you are wrong,chile was going to be cutted by 3 argentine generals at puerto montt,also,they watch our tv programs,here our radios,like our women,use our webpages,we domain them in culture.
repying to other thread you did,im a man,im 21,and that you don’t like me don’t means im not a man.
of course i think you are a kid.
eagle is right.
Hang on, what is the rule about posting ref HMS Invincible? Erwin was banned and now he isn’t!
WTF is going on? Does this mean I can talk about HMS Invincible prior to 1982 when it allegedly sank?
really? :shock:
Have we arrived back to a point made weeks ago, Argentina is a product of the Spanish occupation.
I agree with Firefly, The plan to withdraw the Ice Breaker ( Endevour? ) gave Galtieri the green light as it appeared that the UK was nolonger interested in the Islands. Had he attempted to negotiate offering financial and social inducements and an agreement to non interference in the islands culture rather than using the military option then he may have been in with a shout. Once the troops went in he was on a hiding to nothing.
Exactly, therefore any Argentinian not living in the jungle wearing a loin cloth and chewing cacao leaves should be on the next plain back to Europe.
The Islands are British, just live with it. The British ownership of the Islands is legal and even if it weren’t, tough.
Why can’t he use it - the Argentinians on here have often used the ‘continental shelf’ argument for a reason why the British owning the Islands is wrong. That proves that they are in fact wrong and that the UN does not recognise that Argentina should have the Islands.
Wehave fair rights - the Falklanders were asked which country they wanted to belong to and 99% of them voted to stay British. Can’t say fairer than that, can you?
FFS
This is the whole point you two.
You can’t just say to 2000 people, sorry 200 years isn’t long enough, bye bye, off you go to Britian.
You look at the Islands like a prize!!! Think about the people who live there that you are disturbing!!!
And you ARE children as you are unwilling or unwanting to make leaps of imagination to think about the Islanders and how they feel, even a 10 year old are encouraged to do that in Britain, speaks volumes for your schools systems.
Day 1. Why the Junta was good.
Day 2. The Falklands are ours.
Day 3. Argentine history, the Junta version…
You just want the Islands to prove some kind of South American machismo. So you can say, yeah we’ve got them. I doubt you two would even know why your country wants them back.
To make up for various inadeqaucies of your people/country?
The Islands will not change anything for your country.
You will be viewed even more dimly by many countries if you start packing off the inhabitents. Can just see that on the news!!!
Both of you claim to be students yet you can’t make any mental leaps at all!!! You are good at putting up lists, yet when confronted by cold facts all you do is refer to whatever you have been taught.
And in extremis resort to insults.
That is the mark of a child, that is how I know you are a child.
What would the Islands mean to Argentina? If they got them? After a few months of celebration what would happen. The islands would stagnate, and decay.
Whether you like it or not, the Islanders have a very large say in what is to happen to them. And all of the arguements that have been put up by brits are exactly the arguements that are keeping the Islands British.
If the UN think they are right, then the British keep the Falklands.
Which is why we still hold them, and will still hold them 200 years from now.
As has been said. The arguements that you use to prove your ownership of the Islands mean that you yourselves, unless you can prove direct descent from native south americans, should be on board aircraft going back to wherever YOU came from.
Your whole country is an illegal invasion, and you tortured and killed off the origianl inhabitents.
I’d buy your tickets before the rush at the airport boys.
We seem to have come full circle here once again.
The case for Argentina:
This appears mainly to be based on the points that; the Malvinas were first sighted by a Spaniard. The island at one point was occupied by Spaniards and that when Argentina rebelled against Spanish rule, the new Argentineans claimed the Malvinas, simply because it was near to them. The claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, as well as parts of Antarctica seems to have no justification other than they are or were British territories.
The case for the UK:
The British have had people living on the Islands for 200 years, therefore many of the Islanders have been in place for generations, in fact, far longer than a huge proportion of Argentineans have been in their own country.
The rights and wrongs of the discussion can be argued ad infinitum.
So to our Argentinean friends I put the following:
Why can’t you understand that the wishes of the people come first?
What would you do with the Islanders if you had the Islands?
Would any Argentinean actually go and live on the Islands? I have been there and believe me it is not Buenos Aries (Its much more like the Islands off the North Coast of my home, Scotland).
Why does Argentina claim South Georgia and S Sandwich? All of your arguments about the Falklands claim are naught when applied to these places, this includes the Antarctic territories.
And finally;
If Argentina lays claim to the Falklands because it was once part of the Spanish Empire and is close to Argentina. Why have you not claimed Chile, Uruguay and Bolivia etc as they too are all former Spanish Colonies.
Also, Argentina continued to expand after independence from Spain, both to the South and the West, ousting the native population. Using your own logic, you should then give all this territory back, because you stole it from the original inhabitants.
I feel that where Argentina is concerned here, a certain double standard is allowed. However when it comes to the UK, we are seen as always wrong.
Please give answers to my questions and win me over to your argument instead of the usual rant.
If you want the Falkland Islands back, why don’t you invade them and take them by force?
Oh
You tried that didn’t you, and didn’t manage it as I recall . . . . .
Ah well, you better start on Plan B then.
Have you considered offering the Falkland Islanders money to vote to become Argentinian?
Oh
That didn’t work either did it? Didn’t they vote overwhelmingly to tell you to push off?
Plan C.
Sit around whining about how unfair it all is, and how they are really your islands etc etc.
I suppose, if you keep it up for a few hundred years, we might get bored and give in, like a parent with a sulky child.
Then again, we might just remember how you invaded, and not let you have them just to upset you. That one gets my vote.
Anyway, this is a site about WW 2. Let’s discuss that instead.
Erwin - you posted some pictures of a medium tank (the Narhuel I think) that looks like it was from that era.
The suspension looks like that from an M3 (LEE / GRANT ). Is that the basis of the vehicle? When was it made? What was the main armament?
Dunno mate, there’s always the chance that it could be the denouement of copious rhinalrecto coalescence.
really? :shock:[/quote]
Yes. http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=19390#19390[/quote]
No, Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:18 pm
the tank is from the ww2 years,old like the sherman,it was better than the sherman,but more expensive,the suspension was argentine like the design and materials i saw in the army site.
Nahuel is the name.
We also have the TAM,who is great for the argentine battlefield,since it wastes less oil than a heavy tank,shots at good range,and can defeat a challenger 2(in our territory,because taking factors of geography,speed,range,and resistance of the slugs,and capacity to do not stop when it’s on the mud,etc.)
the tam is computarized and much more modern,it has been constantly renewed,there are some with missile launchers and with 12.7 mgs.
we also use the sk-37 ,which is very useful for us.
you cannot say if a tank is better or not.each one has a different purpose and has pros and cons.
usually depends on the terrain.
Unless the Challenger sees it first, in which case the 120mm DU shell would chew through the side of the Marder-with-a-bigger-turret before the TAM could even scratch the Chally’s paintwork.
[quote=“BDL”]
Unless the Challenger sees it first, in which case the 120mm DU shell would chew through the side of the Marder-with-a-bigger-turret before the TAM could even scratch the Chally’s paintwork.[/quote]
you forgot the speed.
the tam has different cannons,there are with more caliber,also,there is a model of the tam with artillery cannon.
but i don’t have the pic of it.
the tanks aren’t better and worst,it depends on terrain,situation,range and the design and purpose.
also,we cannot know who wins if we don’t do a competition.
OUT OFF TOPIC
im sorry,i was out off topic.
i go to eat lunch.
Quoted for truthery.
Until they invent a tank that can outrun a 120mm high velocity shell, speed isn’t all that important.
Also - you’d have to be unbelievably unlucky to take a Challenger 2 out with the 105mm gun that most TAMs carry. The TAMs are also not all equipped with night sights, whereas the Challenger 2 has passive night vision fitted for the gunner, driver and commander. Also, since the TAM is only a 1970s APC with a bigger turret fitted, it’s armour is inadequate for an MBT - the Chally could take it out from a hell of a long way out - potentially before the TAM crew had even seen them, especially at night.
I’m not sure what the ground pressure of a C2 is though, so certain terrain may be a small problem for it.
0.9kg/cm2
the speed is totally important.
out off topic.
there are multirple variatons of cannon in the tam yes,but they decrease the speed.
homewever,it will be faster than a challenger.
im sure somebody of the cavalry in our army can reply.
i will bring a mate to do that.
see ya