MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Thatcher secret documents on Falklands' war reveal her anxiety over casualties
The Mail on line revealed on Thursday a secret handwritten account of the Falklands War by Margaret Thatcher. The 128 page, 17,000 word handwritten memoir of the 1982 conflict reveals for the first time her anxiety on the eve of battle and her joy at winning back the Islands from Argentina. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMaggie cared about casualties on both sides. You only ever hear Argentinian politicians praising Argentinian casualties.
Jun 19th, 2015 - 06:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Has Argentina ever formally apologized or paid compensation to the people of the Falklands?
Maybe something that should be brought up at the next C24.
@1
Jun 19th, 2015 - 07:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sounds very logical but Argentina has no money, anyway if they said they would pay reparations I doubt they would. They borrowed US$ billions and stole it. Sorry they can't be trusted. Most Argies are lying bastards and if they can fleece you then they will, even their friends ( if they have any )
I'm not sure an apology from Argentina would mean much when they continually talk about the mythical Malvinas.
Jun 19th, 2015 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0She was right to be anxious, and without her steadfast endeavour and those of all the liberating British forces, the Falklands would not be the place it is today, a huge beacon of light and sustainable development with long term political and economic security, but a short grasp away, despite all the current Argentine rhethoric and diplomatic pressuring.
Jun 19th, 2015 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am old enough to remember the coverage from the moment the Task Force sailed to the utter defeat of the argies in the Falklands (there are NO Malvinas you argie twats).
Jun 19th, 2015 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I also remember how the Yanks and everybody else thought the Task Force would be defeated: how could they win against those odds and that far away?
The Blessed Margaret knew and understood the resolve that all the British Forces had to 'save' the British peoples of the Falklands despite the obvious errors that the media and the BBC especially were making by discussing the tactics that were likely to be employed.
The BBC have moved further down in my estimation with the overpaid, overblown so called managers who fold over at the first sign of trouble. The best thing that can be done with this hive of lefties and commies is to break it up and flog it off.
#5 ChrisR
Jun 19th, 2015 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, the main newspaper of Chile, “El Mercurio” predicted that the Argentines would capitulate during the international peace proposals before the fleet was to arrive. The concessions being offered Argentina were generous.
I was pretty young then but I remember quite well that not any rational and reasoning argentine would support the idea that Argentine could defeat the UK.
Jun 19th, 2015 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At that time the Royal Navy was the third fleet of the World, the main one in Europe and the second in importance in the NATO. The defense budget was the most important in Europe an one of the largest in the World.
In addition, the UK had the full assistance of the USA and the NATO (weapons, money, information, diplomatic support).
So, I don't want to offend those who fouhgt the war but the result of it was not a surprise at all for the World.
But it is allways nice to feed your ego with comments such as “we had everything against us but we prevailed...”...and bla bla bla.
Anyway I have always thought that a true winner leads the rules in the region where the victory took place. The RN cannot call in any South Atlantic port thought. Extrange victory where the winner lost completely influence in the region and could not even politically impose it's conditions.
The FI keep on being an international “pariah” in LATAM. No recognition at all. Strange situation for a winner.
Unless Bachelet changes the status quo, the Falklands still will have good relations with Chile.
Jun 19th, 2015 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7
Jun 19th, 2015 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The RN cannot call in any South Atlantic port ”
Yet they have called in at Brazilian and Chilean ports-last year a T45 destroyer called in at a Chilean port.
Are Brazil and Chile not defined as South American now?
“ and could not even politically impose it's conditions. ”
I had no idea that the UK behaves like Argentina and tries to force its views on South America.
The point of fighting the Falklands war was not to invade South America but to give the Islanders the government of their choice.
@8
Jun 19th, 2015 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, yes, good relations between the UK and Chile. But has never officially recognized the FI as a “legal entity”. Anyway Chile is not part of the South Atlantic countries.
It is reasonable that if you win a war in a region you impose the conditions but in the South Atlantic the situation seems to be the other way round. The winner was millitary rejected from the region.
33 years after the wart the situation seems to be without solution with the UK loosing influence in the region. It's a quite strange situation.
@7
Jun 19th, 2015 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where do you get this idea that the UK has completely lost influence and the Falklands are a pariah? Surely you don't think the flag ban is anything more than symbolic, while the UK continues to enjoy friendly relations with everybody but the looniest Latino-supremacists, and even they are not deploying anything but words in support of the PPRA.
@11
Jun 19th, 2015 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hans you ignored the fact that after WWII the UK imposed conditions to Germany. You even ignored that the UK had (and still has) a military base in German territory. So, you won't undertand the concept of being pollitically a winner.
Dealing with a humiliated dictator who was irrational and bitter was difficult enough. Forcing conditions upon Argentina through a treaty would have been worthless as Argentina has a reputation for violating treaties anyway.
Jun 19th, 2015 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@13
Jun 19th, 2015 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Would you consider Pinochet a dictator? Hans prefered not to express his opinion that, by the way, expressed it.
Sometimes it seems difficult to m,e to believe that you are a militar. Usually militars know a lot about history. If you win a war you don't sign treaties. You simply impose conditions. For the defeated one there are no options rather than follow them.
H982 FKL
Jun 19th, 2015 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0pgerman
Jun 19th, 2015 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As you know the Royal navy is welcome in most ports throughout latin America. So either you are stupid or a liar.
So, the loser is of course Argentina. A country so unutterably pitiful, corrupt, bankrupt and broken by Peronism, a country where children starve en masse, and the people live in slums....and the only rallying call they have is about a group of islands where they can try and bully 3000 people.
a pitiful, hopeless case...very much personified by you!
The British have plenty of influence in South America, our companies are making profit all over the continent, awarded oil contracts all over the continent, trading all over the continent...So either you are stupid or a liar.
The Falklands are 100% managed how the falkland Islanders wish them to be, which is the sole purpose of the war. The only place where we wanted to “politically impose” anything, was where the people wished to be British...you of course know this, so either you are stupid or a liar.
@7, 10, 12, 14. I think you're missing a few points. For the Cold War (1947-91), Britain was mostly set up to fight a European and North Atlantic War. Given that the main opposition was seen to be the Soviet Union. There were many economic problems. Nevertheless, when it came to 1982, Britain was able to deploy 105 vessels.
Jun 19th, 2015 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But there was no intention to go beyond a 'local' conflict around the Islands. OUR Islands.
But we'll be sure to bear your comments in mind. If there's another 'incident' I expect we'll begin by sending 16 Air Assault Brigade. That'll be 8,000 troops to back up the 1,200 of the garrison. 16 Air Assault Brigade includes the Royal Artillery, Army Air Corps, Gurkhas. Tanks would arrive separately. Transport aircraft. C-130 Hercules, c-17 Globemaster. Both refuelable by the RAF Voyager tanker and transport. Arriving within a couple of days. As RN fleet submarines arrive, they can be used to bombard Buenos Aires and any other settlements within, say, a thousand miles with Tomahawk Land Attack cruise missiles. I think we can launch around 200 before the subs have to load replacements from the replenishment vessels. Will you be waiting for our two new aircraft carriers? Surely you'd want to sink them. Just like you sank HMS Invincible five times during the Falklands War.
See, we can always respond to a reasonable request. How many of your 'cities' would you like obliterated? Should we use nukes? Beloved Margaret had it in mind. Perhaps you should get down on your knees and worship her mercy every day.
#14 Pgerman
Jun 19th, 2015 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Would you consider Pinochet a dictator?”
Yes, and I also consider Allende to have been a Marixist-Socialist with his Unidad Popular political party controlled by Communists. (Through the old constitution he won the presidency with only 36.2% of the popular vote.)
I do not condone the torture and murder of leftists in my country. The junta went to far and it's a national disgrace. Chile was in a civil war and sometime terrible things happen.
What is happening in Venezuela now reminds me of the chaos and corruption in 1973. Productive farms were forced by the Communist b*stards to be broken up into unsustainable small plots and our country could no longer feed itself.
The economy was destroyed and many profitable companies were nationalized.
Rationing, waiting outside stores in long lines to a buy 1.5 kilo bag of rice and hoping there would still be sugar and flour still on the shelves when the store opened... Easily 60 to 70% of the population applauded the couptd'état.
Pgerman, before you ignorantly question my education, I suggest you should do a bit of further research about the various nuances of an unconditional surrender vs. one without conditions, types of armistices, peace treaties, indemnities, reparations, etc...
@14
Jun 19th, 2015 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, pg, I believe I've told you on numerous occasions that I think Pinochet was an asshole, but apparently you haven't been paying attention.
And speaking of assholes, It's also a mistake to make an analogy between the Falklands War and WWII. The Falklands War wasn't an existential struggle like WWII, it was an exercise in asshole control, and a highly successful one at that.
As for the status quo arising, it's actually a masterpiece of diplomacy that keeps pretty much all the players happy. Why else do you think the Brits assiduously follow a policy of not feeding the troll? It would be the easiest thing in the world for a British Minister to stand up in front of the UN and expose all the lies told by Argentina since the 1940s. Any junior librarian at the FCO coud knock it up in a couple of hours. But why inflame a situation that suits practically everybody? The Peronists can huff and puff and strut and posture as much as they like, your fellow implanted colonial populations of Latin America can pretend their support, without actually having to do or sacrifice anything, and the Brits can be seen to be defending the founding principles of the United Nations.
Of course there are some minor inconveniences for the islanders, more than offset by increased prosperity, and for the Brits the costs of a small garrison to terrify the entire continent with. But mostly it's a sweet deal for everybody concerned, with the exception of Malvinista true believers who are condemned to eternal grievance, but some of them seem to enjoy that anyway.
The really strange thing is that the junta were dim-witted and/or desperate enough to try to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, and there are certainly still some Argentine and other Latam politicians who are every bit as dumb, but generally speaking these days the game is better understood.
@16, 17 and 18
Jun 19th, 2015 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's OK, but in the meantime the UK had spent more money in the maintenance of a garrison during peace time than the cost of the whole war.
Usually countries that won a war increase their influence over those who lost it. But while the RN ships were used to regularly visit argentine ports and received with honours (and their pressence were not a piece of news) now, 33 years later they are banned by their defeated ones. Even civil and commercial ships cannot used the british flag in argentine ports.
Former uruguayan president officially mentioned that the UK was the menace for peace in the South Atlantic. Brazil denied the access to a RN ship in their port. It is a strange fate for the winner of a war of being rejected and not wellcome in the same region where the war was won. I would imagine other fate for the UK after winning the war in 1982.
@18 Salvador Allende was a socialist and democratic president. I'm not saying that I would like or even vote him but he certainly was a democratic leader. In addition, he was a freemason, such as Bernardo O'Higgins, so he couldn't be a marxist.
@ 6 Chicureo
Jun 19th, 2015 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0““El Mercurio” predicted that the Argentines would capitulate during the international peace proposals before the fleet was to arrive. The concessions being offered Argentina were generous.”
But not nearly as big as their EGO'S, just like the present bunch of losers and not forgetting P German who thinks everything about it was 'strange'.
The ONLY thing strange of course is P German who doesn't even live in The Dark Country.
@20
Jun 19th, 2015 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So what you are saying is that the UK shouldn't have stopped at kicking the Argies out of the Falklands but invaded Argentina? Seems a bit excessive considering the only reason to go to war was to get Argentina out of the Falklands.
Kind of exaggerated. Round half the casualties on both sides were at Sea. A month land battles 100 Brits dead 300 Argentines.
Jun 19th, 2015 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentinas political leaderships tends to idealize the war as if it was the equivalent of Vietnam. Its just wasnt so.
Argentina fought very poorly and its officers and generals were a joke.
Galtieri's political strategy failed.
Galtieri's military strategy failed.
Menendez tactical strategy failed.
Not much more to say.
#20 pgerman
Jun 19th, 2015 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your ignorance and distortion of history as well as current reality is pathetic.
In wartime, nations at war spend both “blood and treasure”. The UK maintains a small deployment in Islands to honor the sacrifice. In a brilliant editorial, Baroness Thatcher once wrote about her nation's commitment to rememberence.
“Usually countries that won a war increase their influence over those who lost it.”
Sometimes, as as post WWII, but perhaps you could write a letter to the presidents of both Peru and Bolivia to explain this please...
Civil British flag carriers can enter any Latin American port. The Falklands flag is restricted, but very welcome in Chile. British warships are restricted, but allowed visits to Brazilian and Uruguayan ports if they are not re-supplying the FI.
[Allende] “was a freemason, such as Bernardo O'Higgins, so he couldn't be a marxist.” You have got to be kidding...
Yes, Salvador Allende was Freemason and the Grand Lodge of Chile at the time was dominated by Socialist, Marxist and Communist members. (There is a separate smaller Chilean Lodge that has members reflecting a more conservative political membership.)
Communist and Marxist Freemasons exist, just like Communist and Marxist Catholics exist as well. (Just ask a Frenchman or Italian...)
Salvador Allende, who was an avowed Marxist Socialist with strong Communist ties, was democratically elected with 36.2% popular vote president who was bent on taking Chile into a Cuban-style democratic dictatorship.
The worlds leading military nations and our enemies thought and publicly stated,
Jun 19th, 2015 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 01, we cannot send the fleet within two/three weeks,
we did it in 3 days,
we could never take back an island after it was taken by the argies,
but we did it anyway,
we did not have enough planes , we sent them anyway and used them to fantastic effect and won,
we are outnumbered and would not stand a chance,
we went anyway, we fought and regained the islands with fewer casualties than most predicted,
the Royal Navy was finished, and the losers are still saying such rubbish today,
no one thought we could do it,
well,
we went , we regained , we won and we came home, and the world [shocked] watched in awe,
We won , you lost , get over it.
#25 Briton
Jun 19th, 2015 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With one Trident submarine, Type 45 warship, five Typhoon fighters and two platoons of paratroopers Argentina could be easily destroyed.
(Frankly once they hear there is a British sub in the south Atlantic their few operating warships will rush back to port and if the Argentine soldiers hear the British are deploying Guhrka Rifles, they'll hide under their bunks with wet pants.)
Meanwhile the single Typhoon pilot would be having fun shooting down all the decrepit and barely operable AA museum piece fighters...
@24
Jun 19th, 2015 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you want to discuss about freemasonry? Unless you were part of it (which I really doubt) it wouldn't help your position.
“the Grand Lodge of Chile at the time was dominated by Socialist, Marxist and Communist members”???...“There is a separate smaller Chilean Lodge that has members reflecting a more conservative political membership”??? Don't mention this again. I won't help you in any discussion.
Freemasons cannot be either communists or conservative for obvious reasons.
It's quite a contradiction from your side.
Augusto Pinochet was also initated in a chilean lodge but he just reached the “aprentice” level becuase he couldn't match with his brothers...quite sensible !!!...he finally TG left it. While Salvador Allende was a referal inside the Order...
By the way you can be a marxist but this doesn't mean that you are a communist. Marxist are a sort of atheist meterialism belivers.
Anyway. Salvador Allende has never been a dictator at all.
@7 pgerman
Jun 19th, 2015 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You must be out of your tiny mind! Or just plain ignorant.
In my experience (which is considerable) Britain enjoys friendly relations with most Latin American Countries. México and the Central American republics together with Panamá, Colombia, Perú, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay to name just a few. The fact that British Royal Naval vessels do not call at their ports is neither here nor there although Cartagena de Indias is a favourite port of call.
#27 pgerman
Jun 19th, 2015 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I never said Salvador Allende was a dictator. Allende was in the process however converting Chile into a Cuban-style “democratic” dictatorship.
I find it amazing when foreigners spew nonsense about Chile. Under the Grand Orient of Chile there are several lodges besides the main lodge that both Allende and Pinochet were members, there are German, French and English lodges. (Catholic members are very quiet about being members because of obvious conflicts.) Freemasons require you to believe in a higher power. Allende was an agnostic.
Pinochet's wife was very Catholic and organizations like Opus Dei in Chile are quite strong, so he became Salvador Allende, was a democratically elected with 36.2% popular vote president who was bent on taking Chile into a Cuban-style democratic dictatorship.
@28
Jun 19th, 2015 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In my experience (which is also considerable as yours) Britain enjoys friendly relations with most Latin American Countries including Argentina. (I even myself had attended some British-Argentina Councill meetings). The fact that British Royal Naval vessels do not call at our ports doesn't mean anything.
#30 Pgerman
Jun 19th, 2015 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your considerable ignorance is breathtaking.
The last time the UK enjoyed good relations with Carlos Menem.
The reason that British Royal Naval vessels do not call at Argentine ports is become they're not welcome. (Plus the wake of a RN destroyer would probably case some of the ARA vessels to roll over and capsize...)
1
Jun 19th, 2015 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Maggie cared about casualties on both sides.”
Yes?
I have always thought that she gave a flying f*ck for casualties.
As she did with the victims of Hillsborough disaster.
Now they are trying to convince the people that she was a sensitive woman?
Funny.
@ 32 John Fester
Jun 19th, 2015 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You clearly know nothing about The Blessed Margaret and should stop trying, and failing, to use English.
“I have always thought that she gave a flying f*ck for casualties.”
As written this means she DID give a FF! Not what you intended was it numb-nut?
You are an excellent example of the stupid argie: well done, now FUCK OFF.
The great Baroness Thatcher lamented the loss of “our bravest and best”. I doubt she had much sympathy for the Argentines however...
Jun 19th, 2015 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 033 christine
Jun 19th, 2015 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the sad part is that YOU dont know a shite about argentina and yet you opine the whole fucking time.
but even worse, you fail to use your first (and only) language and yet you post your bullshite with no problem.
so, a comerla......
“I have always thought that she gave a flying f*ck for casualties.”
Jun 19th, 2015 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed she did.
Thank you for your support.
@29
Jun 20th, 2015 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0mmm...talking about ignorance....
“both Allende and Pinochet were members”...this is false statement. Allende was a Master freemason while Pinochet just reached the first grade. He only was initiated and reached the grade of “aprentice” so he had no rights to speak or vote. It is quite obvious that his fascism was easily discovered so he was stoped there. He should have been discovered his intolerance the first moment the authorities gave him the green light to take the word.
“Freemasons require you to believe in a higher power” False another mistake. This depends on the rite. York Rite demand you to accept the existance of a God while the Scottish Rite gives its members full freedom about it. Take for instance that the “Gran Logia de Aceptados y Libres Masones de la Argentina” accept even atheists.
“I never said Salvador Allende was a dictator. Allende was in the process however converting Chile into a Cuban-style “democratic” dictatorship”. So to stop him you put a...terrible nazi dictator such as Pinochet. So next time I have a fire at homre I will add some fuel to extinguish it...great !!!
I bet you must agree with Hans who once wrote that there are “good nazis and bad nazis”. And Pinochet was one of the “good nazis” of course....
Isn't being a Mason like belonging to the Rotary Club, but only less class to do so?
Jun 20th, 2015 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pinochet actually continued to pay his dues to the Grand Lodge and although he never became a Master Mason, he was a part of the brotherhood. As far to Marxists/Communists: there are the bad ones and the dead ones... Preferably dead ones...
@38
Jun 20th, 2015 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0The information available in the “Gran Logia de Aceptados y Libres Masones de la Argentina” is that Augusto Pinochet was not attending its mother lodge when he started his revolution. In fact he had left it many years ago.
In addition, causing the death of a B.:. would leave him authomacially out of the Order. Most provably he was expelled from the Order before that. With the aggravating issue that he refused giving Allende a safe-conduct to scape the Govenrment House and take a plane to Argentina. This safe-conduct was asked, even begged, by the Fremasonry thought the American Embassy in Santiago de Chile so with his refusal Pinochet WAS OUT of the Order.
Nazis and fascists cannot be part or a free Order.
@37 pgerman
Jun 20th, 2015 - 06:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you can show me where I made any remark about “good Nazis”, you can win a coconut.
What I believe i did say was that some assholes are worse than other assholes. I woul cite in support of ths contention the Argentine junta's Campo de Mayo Baby Farm cum Abattoir, which to my mind constitutes an exercise in depravity unsurpassed by any other asshole in Latin Ameica, including Pinochet.
And frankly I couldn't care less which, if any, trouser leg the latter chose to roll up. That's pretty small potatoes in the charge sheet against him.
Two questions:
Jun 20th, 2015 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 01) What significance has freemasonry with the written memoirs of Baroness Thatcher?
2) What significance does freemasonry have, if any, in the second millennium?
Freemasonry is one of the largest contributors to charities in Australia. Even now in this second millennium. There is nothing nefarious. I'm hoping to get funding to study overseas though Freemasons Victoria.
Jun 20th, 2015 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Seems ignorance is still alive in the second millennium though.
#39 pgrman
Jun 20th, 2015 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your blind ignorance and gross distortion of history is pathetic.
After a thorough study by our Socialist led government, as well as sworn testimony of Salvador Allende's personal doctor, who was with him the day he died, there is no doubt that he took his own life, with an AK47 that was given to him by Fidel Castro, The junta did not want him to die and was willing to let him leave the country.
In war, Freemasons kill each other all the time. It's an old fraternity, what would you know of their secret meetings in Chile? What do you know of anything?
Allende was in the process however converting Chile into a Cuban-style “democratic” dictatorship. More dangerous to democracy than even Hugo Chavez.
I find it amazing when foreigners spew nonsense about Chile, which obviously you have never visited.
I doubt you live in Argentina and have no doubt you'll next be telling me that a secret cell inside the Buenos. Aires Rotary club was primarily responsible for the election of Carlos Menem...
There are multiple Masonic rites besides Scottish and York, including Prince Hall and ones that even accept women members. I once was in Chicago and attended a parade where I personally witnessed a bunch of drunken old men driving miniature clown cars and wearing ridiculous ottoman fez hats. I was told they were Freemason Shriners...
Well, I wonder who @ 35 Juanfoster, or John Fester, as I have tagged him reminds us of: POLLY of course.
Jun 20th, 2015 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ha, ha, ha.
#44 ChrisR
Jun 20th, 2015 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://freemasoninformation.com/2009/05/royal-order-of-jesters-and-bizzare-sex-acts/
The troll dare lectures me about the sainthood of Freemasonry, but forgets about the fact that the bizarre fraternity includes the Freemason, Shriner 22,000-member Royal Order of Jesters that's infamous for their sex parties with prostitutes.
Two of my COs were members of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. The order is FAR more politically influential in Chile.
http://freemasoninformation.com/2009/05/royal-order-of-jesters-and-bizzare-sex-acts/
Now, Go FOOK yourself.
@20
Jun 20th, 2015 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”But while the RN ships were used to regularly visit argentine ports and received with honours (and their pressence were not a piece of news) now, 33 years later they are banned by their defeated ones.”
So how is that a loss in capability for the Royal Navy?
No more piss ups with the Argy Navy?
If the UK lost all influence and capability in the area, are Royal Navy ships prevented from docking at ports in the Falkland Islands?
The point of the 1982 war was not to invade Argentina but to support the human rights of the Falkland Islanders by regaining influence in the Falkland Islands, where it matters.
So have the UK lost influence?
1/- Pre 1982, no defensive military airbase on the Falklands.
2/-Post 1982 Extensive defences on the Islands, including long range Radar and a small number of defensive and support aircraft, and regular patrols by ships.
So the influence over what is the UK's business, the Falklands, has increased, but booze ups in Argentine ports has vanished.
That's a problem?
44 christine
Jun 20th, 2015 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0had to change my nickname because this 4th class site banned me.
which is funny.
the 4th class site bans a sensitive, intelligent poster, but they are happy with people like conqueror and the rest to post their usual bullshite.
@ 45 Chicureo
Jun 20th, 2015 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“#44 ChrisR - Now, Go FOOK yourself.”
That's not very nice!
And I thought we were “mates”?
@32 Juanfoster
Jun 20th, 2015 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thatcher did care about the casualties, but not about dead subcompact Creole Planters.
@48 ChrisR
Perhaps you didn’t give the correct “secret masonic sign” wink, wink, handshake, handshake!!!!
#48 ChrisR
Jun 20th, 2015 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0AN UNFORTUNATE MISTAKE! You have my very sincere apology.
I was referring to Pgerman instead.
_______________
ChrisR imagine your best Irish accent:
Whale oil beef hooked! Sorry about that...
pgerman- where do you get this crap from that RN vessels are barred for all S.Atlantic ports post 1982?
Jun 20th, 2015 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The White ensign visits Montevideo annually. It visits Capetown several times a year.;/ It also visits Brazil at times.
And the red ensign on merchant ships do visit Arg ports- some of them bring you your gas!! And a year ago some were offshore support vessels for oil drilling going on in YOUR waters.
RN not welcome in Arg ports I agree - why would they want to go there anyway?
@ 50 Chicureo
Jun 20th, 2015 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No worries, I guessed it was an error. :o)
Royal Navy ships visited more south American nations last year, then the Argentina navy has visited in the last ten years, cough cough,
Jun 20th, 2015 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British military serve in one way or another in more than 98 countries world wide,
Argentine military has interests in ??
we aint perfect but we try,
you argies aint that all bad, but you try fatally hard to be...lol
britonto
Jun 20th, 2015 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Royal Navy ships visited more south American nations last year, then the Argentina navy has visited in the last ten years, cough cough,”
so what??
who the fuck cares about royal navy ships?
the farther those leaky boats are, the better.
they are a risk for our wonderful ecosystem
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/15/hms-astute-submarine-slow-leaky-rusty
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/15/hms-astute-submarine-slow-leaky-rusty
oh dear, the inevitable, has happened
Jun 20th, 2015 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0so what??
so who cares about royal navy ships? [ not you obviously]
the farther those leaky boats are, the better,
one sub reported a leak, a new sub its expected,
but remind us, where are your leaky ships,
Not liking the royal navy is only your opinion.
@54 cara de dos ortos podridos
Jun 20th, 2015 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Out of date links, as usual.
Speaking of leaky submarines...
Jun 20th, 2015 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Blohm+Voss reported that the two operating ARA submarines were entirely unsafe for submerging and that both needed extensive refitting as well as repair.
@54
Jun 21st, 2015 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0“the farther those leaky boats are, the better.
they are a risk for our wonderful ecosystem”
The ecosystem of burning tyres and factories that poison the River Plate, hmmmm
“Blohm+Voss reported that the two operating ARA submarines were entirely unsafe for submerging and that both needed extensive refitting as well as repair.”
All is not lost-they can be refitted with sails and used as surface vessels for....whatever.
Pete,
Jun 21st, 2015 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Um the problem is that there is absolutely no money in the current ARA budget for any new sail cloth except for their naval training vessel...
...nor for keeping their warships maintained.
As however as I've mentioned in the past, their officers mess is kept at the highest standards. Far better than Chile.
Trivia: Blohm+Voss still provides services to Argentina. They demand CASH up front as they're owed millions of Dollars from past services.
56
Jun 21st, 2015 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0repugnant fatso
let's see if that greasy brain of yours can understand 1 thing at least.
english vessels, u-boats, planes, whatever the fuck you want, you gordo pedorro, are product of english engineering.
hence they are a piece of shite.
and what out of date links are you talking about?
“Trident nuke safety questioned by Salmond after Navy whistleblower leak”
Published time: May 28, 2015 14:39
Edited time: May 28, 2015 19:59 Get short URL
http://rt.com/uk/262797-trident-whistleblower-salmond-parliament/
fatso, ignoramus, retard, poorly educated and ill informed: you have it all.
@60 cara de dos ortos podridos
Jun 21st, 2015 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is you fascination with things “english”? You surely must be aware by now that the United Kingdom or Great Beitain - the Sovereign Nation to which the Falkland Islands pertains - consists of four territories which are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Your references to “english” and “england” mean nothing.
Please direct your comments correctly, nabo pelotido!
Buenos Aires, Casa Rosada
Jun 21st, 2015 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Presidente de la Nación Argentina
Dra. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
(English Translation)
Relations between the Argentina Nation and the United Kingdom are being pushed to the worst catastrophe as the days go by due to vicious smear campaign being conducted through the imperialist media consisting of a litany of malignant lies being currently parroted my the illegal puppet so called “Acting Governor” Sandra Tyler-Haywood of the illegally held Islas Malvinas.
Outrageous false claims of Argentina is conducting some sort of disruption and blockade of the Malvinas illegal inhabitants as well as being rightful subjects of Argentina testifies to the promotion of unwanted confrontation to hinder the eventual repatriation of the Malvinas to its rightful motherland.
The British imperial imaginary claims are getting disintegrated beyond control and hit hard from all sides for its political crisis and subsequent social catastrophe and confusion.
It is vexed with the daily increasing political might of Argentina, the might of single-minded unity of international relations growing stronger as the days go by.
The group of traitors is busy conducting the above-said false propaganda in a bid to divert elsewhere the people and the world public's bitter criticism of it.
In the grip of extreme fear and uneasiness, the regime is working hard to whip media and riff-raffs toward total confrontation with the Argentine people a foolish act of jumping into fire with a no desire to save the illegal vermin still nesting in our sacred lands. Let the dogs of hell feast on their flesh!
The Argentine government had already made a solemn declaration that those who hurt the dignity of its supreme leadership and drive South Atlantic regional relations into the worst catastrophe would be the primary target of its punishment.
They include the English Malvinas illegal squatters whom will pay the ultimate penalty for their evil betrayal of the Argentine fatherland.
@60 cara de dos ortos podridos
Jun 21st, 2015 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are not up to date again. The link you supplied, whilst interesting, no longer applies as the individual quoted as been proved to be a disgruntled liar, not a whistleblower, and has been dismissed by the Royal Navy.
The BBC reports “An investigation was launched into the claims, which culminated in Defence Secretary Michael Fallon saying AB McNeilly's safety claims had not been proved and were either incorrect or the result of misunderstanding.
Mr Fallon insisted that neither the ”operational effectiveness“ of the fleet ”nor the safety of our submariners or public have been compromised“.”
gordo boludo
Jun 21st, 2015 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...as as the individual quoted as been proved to be a disgruntled liar,...blablabla”
YOU are a disgruntled liar, you fatso.
so shut the fuck up.
@64 cara de dos ortos podridos
Jun 21st, 2015 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You should be careful - you may be banned again!
I must say that I feel very sorry for you - you are SO pathetic! So you don't accept the BBC report - what a boludo!
Thatcher secret documents
Jun 21st, 2015 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And Argentina's worst nightmare.
So they say.lol
@59 Chicureo
Jun 22nd, 2015 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Correct-not suprisingly Paul never praises his Navy.
Is the Libertard sill working and visiting foreign ports?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!