Short anwer: No. There’s been problems since much further back than that.
we are all out off topic :lol:
Eagle thankyou for being so unlike Erwin, your posts could do with being shorter and being posted in parts, preferably interspersed with Smilies, this will boost your post count.
It is very good of you to respond to our questions with what you view as the truth, we naturally disagree with you but that it not to say we cannot see your point of view, though I do believe it to be misinformed.
I hope that this thread keep can keep its head above water and not descend into a quagmire as others have done.
I still do not understand how your nation can claim the rights of ownership to uninhabited islands that were never settled by the Argentine or Spanish nations. Equally i do not understnad how when Spain and Argentina are so evidently seperate nations you claim right of ownership to previously Spanish held territory.
Spanish voluntarily leave the Islands. 4 YEARS LATER
Argentina wins independence from the Spanish state 4 YEARS LATER
Argentina claims sovereignty. 7 YEARS LATER
Argentina sends a military detachment to the Islands. - NOT SETTLERS.
We did not evict Argentine settlers we evicted soldiers. No civilians lived there it was not a case of women and children and families being removed. A military force was put in place to defend the Islands and failed to do so, consequently we moved in and settled the land in order to support the Shipping trade from the Horn. The shipping trade broughgt families from the highlands and lowlands of Scotland and the Welsh down to the Islands. Shipwrights and Sailmakers, and farmers to restock the ships calling into port for repairs. It was a society from the outset self supporting and voluntary. The Argentine nation only ever sent soldiers and never intereacted with the land or made their living from the Islands they were employed by their government to be their and not their of their free will.
can we keep this one seperate as it is intelligent and informed. Whereas the other is… not so.
I like the smilies bluff,specially this friendly one: 
.
what do you have against it?.
Thank you for your long, detailed and utterly un-corobberatable reply,
Oh, I see, so this doesn’t apply to Spaniards usurping the natives in Argentina, cos they weren’t a recognised state? This reminds me of the old joke about the old Colonial days where if a country didn’t have a flag it was OK to just claim it. Please provide some EVIDENCE that the right to self-determination does not apply in this case and does apply in the case of Argentina, from someone like the UN.
It seems to be you are not known about the Chile and United States help?
Let’s see…
*Punta Arenas Air Base. British Military forces were installed there. Are several pictures showing at least three C-130 Hercules with the same matriculate. And the most evident, they were showing the name as FUERA AREA DE CHILE. In Spanish, it says: Go out. Chilean area, a stupid mistake. The british Hercules tried to say FUERZA AEREA DE CHILE, Chilean Air Force.
All civil passengers who passed throw the base had to close the aircraft’s windows under obligation.
In the base was a Sea King Squadron with SAS forces. One of the helicopters down near to the Argentine border, in a secret mission.
You could find there a Canberra squadron too.
All it units were painted in Belize with the Chilean Air Force colours, didn’t allowed by the war laws.
*In 1998, military units of Great Britain honoured to Augusto Pinochet in spite of all the support which Chile had given to UK in the Malvinas war. The ensured they had Chilean informs of radars when the Argentine Aircraft took off in order to prepare the defence of the Task Force.
*The United States recognized in April his support to Great Britain. The provided the Widewake base, in the Ascension island. What’s more, the US Navy provided the excellent missiles AIM-9L Sidewinder, the key to won the air battle. They recognized their satellite supports to the UK.
Sounds like some dodgy conspiracy to me. Provide some evidence of this from an independent source, and not just a blind contention.
I don’t know what are you trying to say about the Exocets. You know the French blocked to the Argentine military forces. In April Argentina would receive 10 Super Etendards and 10 AM-39 Exocets more, but France blocked all in order to respect his alliance with the United Kingdom. The Argentine Exocets, AM-39 and MM-38 were enabled and activated by Argentine engineers, without foreign support.
Mines? I could talk about the surrended Argentine soldiers who were obligated to disable mine fields in the Malvinas. The Ginebra Convention says the surrended soldiers cannot be obligated to do military movements to their enemy.
They laid them indiscriminately in contravention of international law (a war-crime), thus they can remove them.
If I can find hte file Ill upload my A level Dissertation. Cant claim its bible and verse on the troubles but it has got footnotes! and got me an A.
“How far and to What extent, were Religious issues to Blame for the Resurgence of Republican violence in the Northern 6 counties of Ireland during the Late 1960’s and Early 1970’s?”
Synopsis: A bit but lots of other stuff comes into play too.
Class and Economic divisions along religious lines
Wolfe Tone and Irish Nationalism
Perceptions of Welfare and social security
US civil rights movement and formation of the NICRA which was then (percieved to be?) hi-jacked by the Catholics.
Gerrymandering in politics
O’Neills failed attempts to Re-vamp social policy in N.I.
The riots at Burnside Bridge
Pre-emptive Formation of the UDF.
…
Bollocks I might as well dig out the essay back later . though im worried we might get visited by Dilzhboy if this becomes its own topic
re: Prisoners of war. Provided we dont torture them or make them clear minefields on Pogo sticks wearing blindfolds then Im fairly sure it is all above board. Suppose that we asked them to collect their own mines (if this can be proved) it is hardly like asking them to build a railway across a rainforest and driving them to death in the process (I think that was the precedent for not using POWs for labour)
…Of course if they didnt want to be prisoners then they should either have fought harder or not stuck their hands in the air!
I think there are some references in the Geneva conventions to not using PoWs for military work, but it’s been a while since I’ve read them. However, if they were used after the surrender of Argentine forces that would probably be OK.
As we are off tpic, its an interseting debate, but, as British, both Scots and English have pretty much bolloxed up Ireland. The majority population of the North are pretty much decended from people that we sent there in the past. Our ancestors left us with a real bad situation. All I can say is we seem to be making the best of it right now (thats seem to be).
I think the convention states that officers cannot do work but ORs can.
In fairness to Eagle, the Chilean basing of UK special forces is often reported and probably (IMHO) true, given the unexplained Sea King crash there etc… Does that explain the arse whipping Argentine forces got? Hell no. Does it explain the susiciously early warning the UK task force despite the lack of AEW support? Probably.
As for US "support of giving us the use of Wideawake on Ascension Island… Ascension is a UK dependency upon which [b]we[/] allow the US to operate a base. We are doing them the favour as far as Ascension goes, not vice versa.
yes,but they are protestants.
i feel better visiting a country of my religion because it’s easier to find the church! :D[/quote]
So you’re not Christian then? You do know that just like Argentina, the UK (of which NI is a part) is Christian country.[/quote]
I thought the United Kingdom was protestant,am i that wrong?
Regards
Erwin[/quote] Yes but that is still Christian, same religion as the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox churches.
well it is christian but not identical to my christianism.
i have to say i don’t have a good knowledgment about protestant religion except that i have seen when an american friend was being married the ceremony.
Erwin, Bear in mind that Protestent creeds vary wildly from scary American evangelical, “Kill all gays/ lesbians/ muslims/ hindus/ sikhs/ anyone we don’t like the look of and can find an obscure reference to in Deuteronomy!” (they always seem to eat pork though, :roll: ) through good old Ian Paisley’s “the Pope is the antichrist, intern all Papists” :roll: ranting Presbyterians to the Church of England which is pretty tolerant by religious standards and retains many Catholic traditions.
Kill all gays/ lesbians/ muslims/ hindus/ sikhs
well,im catholical but not an extremist :roll: .
we are not going to kill them,in fact we aren’t bad with them,they can be our friends of course
festamus I think your correct re SAS operating out of chile press reports at the time mentioned a group of lost British tourists( nudge nudge) arrested and released near the border days after the report of a lost chopper.The rumour at the time was that they were out bound on a WW2 style attack(shoot em up and shoot off) on an Argentine air base
In respecrt of the Napalm recovered at Goose green The report at the time was that it was past it’s sell by date and was not used as firstly it would have presented a greater danger to the Pilot attempting to deliver it than it’s target. Apparently it was in cracked and rusting casings and secondly it was not compatable with the Pucara , but the fact that it was there shows intent.
Nothing unusual there then :lol:
POWs can not be used for work that helps your war effort, or is dangerous or hazardous to them.
Officers can not be compelled to work but can if they want.
However, the British POWs from South Georgia voluntarily disabled many of the devices they had set up when they surrendered, as a sign of good will, they didn’t have to.
And that was after the 8 of them(?) had managed to hold off a vastly stronger force which included the holeing of a Argentine ship with a Carl Gustav and damage to a helicoptor.
Then ran out of ammo.
As far as I know the Argentine POWs did not lift any mines, they pointed out where they were and had to give full instructions on how to lift them.
I think some may have been moved closer to the mines to give clearer directions (shared threat and all that!!) but these were mainly officers. Other than that they just humped and dumped the deactivated mines which is all right and proper.
Again I will point out, the Argentines scattered the mines with no record. This Eagle IS a warcrime,
He’s not talking about Catholics saying that mate, he’s talking about the religious nutters (mostly in America) who think like that.