Falklands Conflict

TOPOR

*The fact that the United Kingdom was more time than Argentina governing the Malvinas, Georgias and Sandwich is not a support to improve the british rights. Great Britain took the islands by the force, when Great Britain didn’t have any right over these territories.

*As I told a couple days ago, the auto-determination right is not allowed to the islanders of the Malvinas. The auto-determination right is allowed when the claimer is a native, or the first people who standed in the islands or the territory in dispute. The british islanders removed by force the Argentine colonies of the Malvinas, without reason. If the violence is playing,
the auto-determination right is not allowed.

*The cruiser General Belgrano was respecting the british orders of don’t entry to the Exlude Zone. The order was put by the british forces as a unilateral term. The General Belgrano not only was out of the Exlude Zone, it was giving pope to it. And what’s more… the british government said that the attack was realized because the cruiser was a serious threat to the Task Force. Let’s see… The Belgrano had not any sea-sea missiles. The only smart system of weapons was an ancient SAM system of Sea Cats. The sea-sea weapons were only the cannons, which had a range of 22km. The nearest british ship of the Task Force was more than 200km of the Argentine cruiser. The question is… was the General Belgrano a real threat to the Task Force? Of course not.
If I would need to attack to Argentine ships which were a real threat, I would attacked to the A-69 corbets, fasts and well-armed units, with Exocets MM-38. They could enter to the Exclude Zone, launch their missiles and come back quickly. I find the corbets a threat more dangerous than the old loved cruiser. But the real problem was that Argentina was near to accept the Peru proposition, which was clearly in favour of Argentina. Great Britain had to do something in order to get furious to all the Argentine people and government, because Argentina wouldnt accept negotiating with the UK after that… and what they could do? Attack to the defenceless, harmless and loved cruiser, the most frondled ship of all the navy by the people… atacking to the Belgrano and murdering 330 sailors.

*The Invincible was attacked and hit. I don’t recognize the idea of the sink, but it was hit. The ship dissapeared by months, and it had new painting. Both pilots who survived at the atack coincide in separate rooms that they attacked to an Aircraft Carrier. All the aerial movements of the british forces dissapeared from the argentine radars by the moment of the attack, fair source that the Aircraft Carrier had been useless by a time.

*I know several veterans who ensures they had seen the Ghurkhas and the did a lot of atrocities, like assesinating, raping, and things like that.

*The problem between the Harrier/Sea Harrier and the Mirage III/Mirage V were the missiles used. The british had the support of the US Navy, which gave to the Sea Harriers the excellent missile AIM-9L Sidewinder. The best missile in hands of the Argentine Air Force was the R-550 Magic and worse missiles Shafrir. The AIM-9L is not comparable with the older Magic. And… very few? the number of Harrier/Sea Harrier was, in aproach, 60 units. The Argentine Mirage III/Mirage V were only 40, and these aircraft had a lot of dissadvanteges, over the Harriers. The speed is not an essencial care in a dogfight. The Mirages hadn’t the possibility of refueling, and their movements were heavier than the Harrier’s.

*Don’t boast about the distances. You couldn’t win that war without the Chile and United States supporting. They gave you bases, radars, weapons, and more. Argentina hadn’t foreign supports. And of course, the military forces were extremely worse in the islands.

*I don’t know why do you say that episody defined the future of the islands. The Conquer right isn’t allowed because it wasn’t a declared official war.

If Argentina wanted the Islands so badly why did they field a second rate force.

Why was the task force allowed to sail 8,000 miles to deliver an arse kicking unharried.

Why did the Argentine military command not provide sufficiant assets to counter a Known quantity as the size and make up of the task force was common knowledge.

Why was the Task Force allowed to establish a bridge head unopposed by land forces.

why was the Argentine Navy allowed to opt out of the conflict.

Why were UK forces allowed to walk across the Island without any concerted opposition.

Why were Argentine special forces not used effectivley apart from the initial invasion.

Why did the AFF waste a valuable asset like Exocet on picket ships rather than on a concerted attack on the British Carriers.

Why inspite of the limited number of British Aircraft available was the AFF unable to establish air superiority or even able to achieve a single ATA success.

Why was the Argentine population still being told that their forces were winning the conflict as the white flag of surrender was flown over Port Stanley.

Who was assassinated?

Assassination is clandestine and hardly a war crime! and wouldnt be carried out be Gurkhas anyway. We have people with daggers and wings for things like that. If you can even provide evidence of it happening!

If there were no inhabitants in the Islands I could possibly, mind you possibly concede that the Falklands maybe could belong to Argentina.

However, I still fail to see where the ridiculous claim to S. Georgia, the S Sandwich Islands and territory in Antarctica.

What has never been satisfactorily explained to me are the basis for these claims.

Gawd, you’re like a stuck record.

Self-determination doesn’t apply to the islanders cos they’re not natives? Then it doesn’t apply to Argentines in Argentina either then! Most of the islanders can trace their families back ON THE ISLANDS for longer than most Argentines can trace their families back in argentina.

I’d like to see the Chilean bases you claim we used, also the Chilean and US radars and weapons we were given, apparently. We bought everything fair and square before the conflict. Where do you get this cr*p from? Oh, let me guess…

Now, let’s talk about France “giving” you exocets then, shall we?

Let’s also talk about the indescriminate sowing of mines and the alledged use of napalm.

No. No. No. No. No.
Clear?
Ok. No. That is a lie. Not true. A falsehood.

If you want to talk about Gurkha war crimes, or war crimes during the Falklands, go to http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=844. I’ve been good enough to investigate your allegations, and found nothing. I have laid down a similar challenge to our Argentine associates. Go to the website of a recognised human rights body and show what you find on this subject. As a hint, www.evilfascistjunta.ar isn’t a recognised human rights body. Neither is www.galtieriownsmalvinas.ar.

Until you provide reliable evidence, we will stick with the currently accepted truth -

A few of Eagles points I’d like to rebutt.

The fact that the United Kingdom was more time than Argentina governing the Malvinas, Georgias and Sandwich is not a support to improve the british rights. Great Britain took the islands by the force, when Great Britain didn’t have any right over these territories.

My red, when?

the auto-determination right is not allowed to the islanders of the Malvinas. The auto-determination right is allowed when the claimer is a native, or the first people who standed in the islands or the territory in dispute. The british islanders removed by force the Argentine colonies of the Malvinas, without reason. If the violence is playing,
the auto-determination right is not allowed.

The islanders are the closest thing the Islands have to a native island, and the UN consideres it a valid point. There were no Argentine colonies on the Islands only a Spanish one on the East Island, and they left of their own accord.

The Belgrano was a ship of war ie a battleship, her country was in a war.

The exclusion zone was to protect your merchant ships who had nothing to do with the war, and neutral merchant ships. All ships inside the zone were liable to attack.

Thus nuetral ships would know where to stay out of, and Argentine ships not involved in the war could also ply their trade. An argentine ship inside the zone was fair game, a warship anywhere on the planet was fair game. Another example of why the Argentines didn’t have a clue what they were doing.

HMS Invincible? No, I’m not wasting my life explaining this again.

Gurkhas? Bollocks, see the Amnasty International thread and the post I put up where an ex British Gurkha Officer interviewed an Argentine soldier, who curiously enough didn’t see any of this, but did here the drivvel spewed by your countries propaganda ministry.

the number of Harrier/Sea Harrier was, in aproach, 60 units.

And were carried down there and operated how? Two carriers only, couldn’t carry that many harriers only, let alone the other aircraft, like helis that were needed. Atlantic Conveyor was also usedas a flight deck, but even then 60, do you know what you are on about? OUr Aircraft carriers are alot smaller than the Yank ones you know.

Basically you’re talking shit, accept it, your airforce was ass whupped by so few harriers it is almost laughable you call it an airFORCE.

AIM-9L were purchased by the British, not given by the USN. They may have sold your country some had it not been a facist dictatorship.

Don’t boast about the distances. You couldn’t win that war without the Chile and United States supporting. They gave you bases, radars, weapons, and more. Argentina hadn’t foreign supports. And of course, the military forces were extremely worse in the islands.

Behave, you lost, accept it and have a better life.

We didn’t get bases, radars or weapons. The only thing the Yanks did, other than try to stop the war before it started, was relieve us of some of our commitments in NATO. Which allowed us to use the men to fight you. Even so we could have done it without this help.

Weapons were bought not given, and in many cases they were first trialled in combat by us. ie, Milan.

Chile? How did chile help us?

Just because your nation doesn’t no zip about a modern war, with all its intricate plot twists don’t cry here.

If we can put pressure on France to stop them selling you Exocets that saves our lives, so is valid. If we can cause Chile to kick off, and cause you to withdraw your mountain troops leaving a bunch of school kids to fight the finest troops in the world that is valid, tough shit, you also could have put pressures on us but didn’t know how.

Unlucky Junta and co. You’re playing in the big leagues now, not sloting a few of your own population.

I don’t know why do you say that episody defined the future of the islands. The Conquer right isn’t allowed because it wasn’t a declared official war.

Falklands are ours, and always will be. You managed to piss off the entire population of the islands, so tough, they are not going to want to join you anytime soon are they?

Whose flag still flys over the Islands?

Ooh ! A quiz !
Can I have a go please LargeBrew ?

Nothing else available.

UNFAIR ! They weren’t supposed to fight back !

a) Probably because the theory says that the Task Force did not have enough men to dislodge the invaders.
b) Poor trg on the part of the Task Force because they did not adhere to the theory.

It was for the benefit of the infrastructure that the Breeteesh were permitted to construct a bridge.
Later the Argentine engineers would widen it to carry the motorway between East and West Falkland.

That’s the same ‘opt out’ as when a child ties his belongings into a spotted handkerchief tied to a stick. He has ‘opted out’ from home.
Proof positive that HMS Conqueror’s victory was an essential part of the conflict - the aircraft carrier ‘25 de Mayo’ never left port to threaten the Task Force afterwards.

UNFAIR ! They should have surrendered immediately after the beachhead was established.

There would be no-one around to admire the ‘cool’ uniforms. The British are notoriously bad at instilling good dress sense in basics and therefore their troops would fail to be as impressed as they should be.

It is common knowledge, especially in Buenos Aires, that all the ships were sunk. Pictures to prove this are found on www.libreonion.ar
If it were true it’s because these French weapons did not operate as expected.
They went for the radar reflection not ‘the little prince,’ once again, very unfair.

Don’t change the subject !

FALSE ! Everyone in the world knows that Argentina won that war, it was the British that surrendered !
There was a slight tactical withdrawal so the Special Forces could defeat the nuclear weapons that were raining down on Buenos Aires.

Cuts wrote

[quote]LargeBrew wrote:
why was the Argentine Navy allowed to opt out of the conflict.
That’s the same ‘opt out’ as when a child ties his belongings into a spotted handkerchief tied to a stick. He has ‘opted out’ from home.
Proof positive that HMS Conqueror’s victory was an essential part of the conflict - the aircraft carrier ‘25 de Mayo’ never left port to threaten the Task Force afterwards. [/quote]

Here is a artistes impression of what would have happened.

AWACs/similar: Hello Royal Navy, 25 de Mayo is leaving port, direction East speed 25 knots.

Some time later.

HMS Conqueror or HMS Onyx: Hello Royal Navy, 25 de Mayo has changed direction and speed. Approx 12 knots, direction straight down!!!

Immediataly after

Argentinia: That’s not fair, that’s not fair. ad nauseam.

We should have gone after their ships in port, just to really annoy them!!!

I do not mean oil in waters belonging to the Falkland Islands.
They are a base from which the resources of Antarctic can be exploited at some point.

Here’s an article from the Grauniad, it’s a few years old but is still interesting:

Good post cuts :smiley:

Well done those men!
I’d like to think that I could be equally brave and resourceful in such a situation. Hopefully I’ll never have the opportunity to find out.

Surely the Argentinians on here must be bored of repeating the same tired old lies about the war by now? Can we not just stop these pointless threads about lies told in a war 25 years ago?

I can’t even remember the number of times that I’ve posted proof that HMS Invincable was still working the day after being allegedly sank, the number of times we’ve asked for proper proof of the ‘war crime’ allegations only to be given the address of obscure Argentininan websites repeating Junta propaganda or the number of times I’ve laughed out loud at some of the lies Erwin and his mates believe.

One of the bits that got me was:
“At the perilous extreme, several fully-armed local men went into battle with the men of the parachute regiment at Mount Longdon.”

It puts the offrs in a bit of a quandry.

Would you allow un- or semi-trained men to take part in an assault on a well dug-in en psn ?
Yes you might need bayonets on the gnd and as the mantra goes, ‘never underestimate local knowledge’ but they are untested.

I think the moral stand is that it is their home.

They perhaps adhere to Heinrich’s idea that “the oft repeated lie will eventually be accepted as the truth.”

I wonder if they learnt that from certain post-war immigrants ?

Really cool immigrants with cool uniforms?

Perhaps ARGCON (that’s argentine contingent) would care to be brave enough to step across to here: http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=21159/start=70.html and repeat their lies, falsehoods, propaganda and “opinions”? Some genuine vets are around on there, and probably some who were on Invincible the day she was supposedly attacked.

Man_of-Stoat, you are cool. :smiley:

I hear he also has a really cool uniform with lots of shiney leather that he wears a lot up the 'dam :lol: :lol: :lol: