MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands/Malvinas: Sarkozy willing to bring sides together to address the issue
Former French president Nicholas Sarkozy, visiting Buenos Aires, has offered to bring sides together regarding the Falklands/Malvinas Islands dispute between Argentina, the United Kingdom and the Islanders, according to the incumbent presidential candidate Daniel Scioli. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThis is a none story.
Aug 31st, 2015 - 07:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly, this is only “according to” Scoli, which gives it as much weight as a flea in zero gravity.
Secondly, the only way to advance on this issue is for Argentina to drop its illegal claim to the Falklands.
The French won't 'bother' the British over this, and if they do then all the British need to do is refer them back to when the Argentine Foreign minister ran from talks in London.
Mr Scoli, it is Argentina that doesn't want talks, not the UK.
Can't stop laughing :-)
Aug 31st, 2015 - 07:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Brits still haven't forgiven the French for helping the arg's configure Exocet even thought they'd been told to stop working on the project. That's unfortunate. On the upside we now have the T45 thanks to the ARg's which even the Americans are jealous off.
Aug 31st, 2015 - 07:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's fine we can help negotiate French Guyana's independence too, i'm sure Sarkozy would be more than happy to talk about that.
Aug 31st, 2015 - 08:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0No country is “leading” in this region. That is a fallacy.
Aug 31st, 2015 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0But I'm not against talks. Indeed I think they should happen. However why anyone would believe that Argentina will change is beyond me.
Argentina has lost the moral high ground more times than I can count. However that is unimportant when it changed its constitution and henceforth denied any future discussions regarding sovereignty.
Of course he did, he is in Argentina probably being wined and dined, why would he not say what he did, I would, no skin off my nose.
Aug 31st, 2015 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0@3
Aug 31st, 2015 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0The French are probably innocent.
I believe they stopped all work on the air launched Exocet after the invasion.
It was probably Israelis working on Daggers that integrated the missiles with the aircraft.
This is exactly what you would expect him to say about the matter. Just as you would expect him to keep quiet about France's territorial possessions in America, such as French Guyana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and, of course, its islands off the coast of Canada, St Pierre and Miquelon. Everyone has heard of them, haven’t they? We can all be sure that President Corruptina Kirchner of Argentina is about to turn these French overseas possessions into her latest “global cause”.
Aug 31st, 2015 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bugger all to do with him! Just tell him f--k off!
Aug 31st, 2015 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you think he was invited there so Kicillof could feel tall for once?
Aug 31st, 2015 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Great Argie Lie & Spin Machine - and there will be LOTS more by October!!
Aug 31st, 2015 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0One might believe it - if - there was some evidence from the French side! Naturally there is not and most likely wont be as they will regard it as irrelevant and a non-issue.
“During a meeting in a downtown Buenos Aires hotel, both agreed on the “need to advance in the Malvinas cause through dialogue, diplomacy and following the path that was signaled by Pope Francis”
Aug 31st, 2015 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0So Sarkozy and the pope are going to sort it out - problem solved then!!
“has offered to bring sides together regarding the Falklands/Malvinas Islands dispute between Argentina, the United Kingdom and the Islanders, ”
Aug 31st, 2015 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0“and the Islanders”. Well straight away that makes his proposal a non-starter, Argentina in all its wisdom has already ruled out talks that include the Islanders.
These people are not exactly the brains trust.
Completely risible (derived from French).
Aug 31st, 2015 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sarkozy seems to be behind the times. There is NO dispute. The dispute ended in 1982 when argieland tried to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, for argies, the matter was resolved by the UK. All there is now is argie whining.
Aug 31st, 2015 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0@4 Britworker and @8 ezekielman
Aug 31st, 2015 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“That's fine we can help negotiate French Guyana's independence too, i'm sure Sarkozy would be more than happy to talk about that.”
Ironically France has more right to put in a claim for the Falklands than Argentina though 3 years of occupation by Bougainville isn't a sure fire winner.
Again Sarkosy hasn't thought this through-like Argentina.
Above Folks- Don't Panic!! There is NO evidence Sarkozy ever said any such thing! Just an Argie story!
Aug 31st, 2015 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has Presidential Elections in October - all this - and there will be PLENTY more over the next 2 months is vote seeking electioneering bullshit .
@ 3 & 7
Aug 31st, 2015 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you ever imagined that argentine engineers would be able to do the configurations needed to make the exocet work? (without any foreign assistance?)
HMS Glamorgan was hit by an exocet operated from a modified launcher and deployed in the ground and I don't think that french or israeli technicians would be allow to be in the Islands during the weeks of the war.
I know that both, the argentine navy and air force, used free images downloaded from civil satellites. With these images and the information sent by the radar deployed in the islands the movement of the RN ships were known with a logic accuracy. This was something that nobody in USA were aware of.
Also, do you remember the question the British General made to the Argentine Governor minutes after the cease fire was signed?: “How do you know I was in these tents?” (referring to the very last ground Air Force attack to his operations center).
Don't underestimate your circumstancial enemy. It's a commom mistake.
#18 pgrman
Aug 31st, 2015 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Top marks...
“The roles played by Argentina and Brazil in leading the Latin American continent” I got a good laugh out of that one...
Aug 31st, 2015 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#18
Aug 31st, 2015 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0IIR the Exocet fired at Glamorgan was removed from a Corvette damaged the when South Georgia was taken.
Sarkozy is not well regarded in the UK.
Aug 31st, 2015 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ignoring him would be deeply satisfying.
This is probably why little Sarko is playing the unwelcome pest. http://www.agincourt600.com
Aug 31st, 2015 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Remember chaps, keep those bowstrings dry and when you see the whites of their eyes its time to let loose.
@18. Everything is “information”. Argieland can be destroyed anytime.
Aug 31st, 2015 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why are the French sticking their nose in this,
Aug 31st, 2015 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it has nothing to do with Sarkozy,
tell him to soddy offy.
Frogs.
Aug 31st, 2015 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Catholics.
Cretina.
This is just like plinking ducks in a shooting gallery - it's way too easy.
With regard to the Exocet theories on here:
Aug 31st, 2015 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The French refused to help the Argentines with sorting out the ground-launched version, which was actually meant to be fired from a platform in the middle of Stanley. They stopped assisting the Argentines, because, at the time links were being built between the French and the British. The Argentines had no help with the software from the French.
The idea was to launch Exocet attacks from inside the “human shield” of Stanley, in much the same way that the people of Goose Green were used as a protection.
Unfortunately for the Argentines, they didn't have the ground launch system ready until 13 June 82.
On the subject of Sarkozy, he would be unlikely to intercede for Argentina, so, no worries! There's nothing for him to intercede and certainly nothing to be gained from it. He's not that stupid.
Briton and Chronic - you are falling into the Arg trap - there is NO evidence that Sarkozy ever said anything like this - very unlikely that he would be so stupid anyway!
Aug 31st, 2015 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Remember Scioli is a candidate in elections in 6-7 weeks time - he is elcetioneering and as its in Argentina he will tell plenty of spoof stories if he reckons it may win a few votes.
No trap. No provocation needed to loathe the Frogs - it's all cumulative. lol.
Aug 31st, 2015 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If Sarkozy is going to bring all THREE sides together, good for him. However, as Argentine hospitality is legendary (especially when paid for out of tax money), he may have had a tad too much to drink. I doubt he'll be able to deliver and wonder who he'll blame.
Aug 31st, 2015 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@18 pgerman
Aug 31st, 2015 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Also, do you remember the question the British General made to the Argentine Governor minutes after the cease fire was signed?: “How do you know I was in these tents?” (referring to the very last ground Air Force attack to his operations center). ”
Could you please give me a link or reference for this as according to 1st Lt Rivolier,( in Santiago Rivas book 'Wings of the Malvinas') who flew this last mission the attack was aimed at Port Harriet House and was carried out in the dark from high altitude and as far as I can find out there were no 'Generals' there only the recce platoon of the Scots Guards who moved when it came under mortar attack.
Also could you please inform me as to the type of radar used by the Argentine Forces in the FI that was able to track RN ships as again According to Santiago Rivas on no fewer than 76 missions carried out by Grupo 4 & Grupo 5 failed to find any targets.
Also, I would be fascinated to know what 'civil' satellites were taking high res pictures of the South Atlantic then downloading them for free to anybody who wanted them - remembering of course that this was in 1982
By the way there was no 'cease fire' it was a surrender which is something completely different.
@31
Aug 31st, 2015 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, I'm sorry, but I won't link any reference. Basically, because the information of my post is well known for those who like to read about the FI War. Just check the web and read some basic books.
The attack I made reference is the one that cause serious damage in Dellepiane A4 that had to fly back to the continent with a hole in the tank and had to be connected to a c-130 Tank to be able to reach the argentine base.
There is a book written by the operators of the argentine radar (it is in Spanish). I have never mentioned they were “tracking” the RN ship but inferring the position of the carriers and the fleet.
In addition, I have never mentioned that the argentine intelligence used the web to download the pics from civil satellites.
Finally, yes it was a surrender, but a cease fire was declared (for some hours) and respected by both sides until reaching an agreement on the conditions of the end of the fight,
The UK does not need French help in order to return the Malvinas within the next 25 years.
Sep 01st, 2015 - 05:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0So in other words they need shedloads of help!
Sep 01st, 2015 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 033 Hepatia
Sep 01st, 2015 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Google: “Argentina's Illegitimate Sovereignty Claims” to see the Malvinas myth debunked. Good luck.
@33 Hepatia
Sep 01st, 2015 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK doesn't have Argentina's bad wine (that is what malvinas means, doesn't it?).
You keep saying 25 years. It has been 25 years for a long time, hasn't it?
Well let me make a prediction. Argentina will collapse, making what is happening is Venezuela look like a good time, there will be blood on the streets, and Argentina will disappear up its own hoop.
And I predict that this will happen in less than 25 years.
I wonder if the Argies kept asking Sarkozy to stand up when he speaks?
Sep 01st, 2015 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bet he made notes in shorthand
LEPRecon @ 36
Sep 01st, 2015 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, Malvina is just a girl's name. Bad wine would be “mal vino”: two words and ending with an “o”.
Many Uruguayans, myself included, try and avoid buying any Argentine goods at all. I therefore get Chilean wine, even though many Argentine ones are excellent and reasonably priced. As a rule Uruguayan wines are not good value for money and I seldom buy one. A friend once said, “drinking Uruguayan wine is an act of patriotism”. Tannat-strain wine is supposed to be the best for people with heart problems, but it's awfully rough.
Argentina's too big and its economy too varied for the country to collapse, but they have crises and blood on the streets every few years, and not only under Peronist administrations.
@38 ynsere
Sep 01st, 2015 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's economy may, at one time, been varied but thanks to the 'won decade' most of their money comes from the selling of soy.
However, they is a soy surplus in the world, and their major customer, China, isn't buying, and doesn't need to as it has several years worth stored.
Argentina's oil and gas industry loses money. It has to import oil and gas for domestic consumption.
Most manufacturing industries have gone out of business. Foreign investment is practically non existent, and no international company trusts the Argentine government not to steal all their profits and assets.
Argentina's fishing industry is also in crises.
This collapse will make all other collapses look mild by comparison. Argentina has no money. It swapped a significant proportion of its reserve dollars for yuan in order to secure loans from China, and now the yuan is falling fast.
Argentina has nothing left in the bank. I know that many people are saying 'well the next government it'll be different', but I don't believe that investors or international companies will believe them. After all, Argentina has shown that its promises are meaningless, that it doesn't keep its word, and therefore why would you risk your money on such a high risk venture?
In 2001 Argentina secured funding through offering sovereign assets as collateral, and they then reneged on their obligations. So no one would believe them if they put their hand on their hearts and swore on the lives of their mothers.
I hope I am wrong as I have no desire for anyone to suffer, but Argentina has serious problems, yet the people of Argentina refuse to accept any responsibility for those problems. It's always easier to stick your head in the sand and blame someone else.
As they always do..
Sep 01st, 2015 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Washington Post summed up Argentina's decline a few days ago:
Sep 01st, 2015 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“All is not well in Argentina. The economy is stagnant, the fiscal deficit unsustainable and growing, foreign and domestic investment meager, inflation running at 30 per cent, drug-related violence rising and the country remains an outcast in the international financial community.”
Never mind, Corruptina Kirchner can blame it all on those nasty Falkland Islanders.
@32: “...because the information of my post is well known for those who like to read about the FI War”... I have a wealth of books, pamphlets, photographs, friends etc and know quite a bit about the War, myself. The land-based Exocet was indeed launched from Stanley, on the second attempt, and was lucky enough to hit the ship 20 miles out to sea. Contrary to what you wrote, the location of the ship was known from a land-based radar, because they were aware of roughly where the ship was, having been shelling troops in the Mt Tumbledown area.
Sep 01st, 2015 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The main fleet was kept well east of the FI, and were never spotted because they were beyond the reach of the Argentine air force. The only time they were in serious danger was when they were harboured in San Carlos water.
With regard to mentioning that they used downloaded images from satellites: “used free images downloaded from civil satellites.” You wrote that at point 18.
The “Malvinas” name comes from the French “Les Malouines” because the French sailors in the 18th century mostly came from St Malo.
@ 42
Sep 01st, 2015 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok, if you like to read about this war you might understand that taking into account the route of the Harriers and the time they kept on the air the distance of the carriers were inferred with a logic accuracy. Some civil satellites had information about the temperature of the waters so, it's sensible that the heat of a fleet could left a trace behind it could be also inferred.
The tents of the British Operational Center was also inferred by the movement, the traffic “jam”, of the british helicopters coming, going, taking off and landing in the same area.
Finally, even though none of both sides released “classified” information, the attempt to attack the HMS Invincible is considered to be planned with a logic idea of the position of the carrier by the Argentine Navy.
There were other means to localize RN ships such as the Neptunes, the C-130 and a couple of ships sailing in the area.
@43: Now you really are talking rubbish! Some civil satellites? How old are you? Even now we only have one geo-stationary satellite within reach of the Falklands! There was no satellite tv back then mate! Or mobile networks, cell phones, satnav! Have you ever been into the South Atlantic? It is cold, at the moment it is about 4C. And the current is strong. It isn't sensible at all to think that a heat signature was left in the sea. We're not talking about the starship bloody Enterprise here.
Sep 01st, 2015 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which helicopters are you referring to? At the time the Glamorgan was hit, all helicopters were land-based, as were most of the Harriers. The Argentine Hercs stopped flying, there were no ships in the area, there were only two Neptunes and they stopped getting in the way after Sheffield was hit.
HMS Invincible came through the war unscathed. Argentine forces never came anywhere near her! You need to stop reading propaganda and get down to some real study, sonny boy!
And what was this “British Operational Centre”? I have never heard this phrase before. I can assure you that the Command Centre was onboard a ship.
You've never been military have you?
Pgerman @ 43
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Congratulations! You have the makings of an excellent retro-science-fiction writer. Give up poorly paid trolling and make your fortune elsewhere!
@44
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you cannot have a discussion in a respectful way I would suggest that you don't write any longer. Otherwise I will stop discussing with you. You have confused all the things. Let's accept that it's due to my poor English.....
On June 13, hours before the end of the war, the A-4B fulfilled their last mission in the conflict. It was a low-flying attack with 250 kg bombs against the british command post near Mount Longdon. It was a seven airplanes attack. In this attack, Gral. Jeremy Moore ran away at the entry of seven aircraft on its position jumping himself into a well. Jeremy Moore's Command position was discovered due to the high helicopter traffic by the radar.
The HMS Invincible most probably has never been hit but it certainly was attacked, or at least the Argentine Navy try to attack it, in a mission of two S-Etendarts and four 4A Skyhawk. About this mission, both the UK and Argentina, haven't released the “classified” information yet. The information of both inertial equipment that would reveal the paths of both S-Etendarts during the mission has never been declassified despite calls from historians (it includes a request of a Spanish historian).
As regards the satellites usage the Argentine forces used the assistance of a couple of “neutral” Latam countries that helped them to get civil satllites immages without raising any suspicion.
My profession, and yours, are not relevant in this discussion at all.
@ You are an ignorant !!!....vanish away !!!
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/08/31/falklands-malvinas-sarkozy-willing-to-bring-sides-together-to-address-the-issue#comment412622: Apparently you have not understood the situation. Irrespective of whether the Argentinian claim is illegitimate or not the UK will return the Malvinas within the next 25 years.
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 06:15 am - Link - Report abuse 047 why do you think Hell will freeze over in the next 25 years?
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 06:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anything to do with the current Pope being the anti-Christ and heading for a fall?
@47 It will not happen, Live with it. And 25 years from what date exactly? I have heard this bandied around for years.
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Englander @ 48
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's exactly what a Catholic splinter group known as sedevacantists believe. And not only the current pope.
47 Hepatia
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Listen to this conversation between Corruptina Kirchner, her pet dwarf and foreign minister, Hector Timerman, the comically named minister for Falklands affairs, Daniel Filmus, and the deeply depressed London envoy Alicia Castro:
“Think of a number.“
”50?“
”No, less than that.“
”40?“
”No, no, less.“
”OK, 25.“
”Right, that’ll do. In 25 years our brave Argentine soldiers will be strutting down the streets of Port Stanley.”
This is one of the most laughable examples of self-delusion exhibited by the rag-bag of Peronists, fascists and extreme nationalists supporting the grotesque Kirchner, the supreme leader who is gradually destroying Argentina.
But why are they so lacking in confidence about their farcical claim to the Falklands? Why make it 25 years? Why not 25 days? Or 25 hours? They really do have little faith in their aspirations.
Never mind, they hope this self-delusion will help to hide the starvation and poverty that is crushing the poor Argentine people. God help them, blessed Pope Francis.
@47 Hepatitis
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To whom will the Falklands/Malvinas archipelago be returned? They are already in the possession of their rightful owners.
Please enlighten us.
@47 I'm curious which mechanism, act, ruling, etc. will compel them to “return the Falklands to Argentina”? Feel free to go into as much detail as you'd like.
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hepatia (#)
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0: Apparently you have not understood the situation. Irrespective of whether the Argentinian claim is illegitimate or not the UK will return the Malvinas within the next 25 years
So in a nutshell, you know they have no claim, but this is totaly irrelivent,
as a dictaersghip you will either steal them, or get others to steal them for you,
and freedom , democracy , law and order can all shove off,
you have the making of a future inmate of the asylum.
#46
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With reference to the non-release of information on the purported attack on the Invincible after 33 years, could it not just be that there is NO information because this “attack” never took place ? Possibly the attack was against the Atlantic Conveyor whose radar signal would approximate that of the Invincible. National pride at that time would favour the story of a heroic attack on Invincible to give heart to a grossly misled public.
There is NO way that Super Etandards or Skyhawks would have got anywhere near Invincible without being destroyed either by Sea Harriers or guided missiles from escorting frigates/destroyers.
@46 “My profession, and yours, are not relevant in this discussion at all.” I disagree, I think a knowledge of military operating systems and their capabilities is relevant.
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HMS Invincible was not attacked, this I know for certain.
There is no well in the vicinity of Estancia, Mt Kent or Mt Longdon.
Perhaps you may be able to point us all in the direction, or possible URL, for reliable satellite imaging from the time you suggest, because all I can find is weather info from 1982. Nothing is that secret these days.
I'm sorry if you think I am not discussing respectfully with you, but if you are going to put up spurious claims expect to have them disproved/shot down.
They say,
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0that if you fail to learn from the past,
then you are doomed to repeat the failures,
And Argentina amongst others are doomed to thus...
@55 & 56
Sep 02nd, 2015 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is quite clear that both of you NOW agree on the fact that the british command post near Mount Longdon was attacked after being localized by the signals of the helicopters in the argentine radar.
I won't discuss with both of you whether the HMS Invincible was attacked or not. Even historians keep on discussing about the issue so, we won't reach to any conclusion. The planned attack might have ended in a second attack to the Atlantic Conveyor or not. The fact is that two A4 were shot down by RN defenses in the mission and I don't think that RN ships would be defending a burned, and almost sunk, ship buoying and floating in the sea without control. The fact is that two A4 were destroyed and now, 33 years after the war, the information of both S-Etendart inertial equipment that would reveal the paths of both airplanes during the mission has never been declassified. It is my understanding that the UK Defense Ministry declassified some documents about the topic.
National pride, at the time of a war, would favour any invented story of a heroic attacks in both sides but, 33 years after the war, it is my understanding that the pilots of both, the Arg. Air Force and the Arg. Navy, don't need any invented story to get prestige.
58#
Sep 03rd, 2015 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0You describe the analysis of radar tracks that led to an attack on General Moore’s HQ, but he wasn’t killed. (Yes like all soldiers he probably did need to take cover from time to time.) You allege satellite imagery and temperature traces in the South Atlantic led to an attack on Invincible but it was ‘most probably’ not hit. There is no ‘probably’ about it, it wasn’t. And then you claim a ‘cease fire’ which was in fact the just a step on the way to a permanent surrender. You draw allusions not conclusions.
It looks as if you are attempting to somehow spin the story to make it look better for Argentina, but you are simply making your country look worse because it reminds everybody of how appallingly Argentina behaved in 1982. There is no honour in the Falklands story for Argentina they were and are simply wrong, wrong, and wrong.
The invasion was brutal, illegal and wrong. Argentina was wrong to remain obdurate in the face of justified international criticism over the invasion. Its refusal to comply with the UN Security Council resolution, that ordered it to withdraw, was wrong. Its brutal treatment of the Falkland Islanders during its brief occupation was wrong and the war left their country desecrated by minefields and the debris of battle. Its threatening behaviour towards the Islanders in recent times is also wrong. Today Argentina is trying to convince the world that it should be allowed to declare the entire population of a small neighbour homeless so that it can take over their country.
Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands in 1982 is one of the greatest own goals ever committed by a country, the subsequent events left your country humiliated, discredited and without honour. Your carping attempts to fabricate a silken purse from a pig’s ear are a disgrace and you prostitute the memory of all those innocent people who fought, suffered and died during a totally unjustified war.
@59
Sep 03rd, 2015 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0I was just discussing (in not a very friendly way) about the need of not underestimate your enemy. Just this. I have never mentioned any single word about the political issue.
I thought that one of the greatest things of the FI is that it is a drug-free area but reading your post...it seems that I was wrong !!!!
60 A disappointing response to an excellent post @59.
Sep 03rd, 2015 - 06:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to like guesswork, I bet you're also into conspiracy stories.
But the facts are :-
HMS Invincible wasn't sunk.
Many Argentine pilots were killed in action.
The Falkland Islands were retaken after only a few weeks.
The entire Argentine garrison surrendered and were taken prisoner.
#58
Sep 03rd, 2015 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you not asked yourself WHY the Argentine govt. have not revealed the details of the “attack on the Invincible” after 33 years. This would clear up the matter for once and for all. In the absence of this it must be assumed that it is because there IS NO RECORD of such an attack despite all the rumours and assertions from the Argentine side. It probably suits them to let the story continue as your population would rather believe that the UK is lying.
Nobody would decry the bravery of the Argentine pilots....they paid a heavy price for the govts. stupidity.
However, I would put a strong word in for the Fleet Air Arm and RAF pilots who were seriously outnumbered in the conflict.
They faced the same weather/range problems as the Argentinians. However, unlike the Argentinian pilots, they had to locate their carrier which would move it's position, land their aircraft in filthy weather, rearm and refuel and head out again. They had NO friendly territory in which to divert if they were in trouble, unlike the Argentine forces.
We had Nimrods flying for 22 hours over a hostile ocean again hours away from the nearest land.
So their heroism was equal to that of the Argentine forces, the only difference being that they won !
@61
Sep 03rd, 2015 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you ever seen the Kurosawa movie called “Seven Samurais”? If not, I suggest that you watch it. Basically, the movie's idea extrapolated to the FI war would be that the UK had an island far away from home, the islands were invaded, they had to send a large fleet to recover them, in the war the UK had many ships sunk and, sadly, lost some of the best young people to be, once the war ends, worse than the “starting point” since to maintain the old status of the islands a fortune must be wasted yearly and nobody in the South Atlantic Ocean seen them with good eyes. Who won the war?
I have always thought that neither Galtieri nor Thatcher, had seen the conflict in its real magnitude. Wars usually end and settle issues but, in this case, 33 year after the end, it is an open issue for both sides. I always ask myself whether both of them would have acted as they did if they had knew the real consequences of the war.
62 Clyde15.
You might be right or not. Who knows? But for some reasons the UK hasn’t released all the information of the war. Both countries still have “classified” information about the war.
I have never mentioned a single word about the British pilots but, due to the technological advantage on their side it is my idea, and people’s ideas in the word, that the argentine pilots had almost everything against them. They paid a extremely high price, no doubt about that, but finally succeeded in most of their missions and got international recognition.
#63
Sep 03rd, 2015 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes I am sure you are correct BUT any attack against the Invincible would hardly be classified information 33 years on. Word would certainly have been circulated by crew members or other RN personnel.
As to the Argentine air force being successful, I beg to differ.
Their main mission was to destroy the British fleet, prevent landings and nullify the British airpower. They failed on all three counts.
The old chestnut about huge technological advantages is raised again.
The fact is that the UK pilots were better trained and that the AIM -9 L sidewinder missile was used in tail chase situations -not all aspect which would have been a huge advantage.
The Mirage III EA was equipped with Matra 530 missiles with a range of 20km and roughly similar to the sidewinder. So it would appear that it was down to tactics. The Mirage tried once and was shot down. They were then withdrawn to protect the Argentine mainland from possible attack by Vulcans.
As to tactics, Argentina got it wrong. They should have gone for the Canberra and the QE2. If either had been damaged or sunk then the war would have been over and in Argentina's favour, so fail on this count.
Most people in the UK -encouraged by the press - were fearful about the air war and the odds against a subsonic short range fighter taking on supersonic jets.
I myself was apprehensive until I read an interview with an USAF General who had experience of the Sea Harrier's capabilities. He knew how they Harriers had fared in dis-similar combat with F-15's and F-16's and gave as good as they got. He summed up the air war against Argentina saying that it would be hawks against chickens. By and large he was proved correct.
@64
Sep 03rd, 2015 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One of my doubt about any successful attack against the Invincible was certainly that, after 33 years, it would be very difficult to hide experiences of the crew. Because that simple reasoning, I was insulted in a forum by some “malvinistas” and treated as if I were a traitor. I must add that an article of a British journalist said the crew of the RN fleet had signed a paper that forced them not to release “classified” information. But, after reading all the material available on the subject, including foreign studies, I’m pretty sure that the attack was planned and done and the Arg Navy was able to approach an important RN ship. That’s why two of the A4 were destroyed by the RN. Otherwise, this doesn’t have any sense
The Arg Air Force had the goal of attacking the RN and cause them as much damage as possible. I’ve never read that they were looking for a face-to-face engage or to stop the entire fleet. These would be impossible
In fact, the Mirage III EA was a supersonic interceptor neither prepared nor trained for ground attacks. Not to mention sea surface attacks.
The Matra 530 missiles were a total failure, several stages behind the sidewinder, at a point that some argentine pilots mentioned they have seen these missiles tracking the heat of the sun and going up until disappearing. As a result of the first dog fights, due to the tech advantage of the Harriers and with catastrophic results from the arg side, they simply decided to avoid the harriers as much as possible. In the same way, the A4 were ground-attack designed planes so they could not confront the Harriers
Don’t forget that some Mirages had not refueling capability so, they had just a couple of minutes to be over the islands air to fulfil their mission until being forced to fly back to the continent
There has been lots of discussions why the Air Force didn’t attack the Camberra. Some said it was marked as a Hospital-ship and attacking it would be a war crime (as per Geneva Convention).
#65
Sep 03rd, 2015 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think that the Argentinian command had any real tactical plan.
The number one priority should have been to stop the landing of UK troops which meant sinking the troop ships. Everything else was a side -line. This mistake certainly caused Argentina's defeat. Attacking the RN ships smacked of bravado, certainly caused damage BUT had no effect on the outcome.
In the first days of the invasion at San Carlos, Canberra was a troop ship pure and simple and landed 2000 troops putting itself in great danger of attack which never successfully happened. It was only later that she took on the role of returning Argentine troops after the surrender. The Canberra was never marked as a hospital ship.
You keep referring to the “technical”advantages of the Harriers. I would say that it was superior training of their crews. Remember, the Harrier pilots had trained against the best of the RAF, USAF and NATO allies and were at the top of their game. In effect, the were highly trained professional killers.
@63:...“ in this case, 33 year after the end, it is an open issue for both sides. I always ask myself whether both of them would have acted as they did if they had knew the real consequences of the war. ”... Again, no it is not an open issue on both sides. There was a clear defeat and surrender. And your following point, Mrs Thatcher would have done what she did anyway, however if Argentina had not invaded the most likely outcome would have been that the Islands became Argentine within five years. Discussions up to that point, April 1, were heading in that direction.
Sep 03rd, 2015 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the plus side for Argentina, had there not been a war, how much longer would the junta have carried on for? The war was a good thing, in that respect, the population of Argentina finally woke up to the waste of life under the junta - the Disappeared and a failed invasion, and an economy in the toilet.
Britain knows full well about going to war. It is something the British military trains for, it's what it does. Which is why it trains as hard as it does, doesn't back down in the face of overwhelming odds and sees the job through.
There is no conspiracy of secrecy about the Falklands War. I have read how HMS Fearless was reported sunk four or five times by the Argentine press of the day and other stories besides. This is how conspiracy theory starts. But facts are facts and despite what I and others think, the British press is relatively truthful.
HMS Invincible was the subject of attack, but it never came to fruition because she was never found by Argentine forces. When Atlantic Conveyor was sunk, the Argentine press made assumption after assumption about what had been hit, but they didn't think that a non-military ship may have been involved.
@66: Another error was thinking that the British would do this and come ashore here. They didn't plan for what the British did, they planned for what they thought would happen. Wrong thing to do, never underestimate British soldiers! :-)
@67
Sep 04th, 2015 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know that this is not a forum to freely discuss ideas without arguing.
But you wrote “it is not an open issue on both sides. There was a clear defeat and surrender”. If you were right we, both of us, would not be here writing posts about this issue. Would you imagine British and German people discussing and arguing about the II WW in 1978? In addition, I always write the very same thing. If there was a winner in the FI War it is quite clear that the UK would have the right to use the argentine territory as it was in Germany.
In addition, and about “conspiracy theories”. I don't like them but let me remember you that during the summer of 1981-1982 the most popular argentine magazine published a large article with the title “¿Va Argentina invadir Malvinas?”. The cover of the magazine was a picture of the ARA 25 de Mayo carrier and the FI in the background. Would you think that the British services or even the British Embassy ignored this publication?
#68
Sep 04th, 2015 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The “war” was limited in the respect that the UK's SOLE object was the removal of Argentine forces from UK sovereign territory. This they accomplished.
The UK regained it's right to use it's territory in the Falklands and it's dependencies. There was NO plan or desire to continue a war against Argentina once our objectives had been achieved. That made the UK the clear winner.
As to the magazine to which you refer, it was probably thought of as bullshit to placate the masses. It seems obvious that the British govt. ignored it or they would have sent down reinforcements. As they did not it would indicate that they did not take it seriously.
The bottom lime is that the UK Govt. will not agree to unilateral talks with Argentina without the Falkland islanders being primarily involved.
So, there is your solution. Talk with the Islanders. It's their lives and they are the ones to decide.
@68: “Would you think that the British services or even the British Embassy ignored this publication?”... No, they didn't but a subsequent publication, the Observer (a Sunday newspaper in the UK), ran an article showing the lives and culture of the Falkland Islanders and raised the point of whether Argentina would invade or not. I remember it well, because I read it and thought I would never get the chance to visit such a far-flung place. Imagine my surprise when two months later, I was given the chance!
Sep 04th, 2015 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British government of the day well knew what Argentina's military capabilities were and didn't think that a developed government would take up such a hare-brained scheme. Remember how old 25th of May was? And the Mirages? Yes, Britain was and is 8 000 miles away, but the junta's error was doubting that a counter-attack would be mounted. I and my friends were itching to get onboard and travel down for a fight, although we expected Argentina to back off and go home, we were ready for a fight.
I lived in Germany in the early 70s and although we all got along very well, my Grandmother's generation still viewed the Germans with a jaundiced eye. It wasn't until she visited that she realised that Germans were just like us! You couldn't blame her though, they'd bombed her 25 years before.
The fact is that Germany and Britain are nextdoor neighbours and level-pegging when it comes to economy. The situation with Argentina is different. There is still belligerence heaped on the British and the RG government needs the sideshow to keep people from thinking about the state of the economy. Look at the current “idea” of inviting students to study in San Juan Bosco. It isn't real, it is something for the masses to be able to say, “Well we offered”.
I can assure you that the matter was fought over and brought to a swift conclusion in 82. Here in the Islands we find the RG government stance out of date and less than helpful. Things could be different, and we stay British.
@65
Sep 05th, 2015 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Reference the matra 530 missile
According to Santiago Rivas in his book Wings of the Malvinas pages 206 -207 and I quote verbatim “Overall I-002 to o12 could only fire the R530 missile, while I-013 to 019 could also employ the R550 Magic. On 15 April a batch of R550s ordered in 1980 arrived, so work began to place them in service and train crews on their operation. The pilots already knew a little about the missiles and the training was accelerated. During the war, the jets at Comodoro Rivadavia defended the mainland, while those at Rio Gallegos were used over the islands. Because the R530 was largely ineffective, the Mirages of the second batch were more commonly used, and only twice did Mirages fly armed with only single R530s”
Rivas continues on Page 209 with “After the 1 May combat, the MirageIIIEAs never engaged with the Sea Harriers again. They continued to fly cover missions, but at more than 25,000 feet, while the attackers flew much lower. The Sea Harriers never tried to hunt the Mirages, since they were no threat to their operations against the Skyhawks and Daggers. If they had flown lower, the Mirages would only have had fuel for a brief fight with the Sea Harriers, but they may have allowed many more attack aircraft to reach their targets”.
Also on Page 210 there is a photograph bearing the caption 'Two Mirage IIIEAs armed with MATRA R550 Magic missiles at Rio Gallegos'.
#71
Sep 05th, 2015 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I said, the Argentinians were tactically naive . The Sea Harriers job was to protect the fleet from attack. This they did within the constraints of the situation. Taking on dedicated fighters served no useful purpose and only happened in self defence.
It can be likened to the RAF in the Battle of Britain. The primary duty was to destroy the bomber force.
@72
Sep 05th, 2015 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quite right
#73
Sep 06th, 2015 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Watched the Airshow at the sea front in Ayr yesterday and was pleased to see a DH 84 “Iolar” of the Irish Air Corps in the display. I have a penchant for these oldies reflecting a more sedate way of life in the 1930's.
The Vulcan gave it's farewell performance as it will be grounded this year.
It nearly was it's last performance as it's nose wheel stuck in the half open position when it was coming in to land at Prestwick. It finally locked down and they made a safe landing after cruising around for about 20 minutes.
They will be flying it home today with the undercarriage down all the way.
I think it is a wise move to ground it in a hangar and bring it out for taxying so that we can still hear the Vulcan howl as the Olympus engines spool up.
@74
Sep 06th, 2015 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Clyde, you have me there, I didn't know IOLAR was still flying. Is it now painted in IAC colours because it used to be in Aer Lingus livery.
I regret to say that I've never seen (nor heard) a Vulcan in the flesh as it were but I had a cousin who used to live in Lincolnshire and apparently it (or one like it) used to fly around a lot. She was terrified of it because she reckoned it looked like a giant bat - must have been quite a sight.
kind regards
A bit late to the one .
Sep 08th, 2015 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0On the subject of an attack on Invincible this was attempted,the plan was to use the last Exocet.2 Etendards were used the second only for radar location.4 A-4 Skyhawks flew just behind.A contact was picked up and the missile was launched.The 4 Skyhawks then attacked with bombs.
The target ship detected the aircraft and launched chaff probably causing the Exocet to lose lock.Sea cat and a 4.5” gun shot down 2 of the Skyhawks .
The surviving pilots thought they had attacked invincible and seem to have been pressured to claim this.
In reality the ship attacked was HMS Avenger a type 21.The crew of about 170 witnessed this attack.Invincible with a crew of over 1000 did not.As it was 30 miles away at the time,this was after the Atlantic Convayor.
No conspiracy the pilots had seconds to drop the bombs,were under fire.The ship was accelerating and firing all its weapons.
Just the fog of war.
@76
Sep 08th, 2015 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No quibble with what you say except that as I understand it the 2 Skyhawks of Vasquez and Castillo were shot down by Sea Darts from HMS Exeter.
There is an interesting quote in Martin Middlebrook's book 'The Fight for the Malvinas' pages 206 - 207. Apparently Middlebrook was told by Lieutenant-Commander Philippi a naval pilot who attended the de-briefing of Isaac & Ureta (the two surviving Skyhawk pilots) that “the two pilots were still in tears at the de-briefing. They were shown a recognition book of British warships. There was some doubt initially, says Philippi, but both pilots eventually and independently identified the Invincible as the ship they attacked”.
This is of course a load of nonsense as it stretches credulity beyond it's limits. How can anyone be expected to believe that the pilots on such an important mission had not been shown and carefully studied the appearance of the very ship they had been sent to attack. As well as the fact that Isaac's own description of the attack states “One minute later I saw it, immense, majestic; we were approaching Invincible from astern”. Which, of course is a very strange thing to say as the Invincible was hardly “immense, majestic” seeing as it wasn't very much larger than HMS Fearless. Clearly Isaac equated Invincible with American super-carriers. Maybe it was because he expected or assumed that Invincible as an aircraft-carrier was in the same league as American carriers.
kind regards
@77
Sep 08th, 2015 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's the book a was referencing from memory,some of the Argentine claims or mad.The attack on a carrier by a dead Pucara pilot!
All or most of Exocet attacks were attempting to hit a carrier but clearly didn't .
In the same book IIR on of naval pilots thinks that if the planed attack by the 25th of May was not cancelled it could of been the Midway of the South Atlantic,6 Skyhawks!
A Vulcan does look like a giant bat.
Thanks for reminding me it was Sea Dart not Sea Cat,the memory isn't as good as it was.
@78
Sep 08th, 2015 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If I remember correctly the 'dead' pilot was Antonio Jukic (or something like that) who was killed at Goose Green. The Argentine press claimed that he was killed attacking Hermes and setting it on fire?????????????
I always liked Admiral Woodward's quote referring to the exocet attacks in his book 'One Hundred Days' pages 304 - 305
“I try to deal in 'facts' and my facts looked good to me. The Args started this game with five Exocets - five aces - and they had now, incontrovertibly played them all, on 4, 25, and 30 May. Each time they let them loose at the first radar blip they saw - a set of three incompetent blunders...”
kind regards
Need to get a copy of “100 days” probably the only book I never read on the subject.
Sep 08th, 2015 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!