Falklands Conflict

Admin's and Mod's Admins and Mod's - Archive Room
#301

I don’t need to read the article, it says we lost more aircraft than we actually sent to the Falklands - how is that possible?

Erwin, why can you not see when propaganda is lying to you?[/quote]
Plese,the article,i dk how many planes did you sent,maybe the help of french,and american planes.[/quote]

There were no US or French aircraft there mate, just Fleet Air Arm and some Army helicopters

edit - although I can’t read spanish, I looked at the site - I’ve been on two of the ships it says were heavily damaged, neither of them were

#302

Soveignity was!,now,the sovereignty has to be argentinian,it´s british because you have troops there and you occupied them now.

Heritage from Spain is fair,the argument can be or not weak,but gair.

so what of the ubication?,i don´t think gibraltar…belong to uk,and corsica is closer to france that any other country,so,it´s french then.

The economy must be talking about other aspects of it,like markets,loans, i don´t know.

Post all the convention,no only that part.

Usucapión,i dk how to translate that… shit :evil:

those little rocks are argentinian.
you can´t find such tipe of rock near england :wink: .

The wishes of the islanders?,i have to say that you took a piss on the wishes of the islanders before you were there.and i really have a better idea for the wishes: send them back to the homeland!.

Im sure a guy with more knowledgment can help me,joining to this.

BTW,i wanted to discuss with firefly,no with you stoat :evil:

#303

try this mate :wink: :
http://translation.langenberg.com/

#304

It’s funny how it’s only Erwin’s dodgy source that makes these claims - there’s plenty of data from trusted sources that disputes it!

Here’s a site with totals of aircraft deployed and lost: http://www.falklandswar.org.uk/ac.htm

It says we lost 34 in total (I’m assuming that includes the ones that went down on Atlantic Conveyor) and has a breakdown of what.

And a breakdown of British and Argentinian personnel deaths:

http://www.falklandswar.org.uk/FAQ.htm

British
British Army - 122
Royal Navy - 87
Royal Marines - 26
Merchant Navy - 9
Royal Fleet Auxiliary - 7
Falkland Islanders - 3
Royal Air Force - 1
Total 255
Total wounded - 777

Argentines
Navy - 392 (323 in ARA Belgrano, rest most marines)
Army - 179 (11 officers, 30 sc, 138 conscripts)
Air Force - 55 (36 pilots)
Gendarmeria (border guard) - 7
Prefectura (coast guard) - 2
Total 635
Total wounded - 1068

And of the 67 ships we sent down, the following ships were damaged or sunk (S = sunk):

Atlantic Conveyor (S)
RFA Sir Galahad (S)
HMS Ardent (S)
HMS Antelope (S)
HMS Coventry (S)
HMS Sheffield (S)
HMS Glasgow
HMS Plymouth
HMS Antrim
HMS Glamorgan
HMS Arrow
HMS Avenger
HMS Broadsword
HMS Brilliant
HMS Argonaut
HMS Penelope
HMS Minerva

I count 17.

This is all widely accepted stuff, Erwin, except for your freaky propaganda site. Find a mainstream media source to back yourself up, or we’ll start “proving” all kinds of things by quoting Mein Kampf or Soviet propaganda at you (which said, for instance, that Amercan capitalists could kill their workers)… rolly eyes time :roll:

#305

Erwin, I don’t need a translation, the site says that both Onyx and Plymouth were heavily damaged, I’ve been on them both, and they weren’t. The Plymouth must have been in decent condition, since the Argentinian surrender was signed in her wardroom. There’s a photo of the Argentinian Commanding General signing the ceasefire with the British Commander.

Plus they say we lost more aircraft than we actually sent down there

edit - just seen Stoat’s post. Plymouth did get hit by two 1000 pound bombs, neither of them went off

#306

i will get a better guy for the topic falklands.
I dk a shit more than the sources i use.
Im in the stone age of knowledgment in this.
enjoy the short victory,because i will bring there a guy who knows…

#307

this is the time when i have to say that i dk how to translate,because i have stone-age knowledgment about this war.
I will try to bring here a guy who knows about this.

Gentleman,im out of here

#308

Can’t be arrsed to post the whole thing - here’s some points:

  • Corsica is closer to Italy than France, btw.

  • There are plenty of similar islands near Britain - Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles.

  • The economy is tied to the British pound. If you want to go the economy route you’ve got to provide some evidence.

  • Taking a piss on the wishes of some islanders back in 1833? On that basis, all white Argentinians should FO back to Spain. If you’re not going to do that, then you have to respect the wishes of the current islanders. And if you want to go down the “heritage from Spain” route, then Argentina should be given back to the natives - “heritage from natives” and all that.

#309

Erwin, it doesn’t matter who comes, you can’t prove that Argentina shot down more aircraft than we had in the area. You can’t say that the ship that the Argentinian surrender was signed on was heavily damaged - if it was that heavily damaged, why would they use it for the surrender signing? you can’t say we lost 800 odd more men than really did - there’s no way our Government could have covered it up.

#310

Therein lies your problem, common with a certain soon-to-return member of the site!

#311

Oh, and more on the geographic aspect, seeing as this appears to be your strongest argument (and that’s not saying much):

  • The Falkland islands are 473km from Argentina

  • The Faroe islands are 350km from Britain and a helluva long way from Denmark (who owns them), and are 450km from Iceland.

So, if on the basis that the Falklands are 473km from Argentia then they are Argentinian, then the Faroes should be British since they’re even closer, right?

If not, please explain why this situation is different, keeping to your geography argument.

#312

stoatpan,fuck off!.
this is the falklands discussion
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=588&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
write there.

consider this finished

#313

Hi everybody.
First of all, sorry for my english, but i think you will understand something.

The Malvinas Islands are argentine…

to determine the sovereignty of a territory is needed:

A_effective occupation: This is shown by permanent buildings, administrative or governmental organization.

B_prescription: This occurs when a sovereign state does not protest the usurpation (invasion and occupation) of his territory.

C_discovery.

A_ In 1766 England established in Malvinas. The occupation was only for eight years, ignoring the Spanish claim.
Then, England go away of the islands.

The right of first occupant is to France.

Argentina established in Malvinas permanent, since 1817 to the usurpation in (1833). It fits to emphasize, that since 1811 ships werw sent from Buenos Aires, to take care of the territories, until was established, of final form, in 1817.
In 1820, takes solemn and public possession.

B_Argentina has protested to England in tireless opportunities after the iligitime usurpation in 1833:

* 1833
* 1834
* 1841
* 1842

There were two periods of intense protests on the part of Argentina, in which the United Kingdom was maintained in silence:

* 1849-1884 (35 years)
* 1888-1908 (20 years).
* We recall also, that all the Argentine presidents have protested incessantly, including this year.

C_ England did not discover the islands, they saw it 170 years after Magellan discovered Malvinas and there wasn´t occupation only they saw it.

At that time (1690), the occupants of the islands were the French, but then (1764), they abandoned the islands, recognizing the Spanish sovereignty.

By discovery, the islands are Spaniards, until in 1810 they are inherited of Spain and they pass to be of Argentina. This fact happened before being declared the national independence, in 1816.

Regards.-

#314

Now that’s not nice, nor does it complement this:

Just because Man of Stoat quoted from a site widely acknowledged to be an authority on the subject in question, it’s no reason to gap it.
I realise that there is now another thread on the subject, but wouldn’t it have been more in keeping with your position as the moderator on this forum to have mentioned it to the site member in a polite manner ?

I shall now go over to the other thread.

#315

Now that’s not nice, nor does it complement this:

Just because Man of Stoat quoted from a site widely acknowledged to be an authority on the subject in question, it’s no reason to gap it.
I realise that there is now another thread on the subject, but wouldn’t it have been more in keeping with your position as the moderator on this forum to have mentioned it to the site member in a polite manner ?

I shall now go over to the other thread.[/quote]

cuts,i try to have the best actitude,but im not an idiot,im going to defend my country for every enemy,i want to die defending my country.

i have good conduct with the non-trolls.I prefer to have members like kommisar ombrok,dani,panzerkampfwagen,gen sandworm or fw then having one hundred of you.

I said that im not going to use my capacity of mod against him,i know how to control myself,but you have to be controlled too.
cuts,you entered here for the falklands thread,your principal forum is the arrse,not this,and you are here for talking out of topic.
If you leave this,i don´t think nobody will miss you,except if it´s a troll of course.

and i leave.

#316

this was a peaceful comunity,and now it´s a trolling depot,and not since i am!..

cuts,if you want to play to the revolutionary and the che guevara,do it with a woman.

Im good with the good members,not with a thing like you.

#317

First may I welcome you to the site Irish Duck, I hope we have some interesting debate on this and of course WWII subjects.

By the way, that’s an interesting handle you have, would I be correct if I assumed you come from Irish stock ?

With respect ID, I’m not sure that Magellan did in fact discover the islands, as his route is very clearly documented in historical charts and it followed the South American east coast, until he found the straits which now bear his name.
It would have been a sensible course to sail, to remain within sight of land, as he was trying to establish the extent of the continent now known as South America.
That he sailed 1000 Km out into the Atlantic is not only an odd claim, but it flies in the face of his logs !

I have heard that one of Ferdinand’s ships deserted him and returned to Spain. While it is true that a ship did indeed leave Magellan, there are no original documents that support any claim that it ever sighted the islands, much less established any settlement or even made a landfall.

Regards, Cuts.

#318

Mr Schätzer, I am neither a revolutionary nor any sort of supporter of the murderer Guevara and do not wish to be associated with such a character.

You say I should act in such a manner with a woman, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that and would be very happy to receive an explanation please.

You call me ‘a thing,’ what do you mean by this statement ? Do you mean that I do not act and react in the same way that you do ?

As a moderator of the forum I would appreciate it if you could explain yourself in a calm manner, as at the moment your reaction to polite comments is indicative of someone who wishes their views only to be heard and, if I have understood you correctly, that others, (not only myself,) may be insulted according to whim.

I had assumed that you would grow with the trust the site owner has placed in you, please do not prove me wrong.

#319

Who’s attacking your country? Isn’t this site about education? We’re trying to tell you that figures you are quoting are wrong.

Instead of the swearing at people (who from what I can see are certainly not trolling), why not act like a moderator and reply calmly? And if you want to use the new Falklands thread, why not just move the Falklands discussion from this thread over there?

#320

Sorry, but don’t the Brits have the “effective occupation” at the minute?

If not, in that case, let’s look at A, B and C for Argentina:

A: Occupied originally by people who moved down the South American continent 10,000-odd years ago, who set up temples, tribal government etc. That fulfills your definition, no?

B: The occupation by the Spanish was certainly contested by the original inhabitants, until they were subdued by military force, terror, and succumbed to European diseases.

C: Argentina was discovered by the people who initially occupied it as in A above.

Therefore, by your definitions, argentinians of European descent have no territorial claim to Argentina and should give it back to the natives.

As far as I’m concerned, the only real argument over sovereignty is the wishes of the inhabitants themselves - do they wish to be British or Argentine? They had a referendum on this and resoundingly voted to remain British. Did they welcome the Argentinians as liberators? Hell, no! They ignored their newly imposed laws and continued to drive on the left and conduct official business in English (most can’t speak Spanish anyway).

Might I also quote the United Nations Charter, Article 1, section 2:

  1. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Thus any talks over sovereignty against the wishes of the inhabitants infringes the UN Charter.

And I would uphold the same right for Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, or any part of the UK which wished to secede.