Falklands Conflict

Admin's and Mod's Admins and Mod's - Archive Room
#1921

Crab has answered this one for me

Yes they are. What’s more, the head office building is on the United States.

Fair enough, that’s why I asked. They made their choice who to support though, and their NATO commitments and alliance with the UK was obviously more important to them than OEA and the alliance with Argentina.

It seems you don’t know that Argentina was the best north-american ally in latin america, giving special control for the capitalism system, with argentine troops fighting guerrillas not only in Argentina, in another countries as Bolivia or Nicaragua, supporting the governments attacked by guerrillas-prosoviets groups.
To the United States, Argentina was a really discharge of there idealistic problems.

I’m sure they were mate, and I don’t know enough about the region to argue about the geurilla wars or politics of the time. However, on the world stage, Argentina is not a big player, they do not have the political power of the UK, France or Russia for example.

Argentina ensured to the United States government that Argentina would fight and could fight agaisnt left-idealistic enemies.
Remember that Argentina in the '80s was the only country from under the Equator Line and one of the few of the world which had:
<snip>
Argentina had the possibility to maintain an independent military factory to be a potential ally of the United States in its war against the Varsovia Pact, the only Argentina needed was only a little of support from a foreign power world country to incentivate

Again, not denying it mate, however Britain has all of those and are in the right continent to fight the Soviet Union, and with a much more powerful military with more chance of beating the Red Army (I’m sure that given the choice, the US would rather have the British fighting with them than the Argentinians - don’t take offense at this, because none is meant). If WW3 had broken out between the Soviets and NATO, Argentina would have been on the very edge of the war, Britain would have been in the front line.

That’s not the point about what I was talking about.
If the United States and the United Kingdom attack the nations which are against their politics when the entire world are in oppositing that decision, what the entire world should do? attack them as they do?

I have no idea to be honest, no one will ever go to war against the US or the UK because there is no one in the world that could beat the two of us combined. Attacking either would be suicide for most nations.

The closest there will ever be to being a native were the Spanish colonists, inhabiting a real spanish territory from 1780 to 1811, and Argentine natives inhabiting a real argentine territory from 1825 to 1833.
You don’t have to take in account only the years if the territory it wasn’t yours. The british islanders installed themselves as invaders, not as colonists.

What about the French settlement that was first founded in 1764 or the British settlement in 1765?

No, because Spain as Germany recognized and recognizes the existence of a sovereign state in Argentina, and the former propietary, Spain, recognized the Argentine sovereignty and its absolute independence.
Argentina never recognized an state over the Malvinas and only sees to the inhabitant as foreigns who are inhabiting an argentine territory, and they could choice about their freedom as the Argentine constitution says. The can stay or go out if they want, but the south atlantic archipelagos are Argentine.[quote]

Not in the eyes of the UN or any of the otherf world powers, otherwise there would be UN resolutions requiring that the British hand the Islands over to Argentina, as there are with Palestinian lands and Israel. The first British settlement on the Islands was founded 50 years before Argentina became an independant country, how can your claim on the Islands be right, if there were Brits on the Islands before Argentina existed?

[quote]Correction, the argentine government in April 1982 (they were wrong of course, as the main things they did), never thought in a war, and never planed once.

Clearly all their planning was wrong, but they have no excuse for not making even the most simple of preperations to fight a war.

We won’t agree each other never at this point. My position is the Argentine spirit was by far bigger than the British spirit (I am not saying that it spirit wasn’t present at all, I know a lot of relates of heroicall british soldiers in the campaign of the South Atlantic).
In fact, the argentine spirit was bigger than the british, but the british military/logistic equipment was much bigger even than the argentine military/logistic equipment.

The Argentinian logistics had to cover a couple of hundred miles, the British logistics were stretched over 8000 miles, the Argentinians should have had far better logistics than us. We’ll have to agree to disagree about the relative fighting spirits of the two armies, because I firmly believe that it was the fighting spirit of the Paras, Marines, Gurkhas and other soldiers deployed there that won the war for us.

#1922

I have no idea to be honest, no one will ever go to war against the US or the UK because there is no one in the world that could beat the two of us combined. Attacking either would be suicide for most nations.

Any chance to Russia,China and Cuba vs UK and US? :smiley:

#1923

We’ll have to agree to disagree about the relative fighting spirits of the two armies, because I firmly believe that it was the fighting spirit of the Paras, Marines, Gurkhas and other soldiers deployed there that won the war for us.

I have pride,but im not a liar when i do!,by far our guys were helping the motherland and not doing it as a job!,the fighting spirit of every man of those cannot be compared with the spirit of an argentinian conscript.
Winning don’t means you are better,you can have worst troops and win with support of other nations,more quantity or better geographic conditions,this is not a war computer game,i thought you knew that when you said me the same.

of course brits are a considerable allies!,because they have technology,economy,nepaleses that fight for them and industries.
give that to argentina and we would be far better than you now,we have also the natural resources and the SPIRIT needed.

#1924

as far as i know, british troops and flags are on the island, i dont see why it would belong to the agentina right now

#1925

I also see the british flag in australia,and new zeland and i see the texas flag in chile.I see your simpathy for the argentines as you are an admin and have to don’t take sides.
hong kong was part of britain too,eh?.

and where are them?,have you read our sovereignity rights in our claims?,do you know where are those islands or you searched them on google?.

please,i prefer a longer comment.
you don’t know much about the malvinas do you?,im asking not attacking.

#1926

Hate to point this out Erwin, but from some of your posts, neither do you.

#1927

Hate to point this out Erwin, but from some of your posts, neither do you.[/quote]

I know our sovereignity claims,i’ve seen an argie video,i’ve been reading book summaries (ex: Vincent Bramley’s and Informe Rattenbach),i know where are them also! as im afraid he searched in google,i know what you think (a spic discovered them),also i watched the BBC video “The Fakllands War: Task Force” or something like that,i’ve seen it long time ago as i remember.

im active member of 7 forums about malvinas.

enough?

Suck my eye!

#1928

Erwin I think that you are making a few basic errors.

Firstly Patriotic spirit should never be mistake for fighting spirit. An army can have all the patriotic spirit in the world in barracks and even in the field yet when the bad men with pointy things arrive they run away.
The Spanish army during the Peninsular War was a classic example, these men were often fired up with hatred for the French invaders who had done terrible things to Spain, and yet on more than one occaision they ran away before the enemy fired a shot. At Salamanca a Spanish battalion actually ran away from in fright at the sound of it’s own musket volley, bemused British and Portugese allies couldn’t actually work out what they were fireing at as the French weren’t advancing at the time.
This neatly leads me into a discussion of fighting spirit because those allies had it. Despite the British Army being composed - in the words of it’s commander - of “The scum of the Earth,” not being very well paid or generously provisioned and fighting for a cause that was a mystery to most of them, that Army took on and defeated multiple numericly superior French armies. In short its soldiers had Fighting Spirit that was not based upon patriotism or money but upon leadership and a strong internal bond within the units of that army, the elusive “Regimental Spirit”.

Your army in the Falklands may have had all the patriotism it needed (perhaps a little too much if your genocidal tendencies are any indicator), particularly sat around at home waiting for the off, after all they had had years of indoctrination and that Latin machismo that we northern Europeans find so amusing. Perhaps at the beginning this equated to fighting spirit certainly the initial invasion party proved spirited enough - but then there wasn’t much opposition. The air component also tried hard, although the fact that they weren’t living on the Falklands probably helped :lol:.
The conscripts charged with the defence on the other had seem to have had very little fighting spirit judging by their performance. You have actually touched on some of the indicators yourself -poor weapon maintenance for one is both a symptom and a cause of poor fighting spirit, troops who won’t look after their weapons are obviously unmotivated and troops who can’t look after their weapons because of poor training, supervision or supply will become unmotivated because it’s obvious to them that their commanders don’t care about them. The lack of properly prepared positions will have a similar effect.

Secondly there is no way that British logistics in the South Atlantic could be described as inherently superior to the Argentine ones. They were in practise but only because of the enormous incompetance of the Argentine high command. As has been pointed out by other posters there is a difference of nearly 8000 miles in the lengths of the two supply lines in your favour, there were several thousand sea-miles between the nearest usable British airfield and the Falklands.

#1929

Remember,we won to you two times (1806 and 1807) and you won us one time (1982)

RESULTS:

Argentina 2 - England 1

#1930

Erwin, Argentina did’nt gain independence until 1816, that makes 1806-07 England v Spain. You can’t claim your country won if your country only existed as a colony.

Right so it’s 1-0 to England then

#1931

I also see the british flag in australia,and new zeland and i see the texas flag in chile.I see your simpathy for the argentines as you are an admin and have to don’t take sides.
hong kong was part of britain too,eh?.

and where are them?,have you read our sovereignity rights in our claims?,do you know where are those islands or you searched them on google?.

please,i prefer a longer comment.
you don’t know much about the malvinas do you?,im asking not attacking.[/quote]
thats the most stupid post i ever saw
commonwealth country would have british flag, just to respect britain, but of course they do not belong to Britain
and for that island you are talking about, there is british troops, british flags. What is left to debate, please tell me :roll:
and yes hk was belong to england, and it has return to china
however falkland island belongs to England right now, they might belong to agentina in the future, but not now, that is so obvious that george bush should able to understand

#1932

actually, in china history, there is a war between general Hong and general lao. both power are to compete to conquer the whole china and set up a dynasty. In the early stage of the war, General Hong was keep winning against general Lao beceause of the superior number of soldiers and (somtimes better strategic), but at the end, General Lao has won only a few battle and he already trap General Hong and force him to suicide.
So my point is, as long as the objective is done, who cares you lost a million times.

#1933

One point that does bother me about the People’s Glorious Patriotic War of Liberation in the Falklands is the territories seized. We keep hearing from the Argentine users of this forum about how they claim the Falklands as Argentine territory and the war was started for patriotic reasons to regain stolen Argentine territory.

Why then did Argentine Forces occupy South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands? I see no territorial claim made anywhere, yet these places were occupied as part of that war.

#1934

Consider the Hercules transport aircraft. The RAF operates two variants - the C-130J and the C-130K. They are different in at least as many ways as you describe between the Marder and the TAM, but both are still Hercules. Despite the large differences, there are certain limitations common to any variant on the C130. They will never be supersonic, an interceptor, or able to take off vertically. In a similar way, whatever you do to a MArder, it will still be a Marder. It might be a super-uprated Marder-on-steroids that could beat any other Marder type in a fight (or a shark or a bear, for that matter) but it will still have limitations on its performance inherent in being based on a Marder.

I repeat, the only which the TAM and the Marder have in common is the silhouette. They have more than 30 years between both productions.
The C-130 family are all structured in the C-130A, with the same chasis in all them. The TAM only have a similar silhouette.
If I am based in your description in bolds, I could said that a british C-130J is similar than a C-47, and as you know, they are completely different aircrafts, from different “ages”. By 1985, the TAM was a modern tank with the last technologies, capable to give battle to similar tanks from over the world and win. The Marder was only a piece of museum that was a simple anti-tank armoured vehicle.

Fair enough, that’s why I asked. They made their choice who to support though, and their NATO commitments and alliance with the UK was obviously more important to them than OEA and the alliance with Argentina.

As I see we could agree each other. I am thinking the same. Of course the United States always saw their interests forgeting how much Argentina did by them. I wanted to show that specially from the begining.

I’m sure they were mate, and I don’t know enough about the region to argue about the geurilla wars or politics of the time. However, on the world stage, Argentina is not a big player, they do not have the political power of the UK, France or Russia for example. (…)
however Britain has all of those and are in the right continent to fight the Soviet Union, and with a much more powerful military with more chance of beating the Red Army. If WW3 had broken out between the Soviets and NATO, Argentina would have been on the very edge of the war, Britain would have been in the front line

I agree with you that Argentina wasn’t a world power, but Argentina had the difficult mission of control a really hot region as was Latin America in that time. Remember that Cuba and their leaders as Castro or the argentine Che Guevara were having more and more allied groups of left guerrillas in practically all the latin american countries. If the Cold war would heated up, Argentina would controled all latin america, which off course could started a guerrilla-war agaisnt the United States advancing joint to Mexico. The guerrilla-war is the worst for a conventional army, specially to the United States, with Vietnam or now Iraq as evidence.
As France and the United Kingdom were the main allies from the United States in Europe, as Israel was the main ally from the US in the Middle East, as Australia and Japan were the main allies from the US in Asia/Oceania and as South Africa was the main ally from the US in Africa, ARGENTINA was the main ally from the US in Latin America.
The 3rd World War wouldnt be only an Europe battle, it would extend to all over the world, and the US needed all they allies to control it.

have no idea to be honest, no one will ever go to war against the US or the UK because there is no one in the world that could beat the two of us combined. Attacking either would be suicide for most nations.

You are keeping avoiding the point of my message again. I am trying to explain you that the UK and the US boast from their millitary power and attack the nations which are agaisnt their politics.

What about the French settlement that was first founded in 1764 or the British settlement in 1765?

Both colonies, the French as the British weren’t inhabiting real french or british territory. The islands were Spanish after the Tordesillas Treaty signing, in 1494, which demarcated the spanish territories on America. Although there was no spanish population in the Malvinas by 1764/5, when the Frenchs and British standed in the Malvinas, the Spanish government was in full power of sovereignty. That was accepted by the Frenchs, and they went out of the islands after an official spanish claim. As the British never accepted the spanish ask of retirement, after 5 years of occupation and several british denials, the Buenos Aires government sent military troops to displace the british people living there, standing spanish colonies in 1775/1780.

otherwise there would be UN resolutions requiring that the British hand the Islands over to Argentina

And they are… of course aren’t from world powers, from latin american, african, south/west asian countries… “insignificant countries”, as you say. Of course they are not listened by the “great enterprise of the UN which tries to show to all the world that all countries are equally listened by them”… we know that is only rubish, don’t we?

The first British settlement on the Islands was founded 50 years before Argentina became an independant country

It was another invation, as the 1833 invation. As I’ve said in the quote above, it was a legal settlement, it was only an “occupation settlement”, in clearly spanish territory, as the Tordesillas Treaty says.

Clearly all their planning was wrong, but they have no excuse for not making even the most simple of preperations to fight a war.

When they realized that the war was a real possibility, the British forces were here blocking the islands. Sending at that time our cargo ships would be like send these ships to an inevitable sink. And of course the biggest cargo argentine aircraft (8 C-130E/H) although they had an intense movement in the aerial bridge between the Patagonia and Argentine Port, they weren’t capable to satisfy all the requirements because they couldn’t sustitute to the 6 argentine giant cargo ships (a simple trip of one of these cargo ships was equivalent to 96 Hercules trips).
The military government could support a war if they would thought in that since the begining. But of course, they were really monkeys with no brain to use.

The Argentinian logistics had to cover a couple of hundred miles, the British logistics were stretched over 8000 miles, the Argentinians should have had far better logistics than us.

You had more than 30 logistic ships, defended by 40 combat ships, two aircraft carriers, and what’s more, 6 nuclear submarines blocking the argentine ports. The argentine naval forces weren’t capable to make a similar, neither a nearly similar logistis systems with that submarines there, if the Argentina Navy couldn’t stop them.

We’ll have to agree to disagree about the relative fighting spirits of the two armies, because I firmly believe that it was the fighting spirit of the Paras, Marines, Gurkhas and other soldiers deployed there that won the war for us

OK, let’s don’t touch this point anymore. We have differents believes, and it could incitate to arguees between the british and the argentine members. Do you agree with me?

#1935

I’ll get back to you about this, I’ll do a bit of reding up on the TAM/Marder first.

Both colonies, the French as the British weren’t inhabiting real french or british territory. The islands were Spanish after the Tordesillas Treaty signing, in 1494, which demarcated the spanish territories on America. Although there was no spanish population in the Malvinas by 1764/5, when the Frenchs and British standed in the Malvinas, the Spanish government was in full power of sovereignty. That was accepted by the Frenchs, and they went out of the islands after an official spanish claim. As the British never accepted the spanish ask of retirement, after 5 years of occupation and several british denials, the Buenos Aires government sent military troops to displace the british people living there, standing spanish colonies in 1775/1780.

The Tordesillas Treaty means nothing - what right does the Pope have to decree who can take what land? In any case - the British don’t recognise the Pope as a political leader, since we are not a catholic country, plus we didn’t sign the treaty.

And they are… of course aren’t from world powers, from latin american, african, south/west asian countries… “insignificant countries”, as you say. Of course they are not listened by the “great enterprise of the UN which tries to show to all the world that all countries are equally listened by them”… we know that is only rubish, don’t we?

What resolutions?

It was another invation, as the 1833 invation. As I’ve said in the quote above, it was a legal settlement, it was only an “occupation settlement”, in clearly spanish territory, as the Tordesillas Treaty says.

Again, the Tordesillas Treaty is meaningleass to a Protestant country, the Pope has no political power over us.

When they realized that the war was a real possibility, the British forces were here blocking the islands. Sending at that time our cargo ships would be like send these ships to an inevitable sink. And of course the biggest cargo argentine aircraft (8 C-130E/H) although they had an intense movement in the aerial bridge between the Patagonia and Argentine Port, they weren’t capable to satisfy all the requirements because they couldn’t sustitute to the 6 argentine giant cargo ships (a simple trip of one of these cargo ships was equivalent to 96 Hercules trips).

The biggest aircraft the British had in the Islands was a single Chinook helicopter. The ships may have had a large capacity, but once it was gone it was gone. The Argentinians were only a couple of hundred miles from their own ports, if they had planned ahead, they should have been able to supply their troops easily enough.

#1936

Not knocking your post BDL, but it is my opinion that any religous leader should not have any power over the politics in another country, regardless of whether that country happens to share the same religon as that leader.

#1937

I agree with BDL here, the Tordesillas Treaty was a carve up between Protugaul and Spain. If you take it to its conclusion the US and Canada would also belong to Spain.

As the UK didnt recognise the Pope, why should they bow to this carve up?

Therefore, the UK has precedence.

I repeat, yet again, the population of the Islands has been there for generations, more than most Argentines have been in Argentina.

I would like to see the Falklands being fully independant with a UN guarantee. After all they are virtually indepandant now and are a democratic society.

Time to move on I think.

#1938

Independence for the Falkland Islands, as suggested by a Scotsman. This gives me an interesting idea.

How about we give both countries the independence they want, by granting full independence to the Falklands and then ceding Scotland to the Bennies as an overseas territory for them to administer.

#1939

LOL, no I am British, then Scottish. Why become independant when we already control the UK?

#1940

Why do you think he was suggesting it :wink: