MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina could receive a squadron of Mirage F1; Air Force will have no combat aircraft by 2018
Argentina's Air Force will have no combat aircraft by 2018 since by then the three A4-AR Fightinghawk which remain operational will be decommissioned, according to Argentine defense sources. At the end of 2015, the outgoing Cristina Fernandez administration witnessed the definitive decommissioning of the few operational French built Mirage III. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSo, if it looks like a toy, sounds like a toy, flies like a toy...
Aug 13th, 2016 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I await the apologies from the usual suspects lambasting my “ignorance” in the other thread. My left eyebrow has more knowledge than most people here.
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/08/11/us-to-provide-argentina-with-24-state-of-the-art-t6-c-texan-ii-training-aircraft#comment446455
Aug 13th, 2016 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The F1 was a good aircraft in it's time and should be perfectly adequate for the FAA to keep up it's flying training in fast jets. It would be effective against 3d world adversaries but is hopelessly outclassed by current equipment in the 1st world air forces. It is two generations behind the Rafale and Typhoon and if an F35 was about, it would be better to stay on the ground.
Aug 13th, 2016 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Most nations have air forces to defend themselves,
Aug 13th, 2016 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you argis want it for aggression against the islanders,
the only enemies you have, is in your head,
you cant afford air fix models, so what do you want these planes for,
they are to dangerous for you wannabe empire builders to have .
And above at #3 ladies and gents, you have Peron being chided by Pol Pot.
Aug 14th, 2016 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0A Brit accusing others of using their military for aggression.
You cannot make this up. These people are hopeless and probably mentally deranged as well.
Chinese fighters like the JF-17 Thunder, offer the best “value for money”.
Aug 14th, 2016 - 02:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0With the JFT, you get a new, modern fighter with excellent anti-air and anti-sea capabilities. And you get those capabilities at an unbeatable price!
Argentina should buy JF-17 Thunder aircraft.
Here above at at 4 I meant. Pol Pot chiding Peron about persecuting citizens...
Aug 14th, 2016 - 06:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let us not forget, whilst Britain was building an empire ( thankfully given up) Latin American was being ripped apart by Spain and Portugal. So trollwatchurback, not forget your roots. On topic however it's good to see the AAF rebuilding as a country unable to defend its airspace is a very sorry state of affairs.
Aug 14th, 2016 - 06:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0@8
Aug 14th, 2016 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0And you think buying these fourth rate scrap metals change this?
Argentina cannot defend it's airspace now, and it will not be able after it purchases anything.
If you cannot defeat the strongest enemy out there, then you cannot defend your airspace, those are the facts. So may as well spend the money elsewhere and disband the Air Force while there is an excuse to do so.
@9
Aug 14th, 2016 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is not true. You don't need to be able to defeat the strongest enemy out there, only the ones who are likely to attack you. For most countries this means their neighbours. In fact for defence you don't even need to be able to beat them, just make it more trouble that it is worth to invade.
@4
The other countries in the region have air forces for their own defence. Why wouldn't Argentina want to do the same? These planes on their own won't allow them to attack the Falklands anyway.
@10
Aug 14th, 2016 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0If those neighbors have alliances then how do you compute the threat then?
You see it is pointless and a waste of money.
Argentina is too far behind even its neighbors and it is pointless to try to catch up.
A missile shield however, that downs most enemy aircraft upon incursion I have advocated in the past. Build an air defense so robust no one would dare try to invade, an risk losing most of their air force in the process.
@11
Aug 14th, 2016 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0If your neighbours have alliances then you had better form some of your own. I didn't think Argentina's neighbours had any that Argentina isn't also included in, though?
Do you think Israel's air force is pointless because they wouldn't be able to defeat the US? Of course not. Being able to defeat its hostile neighbours is essential for Israel's continued existence; being able to defeat its ally the USA is not necessary.
Argentina's neighbours are not hostile now, but circumstances and governments can change. It doesn't even have to be a military dictatorship; Venezuela is currently doing a good job of threatening all its neighbours.
An air force is also used for air defence. Why would you approve of ground based defences but not planes? And since no country has actually done this, what makes you think it's even possible?
A missile shield is only part defence against air attack. Current strategy is to flood air defences with drones to overwhelm the missile defence radar systems and then destroy them with follow-up supersonic cruise missiles.
Aug 14th, 2016 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No modern air force is going to send it's aircraft into a situation where they cannot survive. Fighter interceptors are needed to knock out these attacking aircraft well outside your national boundaries - much more cost effective.
Look at Argentina's land mass and think how many systems would be needed to protect that area. The cost would be prohibitive and beyond your country's financial capabilities.
Realistically who is your main threat? Not the UK. Possibly other S.A. countries.
Because at least missile shielding is an area where there is potential for R&D, homegrown. We do have some history with missiles and satellites, not so much with fighter jets. May as well invest money trying to develop a niche technology and not try to build little fighter jets that can never compete with more developed tech elsewhere.
Aug 14th, 2016 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But Then as 12 and 13 have pointed out, it is pointless to spend a cent in this nonsense if one can't achieve 100% protection.
Would you buy a radiation suit that only gives you 27% protection?
And our main threats are all the Northeners, based on their 400 year history since they laid their grubby eyes on this continent. It is typical racist attitude to think only “other South Americans” could turn against us, when history indicates it is OTHERS that do so.
Disband the whole military, it is a complete waste of resources if you cannot protect yourself from all possible threats.
Arguably, Narcos are the main threat to Argentina. The money would be better spent on the home-grown baby Pampas jets or even Pucaras.
Aug 14th, 2016 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Better yet, more police and better education.
Obviously, new textbooks are needed.
15. Wrong.
Aug 14th, 2016 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If interdiction is the primary mission rg would be much better served with general aviation aircraft upfitted with advanced avionics, imaging, comm and range extension.
Interdiction is about seeing/hearing/time on station.
@14
Aug 14th, 2016 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe you are right that the R&D potential of missile shielding makes it worth investing in, but it can't be your only method of defence, for the reasons Clyde15 gave.
“But Then as 12 and 13 have pointed out, it is pointless to spend a cent in this nonsense if one can't achieve 100% protection.
Would you buy a radiation suit that only gives you 27% protection?”
12 and 13 say no such thing. I am saying exactly the opposite. And if I had to do research in Chernobyl, and the suit with 27% protection was the best I could get, then yes I would buy it. 27% protection is better than none.
It's not racist to think that your neighbours are your biggest threat. It's far easier to invade a country you share a border with than one that's halfway round the world, and there's a lot more potential for conflict from border disputes, shared resources etc.
If by 'Northerners' you mean European countries, none of them except Russia would actually be able to invade Argentina, and since you don't have any 'oppressed Russian minorities', you should be safe. :) If you mean the USA, they haven't invaded Venezuela, a country that is both full of oil and full of Commies, so I don't think Argentina has too much to worry about.
“Disband the whole military, it is a complete waste of resources if you cannot protect yourself from all possible threats.”
It's only a waste of money if you can't protect yourself from the threats that actually happen. But really, it would be to my advantage if Argentina disbanded its military, so please try and persuade your government to do this.
@1
Aug 14th, 2016 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“My left eyebrow has more knowledge than most people here.”
Totally unsubstantiated bullshit. A typical Argentine macho arrogant statement which is quite frankly an extremely amusing joke at best.
@14
“We do have some history with missiles”
Educate me, what missiles have Argentina produced?
Even though they were not a lot of cop (but at least used British engines) you started off when imported Nazi, Kurt Tank designed the Pulqui 1 and Pulqui 2 jet fighters in the 1950s.
“And our main threats are all the Northeners”
The biggest threat to you are yourselves.
#14
Aug 14th, 2016 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“And our main threats are all the Northeners”
As you have NO neighbours to the South, that is a pretty obvious statement.
Your Northern neighbours are Brasil, Peru, Paraguay, Bolivia Colombia and Venezuela. You could possibly have problems with any of them.
”And our main threats are all the Northeners, based on their 400 year history since they laid their grubby eyes on this continent.”
Argentina is a product of these grubby people.
You have just said that your main threat is from Spain and Portugal...I very much doubt that. As for the rest of your absurd comment, the rest of the European continent really don't give a damn about Argentina as far as re-colonising it goes.
It's all in your febrile imagination. You still imagine that events that happened centuries ago have any relevance today.
I broke off at this point to watch the UK win three more gold medals at the Olympics.....obviously Brexit has had some immediate advantages.
Here is another scenario, a hi jacked airliner is heading at low level for Ushuaia, probably to crash into the town. How do you intercept it without a fighter aircraft?
This could happen as there are plenty of nutters about.
Do you ask the Chilean air force at Punta Arenas to help with F5E Tiger 111, or the RAF in the Falklands with Typhoons.
In your scenario you could do nothing.
Lowlander at (19) says...:
Aug 14th, 2016 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Here is another scenario, a hi jacked airliner is heading at low level for Ushuaia, probably to crash into the town. How do you intercept it without a fighter aircraft?”
I say...:
Well... one could start by, at a fraction of the cost of one lousy jet fighter, install an uninterruptible autopilot on all ones Country airliners..., saving the passengers and the plane...
Mr. Chronic,
Aug 14th, 2016 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why, wrong?
Isn't Argentina a “Narco State” ?
Perhaps they are using government aircraft to export drugs?
Please clarify.
@20
Aug 14th, 2016 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An uninterruptible autopilot. Can't see any potential for that to go horribly wrong!
Also, no other country's aircraft fly in Argentine airspace? I know that's not true, and even if it was there's nothing stopping the hijackers diverting a flight from elsewhere.
Mr. Demon,
Aug 14th, 2016 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Think knows as much about aircraft as he does about Macro Economics.
Geeeeeee them Anglo Turnips....
Aug 14th, 2016 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Uninterruptible autopilot will be standard on most airliners in a few years time...
And not only because of terrorists...
Anybody remembers Germanwings 9525?
Or Malaysia Airlines 370?
The last of a long series.
Not to mention the havoc a deranged military pilot could cause with a fully armed plane anywhere in the world...
@24
Aug 14th, 2016 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting. This article says the technology exists but isn't being used because of fears that it could be hacked:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32084956
It also points out that the Germanwings co-pilot was only able to lock the pilot out of the cockpit because of systems put in place to prevent terrorist attacks. Basically all these safety measures are trade-offs and there is no way to completely prevent future disasters or hijackings. But never mind, you can still ask for help from the Chilean Air Force.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....
Aug 14th, 2016 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Technology ain't being used because it can be hacked” says the Anglo Turnip...
Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people being transported each and every day all over the world on fully automated urban metro subway systems...
What a Turnip
25. All the fly by wires can be hacked and remotely controlled.
Aug 14th, 2016 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 023. Rg needs effective / economical drug interdiction.
One plane's too slow, the other has limited range and both are too expensive for their limited role.
@26
Aug 14th, 2016 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Says the BBC actually. Are you claiming the article is wrong and the uninterruptible autopilot is being used?
Also what exactly do you have against a perfectly inoffensive vegetable?
And the turnip at (28)..., without stopping one second to produce an independent thought..., frantically googles and refers to the first article he finds to contradict this old & humble Patagonian dweller...
Aug 14th, 2016 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@29
Aug 14th, 2016 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not willing to contradict the BBC article then?
Of course I googled, I'm not such an idiot as to trust an anonymous commenter on the internet.
“...a proposal from France to supply a squadron of Mirage F-1, at a unit cost of US$ 23 million.”
Aug 15th, 2016 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Argentina would purchase 24 T6/C Texan training aircraft...offered by President Obama when he visited Argentina last March (for) US$ 240 million.“
”Italy's Aermacchi M-346 Master, (for) some US$ 30 million each.“
You got to admire M Macri and how he is now being courted by the governments of some of the most powerful countries in the planet--countries that have weapons sales as a significant source of income.
It must be the famous ”return to the world” he promised during his election campaign.
26 Mr. Turnip,
Aug 15th, 2016 - 03:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people being transported each and every day all over the world on fully automated urban metro subway systems...”
You're comparing apples to turnips, Turnip.
The D train to Coney Island ain't gonna jump the tracks and change course, it don't travel at 600 mph, it ain't travelling internationally with foreign wackjob extremists onboard, and it ain't at 30,000 ft, picking its targets between the World Trade Centre or the Pentagon.
I'm lumping you in with Mr. Massot, naively trying to sound informed, or just plain stupid.
#20 Turnip - in-chief
Aug 15th, 2016 - 05:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0You make it sound simple . What happens in the case of a malfunction....if it can go wrong, it will go wrong. How does it navigate through crowded airspace.
How does it take emergency action to avoid severe thunderstorms.
What happens if it's destination is closed in by bad weather. Will it continue on it's merry way ?
The cost of fitting these systems would be much more than a few lousy fighter aircraft.
If the system was that good then you can dispense with the flight crew.
If they cannot over-ride the system then they are superfluous.
Would you fly in a completely automated system with no manual over-ride ?
I wouldn't and neither would Joe public
Mr.Turnip appears compelled to say something or anything, whether it's relevant, makes sense, or not.
Aug 15th, 2016 - 06:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Massot is predictably brainwashed, this Mr Turnip is an unpalatable root vegetable.
@31
Aug 15th, 2016 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0The previous government was also trying to buy new planes, but the deals were all scuppered either by lack of money or by Britain.
Do you agree with Capi that Argentina should just disband it's military?
@33
It certainly is easy to imagine a million ways it could go wrong, and even if it could be made super reliable there is no way it could respond to something completely unexpected. Plus it still leaves options like hacking and sabotage for the hijackers - unfortunately the ingenuity of people trying to stop terrorists is matched by the terrorists finding new ways to hurt people.
But I don't know whether people would always refuse to fly with such a system. In the future if we have self-driving cars then people would come to trust autopilots a lot more and might be willing to fly in a self-flying plane.
Human pilots make mistakes and autopilots can go wrong; if the autopilots were shown to be safer overall then wouldn't it be better to use them?
#31 Demon Tree
Aug 15th, 2016 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Do you agree with Capi that Argentina should just disband it's military?”
I view the armies in the world as a relic of primitive stages in civilization in which human beings saw a need to fight each other in order to get ahead of neighbours.
As the world evolves towards considering every human being as a fellow inhabitant of one single planet Earth, the effort and resources wasted in conflict will be sufficient to ensure the well-being of every single person in the planet.
Today's science and technology gives us the means to do so in environmentally-friendly ways.
If we instead keep going the old ways, we'll destroy the planet that is our only home in a futile struggle against each other.
#35
Aug 15th, 2016 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One of the advocates for self-driving cars was killed when his car pulled out of it's lane and hit another oncoming car. This happened a couple of months ago in the USA.
Cruise missiles have an automated flying system. They can be programmed to change altitude and course, however there is a failure rate for these weapons.
There have been cases where they have overflown their targets and crashed OR crashed before they reached their targets. Would you trust this in an aircraft with passengers and no manual back-up in the way of a flight crew ??
Most civil aircraft HAVE automated flight systems. The pilot has his route plan which he enters into the autopilot. In an ideal flight all he has to do is monitor the system and land the aircraft when they get to their destination.
However, he can over-ride it when instructed by air traffic to avoid other traffic, to change flight levels to avoid turbulence , to avoid bird strikes or to divert to another airfield. The bottom line is that he can react instantly to any emergency that a computer could not handle.
What would have happened to any automated aircraft trying to land in Istanbul when the failed attempted coup was in operation.? Curtains!!!
(36) Mr. Enrique Massot
Aug 15th, 2016 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Funny...
Three Argies in this thread...
All of us agree about disolving our Armed Farces....
three brainwashed you mean.
Aug 15th, 2016 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0in the meantime,
Textron AirLand has developed the Scorpion, they say, as a highly affordable and exportable twin-engine ISR/Strike/Trainer jet for the tactical military aviation market.
They further describe the aircraft as:
“A versatile jet platform based on leading-edge technologies, Scorpion is designed as a multi-mission aircraft for diverse battlefield, security and training missions.”
this could well be our new trainer,
and of course the new 2,ooo ton OPC are now coming into service,
The first of a fleet of new offshore patrol vessels, HMS Forth, has been revealed by BAE Systems and is ready to be launched in Glasgow.
The semi submersible barge ‘Dina Launcher’ was towed to the Clyde for the launch of HMS Forth, arriving earlier in the week.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-forth-revealed-glasgow/
very nice pictures,
@36
Aug 15th, 2016 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wish I had your optimism.
I think we're still the same primitive people we always have been. We'll always see a need to get ahead of the neighbours, and if fighting is the best way to do that, then we'll fight.
Right now it feels like the world is going backwards, not coming together. Libya is a mess of competing governments, Syria is still suffering civil war, Islamist terrorists keep attacking Europe and America, Russia seems to be trying to restart the cold war, and China is expanding in the South China Sea. Trump and his followers want to wall off the USA, and Europe has already put up fences to keep out refugees. People round here are not seeing every human being as a fellow inhabitant of plant earth; they are claiming Muslim immigrants will destroy Europe and the refugees are invaders.
Nor does today's science and technology let us live in an environmentally friendly way. As long as we are dependent on oil (and we are) it won't be true.
In any case, I'm assuming you agree Argentina should get rid of it's military, even though the world certainly has not eliminated war?
@37
Ouch, I guess it had to happen sooner or later.
I know planes already have autopilots, and I wouldn't trust today's technology to fly a plane with no humen intervention (and the Tesla drivers are supposed to remain alert in case the autopilot has a problem). I was thinking of the future, assuming the technology can be made really reliable. It seems logical that if fully computer controlled planes have less accidents than human controlled planes, then you should prefer being flown by the computer. But I still wouldn't feel comfortable doing it.
@38
That actually is kind of interesting. I wonder what percentage of people in Argentina share your view?
Mr Demon Tree,
Aug 15th, 2016 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are correct, it would be a very interesting question.
However, on this anonymous board, who is to say anyone on here is an “Argie” or lives there?
The K's felt much safer with an emasculated military, however.
Why would that be?
We might amend that to read, “ three K supporters”
23 million US Dollars for a Mirage F-1 ! First flight 1966,service from 1973.
Aug 15th, 2016 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is generous,Paris is taking the p@&s,generous would be paying for upgrades and getting the aircraft for free.
Oh wait Argentina and pay.
#38 El Think
Aug 15th, 2016 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Salud compatriota:
I believe Argentines are mostly made up of a self-assured people, happy in their great country, with no ambitions to litigate and even less to agress neighbours.
Our conflicts were always instigated by foreign countries such as the Triple Alliance War, or fueled by an army seeking new prestige, i.e. the quasy-war with Chile or the Malvinas ill-fated attempt.
Costa Rica has been without an army since 1948. “The budget previously dedicated to the military now is dedicated to security, education and culture.” Japan has Self-Defense Forces only. (Wiki).
And although Demon Tree at #40 distrusts the world could achieve peace, Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev did in the 1980s what nobody would have thought possible, by refusing to escalate on Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, prompting later the end of the atomic weapons race that had threatened the planet for decades.
Thank God for the Soviets, Mr. Massot.
Aug 16th, 2016 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where would World Peace be without the Communists??
#43
Aug 16th, 2016 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0even less to agress neighbours. What about the Falklands ?
Japan has Self-Defense Forces only. (Wiki). What's in a name ?
Self defence can quickly be used for attack which is he best form of self defence.
Japan has quite formidable armed forces.
The Faeroe islands have no army or air force but Denmark and NATO would come to their aid if need be.
“by refusing to escalate on Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative,”
He had no choice. The Soviet Union had disintegrated and Russia was all but bankrupt. They could not afford it.
Costa Rica has a paramilitary force trained to army combat standards.
Japan has Self-Defence Forces only,
Aug 16th, 2016 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0have you seen the size and power of this defence force,
its better than most countries entire military,
so they say.
@41 Kanye
Aug 16th, 2016 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0True. I don't think any of the three who have commented here actually live in Argentina; Mr Massot has said he lives in Canada.
“The K's felt much safer with an emasculated military, however. Why would that be?”
I imagine Argentina's history of military coups had something to do with it.
@43 Enrique Massot
There's an interesting page on wikipedia about Argentina's wars. Although it's probably not comprehensive, it looks like most of them have been against the native inhabitants of the country or internal rebellions.
Anyway, it seems a little too easy to blame the army for starting wars. Did the population generally support them at the time?
Costa Rica has certinly done well without an army; although it has some paramilitary forces it has probably saved a considerable amount of both money and trouble over the years. I don't know if Argentina really needs an army or not, but none of the reasons given so far have been very convincing.
And yes, I can't see world peace happening any time soon, even if the threat of nuclear annihilation is no longer so pressing. Just reading the comments on this website shows several posters who appear pretty keen to see another war.
Demon Tree,
Aug 16th, 2016 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I imagine Argentina's history of military coups had something to do with it.”
That was really a rhetorical question.
I imagine they anticipated doing things that would be very unpopular also.
Certainly, the population supported the military invasion of a friendly foreign offshore civilian community in 1982.
It seems that the only continuity between the populist Peron, the Junta, Evita K, and Macri's malignant Malcorra, is a willingness to dehumanise, villify, and characterise the Falklanders as thieves, as a pretext for aggression.
Interesting that the home-grown Pampas are best suited to attacking unarmed civilians on the ground.
@48
Aug 17th, 2016 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unpopular with who? Not with the general public, since in that case it would be more useful to have the army on their side. Besides the K's were a populist government, giving 'the people' what they wanted was how they stayed in power.
So, unpopular with the 'Establishment'? What unpopular things did you have in mind?
I think the other thing those different governments have had in common, is problems they would like a distraction from. A nice nationalist cause that all the people can unite behind, with an external enemy instead of an internal one.
In the UK the government don't really use it this way, but the Armed Forces do like to bring up the Falklands whenever cuts are planned.
Let's put it this way, no military, but a loyal
Aug 18th, 2016 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0'security force' meant the K's could act with impunity. If something inconvenient were discovered, or they got into bed with the wrong government, there would be no real repercussions.
Nisman was about expose Evita K's corruption and complicity with Iran against the Argentine Jewish community.
He was murdered and the investigation was 'bungled' and inconclusive.
Demon Tree
Aug 18th, 2016 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Most Argentine wars seem to “have been against the native inhabitants of the country or internal rebellions.
Very right. Mostly, the Argentine army has traditionally functioned as the arm of Argentina's extremely wealthy class, first to extermine the original peoples and distribute their land among a few, and later to quell civil protest.
”...it seems a little too easy to blame the army for starting wars. Did the population generally support them at the time?“
Again, the army was a willing support for the objectives of the ultra wealthy--and many from the traditional families were in fact in the caballeria division of the forces, which was for a long time the surest way to be president. As for support, coup d'etats were often preceded by intense media campaigns that installed a climate of inevitability of the coup among the civil population. Civilian resistance intensified as time went by.
#50 Kanye
”Nisman...was murdered.“
Of course, Kanye lies out of his teeth about Nisman being murdered. That urban legend was fed by the opposition to the CFK government.
Kanye adds a pinch of salt to the legend by adding that Nisman was about to expose corruption etc.
The truth is, Nisman's famous ”denunciation” was poorly written, a disjoint collection of allegations without judicial value.
For the opposition, however, Nisman's death became a boon, because it allowed the formation of a cloud of suspicion on CFK.
And Kanye is not shy about keeping the legend alive.
@50
Aug 18th, 2016 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see. I didn't know the K's had such a thing though, do you have a link?
@51
That's certainly a more convincing reason to want weaker armed forces.
Would Argentina actually be better off if any of these 'revolutions' had succeeded though? We've seen with the Arab Spring that getting rid of a dictator or autocratic government does not guarantee it will be replaced with anything better.
And I was really meaning the external wars when I asked if the population supported them. I guess most were quite long ago though so it might be hard to say.
Wasn't Nisman's death supposed to be extremely suspicious? Do you think he killed himself?
TWIMC
Aug 20th, 2016 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Wasn't Nisman's death supposed to be extremely suspicious? Do you think he killed himself?”... Somebody asks above...
Wasn't HRH Diana's death supposed to be extremely suspicious? Do you think HM Lilibet killed her?... I say...
Geeeeeeeeee..........
Why do Anglo Turnips don't even try to inform themselves before asking silly questions!!!
Mr. Think seeks to divert the conversation.
Aug 20th, 2016 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Diana has nothing to do with it.
Nisman had the goods on Evita K or at least it was believed he did.
He was to present his case against her the next day.
That night he is found dead from a bullet to the back of the head, execution style, from somebody else's gun.
Evita K hurriedly makes a public statement that its a “suicide” before any investigation.
All evidence at the crime scene is compromised by the investigators.
Yeah, I'd say it was “suspicious”.
TWIMC
Aug 20th, 2016 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In a previous thread, Anglo Turnip “Kanye” imagined some “Machineguns” in the streets of Buenos Aires...:
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/08/05/argentine-human-rights-leader-arrest-warrant-for-alleged-involvement-in-public-funds-embezzlement#comment445985
Now, at (54), Anglo Turnip “Kanye” is imagining a... “Dead from a bullet to the back of the head, execution style”...
What are this Anglo Turnips smoking?
Or is it the “Trump” virus?
Mr.Think;
Aug 20th, 2016 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Officially rendered verdict of the Argentine investigators: “Suspicious Death”.
Probably the best they could do mind you, given that Evita K had already declared it a “suicide”.
Anglo turnip at (56)
Aug 20th, 2016 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Officially rendered verdict of the Argentine investigators: “Suicide“...:
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1800761-nisman-informe-final-sobre-su-muerte
Can you offer us any link to your fantasy about this ” Dead from a bullet to the back of the head, execution style”...???
Of course not!
Stop smoking that baaad weed and embarrasing yourself!
Turnip!
Have a good look - make up your own minds.
Aug 20th, 2016 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nisman
https://news.vice.com/article/alberto-nisman-was-murdered-says-argentine-prosecutor
https://news.vice.com/article/alberto-nisman-was-murdered-says-argentine-prosecutor
“After hearing Stiuso’s testimony, Palmaghina – who has presided over the Nisman investigation since its beginning – referred the case to a higher federal court as a likely homicide.
Advertisement
Explaining her decision, she cited the “extensive” contamination of the crime scene by at least 20 people”
https://news.vice.com/article/alberto-nisman-was-murdered-says-argentine-prosecutor
https://news.vice.com/article/alberto-nisman-was-murdered-says-argentine-prosecutor
“vide data on what happened”.[11] It remains unknown if the death was a suicide, a forced suicide, or a murder.[2] Following his death there were massive protests across the country demanding justice and uncovering the cause of death”
https://news.vice.com/article/alberto-nisman-was-murdered-says-argentine-prosecutor
https://news.vice.com/article/alberto-nisman-was-murdered-says-argentine-prosecutor
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!