conflict was comprised of six destroyers, three corvettes, one cruiser, one carrier and two submarines.
Obviously the Belgrano was lost on the onset of the war and total Argentinean additional maritime losses amounted to one one submarine, four cargo vessels, two patrol vessels and a spy trawler.
The well armed* carrier, six destroyers and three corvettes stayed very close to the Argentine coast and the carrier was kept in port. The Argentines were frightened of the prospect of losing one of their precious vessels...
(*Some of the destroyers even had Exocet missiles)
@130
Mar 18th, 2015 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't care what Rossi usually tells to the press. He had mentioned that the “Tronador is a proof of a country that is recovering its defense capatiblities” when all of us know that it is a civil rocket (it uses liquid fuel).
The Typhoons in the Islands can reach the continent and it doesn´t seem to bother you so why would you be surprise by the fact that Argentina wants planes that can reach the Islands...
@ 132
You kept on avoiding the discussion of the two chilean “spy” planes that crashed on the argentine side (confused by lack of radar signals and hurried up by two FAA mirages)....that's the concept most of the people have about the chilean air force...What do you thing about these incidents?
By the way, at the time of the War (1982) the Argentine navy had two modern british designed ships (ARA Sma Trinidad and ARA Hercules) and the german ARA San Luis. The rest of the fleet were old ships. They were extremenly old ships. You should know that...
In addition thank you for your insults...but I am just mentioning facts...it seems that they bother you.
@133
Mar 19th, 2015 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm wondering why Rossi would mention Stanley in particular instead of just the normal operating range of the aircraft? You may not care, but it's quite a significant thing for a Defence Minister of all people to be saying, given Argentina's recent history of unprovoked attack on the islands, its neurotic obsession with them, and rhetoric coming out of BA which is no different to that previously coming out of the junta.
The UK's typhoons can certainly reach the mainland, but 4 of them of them is a mite short of what you would need to launch a serious attack, the UK has no recent history of attacks on the mainland, having even refrained from any such thing in the midst of a war, no irredentist territorial ambitions, and no national neurosis being whipped up by a crooked, mendacious and unscrupulous government.
@ 134
Mar 19th, 2015 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I dn´t know the reasons that led Rossi to mention that but for sure his intention was to attract the sympathy of the raging nationalists/peronists but it certainly is (I agree with you) an imprudence that can cause a serious diplomatic incident. Luckily noone listens to the current argentine government leaders.
As regards the attacks of the UK to the Continent you must remember that a group of elit British forces wanted to attack and “destroy” the Super Etendards (when they were on the ground) and, let's say, “neutralize” the pilots but they failed. The commands had to destroy the helicopter and take refuge in Chile. The operation became known to public opinion as “Operation Mikado”.
On the other hand, the “not innocent” flights of Typhoons over argentine territory without prior authorization do not help those who have a moderate stance and favor opportunistic speeches as Rossi's.
@135 pgerman
Mar 19th, 2015 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentines with a moderate stance? SebaSvtz ? Are there any more?
@135
Mar 19th, 2015 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think one has to distinguish between intrusions by 11,000 troops with the aim of seizing and keeping an entire territory, and landing a small party of special forces with the aim of defending oneself from air attack. Those aren't quite the same thing.
I can't find any reference anywhere to “not innocent” intrusions by Typhoons into Argentine territory without prior authorisation.
In any event, I think you'd only need to worry when a British Defence Minister starts to boast of a capability to reach territory in Buenos Aires that was allegedly stolen from us two centuries ago, from which our massive invasion force was only recently expelled to huge public consternation, and which is currently inhabited by Argentine squatters who have allegedly no right to be there, resist us, or even vote on their own desires for the future.
These Argentines also like to forget that in the Falklands War THEY held ALL of the advantage.
Mar 19th, 2015 - 08:12 am - Link - Report abuse 01. Dug in on land, with plenty of time to fortify their positions - the British had to fight from the sea with no fortified positions.
2. A short supply line, only 400 miles long - the British supply line was 8,000 miles long.
3. More advanced weaponry (in most cases), most of the British weaponry was from the 60's and designed to fight the red menace.
4. The Argentines had larger numbers of men and equipment than the British did.
So the question Argentina should be asking itself is just HOW did it lose a war that every military EXPERT on the planet said was IMPOSSIBLE for the British to win?
Of course these Malvinista trolls come up with all kinds of excuses as to why they lost the war.
We lost because:
1. the British fought back! You illegally invaded sovereign British territory, threatened the lives of the Falklanders and ignored a LEGALLY binding UNSC resolution to leave. Of course we fought back! IDIOTS! And we did so LEGALLY.
2. the British had more advanced weaponry than we did (even though the British DIDN'T have more advanced weaponry than the Argentines - their aircraft and missiles were far more advanced than the British, their small arms and artillery on par with the British, and their ships, though old, was also on par with the RN).
3. the British had help from its allies (conveniently forgetting that Argentina had help from its allies)
4. the British sunk our battleship. Er, yes we were at war, a war that Argentina started and the Belgrano was on its way to attack the British Task Force.
But we have to remember that despite it all, the cheering crowds in Argentina, their celebration of the start of the war, their continued unprovoked attacks on the Falklands, NOT ONE OF THEM supported the Junta (honest!). They just supported the aims of the Junta to steal other peoples, land, homes and if necessary, murder them all for it.
Pathetic malvinistas.
@137 and @138
Mar 19th, 2015 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0And they still think they are in the right - although they have stared they only seek the “return” of the archipelago by peaceful means and through dialogue BUT, repeat BUT, they won't “dialogue” with the people most concerned - the people of the Falklands.
Strange lot!
#133
Mar 19th, 2015 - 09:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0You kept on avoiding the discussion of the two chilean “spy” planes that crashed on the argentine side (confused by lack of radar signals and hurried up by two FAA mirages)....
I keep asking what two Chilean spy planes were these. I have looked in vain for any record of this event. Can you supply authenticated details.....not anecdotal stories. Type of aircraft, where they crashed and the fate of the crews.
Malvinists idiots, make excuses. We lost, we were wrong. Now we should make friends with Falklands people and UK. Live in peace and freindship.
Mar 19th, 2015 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0@141 Ferdinand0
Mar 19th, 2015 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0¡Bienvenido! I am very impressed - you say “we”, you don't just blame it all on Galtieri and the junta militar.
I agree entirely - Britain and Argentina should be friendly nations - ¡uña y carne!
pgerman (#)
Mar 19th, 2015 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0As I pointed out before, but you failed to answer...
The problem now is the current Argentinian government celebrates the invasion at every opportunity.
But at the same time claims the military action was nothing to do with them and that they are now peaceful.
The people of the Falklands are rightly annoyed by these attitudes from Argentina.
Little wonder in the free, fair and internationally monitored referendum they voted 99.8% in favour of remaining a British Overseas Territory.
Argentina is doing nothing to win favour with the Falkland Islanders.
The C24 meeting every year are a Joke. Having been invited to visit the Falklands on numerous occasions they never have.
The People of the Falklands do NOT want to be colonized by Argentina.
Oh and it is official...
BBC2 Friday 27th March (7 or 8pm depending on region) New Series of an Island Parish from the FALKLAND ISLANDS.
# 134 Hans
Mar 19th, 2015 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0The coordinated precise attack of four Typhoons against Buenos Aires would place the entire nation into wild hysterics and certainly the Argentine counter attack would consist of screaming and wailing from la Casa Rosada...
Anyway, the most effective would actually be to use submarine launched missiles, but why waste ones efforts when Argentines are already destroying the country alone?
Argentina can't find a foreign supplier that will extend credit for aircraft, so instead they're willing to make a deal with the Chinese and if they can obtain a tanker, range to attack Mount Pleasant will no longer be debatable.
Regarding the village idiots statement about Chile:
With our squadrons of F-16s and our KC-135, which far extend their range and ability to stay aloft, “...the concept most of the people have about the chilean [sic] air force...” is very intimidating to any potential threat that might try and attack. Furthermore, the considerable training our pilots receive in the United States along with regular military joint exercises, currently places la Fuerza Aérea de Chile as one of the best in the Americas.
As I've repeatedly posted, with the exception of their air force, Argentines were cowards and used the war to divert attention away from their economic crisis.
If they had won the Falklands, Chile would have been next...
Speaking of that, Chile WAS involved in a number of unpublished black ops, but nothing regarding two “spy planes” although the RAF was not below occasionally using their aircraft disguised as ours, but with dubious spelling...
144 Chicureo
Mar 19th, 2015 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0You posted
As I've repeatedly posted, with the exception of their air force, Argentines were cowards and used the war to divert attention away from their economic crisis
132 Chicureo
I disagree that: “Argentina on the other hand was determined to risk all, and lost.” (Unless you were being ironic...)
You hit it on the head,
No one was criticising the gallantry of the air force,
But Argentina did actually play all they had to save a corrupt regime,
So determined to risk all was justifies by the junta,
The problem Argies seem to have with this is, did we support the junta, or not,
The TV screens were full of thousands of argentines demonstrating against the British and burning the flags, so did they support their government or not,
Was it worth it, were they justified, ??
But alas the military good or bad has no choice in the matter,
They were sent to fight, and they did as they were told, full stop,
The junta played high stakes and lost,
The British won,.
.
144 Chicureo - Yes recall the A and the E around the wrong way in F. A De Chile on the RAF C130 that arrived in Chile with the radar kit onboard!
Mar 19th, 2015 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Chicureo: You seem to be a bitter Chilean, all talk and no action. The Chileans like to brag they never lost a war, the motto of their army is “Jamás Vencido” but during their war with Peru and Bolivia, the Chilean Army did nothing when the Argentine Army conquered the Patagonia. Chile had an opportunity to regain her “lost territories” during the Malvinas War, but the Chilean Armed Forces, even though they had a powerful navy, were paralyzed with fear, missing a golden opportunity to win back the land they say Argentina stole from them during General Roca's Conquest of The Desert. On the plus side, the Chileans hold magnificent military parades, but that's all there good at.
Mar 19th, 2015 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@140
Mar 19th, 2015 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fall of the last Camberra de la FACh “342” happened on May 25th 1983.
This FACh plane used to flight over Tierra del Fuego and Santa Cruz to make reconoisance works. Aparently this day, for been national hollyday , they took the risk of penetrating deep into the argentine territory and try to reach Rio Gallegos. Its incurssions had been under surveillance by argentine intelligence and radars during some months This day the all the radars were chasing them so at a certain point of his incurssion two Mirages took off and started chasing it but the PR.Mk9 had a “state of the art” alert system so they decided to head back to chilean territory flying at a high speed and low altitude to avoid the Mirages. As a consequence the plane crashed in a sudden and, sadly, the two pilots died because they had no time to eject.
A first one crashed over Tierra del Fuego when during a night flight all argentine radars were suddenly turned off and without their guidance the plane lost its path and crashed.
But there are plenty of information in the web about these two incidents so you can check there, get all the information you need and make your conclussions.
The fact is that the person under the name of “chicureo” cannot answer my comments becuase he knows nothing about them.
Based on his comments the sailors of the ARA Sobral were cowards symply because he knows nothing about this ship or its fate.
With the same reasoning the sailors of the several logistic ships were also cowards simply because he knows nothing about them.
In addition the sailors of the ARA San Luis were cowards no matter that they succedded in penetrating the RN anti-submarine defenses and attacked some ships.
In addition he knows nothing about me and he try to be ofensive using terms such as “villa boy” as if being poor were something to feel ashamed. All of you know that I currently live in Canada and there are no shanty towns in Canada.
#148
Mar 19th, 2015 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The sources I know show that 3 Canberra PR9's were flown from RAF Wyton on 15 October 1982 by Chilean Airforce pilots and crews. The aircraft were serial numbers XH166, XH167 and XH173. XH167 was lost in May 1983 and the other two are reported to be in their airforce museum.
I am surprised that the PR9 left at low level as they are designed to fly well above the ceiling of fighters such as the Mirage. At their operating altitude the Mirage would have fallen out of the sky without getting near.
I have been to RAF Wyton several times and been inside the PR9.
In addition, I have visited the Photo. Rec. unit and was shown a picture of a U-2 taken from above. The U-2 was flying at 65,000 feet and the PR9 was at 75,000 looking down at it. This pissed off the Americans no-end and resulted in the improved TR1 with bigger wings and more powerful engines.
I would also say that these flights had nothing to do with the Falklands War.
#149. Clyde
Mar 19th, 2015 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank for the post, informative as always.
#145 Briton
In my humble opinion, keeping your warships in port is not heroism, but instead taking risks at all costs to defeat your enemy, such as Admiral Sir Henry Harwood, a British naval officer who won fame in the Battle of the River Plate, and who's portrait hangs prominently at our naval academy. (Kapitän Langsdorff is also revered)
#147 Alberto
All Chileans are bitter and inadequate when someone mentions how we had the misfortune of not being born Argentinian. And yes in our frustration, we make magnificent military parades to compensate for our endless shame. Just the thought of our Leopard tanks up against your own ominous TAM tanks paralyzes us with fear...
Considering that the last time we conducted war was in 1883, we obviously are cowards... That's why the other motto (used by several other cowardly nations):
“Si vis pacem, para bellum” is referred constantly, to to justify all our cowardly accusations of F-16s, Hermes drones, Scorpène submarines, etc...
#148 Canadian village idiot
ok, you brilliantly win. Chile DID have two spy SR-71s that were being chased by several menacing Mirages a and due to our primitive radar coordination, became confused which resulted them into crashing. Fortunately, secret Gurkha commandos, disguised as penguins (they are consequently about the same height) recovered the wreckage before it could be discovered. Currently, of course, we abandoned the old SR-71 technology due to a lack of spare parts and embraced the SR-72c replacement, named the Aurora.
@ 150 Chicureo
Mar 19th, 2015 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Kapitän Langsdorff is also revered”
I am pleased that is the case.
He, the officers who tried to kill Hitler and the German Resistance who tried their best to confound the Nazi war machine from within are the only Germans worth mentioning, the rest are Nazi scum and completely devoid of honour.
@149
Mar 19th, 2015 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to be quite well informed so I suggest that you surf the web to find information about the mentioned incidents. It's not a mistery at all and there are plenty of information about them.
You might add information about the ongoing violation of chilean air space by argentine A4 and argentine air space by chilean planes during years 1977 and 1978. It's quite interesting.
@150
It's good beginning to stop being an ignorant to know that “something” happened...start looking for information about the incidents above mentioned.
Then you can make some resaerch about the ARA Sobral.
Then you can make some research about the several logistic ships that, over the surveillance of satellites, and the potential attack of nuclear submarines, helicopters, harriers and the whole RN, kept on supplying the argentine troops.
Finally, please, check the ships of the argentine navy at the time of the war.
With all these pieces of information, confortable and confident in front of the key board, think if you can write that the argentine sailors were cowars and you are the “brave” keyboard warrior...
@151
To the contrary of some argentine people I really feel sympathy for the chilean people. They suffered a terrible and bloody dictatorship, Augusto Pinochet, that scape the human law and the punnishment for his crimes thank you the support of the United Kingdom....there were no democracy or human rights promotion in Chile thanks to the United Kigdom justice and diplomatic service.
@152
Mar 19th, 2015 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's hard to keep up with all these violations of Argentine air space, but all I've been able to find about UK involvement in this outrage is the following :
“Argentina Heats Up Falklands Dispute
July 15, 2000
BUENOS AIRES -- Argentina accused British aircraft Friday of violating its airspace near the disputed Falkland Islands when the planes flew over Argentine ships fishing near the islands this week. Argentina, which calls the Falklands ”Malvinas,“ has claimed sovereignty over the remote islands since 1833 and went to war against Britain in 1982 to press its demand. The British Foreign Office in London rejected Argentina's assertion its aircraft violated Argentine airspace, and a spokeswoman there said the planes ”were at all times several miles within the Falklands' outer conservation zone.”
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/keyword/airspace/featured/4
and alternatively, this incident is only 5 years old, but it ended up with the official conclusion that there was no violation of Argentine air space at all.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/keyword/airspace/featured/4
Otherwise, apparently it's not just Brits and Chileans that have been up to no good in Argentine air space, but also secret Nazi UFOs. That's not really our business though.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/keyword/airspace/featured/4
@152 pgerman
Mar 19th, 2015 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“They suffered a terrible and bloody dictatorship, Augusto Pinochet, that scape the human law and the punnishment for his crimes thank you the support of the United Kingdom....there were no democracy or human rights promotion in Chile thanks to the United Kigdom justice and diplomatic service.”
I really don't understand what this means or what you intend it to mean. If you are suggesting that the United Kingdom interfered in the internal affairs of Chile then please supply your proof.
@152
Mar 19th, 2015 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A proof?...but don't you remember when Pinochet was determined by a request of the spanish judge Garzon but released by the UK justice under the “coverage” of been agonizing?
Do you remember that Maggie (the very same that seem to have a monument in the islands) supported him? she even had some public “nice” tea with him..who doesn't want to have a nice tea with Augusto Pinochet?...he was such a nice person....I suppose they discussed about the promotion of the democracy and human rights in the world....
@153
Two Typhoons and they refueling craft flew over Tierra del Fuego without asking for the green-light...would you accept one “tour” of the argentine air force over Port Stanley?
#152 Canadian Village Idiot
Mar 19th, 2015 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Speaking of Argentine naval cowardice, during the Falklands War, the ARA Alferez Sobral viciously attacked two Royal Navy helicopters that were on a rescue mission searching for the crew of a downed Argentinian aircraft, upon which the helicopters returned fire as self defense. The warship then retreated to cowardly hide in port for the rest of the conflict. Then of course, they blamed the Royal Navy for attacking them.
You posted “...please, check the ships of the argentine navy at the time of the war...” That's fairly easy: They were cowardly hiding in port along with your aircraft carrier, because they we afraid to be put to the bottom of the South Atlantic...
You have this bizarre obsession with airspace violations and I should mention something nice about your countrymen. The Argentine air forces have not violated Chile's frontier in a long period of time. (Perhaps because only a few are mechanically capable to fly over the Andes, but that's only speculation that they can even get off the ground...)
Yes, poor Chile, unfortunately we have had to suffer under the oppression of full and free democracy since 1990. A completely independent and stable central bank since 1976. A free and open economy since 1974. Liberated from a Marxist-Communist nightmare since September 11, 1973.
(Yes, I do my historical research in the same manner as most Argentines...)
@155
Mar 19th, 2015 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If that is the 2010 “incident” you are referring to, that is completely false. From the article I posted above :
”the Defense Ministry clarified the situation through a statement: “Three aircraft of the Royal Air Force based in the Falkland Islands had to land at Punta Arenas (Chile) due to weather reasons, the airport in Falklands was closed for the entire operation.
Consequently, the control of the armed forces in Comodoro Rivadavia “authorized the path to the destination aerodrome, in which way [the British aircraft] flew from the island of Tierra del Fuego,” the statement said.
The authorization for the flight met the established by the International Civil Aviation Organization
Therefore, for “emergency situations” the “priority for flights and landing of aircraft when they should be directed to alternate aerodromes” and therefore, the statement concludes that “no violation of national airspace.”
Move along, move along, nothing to see here, it seems. Or have you got something better?
Only 156,
Mar 19th, 2015 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we need to do better than this,
one is surprised paulie and think tank has not contributed,
still,
will their be a next time,
will Argentina find anything that floats,
will she buy Chinese fighter planes and play hooky,
will CFK give up power that easily,
loads of wills but no tyres....lol
#158 Briton
Mar 19th, 2015 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh indeed, but the trolls love to invent the bravery and sacrifice given by their courageous crusade to recover their sacred and mythical Islas Malvinas, where unicorns graze with the penguins and the Falkland land squatters need to be repatriated 8,500 miles back to where they belong. Sorry about my passion and Señor Think would certainly be a more worthy debater over this mindless intellectually challenged Canadian follower of Maximo...
Argentina is finding “anything that floats” such as those Russian rust buckets they just acquired along with adopting the new philosophy of anything that flys...
Finally a personal comment. The following day after the announced death of Baroness Thatcher, I went to the British Embassy to sign a book of condolences. My wife and I had to wait an hour and forty minutes because if all the people in line. The support of the United Kingdom to our small nation, including when the Baroness visiting General Pinochet during his detainment was deeply appreciated here.
@157
Mar 19th, 2015 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please, don't be cinic...
Let me see if I understand...are you using Minister Puricelli words as a proof that the argentine government had given them the green-light? are you saying that either him or Rossi are trustworthy people?
Please, check the real information. Some private radios listened the “inner” comunications of the british planes (basically the conversations of the pilots) and urgently informed the goverment of the province and the air force....please, the argentine government surprised by the fact that these planes were discovered by common people told the press, some days later, that “we knew they were there”.
If your version were the real one and they really had trouble landing in the FI they would ask for a landing in argentine runways. There are internacional airports in Ushuaia and Rio Grande (in the argentine zone of Tierra del Fuego).
Why would they go to Punta Arenas (in Chile) if they were in an emergency? Punta Arenas is further away than Ushuaia or Rio Gallegos.
@155 pgerman
Mar 19th, 2015 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to be totally misinformed. Pinochet was under house arrest during the entire time that he was in the UK under threat from indictment by Balthazar Garzon, the former Spanish Judge now totally discredited and presently representing Julian Assage. Assange, of course, is the suspected sex offender in Sweden who has been given asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London under a strange asylum law only legal in Latin America and not valid elsewhere.
Of course, during General Pinochet's confinement in the UK he was visited by Mrs Thatcher and other notable British citizens due to the assistance given by Chile during the period of the armed conflict caused by the illegal invasion of the Falklands/Malvnas archipelago by Argentina in 1982.
You are a “nabo”! You clearly have no idea what you are talking about!
@160
Mar 19th, 2015 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You don't think Puricelli and/or Rossi and/or CFK would have seized upon such a gross British outrage, etc, etc, to bang the drum of victimhood?
And seriously, is this all you've got to be wringing your hands over? A murky conspiracy theory over one minor incident five years ago, which has been explicitly discounted by the Argentine Air Force?
You'd be better off with the Nazi UFOs.
# 160 village idiot
Mar 19th, 2015 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's see, if I were a Royal Air Force pilot with the option of landing at an Argentine airport, or flying a bit further to set down at Punta Arenas, where Chileans have a long history of cordial relations with the United Kingdom...
Tough decision...
There was an article in Spanish published in a military paper here on how the pilots were fraternally greeted by the Chilean Air Force and given “full courtesies”. The jets were carefully guarded and were properly refueled during the stay. I'm sure your government would have done the same thing.
@162 HansNiesund
Mar 19th, 2015 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He says he is in Canada - I wonder what class of accommodation he has? Perhaps he is confined in some special medical institution as some of his theories/accusations seem to be the invention of a very dubious thought process!
Gordo
Mar 19th, 2015 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually our little village idiot resides in Never Never Land, where dreams of doing something significant, such as learning basic English grammar and spelling.
@160 It wasn't an emergency, it was simply choosing an alternative airport... a common enough event.
Mar 19th, 2015 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why not land in RGland?.... 'cos Gollum and his goons would have stripped the aircraft in 5 minutes flat is why. Remember what they did to the USAF aircraft in BA?
Villiage Idiot
Mar 19th, 2015 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By your silence, I easily assume you admit the Argentine naval cowardice of the ARA Alferez Sobral and it's shameful false accusation against the Royal Navy helicopters defending themselves. Thank you for admitting their guilt.
Now if we could address the cowardly mistreatment of your own soldiers, who were poorly equipped, under fed and housed with marginal rations and had virtually no competent officer supervision. (Did you know that the British actually court marshal their own commanding officers for this crime?)
Here's my suggestion: embrace reality and understand that history belongs to the victors. Argentina miserably lost. The only way that the Falklands might possibly belong to Argentina in the future, would be because of the Islanders voting to do so, which is ridiculous.
Finally, You keep on ranting about Pinochet. If you were a countryman, I would easily agree that you had the right to complain. However, an Argentine needs to not even consider discussing the issue as your own Jorge Videla and his successors were responsible for 20,000 to 30,000 slaughtered.
#166 Frank
That ignorant stunt caused permanent damage to the relations between Washington DC and Buenos Aires. Former Secretary of State Clinton actually commented that CFK was mentally unstable. Relations have been cool since.
#160
Mar 19th, 2015 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This incident seems very peculiar to me.
For a start, the RAF does NOT and has never flown DC-10's.
I presume they mean VC-10K's. Why two of these aircraft were escorting a ship is fanciful in the least.
If they were VC-10's they would have had the range to reach Santiago without a problem. If they were Tornado F.3's they have a combat range of 1,000 miles and were in no danger of running out of fuel.
In either case if the Falklands were closed, they were in no immediate danger but only needed a diversionary airfield. In this case they chose a friendly airfield rather than land in Argentina with all the ramifications of having to deal with an unfriendly country.
#168 Clyde
Mar 19th, 2015 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Chilean 3rd Air Brigade with headquarters at the Base Aérea El Tepual in Puerto Montt published an article in their newsletter details of the RAF arrival.
In brief, they were treated very well, which is no surprise because Chilean personnel have always been treated with great respect and hospitality when visiting UK facilities. The American Marines have a saying: “No greater friend, no worse enemy” which describe your armed forces as well.
There is a wonderful story, that cannot be published, about joint training exercises with the SAS and Chile. During their stay, the Chilean commandos were not allowed to pay for any drinks at the nearby pubs and were treated as close brothers. I'm sure it's a part of public relations, but it became well known by our personnel here. The USAF does something similar when our F-16 pilots train in Nevada, but far minor.
Chicureo: One day it will be revealed that Chile was promised the Patagonia in return for helping the Brits in the Malvinas War, and when that day comes it will be revealed that the Chilean Navy was too afraid to set out to sea. The Chileans are all talk and no action, proof is the Malvinas War, when the Chilean Armed Forces became paralyzed with fear. The Chilean Army motto is “Siempre Vncedor y Jamás Vencido”, yeah right! Even the poorly armed Peruvian guerrillas defeated the pathetic Chileans, booting the cream of the Chilean Army out of Lima. ¡Malvinas Volveremos!
Mar 20th, 2015 - 04:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0@170 Alberto Bertorelli(In the city where I live we have the good fortune of the availability of delicious Italian ice cream called Bertorelli, any relation?)
Mar 20th, 2015 - 06:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0What you have posted “The Chileans are all talk and no action, proof is the Malvinas War, when the Chilean Armed Forces became paralyzed with fear.” is juvenile nonsense as there was no Chilean involvement in the Falklands(NB) conflict which would have meant any direct confrontation with Argentina.
As far as “¡Malvinas Volvermos!” is concerned you know as well as all the other trolls that is NEVER going to happen.
@170
Mar 20th, 2015 - 07:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0“One day it will be revealed that Chile was promised the Patagonia in return for helping the Brits in the Malvinas War”
And how exactly was this territorial transfer supposed to come about? And why didn't it happen, considering the rout of the Argentine Armed Forces?
For the trolls
Mar 20th, 2015 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands archipelago should ONLY be referred to as MALVINAS when using the Spanish language. If you wish when using English you may refer to the archipelago as FALKLANDS/MALVINAS.
This usage is approved by the United Nations.
#171 Gordo
Mar 20th, 2015 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Did you know that the Sicilian word bertorelli, means figlio di puttana in Italian?
Fun bit of trivia.
#171 figlio di puttana
Chile would have happily taken over Patagonia, but it was already over populated with luridi branco di cani bastardi, like yourself and the figlio d’un cane who calls himself Pgerman. I personally like Italy, it's food and certainly the people, but for an Argentine of Italian heritage to accuse a Chilean of cowardice is hilarious!
Additionally for one nation to re-conquer lands that were once held by one nation over a hundred years ago without the desire of its residents would be an act of an evil regime, like that of Mussolini...
@174 Chicureo
Mar 20th, 2015 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Shekoo 0r baboo would be nicer! Both Sicilian dialect words!
(Where are you located? If you are in Chile you must be out of bed VERY early!)
Saludos.
Buenos días Gordo,
Mar 20th, 2015 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, it's not yet 6AM. I'm currently at my pied-à-terre here in Viña del Mar, enjoying the ocean air and getting ready to attend a very boring conference later this morning in Valparaiso. Where are you right now?
The reason that the two fighters and the VC10 flew to Punta Arenas when MPA closed is because it is the OFFICIAL alternate airport for MPA!!!!!!
Mar 20th, 2015 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In case you have any questions ask:
1) the MoD.
2) LAN Chile
Gordo
Mar 20th, 2015 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In my post of #174
I erroneously noted:
“#171 figlio di puttana”
That should have been instead:
#170 figlio di puttana
My sincere apologies to you and your mother.
@178 Chicureo
Mar 20th, 2015 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I hadn't even noticed as I automatically assumed that you were greeting the ice cream man and his mother, not me!
@176 Chicuero
Being a Navy man, as I was at one time(a long time ago), you may have visited the city where I live in the UK. Just think of the home of the RoyaL Navy and you will be spot on!
@HansNiesund
Mar 20th, 2015 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't want to keep on posting much about this article simply because of people such a “chicureo”. An ignorant, arrogant and ofensive person that read, and know, nothing about the war.
What's the point of discussing with someone that taking advantage of anonymity and distance write offensive comments?...on top of everything acusing others of being “cowards”.
It's terribly sad to read “I went to the british embassy when Maggie died”....it's completely without any selfsteem...he is an “apple polisher”...a “goodie goodie”...“jefecito.... jefecito !!...yo estuve ahi..ehhh...sepan que estuve ahi”.
In addition, “chicuero” doesn't understand that for the Islanders the help of Pinochet goes against their propaganda of being a small and highly democratic society threatened by a fascist country. He does not realize that he is screwing it up....
You are being cinic....I considered (and all in Argentina considered too) that the British planes were testing the alerts in TDF and also sending a message to the Argentine Goverment that reacted in the most childish way “we know they were there” that sounded like my nephe's comments when he gets punnished: “it did not feel hurt !!!”
Just consider that having british warplanes flying over argentine territory (for us) is EXACTLY the very same as having argentine planes flying over Port Stanley for you. EXACTLY THE VERY SAME
In addition it is another proof that Argentina can live and go on without the Islands but it seems that the Islands (and the british militars) cannot live in the region without the continent...sooner or later they end in Argentina...as it has algways been.
Gordo
Mar 20th, 2015 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've been fortunate to visit your island city a few times. I spent hours and hours walking the docks with a special access visitor pass at HMNB ogling the ships.
Did you serve on any vessels? Most of my career, both active and in reserves, has been behind a desk, but I have had the honor of few cruises.
Cheers!
Did you visit the Mary Rose exhibition? Absolutely marvellous. And. of course, Admiral Nelson's flagship.
Mar 20th, 2015 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@180 pgerman
Mar 20th, 2015 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As Simon68 points out, Puntas Arenas is the official alternate airport for MPA, and as the Argentine Air Force points out, permission to enter Argentine air space was both asked for and granted due to meteorological conditions, as is only reasonable, courteous, and indeed professional.
You contend on the other hand that the Argentine Air Force didn't even know the planes were there until informed by ham radio operators, which only raises questions in my mind as to the kind of radar facilities or other means of locating aircraft available to the Argentine ham radio community?
Chicureo certainly doesn't need me to defend to him, but in my opinion he is one of the most gentlemanly and knowledgeable posters on here. If he's insulted you, you ought to consider to what extent you brought that upon yourself.
It's not propaganda that the islanders are a small and highly democratic threatened by a fascist country. In 1982 as we know, it is a fact that they were actually invaded by a fascist country. In 2015, as we also know, they are threatened by a populist demagoguery that rejects any application of the principles of law, democracy, or human rights in pursuit of its territorial ambitions in the South Atlantic, ostensibly on the grounds that some claimed principle of colonial inheritance two centuries old allows it to seize territory regardless of the inhabitants. This isn't fascism in a literal sense, but it's certainly a close relative.
I am no admirer of Pinochet, myself, but his crimes weren't on the scale of the Argentine junta, and at least had the merit of not invading us. But when you're forced into a war, you have to win, and take help where you can find it.
#182 Gord
Mar 20th, 2015 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Mary Rose exhibit was not open, but I did tour the HMS Warrior. The port museum was incredible. I had the great fortune as a reserve officer to have been assigned for training at the BRNC in Dartmouth and the HMS Ferret in Bedford. Chilean naval uniforms are virtually indistinguishable from RN equivalents except rank insignia, etc... so it was easy to blend right in.
#183 Hans
Thank you for your kind words, the feeling is sincerely mutual, although some of my posts here have been below the dignity of a gentleman...
Your excellent synopsis of the Falklands is very well written. Brilliant actually...
It must of been hilarious when Argentine air defense was being informed by a ham radio operator that their airspace was being overflown by RAF fighters.
#180
Mar 20th, 2015 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am trying to be even handed here. Correct me if I am wrong.
Are you saying that RAF aircraft breached Argentinian airspace without authority on their way to Punta Arenas ?
The story is that the Falklands were clouded out and the airfield closed. We are told that the Argentinian authorities were contacted and permitted transit over their airspace. The RAF aircraft transited to Chilean airspace where they landed.
1) What were the aircraft involved.
2) Where did they enter and leave Argentinian airspace.
3) If they were picked up by amateurs they must have been using military band scanners from either VHF or UHF signals. What were the aircraft's call signs.
A VC-10 would most likely be using ASCOT, Typhoons vary theirs.
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06/04/falklands-thick-fog-forces-two-raf-typhoons-and-tanker-to-land-in-punta-arenas
This is the story. Is it incorrect ?
”You are being cinic....I considered (and all in Argentina considered too) that the British planes were testing the alerts in TDF and also sending a message to the Argentine Goverment that reacted in the most childish way “we know they were there”
Are you saying that your government is lying and that permission was not requested nor granted. Surely then there would have been an international incident with the UK Ambassador being called in to explain.
Are you also saying that incursions into Argentine airspace continues ?
If so, what is your evidence other than anecdotes or blogs.
I have also heard that Argentine military flights probe the Falklands airspace but again, this is anecdotal.
@183
Mar 20th, 2015 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At this point I ask myself if you can make the efford to understand other's point of view. I understand Islanders oponion and believes. This is one of the reasons why I feel a certain sympathy for them.
It is surprising that, in this case, you consider the opinion of the argentine government as the right one. Try to extend this thought to other opinion of official comunications.
There is no reason why three planes under emergency made a longer trip to Chile instead of landing in Ushuaia or R Grande based on the events that happened when the HMS Endurance doked in Puerto Belgrano during year 2006 (Argentina was ruled by the same people as now). It was quite clear a way of threatening and testing TDF.
In addition, we all of us know that, due to the distances of the Patagonia, there are no AWACs radars in TDF not even a regular radar to identify planes. Just the short lenght radars in the airports of Ushuaia and R Grande. That was one of the issues that arised after this event that the argentine government covered by “we knew they were there”.
The lack of radars in the Patagonia is similar to the lack of capability to identify and stop the operations of the argentine submarines that, based on the saying of some islanders, bring navy commandos to the FI beaches.
I now that you consider the RAF planes a proof of your freedom, liberty, democracy, bla.. bla.. bla...but consider that having british warplanes flying over argentine territory (for us) is EXACTLY the very same as having argentine planes flying over Port Stanley for you. EXACTLY THE VERY SAME
I know that you have the basic thought that “we are the good boys they are the bad boys” so it has no sense to keep on insisting in this idea.
Finally, you had no idea of the crimes of Pinochet, and his henchmen, you must read a little about him.
It sad to read the cowards and lacking self-esteem coments of Chicureo. It would be dissapointing to know that the navy of my country had people like him.
#185 Clyde
Mar 20th, 2015 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well presented and very balanced questions. We do know for a fact of the RAF diversion to Punta Arenas. We also know of the courtesies and respect that Argentines extend to foreign military aircraft. (Just make an inquiry to the USAF.)
#186 Pgerman
Since you claim that you are an Argentinian who now resides in Canada, I suggest you write a letter directly to the Canadian Head of State. If you have Canadian citizenship you know that naturalized citizens have to pledge allegiance an elderly lady who spends a great deal of her summers in a damp castle in Scotland.
It's also helpful because those jets that overflew Argentine territory exclusively belong to her. So, get out a pencil and paper and write a letter of protest (Please try to be careful and mind your manners as she is your Monarch, and you are her subject, otherwise the RCMP might break down your door one night.)
Try to fit a few nice comments about her most recent great-grandchild and it would be helpful not to write something like: ”...the last overflight of your menacing fighters caused many of my countrymen to become hysterical and frightened... One thing is absolutely certain, she has nothing but disdain for cowardice.
It also might not me a good idea to mention the cowardice of the ARA Alferez Sobral and it's shameful false accusation against the Royal Navy helicopters defending themselves since one of her sons was a pilot of a Royal Navy helicopter during the Falklands War...
When your finished, fold the letter into three equal sections, place it in an envelope, and address it: “Her Majesty the Queen, Buckingham Palace, London SW1A 1AA, United Kingdom.”
Best of luck!
By the way, if you're an illegal immigrant, you should know the Queen is Canada's Head of State because Canada is a constitutional monarchy. The way your government is structured, the Queen is the most powerful person in the Nation. Therefore, citizens have to pledge allegiance to the Queen.
Do you seriously think that any RAF aircraft landing in Ushuaia or R.Grande would be safe from a hostile public or even local authorities. Look a the venom spoken against us by the fine citizens of Ushuaia.
Mar 20th, 2015 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I ask again, where did these aircraft enter Argentinian airspace and what information do you think they were trying to collect, considering that there are no military radars or virtually anything of importance that could not be seen by satellites. Could it not just be the obvious that they wanted to land in a friendly country to avoid complications.
If an Argentine military aircraft was in trouble and needed to land in the Falklands,I am sure permission would be granted.
I have photographed Argentinian C-130's at my local airport at Prestwick in the past 10 years. They made overnight refueling stops and did not cause any media fuss !
I think you are reading a conspiracy theory where none exists.
@187
Mar 20th, 2015 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are so basic.
It's quite clear that you are just another nazi latam militar. The typical Aryan fans with dark and thick (as wires) hair that go to the catholic church every Sunday to pray and get releive from your sins.
I live in Canada with permanent residence visa and I love this people and their country. I invite you, I challenge you, to find a single comment against the Crown, the British culture or the United Kigdom. TRY TO FIND ONE COMMENT AGAINST THE CROWN....
I live in Canada and I visited Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore and I know the value of the British Culture. I admire it and I like it a lot.
This is not related to the fact that I have my point of view regarding the FI or the Chagos Island. But I don't expect a single elavorated thing from you (being a fun of a bloody nazi as Pinochet).
It was said the Pinochet was an apple polisher of Salvador Allende until he decided to betray him so you might copied you beloved killing general's maners.
TG Chile and Argentina were founded by free-masons so they more in common that you might suspect. The chilean flag has masonic (symbols as the argentine one).
If you want to be so apple polisher of the FI people try not to relate them with Pinochet who was not weel considered during his time. he was just another “General Matanza” of the Latam Armies of his time.
fade away ignorant !!
Just remember the way Jeremy Clarkson was “set up” in Patagonia not too long ago. If these British aircraft had not chosen to seek safety and better hospitality in Chile what might have happened to them in Patagonia?
Mar 20th, 2015 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@184 Chicuero. I failed to answer one of your questions. Yes, I did serve in the Royal Navy - servicio militar - for two years and was involved(in a very minor way) in the Anglo-French invasion of the Suez Canal.
@190
Mar 20th, 2015 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you remember when the HMS Endurance doked in Puerto Belgrano during year 2006 (while Argentina was ruled by the same people as now)?
Why don't you explain to us, in your own words, the events at that time?
mercopress 07.04.2006
Mar 20th, 2015 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Support for HMS Endurance was provided “in the framework of obligations established by the International Maritime Organization” which must be offered by Argentina and “executed, and under the control of the Argentine Navy”, said an official release from the Argentine Navy.
”This refers to safety in the sea, free navigation and support to any vessel from the national or international community sailing in the South Atlantic under the (Argentine) area of Search and Rescue responsibility”.
HMS Endurance 25 days in dry dock had a big display in the Argentine press which highlighted it was the first time a British flagged vessel visited Puerto Belgrano since 1982. They also recalled that the Argentine garrison that had taken South Georgia during the South Atlantic conflict later surrendered to the British Task Force on board the Ice Patrol Ship which was also named Endurance.
What more do you expect me to say, nabo?
@192
Mar 20th, 2015 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“nabo?”..another offended person?
Your post is enought. Thank you.
187
Mar 20th, 2015 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing damp about Balmoral Castle...I'll have you know...
...and last summer was a scorcher...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Balmoral_Castle_in_Scotland.jpg
@186
Mar 20th, 2015 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's got nothing to do with who said what. It's a question of what you're expecting me to believe. I'm wondering how, for example, if the Argentine Air Force didn't have radars capable of detecting these aircraft, ham radio operators apparently did? Either that, or they had sufficient direction finding capability to identify the location inside Argentine air space of an aircraft from its radio transmissions? How exactly did they pull that one off? Triangulation? How many were involved, and how did they coordinate with each other?
@195
Mar 20th, 2015 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HansNiesund, check the web in the argentine newspaper. In La Nacion, Clarin or Buenos AIres Herald that cannot be considered pro-government media. The conversations of the british planes were first listened by radio operators located in TDF who alerted the authorities that something was going on. But you can trust the Defense Minister and Argentine Goverment if you prefer....I take note for future discussions...
#118 Clyde
Mar 20th, 2015 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm certain the Ushuaia and Rio Grande authorities would roll out the red carpet just like they would for Jeremy Clarkson. #186 seems preoccupied about the additional distance to Punta Arenas, but he forgets that the Chileans refuel with uncontaminated Jet-A fuel and they won't end up with a case of food poisoning at dinner.
#190 Gordo
Well that's impressive. The Anglo-French invasion of the Suez Canal, wow you really did serve some time ago... Turning point in world history. When I return to Santiago, I'll read about it. I watched a documentary about Aristotle Onassis who was stuck with a glut of newly constructed oil tankers and was about to go bankrupt. Then the Suez Canal was closed and he eventually became one of the wealthiest men in the world.
By the way, what's wrong with our boy here?
He's all wound up about reciprocal overflying of the Falklands, but there
are few Argentine military aircraft that are airworthy right now to fly over Mount Pleasant... also, unlike Argentina, the aircraft would be lit up with RAF active radar far beyond the horizon. It would scare the hell out of me...
He also mentions Argentinian submarines patrolling in Falklands waters, but I know for absolute fact that all three of their submarines are unfit for submersion.
Perhaps it's all related to the mythical Malvinas patriotic war fantasy that the Argentine Navy and Army acted honorably and heroically when the truth is they we're shameful cowards. (The ARA Alferez Sobral is a perfect example.) The truth actually was that the navy kept their most powerful warships in port as they were afraid of them being sent to the bottom of the Atlantic.
@196
Mar 20th, 2015 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've read these earlier, and they don't answer my question. Which is nonetheless really quite simple. How were ham radio operators able to detect the aircraft were inside Argentine air space?
@1980
Mar 20th, 2015 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why would newspapers and TV informatives invent a different story from the “official” one?
Anway, you can trust the Defense Minister and Argentine Goverment if you prefer but I take note for future discussions...I don't want to see your writtings that they are liars and dishonest people.
@196 pgerman
Mar 20th, 2015 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem a bit out of date. The Buenos Aires Herald was recently acquired by a group very close to la Kretina viz. Sebastián Lacunza replaces Carolina Barros as Editor-in-chief in May as more journalists and columnists from a wide range of views join the Herald. Lacunza had worked as a journalist since 1998 mostly in Ámbito Financiero newspaper and served as a correspondent for foreign media.
(from Buenos Aires Herald)
@199
Mar 20th, 2015 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's got nothing to do with the credibility of the Defence Minister or the Argentine government. Your whole conspiracy theory hinges on the claim that ham radio operators detected British aircraft inside Argentine air space. I'm just asking how they did that. If you can't answer that, the application of Occam's razor suggests that your conspiracy theory is even less credible than the explanation put forward by proven crooks and liars.
#194 Voice
Mar 20th, 2015 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the correction.
#198 Hans
Excellent question to someone incapable of answering. Almost like check mating your opponent in 5 moves.
Whatever you do, please don't write anything questioning the honesty of “the Defense Minister and Argentine Goverment” because everyone already knows they are both incapable of being truthful and you would only be redundant.
@201
Mar 20th, 2015 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You know that I am engineer but not in this field. I could make some research about the issue but it will quite time consuming. In addition nobody have ever said that the people could localize the planes. But it is quite clear that you are trying to find something that is a “proof” of the lie.
Argentine government comunications are “lies” everysingle time we decide or we prefer....
I mus not forget that you have the basic thought that “we are the good boys they are the bad ones”.....we could be the bad guys in a 007 movie.
Excuse me, but this is just basic logic. If the ham radio operators hadn't identified an unauthorised incursion into Argentine air space, then there is no basis to the accusation that an unauthorised incursion into Argentine air space was being covered up, since there is no evidence of any unauthorised incursion into Argentine air space to be covered up in the first place.
Mar 20th, 2015 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, but I find it really weird that you are so eager for the status of victim, that you conjure it up for yourselves on the basis of pretexts as flimsy as this.
This would be the case whatever the composition of the Argentine government.
#204 Hans
Mar 20th, 2015 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0¡jaque mate!
Sort of an extended version of “fools mate” Congratulations!
Meanwhile, HMS Conqueror alive and well,
Mar 20th, 2015 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and being looked after in retirement,
the belgrano apparently is still in port,
if you believe the argies who claim to have sunk our carrier 4 or was it 5 times....lol
The Argentines have “Nuestra Señora de las Malvinas” to remind them of their abject failure in 1982 (and ever since) and we have our national monument in the form of HMS Conqueror to remind us of our victory and the fact that the Falkland Islands and their inhabitants remain part of the UK family of nations.
Mar 20th, 2015 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hear hear....
Mar 20th, 2015 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As usual pgerman makes accusations that he can't back up. Always trying to play the victim.
Mar 20th, 2015 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well pgerman you aren't the victim, and neither is Argentina.
Next you'll be saying that the British tricked Argentina into invading in 1982. That was one of the 'conspiracies' being put forwards on this forum only a couple of years ago.
Face it, pgerman, Argentina LOST. You LOST. You LOST the chance of EVER gaining the Falklands.
You have no historic right to the Falkland Islands.
You have no legal right to the Falkland Islands.
You have no moral right to the Falkland Islands.
All YOU want to do is steal someone else's homes and land in the vain hope that all of your problems with magically disappear.
Well they won't. You'll just infect any new territory you could gain with the disease of corruption and dishonesty.
Well pgerman, you and your thieving Malvinista chums will never get your thieving, lying grubby hands on the Falkland Islands.
Nearly 1000 people died because of Argentine lies, Argentine greed, and an attempt by Argentina to build its own empire.
You call people names because the British accepted the help of Chile under Pinochet, yet it is YOU that supported the Junta, its aims, and you STILL support the Junta and its aims today, right now.
It is you that should be ashamed of yourself for coveting other people's homes and land. But you will never get your thieving hands on them.
If you have a case, take it to the International Court of Justice. But none of the lies you can make up can EVER trump the right to self-determination, and THAT is why you and your corrupt society are so angry. Because you know that you are LOSERS. You know that you are IMPOTENT. And you know that you will NEVER gain sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
And every second, minute, day, week, month and year that passes only strengthens the Falkland Islanders position and weakens Argentina's already pathetically weak claims.
It's about time you grew up.
LEPRecon
Mar 20th, 2015 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well said!
209 LEPRecon
Mar 20th, 2015 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a wonderful post; you hit the ball right out of the park.
It's too bad we didn't have a 2 Para from the Goose Green white flag cowardice to confront pgerman with his shame...
Mar 21st, 2015 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Chicureo: Wrong again!, it was the British that raised the white flag at Goose Green, during the fighting near the airfield:
Mar 21st, 2015 - 03:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Two EAM companies then came under command of C/RI 25 as fighting developed around the schoolhouse. It decreased when three British personnel approached holding a white flag, and asked the astonished Argentinian defenders to surrender, which was turned down. ”
(Argentine Forces in the Falklands, Nick van der Bijl, Page 19, Osprey Publishing, 20 Jun 2012)
If I remember well, either Vincent Bramley in EXCURSION TO HELL or the authors of GREEN EYED BOYS: 3 PARA & THE BATTLE FOR MOUNT LONGDON, Christian Jennings, Adrian Weale, support the Argentine claim that says the British produced the white flag in the so-called “white flag incident”.
@213
Mar 21st, 2015 - 04:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't waste your time with a person whitout self-steem. I was tempted to mention that his acusations of cowardy to argentine soldiers don´t have any historical basement taking into account the very few incidents between both armies (Chilean and Argentine) but it would be a lack of respect to other nice chilean people that could read this post. So forget him, he is just a “lameculos”.
@204
Don't pretend that you have the logic. It has plenty of logic what does not have any logic is that you believe in Rossi (or Puricelli's comments). Your are, as usual trying to twist facts that were quite simple. The typhoons violated the argentine air space to check if they were discovered. If they were discovered the argentine government will have it's message. It is quite clear.
You cannot explain to us why the press would “invent” this story. You were not able to express why the three planes went to Chile instead of landing in argentine territory. based on recent antecedents it would not be an issue at all.
Anyway, I have the very same message as the inhabitants of TDF (which is also applicable to 209 post). The UK is a great country and I love it's culture but stay away from Argentina territory, territorial waters and air space. Argentina can live without any contact with the FI so try to do the very same. If your ships, or planes, are in trouble....solve your problems on your own. You are not wellcome in the South.
Changing topics...have you been checking the information that a close relative of the British Embassy in Buenos Aires works in the Defense Ministry of Argentina? She is a UK citizen....could you belive?...a UK citizen working in the Defense Ministry of a fascist country. Another point to CFK....
@213 & 214
Mar 21st, 2015 - 06:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0What a pair of sorry losers!
The “white” flag is NOT a flag of surrender - it is an indication of a temporary cessation of hostilities for a purpose. In the example of Goose Green - “It decreased when three British personnel approached holding a white flag, and asked the astonished Argentinian defenders to surrender, which was turned down.”
@214 Your final paragraph - is this a rumour? Do share your source of this information!
@214
Mar 21st, 2015 - 07:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0So far, your only evidence that an unauthorised incursion occurred, is that the Argentine Air Force said it didn't.
I'd have to admit there's a certain level of plausibility to that contention, but just for a second, let's consider the question from the point of view of the dastardly Brits.
Let's suppose I'm a dastardly Brit commander, and I've been given the dastardly mission of testing Argentine air defences. What exactly am I doing sending three dastardly aircraft into an area where I almost certainly know there is no long range radar already? I'm not going to learn anything, and I'm not going to scare anybody if nobody knows I'm there. Unless of course I'm relying on these miraculous ham radio operators with their miraculous radar and/or direction finding capability. But that would be rather foolhardy, given the sheer implausibility of any such scenario.
And then what am I doing sending three dastardly aircraft to the same place? Three dastardly aircraft aren't going to tell me any more than one dastardly aircraft is going to tell me, and I am at risk of getting my dastardly arse kicked by my dastardly commander for flagrant waste of materiel, even assuming that the dastardly mission planners would ever sign off on any such waste in the first place.
So if it was me, and I had three dastardly aircraft at my disposal for my dastardly purposes, I'd be more inclined to send them to three different places. One over Ushaia, maybe, one over BsAs and maybe one over Rio Gallegos. Now that would really light the place up, and the ensuing screeching would at least give me something to cackle about whilst twirling my moustaches in dastardly manner.
But at the end of the day, I wouldn't know a damn thing I didn't know before, and neither would the Argentine Air Force.
Or on the other hand, could it just be possible that a flight unable to land at MPA diverted to the official alternate airport?
@216 HansNiesund(and boomtiay)
Mar 21st, 2015 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Quite! Should be the end of debate!
@217
Mar 21st, 2015 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks. This thread has been richer than most for outlandish Anglophobic and Chileanophobic conspiracy theories, and pgerman's wasn't even the siliest.
@214 pgerman
Are you referring by any chance to Dr. Laura Natalia Federman, born in London, and in 2011 appointed Program Director of National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, in the secretariat of Strategy and Military Affairs Ministry of Defense?
http://www.lanueva.com/sociedad-impresa/428295/un-curioso-nombramiento-en-el-gobierno-nacional.html
It's rather hard to see how Argentina's national security was threatened by any such appointment, or indeed how an appointment in human rights amounts to the UK supporting fascism.
Hans and Gordo
Mar 21st, 2015 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now this really is a perfect example of the Argentine mendacious character and he's brought along a friend to promote their filthy duplicitous Peronist propaganda about the mythical land of unicorns, also known as las Malvinas. Gordo, You probably remember that the Sicilian word bertorelli, means figlio di puttana in Italian, correct?
There are hundreds (yes hundreds) of written accounts ( including from Argentine soldiers) of the infamous and most cowardly act of the Argentine military, of which I submit one account:
“Finally, a white flag appeared at the schoolhouse, and our platoon commander and two others went forward to take the surrender. As they approached, the enemy shot them dead.
We all stared in disbelief. Then, I have to admit, we went nuts. We jumped up as one and opened up with machine guns, a rocket and grenades. By the time we’d finished, the building had been obliterated and dozens of them were dead.”
In the same dialogue it reveals the terrible mistreatment of of Argentine soldiers by their commanders:
“Soon after, the rest surrendered, and the battle for Goose Green was over....
They were clearly undernourished, despite the plentiful food stockpiles that we found. They had endured tough treatment at the hands of their own officers, who had starved them and kept the best rations for themselves. They were barely trained and had just been told to dig in and hold their positions. Now they were just glad it was all over. They had not been up for the fight, and we heard stories that their own special forces had executed those who tried to desert. We looked after them better than their own people did.”
Source http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109429/A-dirty-war-British-soldiers-shot-dead-enemy-troops-waving-white-flag-Argentinian-prisoners-bayoneted-cold-blood-An-ex-Para-tells-horrors-Falklands.html#ixzz3V0mnsoij
As I've said all along, with the exception of their pilots and a few others, the Argentines were (and currently
@219 Chicureo
Mar 21st, 2015 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please continue.
#220. Thanks LEPRecon
Mar 21st, 2015 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I've said all along, with the exception of their FI War pilots and a few others, the Argentines were (and currently are) COWARDS!
Another excerpt from the article:
“Later that day a white flag was flying over the Falklands capital...
I was shocked by the state it was in. Stinking corpses were lying in the streets and the place was filthy, with human excrement and garbage everywhere.
Anti-aircraft guns had been installed in the school playground, and the Argentinians had painted red crosses on their ammunition stores and officers’ billets. That disgusted us even more than the mess...”
Red Crosses on military facilities is strictly condemned by the Geneva Convention and displays the contemptible lack of courage of the Argentine officers.
Here is a video testimony as well about the white flag Argentine cowardice: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=78d_1332450586&comments=1
@221 Chicureo
Mar 21st, 2015 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Red Crosses on military facilities is strictly condemned by the Geneva Convention and displays the contemptible lack of courage of the Argentine officers.” Not only lack of courage but an ARROGANT and ABJECT lack of respect for international customs and/or laws.
Gordo
Mar 21st, 2015 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Somewhere there's an article of a highly decorated British FI veteran who refused to place the Red Cross on his casualties tent as it was too close to the military installation which would violate the emblems neutrality. He saved numerous British and Argentine solders lives and was decorated by both The UK and Argentina.
HRM the Queen actually wrote to him with a congratulation as well as giving him permission to wear the Argentine decoration on his uniform.
Anyway below, I have the agreement link for our La Cámpora as they seem to demand truth, but then ignore it.
Argentinian War Crimes continued...
A few more examples Pgrman's nation's cowardice...
Malvinas war veterans who claim to have been tormented, abused and even tortured by their Argentine military superiors already involves 60 former officers and statements from over one hundred witnesses.
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/03/21/sixty-argentine-military-officers-accused-of-war-crimes-in-falklands-confli
What was entirely criminal, contemptible and treacherous, was the Argentine deliberate use of IRC emblems to protect ammunition and matériel.
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/03/21/sixty-argentine-military-officers-accused-of-war-crimes-in-falklands-confli
And if you really want complete proof of Argentina's military corruption, abuse, thievery, incompetence and a contemptible lack of honesty you only need to read the once highly confidential Rattenbach report that was declassified by Cristina Kirchner in 2012.
“Argentine soldiers were sent from the subtropics into winter conditions without proper clothing, food or weapons, and were treated as cannon fodder by their own officers - pushed into battle without having had basic training in weaponry and combat.”
“Troops weren't adapted or equipped to handle the weather or the living conditions,” and yet they had to face “a highly equipped and trained enemy,”
HMS Lancaster is 1st ship sail with new Lynx Wildcat embarked for an operational deployment
Mar 21st, 2015 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/579278594788167682/photo/1
Type 23 frigate HMS Lancaster sailed from her home in Portsmouth today for a routine nine-month Atlantic patrol tasking
https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/579278594788167682/photo/1
,,,,,,,,
Huge US aircraft carrier, 'too big' for Portsmouth harbor, to arrive in Hampshire
The 100,000-tonne ship USS Theodore Roosevelt, which is too big to enter Portsmouth Harbour, will anchor off Stokes Bay, Gosport
RE-NAMED HMS Thatcher for deployment in the Falkland’s to piss off CFKs little rowing boats..lol
https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/579278594788167682/photo/1
chuckle chuckle...
Italians are lovers, and fighters. It's a pity the entire Afrika Korps surrendered without a fight in May 1943, otherwise the war in Africa would've lasted another 3, 6 months or more :
Mar 21st, 2015 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ During the Tunisian Campaign, where Italian units were involved in most encounters, such as Kasserine Pass, Mareth, Akarit and Enfidaville, it was observed by General Alexander, ”...the Italians fought particularly well, outdoing the Germans in line with them“. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Italy_during_World_War_II
”The German fighting spirit ebbed to nothingness and tens of thousands of Nazi soldiers threw up their arms and raised white flags in surrender to a squadron of British armoured cars that reached Cape Bon's Lighthouse Hill at 3 p.m. today ... Hitler fed them well, dressed them well and inspired them with what they thought almost a holy mission. But they did not fight today. They quit. Rommel's Africa Corps and Von Arnim's elite divisions from Europe didn't fight to the bitter, heroic end“. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Italy_during_World_War_II
”Though about 247,000 prisoners were taken, the enemy's battle casualties in the last stages were between 1,000 and 2,000 ... But in the last phase the Italians fought because they were defending their homes. They regarded Tunisia as an outpost of their own country, but ever since El Alamein the Germans wanted to get out of Africa altogether. They saw no chance of getting away. They were being heavily bombed and attacked from the front, and the sea was locked behind them. Therefore they surrendered”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Italy_during_World_War_II
And your point is what.
Mar 21st, 2015 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British and the Australians and New Zealanders covered up the Italian successes of WW2, with Brit and Anzac soldiers, generals, naval crewmen and pilots time and time again, making up stories that it was the Germans that sank their ship or shot down their plane, or overran their battalion, whenever they got their arses kicked by the Italians.
Mar 21st, 2015 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@277
Mar 21st, 2015 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I reiterate - and your point is what?
The Italians in the Regio Esercito, Regia Aeronautica and Regia Marina, and their descendants in the Malvinas, like Lt Martella (KIA), Lt Baldini (KIA), Lt Gavazzi (KIA), Lt Guadagnini (KIA), Lt Manzotti (KIA), Lt Nivoli (KIA) etc, fought like lions.
Mar 21st, 2015 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@229
Mar 21st, 2015 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Shame they never changed sides and lynched their dictator this time round.
Argentina, the son of Italy:
Mar 21st, 2015 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“When the first moves toward Argentine independence from Spain began to come about, at the forefront was a prominent Italian-Argentine who is still a celebrated national hero in Argentina today, one General Manuel Belgrano ... One of the most powerful but also most controversial of these was Juan Domingo Peron, President of Argentina on three separate occasions. Like many, he was of mixed ancestry but included in that mix was Italian ancestry from the island of Sardinia. During his presidency, Peron would remark on the pride he took in his Sardinian heritage ... After Peron and his wife held the top job a military junta seized power. Some of these generals were Italian-Argentines such as General Roberto Eduardo Viola who held power briefly in 1981. The most well known, however, and the most controversial was his successor General Leopoldo Galtieri. His parents were poor Italian immigrants and Leopoldo joined the army and worked his way up through the ranks ... ” http://italianmonarchist.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/italians-in-argentina.html
@223 Chicureo
Mar 21st, 2015 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Troops weren't adapted or equipped to handle the weather or the living conditions,” and yet they had to face “a highly equipped and trained enemy,”
Well that's the rub isn't it? The Argentine high command didn't believe that the British would actually fight. The Task Force was a bluff. So in their reality the Argentine troops were equipped to take on unarmed civilians, which is actually all they were trained to do anyway.
The minute someone actually started shooting back then the true colours of the Junta came out...yellow.
pgerman is a typical Argentine who has been indoctrinated to believe that Argentina can do no wrong.
So in his mind (and the minds of his fellow malvinistas) the only way Argentina could've lost the war (since they're apparently perfect) is for the British to have done something underhand and devious.
Yet is has been proved, time and time again, that the Argentine Junta VIOLATED the Laws of Armed Conflict (aka the Geneva Conventions) on numerous occasions, but our malvinista trolls (like pgerman) cannot accept the truth as it flies in the face of everything they've been indoctrinated with.
And since, given the state of Argentina, all they have is these fairy tales to hang onto, they refuse to accept the crimes committed by the Junta, yet they denounce the Junta, state that they were 'bad people' when committing crimes against Argentines, but 'good people' when committing crimes against unarmed Falkland Islanders.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. Its sickening.
@231
Mar 21st, 2015 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course, Galtieri was another son of Italy, a gas filled buffoon just like the illustrious Il Duce, who also forced his uncomprehending youth into some of the most stupidly conceived and incompetently executed acts of warfare of the 20th century.
“I have studied the Argentine Dirty War for over 20 years, and if I were to recommend one book to anyone to read on the subject it would be this one. There are two things that Lewis does which really set this book apart from the literature on the subject so far. First, Lewis describes and makes sense out of all of the background starting with Peron that led up to the Dirty War. This really helps place the Dirty War in its proper context so the reader can comprehend why such terrible things occurred later. He then gives a full account of all the atrocities committed by the Argentine military. In this way he does not exonerate or excuse the Dirty War, but does make sense of why things happened the way they did. Second, Lewis points out that there really was a war going on. The guerrillas were active, were powerful, were committing acts of terrorism and were seriously threatening to destabilize the Argentine state. A lot of anti-military sources try to portray the security threat posed by the guerrillas as a figment of the military's imagination. This was simply not true. There was a real war going on and Lewis shows that this was the case. Lewis does not excuse the ways the military chose to deal with the guerrilla threat, but does explain why rational and normal men would choose to commit such horrorific acts. In their mind they were in a desperate life and death struggle, and they acted accordingly. In retrospect they made some very bad choices, but Lewis helps explain how it all seemed rational and necessary at the time. This book is balanced, honest and cuts through a lot of the cherished popular myths. It is fair to both sides of the conflict. Finally it is well written and flows well. I got through it in two days. This book will become a classic text on the Argentine Dirty War.” http://www.amazon.ca/Guerrillas-Generals-The-Dirty-Argentina/dp/0275973603
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's a pity you didn't study the use of paragraphs....;-)
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine military fought the good fight in the 1970s. Practically all of the disappeared were fighters and active collaborators of the Marxist ERP and Montoneros Terrorist Armies attempting to install a communist dictatorship in Argentina as Professor Paul H Lewis points out in his book GUERRILLAS & GENERALS. One day an Argentine general of Italian extraction will rise to power in Argentina and he will expel all anarcho-communist Argentines and retake the Malvinas.
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0234
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0My Amazon is amazon.co.uk...yours appears to be amazon.ca...
Do all Argentines on this site live in Canada...?
Dossier Secreto: Argentina's Desaparecidos and the Myth of the “Dirty War” Paperback – February, 1993
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0by Martin Edwin Andersen
This is a book that will help put into perspective the horrendous years of Argentina's military war against its own citizens. Don't read it in the evening, the horrors recounted will take your sleep away.
Those who lived in Argentina were kept in the dark about the horrors that were committed in our own neighborhoods. I remember corpses being discovered in the same playground I would take my children on Sundays, but I did not know that those were not a result of “battles” but people who had been killed after torture and put in place to make citizens think that a dirty war was being fought. There was no dirty war, but a generation annihilated, suppressed at the hands of a greedy military playing games with people's lives.
Nobody who lived during that time will ever be completely free of that nightmare that lasted years, but this book helps put things in perspective. It is a tough read, and unless you have a good reason to read it, don't try.
I was lucky enough to leave Argentina, but those 30,000 plus that disappeared should not being forgotten. As we know, humanity tends to forget too quickly and repeat past mistakes.
http://www.amazon.com/Dossier-Secreto-Argentinas-Desaparecidos-Dirty/dp/0813382130/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426985871&sr=1-10&keywords=argentina+dirty+war
“One day an Argentine general of Italian extraction will rise to power in Argentina and he will expel all anarcho-communist Argentines and retake the Malvinas.”
It's been tried.
One day an Argentine will accept responsibility for Argentina's actions.
HansNiesund you are acting as a cynical and manipulative person that has a tribune of clappers that celebrate your coments.
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 03:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0My concepts were clear, my questions were clear but you could not answer any of them so you started stwisting facts to confuse your followers.
The fact is that the islanders don´t like argentine people not to mention argentine planes or ships over their territory. The fact is that patagonian people don't like to british or islanders in their territory nor to mention RN ships or RAF planes. So, both hate each other and they had the right to do so. As a result, STAY AWAY FROM ARGENTINE TERRITORY.
Anyway I know that, as it has always been, that any time the islanders or the UK need help, and assistance, they will put their pride and “superiority” on a side, will forget “the differencies that separate both of us” and, with weak voice, will accept and beg for argentine assistance.
The poor and pathetic arrogance of “Chicureo” (not to mention his lack of self steem) crashes to the floor if I mention that each time Chile suffered from a natural disaster they asked for argentine assistance. Do you remember last year when argentine firefighting planes had to cross the Andes to help Chile to fight fires? It seems that Argentina “has no fighting planes”....but chile has no firefighting planes....what a contradiction !!!!...
As regards of the cowardy of the argentine soldiers I must make you remember that there were very few incidents between argentine and chilean soldiers.
The last one happened when some chilean troops crossed the border in Laguna del Desierto and were expelled by only a few argentine rangers.
The result: Chilean Lieutenant Hernán Merino killed in action, Sargent Miguel Manríquez deeply wounded, two chilean soldiers made prissioner and the rest of the regiment fled to their side leaving behind thier comrades. This is the concept argentine people have about chilean militars. ZERO COURAGE but GOOD TO KILL THEIR CIVILIANS..
We also beat the Chileans in a successful Argentine counterambush:
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0“On 17 February 1883, Lieutenant-Colonel Juan Díaz, at the head of a 16-man Argentine infantry detachment, was trailing a war party of 100 to 150 Indians. Upon reaching Pulmarí Valley, they were surrounded by the Indians and around 50 Chilean soldiers. Heavily outnumbered, the Argentine soldiers skillfully outfought their attackers, including a bayonet charge mounted by the Chilean detachment.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert
Can anyone explain in plain English(as is required on this site) exactly what are the points that Bertorelli and Pgerman are trying to make?
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 07:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Since when, for example, have Argentine-Italians become a “master” race?
@239 pgerman
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 07:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is the second time you've indicated that Argentina has to be encouraged (you actually put forced on another thread) to do the decent thing and help people. You previously indicated that Argentina had to be 'forced' to assist ships in trouble at sea, and now you're indicating that Argentina has to be encouraged to send help and assistance to your LATAM 'brothers'.
In decent countries, pgerman, these things are done and assistance OFFERED because it is the right thing to do. To help others in need. If we were to believe YOU then it means that Argentina is a selfish country that wouldn't help anyone unless coerced to do so.
What a damaged person you are.
As for the Chilean fires, you do realise that Argentina assisted because it was the right thing to do, and secondly (and if we are to believe you) a selfish reason to save themselves. You see pgerman, fires don't stop at man made international boundaries, and there was a good possibility that if the fires were not controlled that they could have spread to Argentina.
Better to stop these things earlier than to let them get completely out of control.
Pgerman, when you 1st started posting on here you came across as a thoughtful, though deluded, person. Now you have shown your true colours, and you come across as nasty, selfish and untrustworthy.
@240 Alberto
In reply to some of your posts. Chile weren't cowards in the Falklands War because they didn't invade Argentine territory. Like many Argentines you just cannot understand why everyone doesn't think and act like you do.
But unlike Argentina, Chile follows international law. To have invaded Argentina in 1982 would've been in breach of international law. Just like when Argentina invaded the Falklands, that was in breach of international law. So what you are really saying is that Chile is law abiding and Argentina isn't.
Oh, and when you've got to go back to the 19thC to claim a victory you know you're in trouble.
Pathetic, both of you.
The Italians and Argentines are brothers in arms and their recent military history proves it. Italy declared war on Britain on 10 June, and 10 June is the Day of The Malvinas in Argentina with Argentine Army Commandos operating against the Brits that day. Italy's Bersaglieri repeatedly kicked British butt, and elite Argentine units (Amphibious Commandos, Army Commandos) did the same thing in Malvinas. General Galtieri was the son of Italian immigrants and he for sure knew the Brits lied about the Italian military during WW2, so he set out to teach the Brits a lesson for the world to see, and this time the Brits couldn't say it was the Germans that did the damage. Both the Argentine Air Force and Regia Aeronautica, and supporting naval units covered themselves in glory during the fight for two islands of similar size, with Italian pilots, submarineers and motor torpedo boat crewmen responsible for the destruction of five large British warships operating around Crete, HMS Juno, HMS Imperial, HMS Hereward, HMS York and HMS Bonaventure. Never underestimate modern Roman blood, for it will cost you dearly.
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 07:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0@243 Alberto
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 08:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Keep deluding yourself. YOU LOST.
Get over it, get over yourself.
The Italians, after some initial success in WW2, later LOST in North Africa to the British, and the Germans had to come in and rescue them. The Germans didn't rate Italian troops at all.
And then guess what, Alberto? Italy SURRENDERED, changed sides and began to fight against the Germans! Weird eh?
As for Argentine Army Commandos, wow, if they were so good why didn't you win the war?
The truth is that they were better than your normal troops, which isn't saying that much, is it?
Face it, here you are trying to 'get in' on other people's 'glory', when in truth Argentina's whole Falklands campaign was a disaster.
Argentina held ALL of the advantage. And despite all these 'amazing' Army commando's Argentina had, you couldn't win that war.
YOU ARE LOSERS.
And no matter how many past battles that you throw up from the Italians (of all people!?!), so called amazing Argentine commandos, the truth is (and this is what you can't stand) that Italy LOST the war and ended up changing sides, and Argentina LOST its war.
And that is what you cannot face. The fact that you are losers. You lost. Grow up. Get over it. And stop trying to steal other people's homes and land.
Loser.
#241 Gordo
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentine-Italian Master Race” now there is an oxymoron if there ever was one...
I like Italian people, their cuisine and certainly their great contributions to culture. I personally have no desire to get involved in the disparagement of the people of Italy, nor Argentinians of Italian decent.
There is no denial that there is a significant Italian influence historically in your government and military. It would be unfortunate perhaps referring to the typical stereotypical insults comparing the Argentine Military during the Falklands War and the uncanny similarities of the Mussolini government and Italian military during WWII... but they were both embarrassingly incompetent, corrupt, brutal, ignorant and cowardly.
LEPRecon: “The Germans didn't rate Italian troops at all?”:
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The famous German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (“the Desert Fox”) remarked that, “The German soldier has impressed the world, however, the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier.” http://italianmonarchist.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/elite-italian-bersaglieri.html
“ Describing the behaviour of the 'Ariete Armoured division' during the last phases of the battle of El Alamein, Rommel also wrote: Enormous dust-clouds could be seen south and south-east of headquarters [of the DAK], where the desperate struggle of the small and inefficient Italian tanks of XX Corps was being played out against the hundred or so British heavy tanks which had come round their open right flank. I was later told by Major von Luck, whose battalion I had sent to close the gap between the Italians and the Afrika Korps, that the Italians, who at that time represented our strongest motorised force, fought with exemplary courage .” http://italianmonarchist.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/elite-italian-bersaglieri.html
“Rommel returned to the railway station at Kasserine which briefly served as the combined command post of the German Africa Corps and the 10th Panzer Division, and ordered these two formations to take the Kasserine Pass. In the evening dusk Rommel observed, as he dictated for his diary, 'the exciting scene of the tank battle north of the pass'. He had special praise for the 7th Bersaglieri, who attacked fiercely and whose commander fell during the attack; they threw the American, British and French forces out of the pass in joint action with the II/86 and the K 10.” http://italianmonarchist.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/elite-italian-bersaglieri.html
#246 figlio di puttana
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0DRommel was obviously doing this for Nazi propaganda, but the clear overwhelming opinion is that the Italian military forces were a tremendous liability to Germany.
And here is a quote as well:
“They [Italian soldiers]were very enthusiastic on the parade ground and even more enthusiastic to surrender in battle.” Erwin Rommel (from “The Rommel Papers” by Erwin Rommel, B.H. Liddell Hart)
Trying to link the term “Italian military” with bravery is a fools errand.
#246
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0With all these heroic and superbly trained Italian troops, how come you were kicked out of East Africa, Greece and N.Africa, your naval fleet neutralised and failed to conquer Malta, right on your doorstep.
You failed to stop the invasion of Sicily and then swopped sides in Italy, leaving the Germans to fight on alone.
As to ”elite Argentine units (Amphibious Commandos, Army Commandos) did the same thing in Malvinas.”
Yes, when the odds were greatly in their favour....about 60 Royal Marines against an invasion force of thousands...just what we would expect as a fair fight !
Italy declared war as it thought that it would be easy with Germany at it's back.
It hugely outnumbered Britain in N.Africa but got chased back until Germany saved it's bacon.
If I accept everything you say, then it ONLY reinforces the fact of how good the UK forces were to defeat such a military super power as Italy AND the Argentinian (Italian) forces.
My God, but we were good !
#236
I see you are a good fascist following in Il Duce's manner.
I am awaiting the first sign of flying pigs !
#248. Clyde
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0You and I have a shared interest in military history.
What if Italy had remained net rural during WWII like Spain?
The Allies would be blocked from traversing across Libya as well as Italy, and would be forced to use either Greece or France for invading the continent IF they invaded....
Modern day Italian naval officers continue the long tradition of courage and competence... I'm reminded of the captain of the Costa Concordia as an example...
#249
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0If Italy had remained neutral, that would have freed - up tens of thousands of British and Commonwealth troops to fight elsewhere.
In hindsight, it would have been useful to transfer them to the Far East.
Naval vessels could have been reassigned to the N.Atlantic where they were badly needed, especially on the Russian convoys.
Britain was in no position to mount an invasion force across the channel.
The fiasco of Dieppe proved that you could not attack and hold a main port.
There has now been some speculation that the attack was a disguise to enable TOP SECRET German codes to be stolen during this operation. There was a TV program on this subject about 6 months ago which made it sound highly plausible. No doubt someone will find some papers in about 50 years that refer to this.
Stalin was screaming for the allies to open a second front. The choice was through the difficult terrain of Greece or what was thought to be the soft underbelly ...Italy. Italy proved to be anything but !
Chicureo: You should also remember the fairly recent (2005) incompetence and cowardice of the Chilean army officers demonstrated in the supposedly elite 17th Andean Regiment during the Antuco Tragedy:
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Santiago office worker and mother Adela Ortega says those to blame for the death or disappearance of 45 Chilean soldiers in a severe blizzard in the Andes should be behind bars ... Like most Chileans, Adela Ortega blames the army officers who gave the order for the battalion to march despite the severe weather conditions ... Fuelling the anger was the belief that young, poor conscripts had been sent out to march by their officers, and then deserted when the blizzard hit ... A mother of one of the victims told Reuters that survivors told her that officers had abandoned recruits who fell in the snow. ” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4577689.stm
So much for the claim that the Chilean Army is the most professional and disciplined army in Latin America.
#250 Clyde
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting analysis. I still think having Italy as a partner was a rock around Germany's neck. They make good spaghetti and pizza, but they're cowards in battle...
Surely the emigration of Italians to Argentina mainly took place at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th - over a hundred years ago. Those Italians are now Argentinos - viz. Pope Francis is NOT Italian he IS argentino and never does he give the impression of being Italian.
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Italian emigration to the USA mainly occurred during the same period and yet those Americans with Italian origins are now AMERICANS not Italians.
For example, I know a fellow British citizen of many ethnic connections - he has German Jewish ancestors as well as German Christian ancestors, his DNA would show he has Lithuanian heritage as well as Iberian and Latin American and he has dual nationality US and UK as he was born in New York. Yet he is BRITISH in every sense.
So what is the sense of Bertotelli's defence of the Italian behaviour in WW2 and the Falklands conflict when Italy had nothing to do with it and being part of the European Union supported Britain? What is the purpose?
If Italy had been neutral, then presumably Hitler wouldn't have had to bail them out of their debacles in Greece and Balkans, and would not have to deploy precious divisions to resist the allies after the invasion. This would almost certainly have have been even tougher on the Russians, but I doubt that would have made any difference to the final outcome. Only a total rabid fuckwit ends up simultaneously fighting the world's greatest land power, the worlds' greatest economic power, and the world's greatest sea power, and there's no way that can succeed in the long term. But I guess that's what happens when you're frothing at the mouth for being one testicle short of a scrotum.
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Alberto's parallel between the Italians in WW2 and the Argentines in the Falklands is quite apposite though. In both cases barely trained conscripts were sent to their deaths by posturing, vainglorious buffoons who couldn't even organise a proper supply line, and whose primary military experience consisted of culling students on the one hand, and dropping bombs on tribesmen on the other. There was no way that was going to succeed in the long term either.
@239 pgerman
I'd have thought that being an engineer you'd be familiar with processes of analysis and review. Try next time to find an argument that stands up to examination. As it is, you've only come across as the bitter anglophobe you claim not to be.
253
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One can appear British and even be British, but I reckon your mate is American by birth...take for example Prince Philip everyone knows, without a doubt, he is Greek...
#253 Gordo
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Although I agree that Italian immigrants to Argentina that arrived a century ago* are now Argentinos, especially due to intermarriage, there is something to the strong Italian influence of what makes their character.
Argentinians are Italians who speak Spanish, pretend they were English and act as if they were French is a very common saying.
I think what really happened is that during the “Argentinization” of the wave of immigrants that were primarily from Calabria and Sicily
In the 1920's there was also a strong Italian fascist movement** that was introduced into Argentina which certainly helped set the stage for embracement of Juan Peron and others.
By the 1940's the Argentines, encouraged under the Peronists and radical trade unions, became this “the government owes me everything” and “time to have an asado followed by a siesta” hybrid that we see now.
Chileans of Italian decent do not share the same personality on this side of the Andes and it's their firm belief that it's because their ancestors mostly came from Tuscany and Liguria as well as not being influenced by by Peronists.
*(Coincidently when The country was the 7th most prosperous nation in the world.)
**(“Mussolini's backed National Project in Argentina”
By David Aliano)
#254 Hans
I'm certain that Pgerman immediately went to research in Wikipedia the engineering term of “processes of analysis and review”... Should keep him occupied for a a few days.
The Italians came to the rescue of the Germans on Crete in late May 1941:
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“When the German attack around Galatas stalled and the attackers suffered high losses, on 26 May the Wehrmacht operation staff requested Mussolini to send army units to Crete and thus take some of the pressure off the German forces there. Mussolini immediately agreed, and two days later an Italian regiment, reinforced with armour and artillery, landed near Sitia in the eastern part of the island. By the end of the month these formations reached Ierapetra on the south coast without encountering significant resistance.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crete#cite_note-64
The Italian Army also saved the German 1st Panzer Army on the Eastern Front:
“The Italo-German advance represented one of the few instances that winter, in which Axis forces were not losing ground to the Red Army and were even capturing additional territory. Having fought to exhaustion, both sides settled down and passed New Year's Eve without serious incident. The influence of the CSIR's Christmas 1941 victory on the course of the war on the Eastern Front is entirely overlooked. The Soviet Command had high expectations of an operation against the CSIR, and expected to destroy the German 49th Mountain Corps as well. Success against those Axis formations might have allowed the Russians to follow up with an offensive against the rest of 1st Panzer Army, instead of the 17th Army. In those circumstances, the Wehrmacht could have been threatened with a Stalingrad-type defeat in the first winter of the war.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crete#cite_note-64
The Trieste Division saved Rommel and the entire Afrika Korps in late May 1942:
“At this time the British thought they had Rommel cornered and he himself contemplated surrender, but the Italian 'Trieste' Division managed to open a route through the minefield and get a supply column to him.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crete#cite_note-64
“From these lists, one would think that Italy fought the war without significant support from the Germans!
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is undoubtedly a need to give the Italian armed forces more credit than they have generally enjoyed, by taking better account of the limitations under which they fought, but when one has to search for battalion-sized actions and the sinking of individual ships to find victories, it tends to highlight how limited more major Italian successes were, especially when not integrated with the Germans.”
forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=210001&start=15
Argentine successes in WWII were of course even more limited than those of the Italians, quite possibly because Argentina only declared war on Germany after Germany had already lost, in order to get in on the founding of the United Nations, a body whose founding purposes they have been attempting to distort ever since.
234 Alberto Bertorelli
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0one has to wonder if you may well be axel,,,
what the hell Argentina and the belgrano has to do with Italy and WW2
is anyone's guess.
WE CAN'T TURN THE PAGE STILL.
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can accept that perhaps the sinking of the belgrano wasn't a war crime, even i can accept also that thatcher ordered to sink it because it represented a threat, as it had been told to her. Some weeks ago one of the forists explained me with solid arguments and without insulting me, the reasons why thatcher decided to take that decision, however, what i won't never do, is to buy the hypocritical explanation of some pro thatcherists who prentend to make people believe that she decided to go to a war, because she wanted the right to self determination for the islanders to be respected. I have discussed a lot about it in many of my comments, beside, i have never justified the invasion of 1982 by argentina, and i have never denied the huge reponsability of my country in this conflict, in fact, in the last 6 years, i have talked a lot about it, in planty of my comments, in contrary to what a few cretins in this forum say about me, who ask me to accept the responsability of argentina in reference to what happened in 1982.
Although some people don't accept it, before 1982, objetive facts show that britain, even under thatcher's government wanted to get rid of the islands, i have no doubt that if the islanders don't have selective memories, they will remember how hostil the relation between britain and the islands were before 1982, anyway, if they decided to forgive thatcher, despite all the bad actions taken by her against them before the war, i accept it absolutly.
The problem is that after 33 years of the conflict, we can't turn the page still, not only because of the shamefull decisions taken by our court in relation to the denunces for tortures, but also because the u. k. and the islanders don't have any will to resume the negotiations with arg., and find a peaceful solution that can respect the rights of all the parts, however, they will continue to complain, every time that our government decides to take some hard decisions.
RIGHT ON CUE...
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#261 Briton
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you accusing our Italian poster here as being deceitful and delusional? How uncharacteristic of the Argentino-Italiano super race.....
#258 Hans
The truth of the North African campaign in 1940 was that 36,000 British troops repelled 200,000 Italians who were far better armed and equipped.
“How many gears do Italian tanks have? Five – one forward, and four reverse”
As I noted before, Rommel and his generals had complete distain for the Italian army and was quoted saying: “They [Italian soldiers] were very enthusiastic on the parade ground and even more enthusiastic to surrender in battle.”*
Argentine and Italian cowardice examples can be found extensively over the past century, from the three Italian men who were shot when the Titanic went down for ignoring the “women and children first” rule. (The only people on the whole ship, incidentally, to shove children out of the way in their frantic race to save themselves.) to the captain of the Costa Concordia cruise ship who quickly abandoned his ship, leaving his passengers, of which 11 died.
* (from “The Rommel Papers” by Erwin Rommel, B.H. Liddell Hart)
@262
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From “The Wit and Wisdom of Winston Churchill” by James C. Humes:
Late in his life, Sir Winston took a cruise on an Italian ship. A journalist from a New York newspaper approached the former prime minister to ask him why he chose to travel on an Italian line when the Queen Elizabeth under the British flag was available.
Churchill gave the question his consideration and then gravely replied: “There are three things I like about Italian ships. First, their cuisine, which is unsurpassed. Second, their service, which is quite superb. And then — in time of emergency — there is none of this nonsense about women and children first.”
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/cruiseship.asp#1Sj7mB9QDCgtekjy.99
262 Chicureo
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A gentleman would never dream of such a thing...lol
@ 260 axel arg
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You state “because the u. k. and the islanders don't have any will to resume the negotiations with arg., and find a peaceful solution that can respect the rights of all the parts, however, they will continue to complain, every time that our government decides to take some hard decisions.”
Surely. by now, you must be aware that Argentina has no will to hold discussions with the islanders. For example, Héctor Timerman could have discussed the situation with the UK Foreign Minister and representatives of the Falkland Islands two years ago in London but he walked out upon becoming aware of the presence of the islanders' representatives.
One of the problems is, of course, the intransigent demands of Argentina concerning sovereignty of the islands and its desire to colonise the territory.
I believe the first step for Argentina should be via the International Court of Justice. After all the “gospel malvinense” according to Argentina is full of fairy tales, myths, lies and false interpretations of historical events and thus the ICJ could examine all the documentation and historical proof of both sides of the conflict and arrive at a legal decision concerning the evidence.
It seems to me that having removed the illegal aggressors from the Falklands Islands in 1982 a peaceful solution to the problem has already been achieved.
@265
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is in place “a peaceful solution that can respect the rights of all the parts”.
This solution is in place because the Argentine part has no rights to respect, although we have at least done you the courtesy of listening to your grievance ad nauseam profondum. And in so doing we have understood that your grievance doesn't exist to be resolved, but to be perpetuated.
#257
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The German Fallschirmjägers took huge casualties in Crete but manged to capture the airfield at Maleme allowing reinforcements to be flown in.
By the 27 May, the British command declared that the battle was already lost.....guess who turned up late for the party ?.
The Royal Navy never wavered although they took a pasting from air attacks.
British soldiers surrender to German paratroopers
During the evacuation, Admiral Cunningham was determined that the “Navy must not let the Army down.” When Army officers expressed concerns that he would lose too many ships, Cunningham said that “It takes three years to build a ship, it takes three centuries to build a tradition.”
This tradition was carried on in 1982.
Compare that with Argentina's navy in 1982.
@266 HansNiesund
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is your 266 addressed to me or to 260 axel arg?
@268
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whoops, sorry, it was for 260 axel.
#267 Clyde
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Compare that with Argentina's navy in 1982.”
At the beginning of the Falklands war, the Argentine navy courageously moved its most powerful ships, including their carrier, into port where they hid for the remainder of the war.
@242
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“In decent countries these things are done and assistance OFFERED because it is the right thing to do” I can remember plenty of times argentina assisted british people in the area but I cannot remember any assistance received from the FI to argentine people. Do you remember?
An unarmed FAA C-130 ER flight to Antarctica was harrassed by a RAF F4 no matter the Birtish Embassy had been alerted of the situation.
As Islanders hate argentine people you must accept that Patagonian people don't like to see british in their land. That's why “Gaucho Rivero” law was implemented. Accept that. Grow UP !!!
As chicureo in an arrogant comment had posted that “Argentina has no planes to fly over Stanley” I made him remember that Chile has no firefighter planes.
@254
“I'd have thought that being an engineer you'd be familiar with processes of analysis and review” I AM BUT YOU ARE NOT.
That's why I asked why planes in emergency would fly to a farthest runway (P Arenas) instead of taking advantage of the closest ones. Planes in emergency land as soon as they can.
Based on your reasoning the HMS Endurance would sail to Arenas instead of docking to P Belgrano (where it receive the needed assitance).
Quite a simple question but still without any answer.
In addition, Chicureo, showing his hate and inferiority complex, wrote that “argentine sailors and soldiers were cowards” so I made him remember that every single time chilean soldiers faced argentine ones they were smashed. We can add that JA Roca smashed and sent back to their homes the mapuches that had invaded our territory.
So, following with the racist comments posted here I can say that “it is in chilean/mapuche blood to be smashed by argentine/italian soldiers”. That's must be the reason why chicureo has such inferiority complex.
Finally you seem to ignore the influence of the nazis in the chilean army (they still wear the nazi uniforms) that led them to kidnap, torture and kill unarmed civilians
@271
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You obviously haven't been paying attention, because this has been answered several times. A diversion because of weather conditions at the original intended airport isn't necessarily an emergency, it's a diversion. A diversion doesn't necessarily require immediate landing at the nearest airport. And the official alternate airport is the official alternate airport.
Not that anybody much expects rationality to intrude into an Argentine anglophobe conspiracy theory, but there it is anyway.
Finally, I fail to understand just how the crimes, real or alleged, of the Chilean, or indeed anybody else's army, exonerate the Argentine army of its. For the rest Chicureo is certainly better qualified to answer than I am, as is some Argentine bloke called Rattenbach, as I recall.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informe_Rattenbach
@260
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Although some people don't accept it, before 1982, objetive facts show that britain, even under thatcher's government wanted to get rid of the islands,”
This is true and shameful.
If Britain had not been bound by the UN Charter to respect the Falkland Islander's self determination, they would have given the Islands to Argentina. However in all pre-1982 negotiations, the British Government never accepted their claim to sovereignty was flawed and were always held back from handing over the Islands, because the British condition was that the Islanders had to agree with any solution for a handover.
I therefore cannot understand why the case is made that pre-1982 the UK ignored the rights of self determination, though the UK should not have entered negotiations that the Islanders did not want.
Even then, the fact is that the UK did not hand over the Islands against the wishes of the people born there.
The UK (or more precisely, the Foreign Office), were trying to get rid of the Islands because they thought trade with Argentina would be worth more than the small income from the Islands, which even then did not go into the UK treasury, but mainly to absentee landlords and some to the Falkland Islands Government.
I have never got the impression that Thatcher herself wanted to get rid of the Islands, but the Foreign Office did, who were blind to the potential of the Islands, even after the Shackleton report, and the FO were as incompetent as Argentina's government is today.
I cannot decide what Argentina actually want. They have criticised the Islanders (still under the illusion that money earned in the Islands goes to London instead of Stanley), because they are utilising oil and fish.
Yet the Islanders offered the Argentines a proportion of this and the Argentines said 'This is not enough, we want all.'
But instead Argentina has gained nothing-so Axel this shows your country would never meet half way even if negotiations took place.
@272
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If I want to buy supplies I go to the closest supermarket instead of going to the farthest one.
Why would the planes go to Punta Arenas to land if I can land in Ushuaia, Rio Grande or Rio Gallegos? Because they like to happily consuming fuel?
Next time I read posts about commando rubber boats from argentine submarines in FI beaches I will expect the very same reply from your side.
Next time I read posts about argentine diplomacy to make LATAM ports banned to militar british Flagged ships I will expect the very same reply from you.
“Not that anybody much expects rationality to intrude into an Islander Argentine-phobe conspiracy theory, but there it is anyway.”
@274
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How many times do you need the same answer to the same question?
I'm not aware of any recent reports of commando rubber boats from argentine submarines in FI beaches, but if one does surface the first question I will ask is, has your Navy got a seaworthy submarine now? And the second question will be, will you be expecting anybody to give it assistance if it sinks?
And the next time you read posts about argentine diplomacy to make LATAM ports banned to militar british Flagged ships, I expect it will be because members of the Argentine government are once again all over the press jumping up and down attempting to make make LATAM ports banned to militar british Flagged ships.
Otherwise I can't imagine why anybody in the Falkland Islands would be suspicious of Argentine intentions. Why do you think might be? I mean, applying your logic that whatever your government denies must be true, we should surely be deeply concerned to learn that Argentina only wants dialogue and a peaceful solution.
Clyde15: Italian victory over Brit division trapped at Mersa Matruh caught on film:
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Mersa Matruh positions came under heavy artillery fire from the Brescia and Trento Divisions, while the 90th Light and the Littorio Divisions tried to complete the encirclement from the south ... Late in the day on 27 June, Gott, worried that his New Zealand 2nd Division was about to be cut off, ordered the withdrawal of XIII Corps. Because of a breakdown in British communications, X Corps did not learn until 0430 hours on 28 June that XIII Corps was in full retreat, and their southern flank was open. Later that day, the 90th Light Division and the Littorio Division completed the encirclement of Mersa Matruh ... During the night of 28 June, groups of the Indian 10th Division tried a breakout of the Mersa Matruh position at the head of Wadi Ngamish, but they were driven back by the Littorio Armoured Division ... On the morning of 29 June, the garrison of Mersa Matruh was overwhelmed. At 0930 hours, the Italian 7th Bersaglieri Regiment entered the conquered stronghold, taking 6,000 Allied prisoners. ” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GFfPCP9FRs&spfreload=10
Chicureo: Eat your heart out, this was an Italian victory as the above video shows, so throw all your WW2 books that are garbage, repeating the lies about the Italians that first appeared in the Brit and Anzac official histories of WW2.
Let's leave pgerman and Alberto Bertorelli to sort it out between them - they don't seem able to understand sensible reasoning.
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0¡Adios muchachitos!
@275
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“And the next time you read posts about argentine diplomacy to make LATAM ports banned to militar british Flagged ships, I expect it will be because members of the Argentine government are once again all over the press jumping up and down attempting to make make LATAM ports banned to militar british Flagged ships.”...
Not that anybody much expects rationality to intrude into an Islander Argentine-phobe conspiracy theory, but there it is anyway.
do you wish to rerun the second world war?
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cunningham's Mediterranean Fleet had only 45 combat ships against the Italian navy's 183. The Italians held an especially large edge in submarines, with 108 against Cunningham's 12.
The Royal Air Force (RAF) was in a slightly better position, with 205 aircraft against the Italian air force's 313 planes. On the ground, Italian Marshal Rodolfo Graziani had some 250,000 troops in Libya, while General Lord Archibald Percival Wavell, British commander in chief of the Middle East, had only 100,000 troops to defend Egypt, Sudan and Palestine.
The British pushed the Italian Tenth Army out of Egypt and then, on January 3, 1941, scored a major victory at Bardia, just inside Libya. Driving into Cyrenaica (eastern Libya), the British took the vital port of Tobruk on January 22. O'Connor continued to pursue the Italians, trapping them at Beda Fomm on February 7, 1941. The Italian Tenth Army collapsed. In two months, a British force of about two divisions had advanced 500 miles, destroyed 10 Italian divisions, and captured 130,000 prisoners, 380 tanks and 845 guns. In the process, the British had suffered 555 dead and 1,400 wounded.
For the entire North African campaign, the British suffered 220,000 casualties. Total Axis losses came to 620,000, which included the loss of three field armies.
I think that should close the matter. YOU LOST...BIG TIME !!!!!
@278
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you seriously trying to suggest Argentina hasn't been attempting to interfere with British shipping?
Clyde15: Italian victory over Royal Marines & Royal Navy attempting to recapture Tobruk caught on film:
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”About 300 British were killed. The Royal Marines suffered 81 killed, and Royal Navy destroyers Sikh and Zulu and cruiser Coventry, report the loss of another 217 of their men. Axis losses were 15 Italians and 1 German killed and 43 Italians and 7 Germans wounded. About 576 British survivors were captured.
The British destroyer Sikh, according to the surivors, had been hit by Italian 155 mm (6 inch) shore batteries while taking on troops. Zulu had gone to rescue the ship and crew but was unable to pull Sikh clear. Sikh finally sank. One-hundred-and-fifteen of her crew were reported killed and the survivors were taken prisoner. On the afternoon of 14 September while returning to Alexandria Coventry was badly damaged by German divebombers from Crete leading to her being scuttled by Zulu. Sixty-three of her crew had been lost in the raid. Zulu was herself hit by Italian fighter-bombers a little later that day and needed assistance. While under tow and 100 miles from Alexandria Zulu sank. Thirty-nine of her crew had perished.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKeRaUxcidA
The Royal Marines thought they could waltz in and steal Tobruk from the Italian San Marco Marines Regiment, instead they were clobbered, absolutely obliterated as the above video shows. Anybody want to watch the Italians clobbering the Americans at Kasserine Pass?
@281 Alberto
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The POINT you are completely MISSING is that Italy LOST the war. It may have won a few battles here and there, but then they started losing BIG TIME.
Just like Argentina won against a British force of about 70 personnel by using thousands of troops.
But the FINAL outcome is the only one that actually matters.
Italy LOST.
Argentina LOST.
Argentina is STILL LOSING.
And no matter how many old battles you 'link' to won't make ANY difference.
And in the Falklands War all it took was the sinking of ONE Argentine ship to send their ENTIRE navy running for cover.
Whichever way you look at it the sinking of the Belgrano was a masterful stroke, which succeeded beyond even what the British expected.
And only US interference prevented the UK from bombing the crap out of ALL Argentine military installations during the war. And that cost us ships. Lesson learned.
Should there ever be a next time the British won't be so restrained. We will bomb the crap out of Argentine military installation no matter whether the USA tries to interfere or not.
And don't expect your LATAM 'brothers' to come to your assistance. Your government has been crawling around South America for the last few years BEGGING countries to fight and die for Argentina. So far there have been no takers.
Your newest, bestest friends, China, also won't be backing you up with any actual support. Oh they'll sell you stuff including military hardware, at way over the market price, and they'll expect payment in full with interest.
So basically, you and your thieving country will NEVER legally gain the Falklands. If you thought you could you would've been at the International Court of Justice years ago.
But you know your claims are illegitimate and you desperately hope that the whole world will just ignore international law and give you land that has never belonged to you so you can start building your corrupt little empire.
Hate to break it to you, but it's never going to happen.
“”“ That's why “Gaucho Rivero” law was implemented. Accept that. Grow UP !!! ”“”
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TeeHee!
Sorry, its just that every time somebody says “Gaucho Rivero” i start laughing... a “hero” completely made up for local consumption in Argentina... ridiculed even by Argentine historians.
@283
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Next thing you know, we'll be learning that Gaucho Rivero was an Italian.
@271 pgerman
“An unarmed FAA C-130 ER flight to Antarctica was harrassed by a RAF F4 no matter the Birtish Embassy had been alerted of the situation.”
Have you got a reference for this latest appalling atrocity, since I can't find any source for it in English or Spanish.
@283
Mar 22nd, 2015 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The name of the law was a stupid thing but the reasons for the provincial law are quite clear. Patagonian don't like islanders or british people in their land.
@284
Can't you? Well keep on checking you will find it. Was not a mistery at all. The C130 pilots took some photos of the F4 but of course, you, cannot find it so it has never happened.
“Ron, I'm not handing over. I'm not handing over the islands now. I didn't lose some of my best ships and some of my finest lives to leave quietly under a ceasefire without the Argentines withdrawing.”
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Margaret Thatcher 31/05/1982
To Ronald Reagan
God bless Baroness Thatcher
Argentina=Cowards
@286
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cowards that made MT loose her best ships.....
Following with some racist comments posted here: “it is in chilean/mapuche blood to be smashed by argentine/italian soldiers”. That's must be the reason why “Chicureo” has such inferiority complex and hate Argentina that much.
@285
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now that I've found it, I can see why you didn't want to tell me yourself. In 1983 (i.e just months after the war)in a deliberate act of provocation a C-130 packed with members of the Argentine press was deliberately flown into the Falklands Protection Zone. Two F-4s were sent to intercept it and ordered it to change course. Such orders were only ever given to unauthorised flights heading directly for the islands, and considering the history of unprovoked attack and previous civilian hijackings, you can see why that might be.
The incident, and various others is described here :
https://books.google.lu/books?id=jaQsAwAAQBAJ&pg=PP151&lpg=PP151&dq=C-130+intercept+RAF+Malvinas+Falklands&source=bl&ots=ZJWuWs3VeL&sig=PDN-HANjaELY6IAUMZ648mNPIWo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I1cPVeaBD8H7aJ_FgdAF&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
@288
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0“In 1983 in a deliberate act of provocation a C-130 packed with members of the Argentine press was deliberately flown into the Falklands Protection Zone.”
Not that anybody much expects rationality to intrude into an Islander Argentine-phobe conspiracy theory, but there it is anyway.
http://www.eam.iua.edu.ar/rumbos/Revista-21/RevistaRumbos21-Art15.html
@289
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let me explain something. When the perpetrator himself states :
“Dos meses después fue necesario realizar otro vuelo similar y la situación fue algo distinta, ya que en esta oportunidad los británicos sabían cuáles eran realmente nuestras intenciones.”
that's an admission, not a conspiracy theory. In the fine Argentine tradition of posting links that undermine your own argument to boot.
Not that anybody much expects an overt admission of guilt to penetrate Argentina's all-pervasive sense of irresponsible victimhood, but there it is anyway.
Is there no limit to this self-abasement? You started off on this thread wringing your hands at an episode that clearly never happened, and now you've moved onto others that you deliberately set out to provoke. Poor, poor Argentina! Next thing you'll be claiming sinking the Belgrano was a war crime.
“ I'm standing up for the right of self-determination. I'm standing up for our territory. I'm standing up for our people. I'm standing up for international law. I'm standing up for all those territories - those small territories and peoples the world over - who, if someone doesn't stand up and say to an invader 'enough, stop', would be at risk.”
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Baroness Margaret Thatcher 26/04/1982
ARGENTINIANS ARE COWARDS,
@290
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0I knew since the very first moment you tried to trick me into giving you some clue about this event you will find the way to explain the “innocence” of the British actions...YOU ARE SO PREDICTABLE.
Now the final comments of ONE argentine site allows you to prove that the RAF acted with good will. There are other sites with different comments about the RAF attitude towards this event.
So, you are so deceiving that IF NEEDED a Argentine Defense Minister could be use as a proof of UK good intentions. An Argentine site could, also, be a source of showing UK good intentions. You would be able to use CFK words if needed in the future....
Militars LATAM dictators are terrible if you don't like them (Galtieri) but they are great if you like them (Pinochet)....“let Chicureo explain about Pinochet”..
Behind your intellectual and self sufficient image you are quite simple and predictable...“WE ARE THE GOOD BOYS, THEY ARE THE BAD BOYS”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/11488776/Argentine-archaeologists-find-secret-Nazi-lair-in-jungle.html
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 06:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0#293 Gordo
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 07:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the link. The Argentine wholehearted support of Nazis is a perfect example of the criminal acts against humanity that they infamously embraced.
They were all criminals.
Leopoldo Galtieri [commenting on Argentine rejection of US peace proposals] “I am proud to have had the satisfaction at this meeting with representatives from the United States of making it clear that the honour of the Argentinian nation is not subject to negotiation, no matter with whom.”
There were numerous peace proposals rejected by the Argentine leadership prior to the re-taking of the islands. Argentina could have ended up with substantial gains, but they were impossible to deal with.
In the end, the true war crimes were committed by the Argentines themselves.
Chicureo: Actually Galtieri did the right thing as Commander in Chief of The Argentine Armed Forces. The Argentine forces at the time were the Giants of Latin America. Had he not presented the British battle, the Argentine Forces today would be the butt of jokes, but instead the Argentine military rose to the challenge, sinking ships, shooting down planes and practically annihilating entire British rifle platoons and companies. A good percentage of the elite British guardsmen, marines and paras today are locked up in mental hospitals having gone mad reliving their nightmares of fighting bad ass conscripts and their die-hard NCOs and officers at Goose Green and the craggy mountains outside Puerto Argentino. Galtieri could've called his loyal troops to secure his power after the fall of Puerto Argentino, but instead he chose to go quietly. He could've continued the war with hit-and-run attacks thanks to Peru, Venezuela and Cuba making available their Sabres, Mirages, Canberras and Migs, but he wanted to avoid infighting taking place in Buenos Aires, so he retired gracefully.
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0#295
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 08:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0“...so he retired gracefully...”
Thank you, it has made my day! I was perhaps misinformed as I had the impression the Argentine population wanted to hang him upside down by his toes an slit his throat...like Mussolini...
“History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.”
Winston Churchill
Some people of intelligence might ask why I've spent valuable me refuting the Argentine cause for the “las Malvinas” fantasy. The answer is quite simple: when someone does an Internet search of the www, they'll find numerous references to Argentine and Italian-Argentine COWARDICE.
These ignorant trolls have substantially harmed their own cause and I plan to raise a glass far later today to celebrate my victory upon them.
¡Viva Chile! y ¡Viva Baronesa Thatcher!
@295 Alberto
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 08:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0You don't have talk some crap, don't you?
A good percentage? What percentage actually? Why did they go mad? How is killing 255 soldiers and sailors in the ENTIRE war practically annihilating entire British rifle platoons and companies? The Rifles regiments didn't even fight in the Falklands war.
Also the UK doesn't lock people up in mental hospitals, because we don't have mental hospitals. We care for mentally ill people in short stay mental health wards, and then in the community.
Maybe you still lock those you consider 'mad' up in Argentina, but most of the rest of the civilised world has moved on from that.
Oh, and Argentina's military IS the joke of South America.
Before your illegal attempt to steal British territory Argentina was considered the military powerhouse of South America. But then you chose the wrong people to tangle with and got your arses handed to you.
After that all Argentina's military has become is the joke of South America.
And as for those who fought in the war, just what did happen to your 'glorious' Argentine forces on return to Argentina?
Oh I remember it know.
They were spit upon by their own people, called cowards because they didn't fight to the death (easy to tell other people to fight to the death when you aren't willing to do it yourself), ignored and abandoned by successive governments.
And now all they are is propaganda puppets for successive corrupt governments to pull out and put on show for the brainwashed multitudes, then stuff back into obscurity when no longer needed.
Yes, you keep going on about the damage inflicted on the British by these 'superior' Argentine forces, yet all it does is show just how very INCOMPETENT and COWARDLY many of the Argentine forces were. They were incredibly brave against unarmed and defenceless men, women and children.
Not very brave at all against people who could, and would shoot back.
And despite British loses and set back we didn't give up. We fought until we won.
Thats just Alberto's fantasy world where Argentines are unbeatable macho-men, 12' tall & bullet proof, while the British MUST have used some cunning trick to be able to win.
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong, Alberto.
Our mens' cause was just, you were uninvited invaders, who were defeated.
Doesn't matter whether you like it or not, You LOST-deal with it!
@297 LEPRecon
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0”They were spit upon by their own people, called cowards because they didn't fight to the death (easy to tell other people to fight to the death when you aren't willing to do it yourself), ignored and abandoned by successive governments.“
And now they are prancing around on a ”peregrinación” throughout Argentina with a religious image of an invented Virgin of the Malvinas. What a load of plonkers!
@292 pgerman
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let's recap a little now that we've reached post 300.
You start with an accusation that the dastardly Brits have been intruding into Argentine air space, and it then transpires that you have no evidence for this other than that it is denied by the Argentine Air Force, the accusation makes no logical sense in the light of the aircraft involved, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation that fits all the know facts, and there seems to be only the one instance since the end of the Falklands War.
What a scandal that is.
When this is pointed out to you, you then get all huffy and try to move the accusation to dastardly Brits intercepting Argentine mercy flights to the Antarctic. It then transpires that these flights are in fact deliberate provocations, a whole series of them has been going on since the end of the war, and the source for this is none other than one of the Argentine pilots involved.
So in short, there is compelling evidence that Argentina has been repeatedly and deliberately guilty of exactly the accusation you level against the Brits, for which accusation there is no credible evidence whatsoever.
As an exercise in hypocritical Malvinista hand wringing, not to mention shooting yourself in the foot, this surely deserves to win a coconut.
@295 Alberto
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bullets and high explosive don't discriminate. Nor do I think that ”bad ass concripts' had much to with the high rates of PTSD suffered by veterans of that conflict. The effects of heavy machine gun and artillery fire on human beings is well documented and the competence, or otherwise, of those doing the firing is irrelevant.
I'd also gently point out to you, and anyone else, who's weighed in on this subject, that distilling the millions of individual experiences of the many thousands of Italian and other participants of Italian WW2 campaigns into a definitive truth about their courage or cowardice is unrealistic. Not within a 2000 word character limit anyway. Or even several. Personally I wouldn't blame the Italians for wanting to give up. Why would anyone who had a choice in the matter want to fight on behalf of a bunch of goose-stepping Nazi's?
#271
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0It was NOT an emergency. The aircraft were NOT in dire straights of falling out the sky for lack of fuel but they could not fly around in circles waiting for the Falklands weather to improve. They chose Punta Arenas because they knew that permission would automatically be granted by a friendly country instead of some political wrangle with Argentina. Nothing sinister and obvious to those who do not subscribe to conspiracy theories .
It would appear from the (meaningless) postings of Pgerman and Bertorelli that the Argentina nation is a paragon of virtue, especially those citizens of Italian ethnic origin! Who does not agree with this?
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0And Alberto.
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The more you try to 'big' up Argentina's 'efforts' in 1982 the worse you actually make their defeat sound.
Argentina held ALL of the advantage in that war, remember? Short supply lines, better or comparable weaponry, reinforcements closer, and dug in fortified positions.
So just why did these 'super' amazing Argentine military forces lose?
You can bring up any battle in history, but as I said, the only one that counts is the last battle, the one who decides whose won and whose lost.
Guess what? Argentina lost.
@304 And continues to lose!
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As long as some on the thread care to continue their Argentino-Italiano delusion of their superiority over the British. We might consider the wisdom of one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century.
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...At a prewar diplomatic conference, the Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop “sniffed” to Eden and Churchill that if there was another war, the Italians would be on Germany's side!
To which Churchill supposedly replied: “that seems only fair, we had them last time!”...
LEPRecon & Chicureo: Time to wake up and smell the coffee:
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ The enemy was not inept and frightened. Nor was he badly equipped and starving ... His defensive positions were well sited and well constructed. He fought with skill and bravery. Some units resisted almost to the last man” (The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, Volume 2: War and Diplomacy By Lawrence Freedman)
“ Accounts of the battle written by both sides belie the commonly held opinion that the Argentine conscripts were no match for the professional British forces opposing them. For nearly 2 weeks they held their positions on Mt Harriet and fought bravely” http://www.summitpost.org/mt-harriet-et-al/639164
“The 13,000 Argentine defenders ... were well-prepared and equipped with modern weapons, including the very latest night vision goggles. When the two sides clashed, the conscripts fought well against the 10,500 British professionals ranged against them, and in some prolonged firefights inflicted serious casualties on the invaders” (Historical Dictionary of Naval Intelligence By Nigel West)
“After the Battle of Two Sisters on 11/12 June, a senior NCO said, ”They were good steadfast troops, I rate them.“ High praise indeed coming from a sergeant-major in the Royal Marines” (The FN FAL Battle Rifle By Robert Cashner)
“BY ALL ACCOUNTS, the Argentine troops, many of them conscripts, fought furiously at Goose Green” http://www.summitpost.org/mt-harriet-et-al/639164
“The Argentine army, many of them young conscripts, fought hard in several battles” http://www.summitpost.org/mt-harriet-et-al/639164
“Many Argentines acquitted themselves valiantly in battle, as the long list of posthumous medals for bravery in the Official Report of the Argentine Army16 indicates” (Mates and Muchachos: Unit Cohesion in the Falklands-Malvinas War By Nora K Stewart)
History has long concluded that Galtieri was one of the most cowardly and despicable actors of the Falklands war who was condemned by his own countrymen as deserving of the firing squad.
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In admiration of Italians, you'll find only a tiny minority that still praise Mussolini. The overwhelming majority there have nothing but despite and shame of what he did to their country.
And that is why Italy is far more nobler country than Argentina.
Argentinian cowardace during the Falklands war is extensively documented and undeniable, to deny its existence is delusional as well as asinine.
@307 Alberto
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I said you arguments just make the British victory in the war all the more impressive.
For years the Argentine trolls bleated on about Argentina having only poorly trained conscripts and that they were ill equipped.
But we know that they weren't all poorly trained conscripts, and they were far for ill equipped with weapons.
So the British victory is even greater because of ALL we had to overcome.
And unlike Argentina's navy, the Royal Navy didn't run and hide the minute they lost a vessel.
So all your arguments are irrelevant. You still lost the war and HMS Conquerer has it's place in history as the ONLY nuclear powered submarine to actually sink a ship.
So no matter how many lies and fairy stories you devise to try and comfort yourself, the truth will always be that Argentina lost the war, that Argentina's navy ran and hid like cowards, and that Argentina's armed forces engaged in numerous breaches of the Laws of Armed Conflict (aka the Geneva Conventions).
Yes some Argentines fought bravely, but their commanders were arrogant cowards, and couldn't even supply them from only 400 miles away.
So despite all your alleged amazing Argentine army 'commandos' (which were still only slightly better than the normal troops), the amazing night vision goggles, and the amazing weaponry your troops had, you still lost the war.
And still you are so desperate to try and rewrite history to try and make it sound like you actually won something.
Argentina LOST. It lost the war, its military lost its position as supposedly the 'best' in LATAM, your country has lost its way, and is so jealous of 3,000 people who have made a greater success out of their country in 30 years, than Argentina has in over 100 years.
You are still losing. Not against the British but against your own greed and corruption.
You see that British don't have to destroy Argentina, Argentina is going to destroy Argentina. And people like you, Alberto, applaud the destruction.
Pathetic.
#309 LEPRecon
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Q.E.D
@307 : If the Argentine Army had been as good as you think it was , the war would still be being fought now .
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In any amphibious operation , the advantage is always with the defending side , and military doctrine states you need at least a 3:1 numerical superiority in attack , yet 10,000 Brits travelling 14,000 kms displaced 13,500 well equipped Argentines who'd had weeks to prepare their defences and whose air bases were only 400kms away .
I would worry about what's happening now .
La Campora are better armed than the Army and Florencia is going to have a Montonero baby .
Keyboard warriors...it doesn't look fun....
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV665OgfOxg
#312 Voice
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice video. The soldiers that didn't really get to show off their special talents and when the cease fire was finally ordered, were really unhappy they could not continue the fight were the ones perhaps the Argentine conscripts were scared to death of....
Gabriel Barcia Marquez quoted witnesses as saying that the Gurkhas:
”…beheaded Argentine soldiers with their assassins' scimitars and were so bloodthirsty that the English had to handcuff them to stop further killing after the Argentines had surrendered.
smas / RFA Assoc. RFA Tidespring under construction in S. Korea now afloat
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/580013714662932480/photo/1
its afloat..
///////
Amazing aerial shot of #USSTheodoreRoosevelt in Stokes Bay taken by Richard Davies
https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/580013714662932480/photo/1
..
@ 307 Alberto Bertorelli
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This isn't your dad, is it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZMTDDRVShM
He does have the same name, after all!
@300 HansNiesund
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's recap a little now that we've reached your post 300.
Officially the Typhoons and a refueling plane were in an emergency so they decided to land in the Continent but, based on your writtings, they preferred Arenas (a sorf of “un-official” alternative base) instead of the closest Ushuaia or R Grande. In addition, based on your writings, they had plenty of fuel, so they were not in the need of landing in “hostile” runways and flew to the “un-official” alternative base.
So, why on the hell did they flew over argentine territory? If they were not in an emergency and had fuel (the third plane was a tanker) they should had avoided the argentine territory by choosing a longer route (i.e. over the Cabo de Hornos).
I suppose at this point you will reply ”because Rossi (or Puricelli) allowed them to do so” no matter that all the local media had informed the exactly the opposite (even those reported by the Government as pro-british and pro-USA ones).
But, based on your writtings Rossi, or Puricelli, are two liers or two trustful people depending on the context and your convinience. It's the same reasoning as when you wrote about “good nazis” (Pinochet) or “bad nazis” (Galtieri).
So, now, please, try to find some excuses about why the three planes flight over argentine territory having enought fuel and why the independent media published that authorities were surprised by the violation of the argentine sovereignty.
I look forward to some childish and creative explanation that twisted reality and showed, once more, that Brisith are saints and perfect.
@304 LEPRecon
Argentina held ALL of the advantage in that war? Except for the fat that it was a 3rd world country in war against the third most powerful fleet in its time with the largest defense budget in Europe with the full support in diplomacy, technology, information and equipment of the USA, the OTAN, the Nations of the Commonwhealth and some LATAM countries. Where were the avantages?
#315 ChrisR
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry Chris you're mistaken. I've done a bit of checking to find out why our boy is such a rabid admirer of Mussolini as well as the fascist Argentino-Italianio leadership during the Falklands war: the video is a documentary of the boy's grandfather who served with great Italian courage in occupied France. As you can see, he was a snappy dresser (I love the hat,) and he kept company with only gentlemen of the highest character. On a personal note: ..the man really knew how to pick the girls...
By the way, attached is a great article with a different perspective on the Argentine Navy's incompetence.
Margaret Thatcher's biggest debt was to Argentina's navy | Simon Jenkins
http://gu.com/p/36cja/sbl
317
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 083 to go...
313 Chicureo
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You missed a bit -
“because of some strange custom they held up the severed head by the hair and cut off the ears.”
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/gabriel-garcia-marquez-colombia
People,
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Amazing aerial shot of #USSTheodoreRoosevelt in Stokes Bay taken by Richard Davies
https://www.flickr.com/photos/supasmokey/16898597865/
A great ship, soon to be followed by our very own,
this will make the argies think twice,
as for the belgrano, she wont be forgotten by the Argentinians,
no more than we will forget the great HMS Conqueror ..
313
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...mere stuff and nonsense, the Gurkhas never even got to fight...support for the Scots Guard on Tumbledown and precious little else...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTaj-PyTrxE
321 Voice
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think we knew that
Oh....
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'll just do my Eeyore impression then....
@316 pgerman
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So what you are saying is that your stance has gone from the WHOLE WORLD supporting Argentina over its spurious sovereignty claims to the Falklands to practically the WHOLE WORLD actually supporting the British using their LEGAL right to remove a bunch of murdering fascist scum from British territory?
And yes Argentina held ALL of the advantage. You held dug in fortified positions. Your weaponry was, in some cases (especially aircraft and missiles) MORE advanced than what the British had, your small arms comparable, and your navy wasn't exactly non-existent (well not until after Belgrano's sinking anyway). Added to that you had more men, more equipment, a very short supply line compared to the British meaning that supplies and reinforcements could've been in the Falklands very quickly compared to the weeks it would've taken British reinforcements and supplies.
Oh yes, pgerman, Argentina held ALL of the advantage in that war. So much so that EVERY military EXPERT in the WORLD said it was a war impossible for the British to win.
The majority of the British military were still positioned to take on the Russians, not to fight elsewhere, so Argentina actually had MORE men and equipment available than the British.
As for diplomacy. I'll give you that. The British were and still are far ahead of Argentina in that respect.
As for actual support. The only we received was from the USA (some missiles and intel), and Chile (again intel). We did have offers from other countries to assist us (notably Australia) but these were declined at the time, possible fearing it would actually bring other LATAM countries into the conflict on Argentina's side.
But Argentina had its allies too. Peru and Brazil. And the USSR even offered to attack the British Task Force for Argentina.
But the Junta refused. I guess they figured that the USA would get involved big time if the USSR did, and then that would've been WW3.
Perhaps the Junta weren't terminally stupid after all.
#316
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If they called MAYDAY then they were in an emergency situation requiring immediate action.....landing permission at the first airfield.
You seem to know a lot about this. Did they call MAYDAY and more importantly where did they enter Argentinian airspace....please tell !
If they were near estrecho de magallanes it is only about 150 miles to P. A.
If they flew round the Horn to P.A., that would be approx 700 miles and certainly require air to air refuelling from the VC-10K providing it had enough fuel aboard for the task. Air-to-air refuelling is risky. A broken probe or leaking valve can turn a routine into an emergency.
Everything you have said is pure conjecture. If they had permission to overfly then what's your beef. This discussion is pointless until YOU can supply all the details of the flight. If you cannot then we will assign it to the other made up conspiracies such as the sinking of the Invincible, RN subs. in the River Plate, nuclear dumps on the Falklands, missile silos, etc. etc.
@316
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Officially the Typhoons and a refueling plane were in an emergency ”
The typhoons and refuelling plane were not in an emergency. See also 157, 163, 187, 188, 272, 302 and just this very minute 325 for previous refutations of this straw you keep clinging to.
@ 317 Chicureo
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is an interesting article but Simon Jenkins can't resist putting things in his writings that are obfuscation to 'bolster' his piece. Quite what he thought the UK would do to keep Hong-Kong at the end of the agreed time of the lease is beyond my reasoning:
“Everything London said or did in the 1970s suggested a loss of interest in relics of empire. Aden, Hong Kong, Diego Garcia, Rhodesia, had gone or were going.”
It was also a pity that Raygun Ronnie Regan convinced The Blessed Margaret to hold at the Falklands and the argies keep 'their honour', hence we are now back with The Cowards of the Continent puffing up their chests and making life as difficult as possible for the Islanders, even though their artillery ammunition is out of date, they have no small arms ammunition to speak of and no navy of any consequence.
They are cowards but their arrogance is unbounded: we see that over in Uruguay during the season.
324 LEPRecon & 327 ChrisR
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have no idea what you are writing about. Not even have an idea of the historic background of the events.
Just try to understand that islanders (from Tierra del Fuego) don't like you. But not only this, they don't like ships or planes comming and going to the FI.
They passed a law banning any ship or plane from the FI (or going to) and It's they right. It is a provincial law. This is called SELF DETERMINATION.
This law might harm their economy due to the reduction of tourism but it is exactly the very same situation when FI autorities rejected CFK offer to directly connect Argentina (Buenos Aires) throught Aerolineas Argentinas. If your authorities had accept the proposal you would be able to get plenty of more money from Buenos Aires tourists.
So grow up. Islanders from Tierra del Fuego don't like either kelpers or birtish the very same way you don´t like argentine people.
We must accept this situation and going on with our lives until someone were able to find a solution to the dispute.
Chicureo: “In admiration of Italians, you'll find only a tiny minority that still praise Mussolini”?:
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Every year, around this time, Mussolini calendars appear in newspaper kiosks up and down Italy, offering a year's supply of photos of the fascist leader. They are often tucked away with the specialist magazines, but according to the manager of one firm that prints them, they are much in demand. ”We are selling more than we did 10 years ago,“ said Renato Circi, the head of Rome printer Gamma 3000. ”I didn't think it was still a phenomenon, but young people are now buying them too ... Among his adherents today are the masked, neo-fascist youths who mounted raids on Rome schools this autumn to protest against education cuts, lobbing smoke bombs in corridors and yelling “Viva Il Duce” ... The well-to-do streets around Piazza Ponte Milvio, north of Rome's football stadium, are today plastered with posters and graffiti by numerous neo-fascist groups, including CasaPound, and the local bars have become a hangout for gangs of rightwing lads in regulation Fred Perry shirts and Ray-Ban Wayfarers ... Further down the road, the entrance to the stadium is marked by a massive fascist-era obelisk, still standing, with “Mussolini” written in huge letters down the front“ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/01/benito-mussolini-rehabilitation-italy
Chicureo: ”In admiration of Italians, you'll find only a tiny minority that still praise Mussolini“?:
”Every year, around this time, Mussolini calendars appear in newspaper kiosks up and down Italy, offering a year's supply of photos of the fascist leader. They are often tucked away with the specialist magazines, but according to the manager of one firm that prints them, they are much in demand. “We are selling more than we did 10 years ago,” said Renato Circi, the head of Rome printer Gamma 3000. ”I didn't think it was still a phenomenon, but young people are now buying them too ... Among his adherents today are the masked, neo
Yeah I was in Rome fairly recently, the route from the Airport to the city is littered with Graffiti...haven't a clue what it said, but disappointing for tourists like me to see it...
Mar 23rd, 2015 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...and they were no Michelangelo's or Raphael either...
@328 pgerman
Mar 24th, 2015 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I find it amusing that you accuse ChrisR and myself of having no idea of the historic background to events, when all you do is repeat the same old lies that have been disproved time and time again.
Even Argentina's own historic records don't support Argentina's claims, and the arguments you put forwards often contradict each other. You are like a parrot and just repeat what your lying government tells you to. No thought required at all.
It is of no business to ANYONE in Argentina what the Falkland Islanders and the British do in their own territory.
In 1982 Argentina tried to build its own little empire by stealing the Falkland Islands from its right owners. The British came along, and with great bravery and resourcefulness, defeated the fascist Argentina and restored freedom to the Islanders.
If your claims to the Falklands held any water, pgerman, you would've been at the International Court of Justice years ago. But you have no legal claim to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, the South Shetland Islands and Antarctica beyond “we want them”, and some claptrap about geographical proximity.
None of these things hold any water in international law.
By your own admission, pgerman, the vast majority of the world supported the British in their liberation of the Falklands, and your country's illegal invasion in 1982 basically put an end to your colonial ambitions.
You've had 33 years, pgerman, to PROVE that Argentina wasn't like the military Junta, but all you have done in those intervening years is prove that you are EXACTLY like the military Junta, and therefore shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Falklands (or any other civilised country for that matter), as your nasty cowardly murderous streak comes out.
You lost the war. You lose every argument that you put forwards on here - which is what happens when you tell lies, pgerman, lies that are so easily disproved that I have to wonder if you have a brain, let alone any imagination.
Pgrman posted: ”Just try to understand that islanders (from Tierra del Fuego) don't like you. But not only this, they don't like ships or planes comming and going to the FI.”
Mar 24th, 2015 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's wonderful for the residents of Punta Arenas, who really like the people of the Falklands Islands and welcome the millions of Dollars from the cruise ships using their port instead. http://buenosairesherald.com/article/179295/argentina’s-cruise-industry-bubble-blowing-up-in-20142015-season
(By the way, the islanders from Tierra del Fuego are all extinct. The current residents on the Eastern half are a bunch of paranoid Argentinians of European ancestry.)
Overflights with permission happen all over the world and since the Argentine over meant has not made any formal protests, one has to assume that the RAF did not violate protocols. (Anyway, if their was an illegal intrusion, I would assume Argentina would launch a menacing squadron of deadly Pucará fighters to turn the RAF away...)
Direct flights from Buenos Aires??? ...Actually, if you really want to risk your precious life and experience a terrifying, heart in your throat and white knuckles experience, book yourself on any domestic Aerolineas Argentinas flight as their maintenance is almost non-existent at times. (Also if you're someone who enjoys being degraded and humiliated like a doormat, it's your international airline of choice as well.). Perhaps that's why the Falklanders prefer LAN.
From Alberto's post, he's certainly a part of that tiny minority. I wonder if he has a feathered hat like his grandfather and a Mussolini poster on his wall.
Chicureo: “A movement to rehabilitate the legacy of Benito Mussolini!!!”:
Mar 24th, 2015 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0“A movement to rehabilitate the legacy of Benito Mussolini as an Italian hero is gathering momentum, breaking a 50-year taboo surrounding Italy's fascist leader ... Nationally, Mussolini's residences are being restored and opened to the public, exhibitions of military memorabilia and fascist art are being held, and recently in Rome, Italy's soldiers who fought against the British at El-Alamein were honoured with a military parade around the Colosseum” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/2144413.stm
Proof Mussolini is much admired in Italy. Viva il Duce!
If you're a cowardly fool, ...Benito Mussolini and General Leopoldo Galtieri are great examples to worship... Pgerman and this idiot deserve each other...
Mar 24th, 2015 - 01:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0@334
Mar 24th, 2015 - 02:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have told you before, both countries Argentina and Chile, had the same freemasons fathers. Both flags have masonic symbols. I hate to make you feel disapointed by this issue.
In addition, your “hero”, the “democratic” Augusto Pinochet killed the Legal President of Chile, Salvador Allende, who was himself a freemason.
But, I can extend HansNiesund believes to you: There are “good nazis” (Pinochet) or “bad nazis” (Galtieri or Mussolini).
(Anyway as I have already told you: Falklands Islanders don't like to be publically related to Pinochet..it's not politically correct....try to hide this)
Almost any fool knows that the majority of the founders of South American nations were Freemasons. Ther are NO Masonic symbols on the Chilean flag, unless a five pointed star is his claim which is total bullshit.
Mar 24th, 2015 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Allende committed suicide with an AK47, documented by his personal doctor.
Augusto Pinochet had numerous Jewish friends here in Chile, hardly fitting for a Nazi. Depending on who you believe, the Chilean junta was responsible for 4-7 thousand deaths. Argentina's is roughly 30 thousand.
I'm certain that inhabitants of the democratic and free Falklands do not worship Pinochet, but I doubt they have disdain for Chileans either...
I had the wonderful opportunity to study and train in the UK and once they figured out my uniform, I was enthusiastically embraced. From what I've heard, the Falklanders are very cordial to my countrymen.
Nice site that I recommend.
http://www.psywarrior.com/Falklands.html
@336
Mar 24th, 2015 - 04:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0O'higgins was a freemason and the symbol in the chilean flag are, yes, among others the five-point-star quite a masonic symbol.
Allende commited suicide when Pinochet refused to give him a safe conduct. So Pinochet was the direct responsible for the death of Salvador Allende.
Pinochet was quite clear a violent fascist. In Argentina the missing people were officially 8,000 (check Nunca Mas the official document) so taking into account both populations it is quite clear who was cruelest. In adition, Pinochet and Gral Peron were “mates”.....
With the FI citizen you never know but certainly they don´t want to be shown close to Pinochet....
“I had the wonderful opportunity to study and train in the UK and once they figured out my uniform, I was enthusiastically embraced”...ahhh...that's the reason of your lack of self-steem?
@328 pgerman
Mar 24th, 2015 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0”They passed a law banning any ship or plane from the FI (or going to) and It's they right. It is a provincial law. This is called SELF DETERMINATION. ”
It's rather unfortunate then that Argentina had previously signed up to various treaties guaranteeing free passage of shipping, but I guess that's no big deal if you consider that signing a treaty is no big deal in the first place. After all, there's no law either to prevent the legislators of Tierra del Fuego behaving like petulant adolescents who think it's really, really, really unfair they can't get their own way, and prefer to sulk (or whatever) in their bedroom.
@334 Chicureo
“If you're a cowardly fool, ...Benito Mussolini and General Leopoldo Galtieri are great examples to worship'
Fascists have to worship failure, because there is nothing else for them. And here we have two of the most disastrous leaders that ever strutted a balcony, although it has to be said Galtieiri was in the Little Leagues compared to fat wee Benito.
@335 pgerman
”But, I can extend HansNiesund believes to you: There are “good nazis” (Pinochet) or “bad nazis” (Galtieri or Mussolini).“
Actually that's not my belief at all, but I do think when you're forced into a war it's only practical to draw a distinction between the assholes that have invaded you, and the assholes that haven't.
@337 pgerman
”In Argentina the missing people were officially 8,000 (check Nunca Mas the official document)”
Hang on a minute, I thought you were contending above that official documents and statements from Argentina must be lies? Some are and some aren't? How is the non-specialist supposed to tell the difference?
What is your point, pgerman?
Mar 24th, 2015 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0lf you want to get Argentina in the boxing ring with Chile, go right ahead.
You insult & threaten Chile, then expect them to support your ridiculous “claims” to the Falkland lslands.
What you people have to get into your thick heads is that you have NO RIGHTS in the Falkland lslands or any other British South Atlantic territory either.
lts no use you getting all sulky & cranky about it.
lt is NOT your land.
Haven't you got enough land (that you stole from the natives, from Chile & from Paraguay)?
Haven't you got anything better to do?
Like making your country the showcase of South America.
Which it could be.
End this obsession with some lslands that have NEVER been yours & NEVER will be.
#339 Isolde
Mar 24th, 2015 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0They're just a couple of idiots spewing nonsense about practically everything.
ChrisR's revelation about Alberto Bertorelli's grandfather is well worth watching as it gives the thread a great insight to those who admired Mussolini.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZMTDDRVShM
HANSNIESUND. GORDO1.
Mar 24th, 2015 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's too diffuclt to try to talk to people like you who think that only our side makes too partial lectures in reference to the historic aspects of this conflict, as far as i'm concernned, i have refered to what both parts omit in planty of my comments in mercopress.
On the other hand, i also think that the solution for this conflict would be to take the case to the i.c .j., in fact in 1884 and 1888 arg. suggested taking the cause to an arbitration, however the u. k. rejected that posibility, but in 1947 britain offered to take to the court the case for the dependencies from the islands, but it hadn't included the malvinas in that proposal. After 1947, none of the two nations proposed again to take the case to the court, in my opinion i think it might show that perhaps both aren't sure of getting a positive result for their demands.
PETE BOG: Your explanations are usually interesting, however you haven't seen yet that public international right doens't apply the right to self determination for absolutly all people under any cinrcunstance. Before the war, in 1968, 1974, and 1980, the u. k. tried to find a solution with arg. for this conflict, in fact, c. f. k. read before the u. n. in 2012, a secret proposal which was being treated between both nations, based on a shared sovereignty.
CHICUREO: If you are a pro thatcherist, i respetc it, however it's absolutly dishonest to try to rewritte histroy, making shamefull partial lectures.
Accept it or not, the readley mission to the islands and to bs. as. of 1980, the warns ignored by thatcher, in relation to the cuts that she had made for the defence in the south atlantic, and the elimination of the british nationality for many islanders, show clearly that she wasn't so interesting in keeping the islands for britain, anyway, if you prefer believing the contrary, i respect it too, but your ignorance doens't change the facts..
I greet you all from Saint Malo. I have it from authority here they have never heard of Las Malvinas - only of les Malouines and, of course, the Falklands
Mar 24th, 2015 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0341 axel arg
Mar 24th, 2015 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh I agree that the performance of Baroness Thatcher, and others in regards to the Falklands was shoddy and reflects that the UK would have probably negotiated something very favorable to Argentina.
Argentines wanted all or nothing and rejected reasonable compromise. Post invasion, but prior to the UK forces retaking the islands, there was still a window for compromise. That opportunity was lost for our lifetimes when blood and treasure was sacrificed.
I'm not a blind follower of Thatcher, and history shows that she made enormous mistakes during her long career, but I admire her because overall she stood up to the a Argentine junta and won.
Remember, my political view is that of Chile. I remember watching the news bulletins in 1978 with fear of going to war with Argentina. If the Falklands had fallen, there was strong speculation that Argentina would ignore the treaty of Juan Pablo II and go to war.
Bottom line is that countries like Argentina and Bolivia just can't accept reason and are incapable of honoring negotiated settlements. That's why we have one of the most powerful defensive forces in Latin America.
@341
Mar 24th, 2015 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you, Axel, for pointing it out. Repeatedly down the years the UK has attempted to get Argentina to see reason over the Falklands. But what we've seen in 1982 and since is that there is no point to this at all. The Malvinas question in Argentina isn't a matter of reason at all. For some of you it fulfils some kind of psychological need, for certain of your politicians it's a handy tool for manipulating the populace. The question will never be resolved to your satisfaction, because it doesn't exist to be resolved.
@338
Mar 24th, 2015 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Hang on a minute, I thought you were contending above that official documents and statements from Argentina must be lies? Some are and some aren't? How is the non-specialist supposed to tell the difference?”
You know what? You wrote this paragraph becuase you know nothing about argentine history (not even the modern one).
“Nunca Mas” the official final document (the conclussion of a comitee of morally outstanding citizens) of an independent comitee that allowed Raul Alfonsin to sue the militars against genocide. It has nothing to do with the current government. In fact the current government had criticized this document becuase it also mention the crimes terrorist made in Argentina in those times. It is still a official document of the Country and the figures are of about 8,000 missing people instead of the figure of 30,000 people that the peronists like to mention to pay additional subsidies and compensations.
JORGE VIDELA, an Argentine former military dictator who ordered the torture, murder and disappearance of th
Mar 24th, 2015 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pgerman's hero Jorge Videla was responsible for over 30 thousand “disappeared” of which over 8,000 were documented and over 22 thousand unaccounted for because they were dumped into the Atlantic. Her also conducted the incredible cruel act of stealing at least 400 new born children before murdering their mothers.
@345
Mar 24th, 2015 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Only 8,000? Gosh, what an over-reaction it was to kick your depraved perverts out of our islands.
One last time to finish this string: the Falklands do not belong to Argentina, just as Gibraltar does not belong to Spain, Ceuta and Melilla do not belong to Morocco, Belize does not belong to Guatemala, northern Chile does not belong to Bolivia and the western part of Guyana does not belong to Venezuela.
Mar 24th, 2015 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is a possibility that the mad bus driver will militarily seize part of western Guyana to divert attention away from Venezuela's demise, but that would make them despicable thieves like Argentina, wouldn't it?
First Tide class fleet tanker now afloat
Mar 24th, 2015 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-tide-class-fleet-tanker-now-afloat/
Better picture here..
.
@348 Chicureo
Mar 24th, 2015 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If only they had an Italian bus driver running that country, all would be well.
#350 Hans
Mar 24th, 2015 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So correct...
@346
Mar 25th, 2015 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are a liar and quite clearly are not ok from your head.
JORGE VIDELA, was a nazi criminal, and murderer, militar who was responsible for the death of 8,000 people in my country (when Argentina had 25 million people of population).
My position is quite clear about militar dictatorships unlike you that sneakily, considers another nazi murderer, Augusto Pinochet, the “leader” (il duce, the fhurer, el caudillo por la voluntad de Dios) that saved your country.
Others such as HansNiesund, (and other islanders from the Falklands) are cynic and false since they also considers that Pinochet was “good” (or less bad) because he helped the United Kingdom during the war. They are so hypocritical that they consider themselves a sort of “paradise” of liberty and freedom in the continent so they must hide their simpathy for such a monster.
“Videla was responsible for over 30 thousand “disappeared” of which over 8,000 were documented and over 22 thousand unaccounted for because they were dumped into the Atlantic”...ha ha ha...so do you consider that you have more information that the official document issued for a true democratic government?
I challenge you to write quite clear your opinion about the Nazi murderer, and also corrupt, coward of Pinochet (who invented an illness to be “saved” and released by the United Kingdom justice thank's to the services given).
Please, “Chicuero”, “HansNiesund”, write your thoughts and comments about him !!!
@352
Mar 25th, 2015 - 08:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you'd be so kind as to point out any instances of the FIG torturing and murdering its own citizens, I'll give the question of liberty and freedom in the islands compared to the continent due consideration.
For Pinochet, I'll refer to you the answer I already gave you in @338. In the event that you read it, but just failed to understand, let me bring in Winston Churchill, who can explain it better than I :
“If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
Life isn't perfect, especially in wartime, but I'm sure we can all be grateful that at the end of the day the perpetrators of the Campo de Mayo Abattoir and Baby Farm got their come-uppance.
It's just a shame that Argentina has yet to recognise that there is more to democracy than just electing a demagogue every now and then, and that references to “non-people” and “squatters” standing in the way of your territorial ambitions suggest that you have some way to go yet before you get the hang of it.
A good place to start would be this peculiar notion you have that somebody else's crimes exonerate you of yours, which seems to be extremely prevalent among Argentine posters on this board. I can understand that's the only argument you have, most of the time, but in the UK most primary school children can tell you what's wrong with it. Perhaps we should get one in to help you out?
f Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
#353 Hans
Mar 25th, 2015 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well said! Although I have a much more sympathetic understanding of the reasons why Allende was deposed in 1973. Venezuela currently has a similar situation, except the military completely supports Maduro. They're f**ked.
If Argentina continues this stupidity with the Falklands, they're even more...
@353
Mar 25th, 2015 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have never asked you about the reasons why you ended with the Chilean Government of Pinochet as your ally.
I just wanted your explicit concepts about him, and his crimes, but it is quite clear that you don't want to make tthem (you don't want to make an explicit statement of your thoughts about Augusto Pinochet). For me is enought.
@354
You might learn additional expressions from “Well said”....
Salvador Allende might have been a socialist and his ideas about economy might not have been the correct ones but he was a TRULY democrat. You cannot compare Allende to Maduro.
You are ashamed of put in writings your explicit ideas about Augusto Pinochet too.
I KNOW LATAM MILITARS QUITE WELL !!...THEY ARE ALL CATHOLIC FASCISTS. As I have already written you all are “aryan admirers with dark hair that go to mass every day”. That's why you denied the presence of masonic symbols in the Chilean flag.
VIDELA = GALTIERI = FRANCO = MUSSOLINI = PINOCHET
352 pgerman (#)
Mar 25th, 2015 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mar 25th, 2015 - 01:27 am
Pinochet was as bad a dictator as Videla, no one can deny this, BUT there is also no doubt that Pinochet saved Chile from the communist madness of Allende and his mob and please note that after several left leaning governments in Chile, Pinochet's basic economic ideas are still in place and are successfully leading Chile to first world status, whereas Videla and his troupe of villains destroyed Argentina's economy and we are still paying for what he left us as an inheritance.
@356
Mar 25th, 2015 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would like to read “Chicureo” and “Handsniesund” opinions about Augusto Pinochet himself not yours but, I accept your opinion and, based on what you wrote, it seems that there are “good nazis” and “bad nazis”. I don not agree.
In additon, Argentina had everything needed to recover its economy since 1982...everything but PERONISM.
I must correct my last post:
PERON = VIDELA = GALTIERI = FRANCO = MUSSOLINI = PINOCHET
@357
Mar 25th, 2015 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I should have thought this would be bleeding obvious to anybody, even those who are desperately clutching at straws, but it seems I was being a little too optimistic thinking anything of the sort. There is no such thing as a “good nazi”, but there are such things as “bad nazis”, “worse nazis”, and decent human beings.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!