Go take them, I dare you ;)

Honestly you have to wonder at these idiots who bump this thread every so often just to try and stir things up.

I think Manchester Planner and Brilliant have summed up the main points well enough so i don't feel the need protest but except to say one thing.

How come no Argentinean has come here and held an intellectual, academic or at least honest debate about it. As far as i can recall (and i'm not about to go trawling back through this thread to make sure but..) not one of the Argentinians here have started their argument by accepting any basic validity to the 2 central points of the British claim to them:

1) The basic human rights of self determination of the inhabitants
2) The difficulty of a modern country claiming rights over territory which has been in the possession of another for 175 years.

Discuss the ambiguities, difficulties and contradictions of these points as you see fit but every Argentinean who comes over to this part of the forum will not get any respect unless they accept these 2 points have a strong level of validity to them. Furthermore no one carries authority or encourages any useful discussion by simply launching into the sort of point scoring arguments that litter this thread,

Not this thread again ... :ohno:

What happens, do you need us to justify more budget for your RN?

Go and make new enemies...

i agree, engels. this sort of mindless jingoism is distasteful and not in the least bit productive.

i'd also like to add that we have nuclear weapons and that any attempt to seize the islands by force would surely result in the complete destruction of argentina's three principal cities.

Not this thread again ... :ohno:

What happens, do you need us to justify more budget for your RN?

Go and make new enemies...

1. It was an Argentinian who posted again on this thread, reviving it...

2. We have plenty of enemies. Argentina is probably about 10th on the list of "priorities". :|

3. The Royal Navy is around anyway. We're an island nation and almost all our overseas territories are islands too.

http://frogn3en2007-08.pbwiki.com/f/449px-The_empire_strikes_back_newsweek.jpg

4. Try picking on someone your own size. Have you thought about declaring war on... I dunno... Uruguay? You might actually win that one!

1. It was an Argentinian who posted again on this thread, reviving it...

2. We have plenty of enemies. Argentina is probably about 10th on the list of "priorities". :|

3. The Royal Navy is around anyway. We're an island nation and almost all our overseas territories are islands too.

4. Try picking on someone your own size. Have you thought about declaring war on... I dunno... Uruguay? You might actually win that one!

1. Not sure about that...
2. Sorry to hear that. We'll try to improve ... :lol:, but don't expect that very soon...
3. Good for you
4. If we aren't a real threat, why is this all about?

Going to war was a serious mistake of Argentina but that does not at all change the reality: the islands have always belonged to our nation and they still do. Nobody who respects international law can say the British usurpation is legal. The 1833 occupation was totally illegitimate and the islands belonged to Spain until our declaration of independence in 1816, so they were transferred to Argentina's sovereignty on a principle called Uti Possidetis Juris.
There's no doubt about it: the Falklands are Argentine.

The Falklands are British.

You can say they belong to Argentina as many times as you like but they are British.

i agree, engels. this sort of mindless jingoism is distasteful and not in the least bit productive.

i'd also like to add that we have nuclear weapons and that any attempt to seize the islands by force would surely result in the complete destruction of argentina's three principal cities.

We're in the 21st century, anyone can buy a nuclear weapon...
And delivery? Commercial planes or containers in a ship...
Creepy, isn´t it? Stop threatening with nuclear weapons.

We're in the 21st century, anyone can buy a nuclear weapon...
And delivery? Commercial planes or containers in a ship...
Creepy, isn´t it? Stop threatening with nuclear weapons.

Are you suggesting the Argentine Government would place a nuclear warhead on a commercial airliner?

I could just imagine many airlines response to such actions, you probably wouldn't need your airports anymore put it that way.

1. Not sure about that...
2. Sorry to hear that. We'll try to improve ... :lol:, but don't expect that very soon...
3. Good for you
4. If we aren't a real threat, why is this all about?

1. Yesterday, post number 497, "viewer_arg". It's quite obvious. If you bothered to look. Which you didn't.
2. Well, we're quite happy to wait for 10-20 years for you to attack. Our new aircraft carrier fleets (consisting of the new aircraft carrier, Type 45 destroyers, Astute class SSNs, F-35s...) won't be ready until about 2016 at the earliest.
3. Indeed. Very handy being an island. As are the Falklands... attacking them now won't be as easy in 1982 when we had a mere 50 Royal Marines based there.
4. I just mean, why bother attacking British territory when you know you're going to be thrashed in the resulting conflict? Go and pick on someone your own (smaller) size!

We're in the 21st century, anyone can buy a nuclear weapon...
And delivery? Commercial planes or containers in a ship...
Creepy, isn´t it? Stop threatening with nuclear weapons.

:lol::lol::lol:

The Argentinian nuclear weapons delivery system:

http://www.digitalphoto.pl/foto_galeria/2418_2007-0060_Container_ship.JPG

The British nuclear weapons delivery system:

http://blog.naval.com.br/up/n/na/blog.naval.com.br/img/SHIP_SSBN_Vanguard_Class_Surface_lg.jpg

A football match should settle this issue once and for all. I'm sure General Capello will lead English forces to victory!

1. Yesterday, post number 497, "viewer_arg". It's quite obvious. If you bothered to look. Which you didn't.

I bothered. But do you rely on user names and signatures?
OK, so I will create one called "William Shakespeare" and you'll say "It's alive !!!" :lol:
The rest of the post... again, good for you !!!

I bothered. But do you rely on user names and signatures?
OK, so I will create one called "William Shakespeare" and you'll say "It's alive !!!" :lol:
The rest of the post... again, good for you !!!

:banana:

This thread again?! Haha. Kick some Argie bum my overseas mates. :)

A football match should settle this issue once and for all. I'm sure General Capello will lead English forces to victory!

A football match... hmm! What about a cricket match? It would have to be a full test series...

Are you suggesting the Argentine Government would place a nuclear warhead on a commercial airliner?.

We have worse weapons... We are sending you a Minister of Finance of our own in the next Mrs.Kirchner's flight ...

We have worse weapons... We are sending you a Minister of Finance of our own in the next Mrs.Kirchner's flight ...

Don't start on us or we'll drop John Prescott on Buenos Aires.

You've been warned!

A football match should settle this issue once and for all.

We want to keep the Falklands, not hand them over on a silver platter!

Don't start on us or we'll drop John Prescott on Buenos Aires.

You've been warned!

prescott's so stupid he'd probably fall upwards.


---

what about this football match then: if we win, we keep the islands. if we lose, we fight a war and keep the islands. now some among you might think these rules unfair, but hey! c'est la vie.

We're in the 21st century, anyone can buy a nuclear weapon...
And delivery? Commercial planes or containers in a ship...
Creepy, isn´t it? Stop threatening with nuclear weapons.

No anyone can't buy a nuclear weapon. Also who are you going to buy it off and where the hell will would the average joe get that type of money to even buy the thing, its going to cost major money and I don't mean afew million. Once you have it you have a big problem. I wouldn't recommend just storing it in your front room. Someone would notice it. There will also be traces all over the place for the CIA, MI5, MI6 and other security forces to pick up.

If your country brought a nuke and then set it off around the British coast, your whole country would be screwed within 24 hours. You'd like see a British response with possible nuclear strikes and any ships with an Argentinian flags heading our way would be sunk. The international community would shut down all flights heading your way and no one bar Iran would keep shipping routes open with you. Within 1 week you country would be in big trouble. Riots, food shortages, totally collapsed economy etc Would not be a good idea.

I wouldn't recommend just storing it in your front room. Someone would notice it.

I'd better move it to the utility room then, thanks for the warning.

The international community would shut down all flights heading your way

Would leave the way clear for Easyjet and Ryanair though.

Going to war was a serious mistake of Argentina but that does not at all change the reality: the islands have always belonged to our nation and they still do. Nobody who respects international law can say the British usurpation is legal. The 1833 occupation was totally illegitimate and the islands belonged to Spain until our declaration of independence in 1816, so they were transferred to Argentina's sovereignty on a principle called Uti Possidetis Juris.
There's no doubt about it: the Falklands are Argentine.

You are forgetting British Law which clearly states 'If the British flag is on it, it's ours, you don't like it, come and get it..and we're backing it up with this gun'.

prescott's so stupid he'd probably fall upwards.


---

what about this football match then: if we win, we keep the islands. if we lose, we fight a war and keep the islands. now some among you might think these rules unfair, but hey! c'est la vie.

Lol How about we strap fireworks to Prescot just in case of said upward movement, at least we can give the boys a show.

A football match... hmm! What about a cricket match? It would have to be a full test series...

What about a Rugby match, by the time of our last visit to Twickenham (12-11-2006) some english asses were severely beaten to shame (25-18)....:cheers:

I know. I was there. :(

What about a Rugby match, by the time of our last visit to Twickenham (12-11-2006) some english asses were severely beaten to shame (25-18)....:cheers:

Well seeing as we've beaten Argentina 9 times compared to 3 defeats I'm sure we'd have a chance :lol:

Falkland Islands - Population (July 2005 estimate): 3,060 (less the same number as killed/wounded in 1982 war)

IMO not worthy of war for either side. Let penguins live in peace :D

What about a Rugby match, by the time of our last visit to Twickenham (12-11-2006) some english asses were severely beaten to shame (25-18)....:cheers:

... a Polo Match would be better!!! That's a sure victory for us... in another sport imported by the british :lol:

... a Polo Match would be better!!! That's a sure victory for us... in another sport imported by the british :lol:

Well, last weeks while playing the Davis Cup, the UK lost at a tremendous 1-4 in BA.....:lol::lol:
Should we talk about other british sport invention...???????

I know the Prince of Wales once said he would accept a negotiation with Argentina to get the best polo player in the World for England (from the Heguy Family) and in consequence hand the islands back!

Well, last weeks while playing the Davis Cup, the UK lost at a tremendous 1-4 in BA.....:lol::lol:
Should we talk about other british sport invention...???????

I know the Prince of Wales once said he would accept a negotiation with Argentina to get the best polo player in the World for England (from the Heguy Family) and in consequence hand the islands back!


Which sports do Argentina dominate England in?

Certainly not football!

England's record vs Argentina:

P 14 W7 L2 D6

Which sports do Argentina dominate England in?

Certainly not football!

England's record vs Argentina:

P 14 W7 L2 D6
Read correctly, I wrote Davis Cup=Tennis
The Polo record is disastrous for England.....:cheers:

...and?

your still not getting back the islands, no matter the England sporting record...:cheers:

How about we give you the Falklands and then you wake up?

ALREADY AWAKE LADS!
Right now!!!!
Rumours of Lula and Mrs. Kirchner signing treaty for a bi-national SSN!!!!!
Brazil provides the mechanical and metallurgic work,
Argentina provides the compact reactor,
Monsieur Sarkozy provides the silent hull...!!!:cheers:
Looks like the Astutes will become company in the South Atlantic!

Even forgetting the casualties during the war, 400 Argentines and 200 Britons have comitted suicide as a result of the war, I wish people here who are not Falklands Veterans would think exactly what a war would mean, it isnt just a game of catch the flag.

Even forgetting the casualties during the war, 400 Argentines and 200 Britons have comitted suicide as a result of the war, I wish people here who are not Falklands Veterans would think exactly what a war would mean, it isnt just a game of catch the flag.

According to the South Atlantic Medal Association, which represents these soldiers, 256 British soldiers were killed during that conflict, and since then 264 veterans have committed suicide.
On the other hand I fully agree with you Lad, but I want to remark that the sarcastic term of the debatte is just a way to demoralize warmongerers.

I'm fairly sure that this thread has gone at least 2 pages now with only almost reasoned debate and good natured banter. Makes a change, it'll never last tho.

I'm fairly sure that this thread has gone at least 2 pages now with only almost reasoned debate and good natured banter. Makes a change, it'll never last tho.

Sadly for a great number of forumers here debate is equal to Great Britain Ueber Alles/ Come and get the Union Jack if you can / Send the conscripts again / My Astute-Sub is the biggest rod in the universe....:ohno:

My Dad was on Glamourgan when it was hit, it did have an effect. You need to remember what the people went through down there, we arent going to give it up after that, not a chance in hell.

Sadly for a great number of forumers here debate is equal to Great Britain Ueber Alles/ Come and get the Union Jack if you can / Send the conscripts again / My Astute-Sub is the biggest rod in the universe....:ohno:

As opposed to the usual Argentine debate of "it's ours so hand it over" :lol:

Btw what's a bi-national SSN supposed to be?

Sadly for a great number of forumers here debate is equal to Great Britain Ueber Alles/ Come and get the Union Jack if you can / Send the conscripts again / My Astute-Sub is the biggest rod in the universe....:ohno:

You're the one with the conscripts... not us.

In fairness it was a Briton who started this thread, I think it is insulting to talk about a war between to Developed Countries. Outside of the Commonwealth there are few countries that have so many links and connections with us as Argentina.

Argentina was once the fourth largest economy in the world and has really been rather out of place in South America, certainly in my opinion it is the odd one out in the continent, much like we are often supposed to feel. The truth is in culture, except for language, it is closer to English Culture than it is to many of its neighbours.

Argentines want the Falklands back and they will continue to fight for them, but with words and campaigns not with a war started by a desperate dictator to mask the disappearances in his own country and the mess that he made of the economy. Argentina is as much changed now as Spain is from Franco, and less obsessed with the Falklands than Spain is with Gibraltar.

As opposed to the usual Argentine debate of "it's ours so hand it over" :lol:

Btw what's a bi-national SSN supposed to be?

A nuclear powered submarine.

Take a look:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3388670&c=AME&s=SEA

In fact Argentina was about to begin with the preliminar engineering work for building the first local prototype before the South Atlantic War started, after it the economic crash sent all those projects to the garbage....In fact the gigantic Shipyards and the Synchrolift built by german firm ThyssenStahl/Nordseewerke for that purpose still stand in the southern docks of BA.....

A nuclear powered submarine.

Take a look:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3388670&c=AME&s=SEA

In fact Argentina was about to begin with the preliminar engineering work for building the first local prototype before the South Atlantic War started, after it the economic crash sent all those projects to the garbage....In fact the gigantic Shipyards and the Synchrolift built by german firm ThyssenStahl/Nordseewerke for that purpose still stand in the southern docks of BA.....


Will cost a fortune to build a new class of nuke boats from scratch!

$25 billion is my (conservative) estimate. That and the technical aspect. China has a $3 trillion economy and they can't get it right.

Good luck Argentina.

Will cost a fortune to build a new class of nuke boats from scratch!

$25 billion is my (conservative) estimate. That and the technical aspect. China has a $3 trillion economy and they can't get it right.

Good luck Argentina.

I know, I know, and I personally think there are other palpable priorities instead of such white elephant.
Even Britain´s Nuclear Sub projects would have had huge technical problems problems without the capital help from the U.S.Navy!!!

A nuclear powered submarine.

Take a look:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3388670&c=AME&s=SEA

In fact Argentina was about to begin with the preliminar engineering work for building the first local prototype before the South Atlantic War started, after it the economic crash sent all those projects to the garbage....In fact the gigantic Shipyards and the Synchrolift built by german firm ThyssenStahl/Nordseewerke for that purpose still stand in the southern docks of BA.....

Interesting, I suppose we'd better allocate more of our own to the Falklands just incase ;)

I know, I know, and I personally think there are other palpable priorities instead of such white elephant.
Even Britain´s Nuclear Sub projects would have had huge technical problems problems without the capital help from the U.S.Navy!!!


BAE only had problems with new US construction methods on the Astute build. True, our cousins definitely helped out with this. Other than that it was situation normal.

But seriously, you build 3rd rate nuke boats, boats your nation can't afford, then what? :ohno:

In fairness it was a Briton who started this thread, I think it is insulting to talk about a war between to Developed Countries. Outside of the Commonwealth there are few countries that have so many links and connections with us as Argentina.

Argentina was once the fourth largest economy in the world and has really been rather out of place in South America, certainly in my opinion it is the odd one out in the continent, much like we are often supposed to feel. The truth is in culture, except for language, it is closer to English Culture than it is to many of its neighbours.

Argentines want the Falklands back and they will continue to fight for them, but with words and campaigns not with a war started by a desperate dictator to mask the disappearances in his own country and the mess that he made of the economy. Argentina is as much changed now as Spain is from Franco, and less obsessed with the Falklands than Spain is with Gibraltar.

Agreed. Argentina is a beautiful country, and when I visited it during my time in Mexico I was very impressed with it's culture and people. It really is out of place in South America, as it is actually easily the most European of Latin American countries. It's architecture, especially in Buenos Aires reflected this. Oh and christ there are many beautiful women.

The thing is with a thread like this is that although of course we are territorial, we do not really wish to fight any wars, and most of us are utilising typical English humour in our posts. In short I'm only kidding as are many others!

We have the Falklands for strategic sheep purposes, which is vital to Welsh....I mean UK interests.

Agreed. Argentina is a beautiful country, and when I visited it during my time in Mexico I was very impressed with it's culture and people. It really is out of place in South America, as it is actually easily the most European of Latin American countries. It's architecture, especially in Buenos Aires reflected this. Oh and christ there are many beautiful women.

The thing is with a thread like this is that although of course we are territorial, we do not really wish to fight any wars, and most of us are utilising typical English humour in our posts. In short I'm only kidding as are many others!

We have the Falklands for strategic sheep purposes, which is vital to Welsh....I mean UK interests.

Don't tell them about the sheep farken :ohno:

You're for it now :mad:

Even forgetting the casualties during the war, 400 Argentines and 200 Britons have comitted suicide as a result of the war, I wish people here who are not Falklands Veterans would think exactly what a war would mean, it isnt just a game of catch the flag.

Argentines want the Falklands back and they will continue to fight for them, but with words and campaigns not with a war started by a desperate dictator to mask the disappearances in his own country and the mess that he made of the economy.

The thing is with a thread like this is that although of course we are territorial, we do not really wish to fight any wars, and most of us are utilising typical English humour in our posts. In short I'm only kidding as are many others!

Sadly for a great number of forumers here debate is equal to Great Britain Ueber Alles/ Come and get the Union Jack if you can / Send the conscripts again / My Astute-Sub is the biggest rod in the universe....:ohno:

I only wanted to remark this 4 posts. In my opinion, they resume the best of the thread.

Thanks for your opinions on Bs.As, and on the women (although some of them look like Tevez in a flowered dress)... Yes, erase that image if you can !!!

And now for a word from Mr Heseltine...

tJxJ5MKxecA

(followed by a typical 80s anti-war record and Mr Kencock)

and on the women (although some of them look like Tevez in a flowered dress)... Yes, erase that image if you can !!!

That's my weekly masturbation ruined.

That's not only wrong, but it doesn't matter, the people of the Falklands want to be British, that is a principle we call democracy, I believe it was reintroduced to Argentina shortly after the Falklands War.

You have a curious way to understand the law... The kelpers want to be British because they descend from British families, and that is because their families were introduced into the islands by the British invaders after they usurped them by force and expelled their Argentine inhabitants.
What about those Argentines' interests? Is the "principle we call democracy" not valid in this case? I believe you only think things are valid when they benefit you.
Let me remind you that our compatriots were not allowed to go back to the islands after the illegal invasion, so their self-determination right was absolutely violated. What about them? A lot of them had been born in the Malvinas but the "principle we call democracy" did not matter much to the British at that time, did it...?
Another interesting thing you should know: after abandoning its ancient settlement in the Malvinas in 1765, Britain signed a treaty renouncing sovereignty of the territory, while Argentina has ALWAYS defended its claim with real, sensible arguments...

Oh dear, just give up will you...you are not having it and no amount of stamping your feet will get it.

And your history is rather skewed.

You have a curious way to understand the law... The kelpers want to be British because they descend from British families, and that is because their families were introduced into the islands by the British invaders after they usurped them by force and expelled their Argentine inhabitants.
What about those Argentines' interests? Is the "principle we call democracy" not valid in this case? I believe you only think things are valid when they benefit you.
Let me remind you that our compatriots were not allowed to go back to the islands after the illegal invasion, so their self-determination right was absolutely violated. What about them? A lot of them had been born in the Malvinas but the "principle we call democracy" did not matter much to the British at that time, did it...?
Another interesting thing you should know: after abandoning its ancient settlement in the Malvinas in 1765, Britain signed a treaty renouncing sovereignty of the territory, while Argentina has ALWAYS defended its claim with real, sensible arguments...

:nuts:


The people of the Falkland Islands want to remain British. Quite simply this is why the islands will NEVER be passed onto Argentina or any other country.

Believing that events that happened hundreds of years ago should have any effect on sensible political decisions made now, is completely nuts. It is so completely irrelevant.

You have a curious way to understand the law... The kelpers want to be British because they descend from British families, and that is because their families were introduced into the islands by the British invaders after they usurped them by force and expelled their Argentine inhabitants.
What about those Argentines' interests? Is the "principle we call democracy" not valid in this case? I believe you only think things are valid when they benefit you.
Let me remind you that our compatriots were not allowed to go back to the islands after the illegal invasion, so their self-determination right was absolutely violated. What about them? A lot of them had been born in the Malvinas but the "principle we call democracy" did not matter much to the British at that time, did it...?
Another interesting thing you should know: after abandoning its ancient settlement in the Malvinas in 1765, Britain signed a treaty renouncing sovereignty of the territory, while Argentina has ALWAYS defended its claim with real, sensible arguments...

Did Argentina even exist in 1765? Don't think so...

You have a curious way to understand the law... The kelpers want to be British because they descend from British families, and that is because their families were introduced into the islands by the British invaders after they usurped them by force and expelled their Argentine inhabitants.

Argentinia didn't exist then. Apart from that, it doesn't matter what people wanted who have been dead for hundreds of years already, what matters is the people today.

What about those Argentines' interests? Is the "principle we call democracy" not valid in this case? I believe you only think things are valid when they benefit you.

Dead people have no valid vote in this, a good summary.

Another interesting thing you should know: after abandoning its ancient settlement in the Malvinas in 1765, Britain signed a treaty renouncing sovereignty of the territory, while Argentina has ALWAYS defended its claim with real, sensible arguments...

So, invading the islands because the criminal junta came under internal political pressure in 1982 are "sensible arguments"?

You have a curious way to understand the law... The kelpers want to be British because they descend from British families, and that is because their families were introduced into the islands by the British invaders after they usurped them by force and expelled their Argentine inhabitants.


Invaders. The British discovered the islands. They were also there before any Argentinians.


Another interesting thing you should know: after abandoning its ancient settlement in the Malvinas in 1765, Britain signed a treaty renouncing sovereignty of the territory, while Argentina has ALWAYS defended its claim with real, sensible arguments...

This is laughable!!!! "sensible argument". Sending in an invasion force is sensible argument!!! LOL!!!

The islands are a long way from the Argentinian mainland. Argentina can't even populate the southern part of the country despite tax breaks, so why do they want these islands way out from their shores? It just doesn't make sense.

They have used them as a way to unite the people when things go wrong - which is often. The "evil British Imperialists".

Argentina has border disputes will all of its neighbours, except Brazil who are too big for them - they are just plain arrogant and bad neighbours. Most of its neighbours were delighted to see them brought down to size.

Invaders. The British discovered the islands. They were also there before any Argentinians.

This is laughable!!!! "sensible argument". Sending in an invasion force is sensible argument!!! LOL!!!

The islands are a long way from the Argentinian mainland. Argentina can't even populate the southern part of the country despite tax breaks, so why do they want these islands way out from their shores? It just doesn't make sense.

They have used them as a way to unite the people when things go wrong - which is often. The "evil British Imperialists".

Argentina has border disputes will all of its neighbours, except Brazil who are too big for them - they are just plain arrogant and bad neighbours. Most of its neighbours were delighted to see them brought down to size.

Ok. First of all, the British claim they discovered the islands on August in 1592... despite them appearing in spanish and portuguese maps since 1501. You (british) say it was John Davis who discovered them, but he didn't have any authority to discover or conquer anything in name of the British Crown.

"They were also there before any Argentinians."
Britain abandoned its settlement in 1765 and signed a treaty renouncing sovereignity of the islands. Spain never renounced to its possession so ---> uti possidetis iuris

"This is laughable!!!! "sensible argument". Sending in an invasion force is sensible argument!!! LOL!!!"
Yeah that's exactly what you did in 1833 by expelling the argentine population and governor, and not allowing them to return. You invaded them, and you remained there ever since. This was and is illegal according to the public international law. LOL

"The islands are a long way from the Argentinian mainland. Argentina can't even populate the southern part of the country despite tax breaks, so why do they want these islands way out from their shores? It just doesn't make sense."

Yeah, and Britain is really close isn't it. Just 12700km/8000 miles. But hey, you are right, we are 480km away, it's in another galaxy.
These islands are in our continental shell, which equals to = sovereignity rights, according to the continental shells convention of the UN in 1958.
And what does the population of Argentina has to do with anything? we could be 2 million for all I care. Look at Australia.

The UN says "Any colonial situation that destroys totally or parcially [...] the territorial integrity of a country is not consistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations ".

"They have used them as a way to unite the people when things go wrong - which is often."
Can't say you're wrong on this one.

"Argentina has border disputes will all of its neighbours, except Brazil who are too big for them - they are just plain arrogant and bad neighbours. Most of its neighbours were delighted to see them brought down to size"
We have disputes with Chile. Just read something before you write this crap.

I have nothing against the UK, I love it and will definitely go there someday (probably next year :D) but I'm sick of reading that our arguments on this issue are crap and you are right about everything. Especially with these weak arguments this guy tried to state.

PD: That self determination principle thing. They simply can't have this right since they are descendants from the british settlers in 1833, they were not sovereign people colonized or conquered by an external power (they were part of Argentina)

Argentina has border disputes will all of its neighbours, except Brazil who are too big for them - they are just plain arrogant and bad neighbours. Most of its neighbours were delighted to see them brought down to size.

Let’s see…

Here is the list of territorial disputes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes

In the Americas:

• Ankoko Island/Isla de Anacoco : Venezuela and Guyana
• Arroyo de la Invernada or Rincón de Artigas: Brazil and Uruguay.
• Atacama corridor: Chile and Bolivia
• Southern half of Belize: Belize and Guatemala
• Bajo Nuevo Bank (Petrel Islands): Colombia, United States, Jamaica (the only three active claims) and possibly Honduras
• Bird Island (Isla Aves): Venezuela and Dominica
• Santa Barbara Islands/Archipielago del Norte: United States of America (having possession) and Mexico (dormant claim)
• Conejo Island: Honduras and El Salvador
• Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas: United Kingdom and Argentina
• French Guiana west of the Marouini River: France and Suriname
• Guantanamo Bay: United States of America (lease-holder; naval base and detention center) and Cuba
• Guaira Falls/Sete Quedas: Brazil and Paraguay
• Guyana east of the Upper Courantyne River: Guyana and Suriname
• Guyana west of the Essequibo River (Guayana Esequiba): Guyana and Venezuela
• Hans Island: Denmark (Greenland) and Canada
• Isla Brasilera/Ilha Brasileira : Brazil and Uruguay. Argentina (only the surrounding waters)
• Isla Suárez/Ilha de Guajará-mirim: Bolivia and Brazil
• Los Monjes archipelago: Venezuela and Colombia
• area near Mejito De La Cruz: Costa Rica and Nicaragua
• Navassa Island: United States of America (having possession) and Haiti. Dormant claims: Cuba, Colombia, Jamaica, Mexico and Honduras
• Quita Sueño Bank: Colombia and Nicaragua
• Pacific Ocean Sea border: Chile and Peru (note this arguably covers 19,000-35,000 square metres of land near border marker number one)
• San Andrés and Providencia: Colombia and Nicaragua; Honduras de facto recognizes Colombian claim
• Sapodilla Cays: Belize, Guatemala (formerly claiming all Belize) and Honduras
• Sea Otter Rocks, Sea Lion Rock and Copper Island (Medny Island): Russia and United States of America. NOTE: Sovereignty undetermined; agreement to cede these areas to Russia has not been ratified by the Duma
• Serranilla Bank : Colombia, United States, Nicaragua and possibly Honduras
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands & Shag Rocks: United Kingdom and Argentina[2]
• Southern Patagonian Ice Field between Mount Fitzroy and Cerro Daudet: Argentina and Chile (parts of the border still officially undefined)
• List of areas disputed by the United States (state mentioned first) and Canada (province or territory mentioned second)
o Machias Seal Island (Maine / New Brunswick)
o North Rock (Maine / New Brunswick)
o Strait of Juan de Fuca (Washington / British Columbia)
o Dixon Entrance (Alaska / British Columbia)
o Portland Canal (Alaska / British Columbia)
o Beaufort Sea (Alaska / Yukon)
o Northwest Passage and other Arctic waters (Claimed by U.S. to be international waters/Claimed by Canada to be territorial waters)


Putting aside the disputes with the UK, Argentina only have two minor issues of no trascendence:

-Isla Brasilera/Ilha Brasileira : Brazil and Uruguay. Argentina (only the surrounding waters)

-Southern Patagonian Ice Field between Mount Fitzroy and Cerro Daudet: Argentina and Chile (parts of the border still officially undefined)

And these issues are being adressed in a diplomatic way. Don´t come with fantasies about “armed border incidents” because there is none.

You can compare our dispute with Chile and the disputes between your American cousins and Canada, for example. Far more numerous.

• List of areas disputed by the United States (state mentioned first) and Canada (province or territory mentioned second)
o Machias Seal Island (Maine / New Brunswick)
o North Rock (Maine / New Brunswick)
o Strait of Juan de Fuca (Washington / British Columbia)
o Dixon Entrance (Alaska / British Columbia)
o Portland Canal (Alaska / British Columbia)
o Beaufort Sea (Alaska / Yukon)
o Northwest Passage and other Arctic waters (Claimed by U.S. to be international waters/Claimed by Canada to be territorial waters)


Or you can count your own territorial disputes, outside of Malvina/Georgias/South Sandwich.

In Africa and neighbouring seas

-Chagos Archipelago: United Kingdom (as British Indian Ocean Territory), Mauritius and the Seychelles

In Europe

-Akrotiri Sovereign Base Area (part of): United Kingdom and Cyprus
-Dhekelia Sovereign Base Area (part of): United Kingdom, Cyprus and possibly the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
-Ferdinandea: Italy, United Kingdom, France, Spain and possibly Malta, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco
-Gibraltar: United Kingdom (as a UK Overseas Territory) and Spain
-Isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain: United Kingdom and Spain
-Rockall: United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Denmark and Iceland

We savages aren´t doing it too bad for being “arrogant and bad neighbours”, eh?

I know demanding from brits some knowledge of foreign languages is a road with dead end, not to mention perished languages.
But I insist with the latin terminus of INTERNATIONAL LAW which is THE BASIS of the argentine claim:
"JURI UTI POSSIDETIS"

Ohh...by the way: back in 1833 Argentina got recognition as constituted nation from very few countries...guess what: Britain was among the firsts to do so.
Then they invaded....!
ROGUES!
EVIL AXIS!

Ok. First of all, the British claim they discovered the islands on August in 1592... despite them appearing in spanish and portuguese maps since 1501. You (british) say it was John Davis who discovered them, but he didn't have any authority to discover or conquer anything in name of the British Crown.

"They were also there before any Argentinians."
Britain abandoned its settlement in 1765 and signed a treaty renouncing sovereignity of the islands. Spain never renounced to its possession so ---> uti possidetis iuris

"This is laughable!!!! "sensible argument". Sending in an invasion force is sensible argument!!! LOL!!!"
Yeah that's exactly what you did in 1833 by expelling the argentine population and governor, and not allowing them to return. You invaded them, and you remained there ever since. This was and is illegal according to the public international law. LOL

"The islands are a long way from the Argentinian mainland. Argentina can't even populate the southern part of the country despite tax breaks, so why do they want these islands way out from their shores? It just doesn't make sense."

Yeah, and Britain is really close isn't it. Just 12700km/8000 miles. But hey, you are right, we are 480km away, it's in another galaxy.
These islands are in our continental shell, which equals to = sovereignity rights, according to the continental shells convention of the UN in 1958.
And what does the population of Argentina has to do with anything? we could be 2 million for all I care. Look at Australia.

The UN says "Any colonial situation that destroys totally or parcially [...] the territorial integrity of a country is not consistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations ".

"They have used them as a way to unite the people when things go wrong - which is often."
Can't say you're wrong on this one.

"Argentina has border disputes will all of its neighbours, except Brazil who are too big for them - they are just plain arrogant and bad neighbours. Most of its neighbours were delighted to see them brought down to size"
We have disputes with Chile. Just read something before you write this crap.

I have nothing against the UK, I love it and will definitely go there someday (probably next year :D) but I'm sick of reading that our arguments on this issue are crap and you are right about everything. Especially with these weak arguments this guy tried to state.

PD: That self determination principle thing. They simply can't have this right since they are descendants from the british settlers in 1833, they were not sovereign people colonized or conquered by an external power (they were part of Argentina)

Sorry but they have fuck all to do with Argentina. It would be like the UK claiming it owns the USA because it was once owned by the British. The americans decided to be independant, self determination (albiet with a fight). The Falkland islanders, decided NOT to be independant, as is their right too. If they wanted to be argentinian, they would. But they dont. So the Falklands (Not the Malvinas, they are called the Falklands, the islanders say so and its their land so their choice) are British)

The Argies are funny, their criminal junta attacks the islands, their armed forces get their ass kicked and now they come with international law? Totally aside, international law does not support their case at all, guess who had a UN mandate in 1982? It wasn't the criminal junta.

Let's settle this, you won't get them back by talking, if you come and try to get them more Argentinians will die in vain, I do not want that, but if neccessary I would 100% support military action against Argentina.

Ok. First of all, the British claim they discovered the islands on August in 1592... despite them appearing in spanish and portuguese maps since 1501. You (british) say it was John Davis who discovered them, but he didn't have any authority to discover or conquer anything in name of the British Crown.


Either he did or didn't. Anglo Saxon logic here.


"They were also there before any Argentinians."
Britain abandoned its settlement in 1765 and signed a treaty renouncing sovereignity of the islands.


Britain was there before Argentina was thought of and NEVER renounced sovereignty at all. Now to the next....


"This is laughable!!!! "sensible argument". Sending in an invasion force is sensible argument!!! LOL!!!"
Yeah that's exactly what you did in 1833 by expelling the argentine population and governor, and not allowing them to return. You invaded them, and you remained there ever since. This was and is illegal according to the public international law. LOL


Soory sunshine. The British went there and found anarchy. Quelled the archay and expelled the perpetrators being thanked by the Argentinian leader there. They should not have been on the islands anayway.,,,next....


"The islands are a long way from the Argentinian mainland. Argentina can't even populate the southern part of the country despite tax breaks, so why do they want these islands way out from their shores? It just doesn't make sense."

Yeah, and Britain is really close isn't it. Just 12700km/8000 miles.


But Britian was a world power with the largest empire kniown in history. A country that spread civilization and democracy like no other ..,a pity it never reach your lands though, with constant military dictatorships..and vis the revolution one year after the next.


These islands are in our continental shell, which equals to = sovereignity rights,


According to who? If proximity was cause for sovereignty claims the UK would have the Faeroe Islands. France the Channel Islands, etc. That claim is bunkum.


The UN says "Any colonial situation that destroys totally or parcially [...] the territorial integrity of a country is not consistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations ".


And as the Falklands are 400 miles of the most southerly part of a very large country that clearly does not apply.


"They have used them as a way to unite the people when things go wrong - which is often."
Can't say you're wrong on this one.


We agree on something!!!


"Argentina has border disputes will all of its neighbours, except Brazil who are too big for them - they are just plain arrogant and bad neighbours. Most of its neighbours were delighted to see them brought down to size"

We have disputes with Chile. Just read something before you write this crap.


And Parquay

..and previously Bolivia and Uruguay.


I have nothing against the UK, I love it and will definitely go there someday (probably next year :D) but I'm sick of reading that our arguments on this issue are crap and you are right about everything. Especially with these weak arguments this guy tried to state.


They are crap, the islands have been in continual British settlement since the 1830s for Gods sake!!! Almost as long as the USA has been in existence. and there was previous British settlements.

Live with it for Gods sake!!!! The islands are well away from Argentina and pose no thread whatsoever. Use it to some good to cement relations with the UK, instead of this awful old fashioned Latin mentality you adopt.

You could have used the islands to form a concrete relationship with the UK which your country would have gained from in many ways. But you were so dumb and arrogant you could not see that. You can learn from adopting our ways, because your ways have been a disaster for your own people.

Get used to it!! Forget propaganda indoctrination. Next time you try force we may actually get angry.

The Argies are funny, their criminal junta attacks the islands, their armed forces get their ass kicked and now they come with international law? Totally aside, international law does not support their case at all, guess who had a UN mandate in 1982? It wasn't the criminal junta.

Yes. Resolution 502. Argentina must get all military personnel off the islands. They never so were kicked off very easily. Silly sods!!!

Ohh...by the way: back in 1833 Argentina got recognition as constituted nation from very few countries...guess what: Britain was among the firsts to do so.
Then they invaded....!
ROGUES!
EVIL AXIS!

Britain did not invade anything. They went back to the islands they had already settled twice, and had already laid claim. The UK did not invade at all. The UK did recognise Argentina. If they were invading something they would not recognise them. Get it? Or has Anglo Saxon logic gone over your head?

-Akrotiri Sovereign Base Area (part of): United Kingdom and Cyprus
-Dhekelia Sovereign Base Area (part of): United Kingdom, Cyprus and possibly the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
-Ferdinandea: Italy, United Kingdom, France, Spain and possibly Malta, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco
-Gibraltar: United Kingdom (as a UK Overseas Territory) and Spain
-Isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain: United Kingdom and Spain
-Rockall: United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Denmark and Iceland

Oh I'm loving this!

The Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus are not disputed.
Ferdinandea is merely Wikicruft - there's no dispute at all.
Gibraltar is similar to the Falklands business - it's British, end of.
Rockall - yes, this is disputed, but the nations claiming it are friendly about it and there are on-going negotiations.

Pathetic. :|

Despite your flimsy arguments, we won, they want to remain British, and no you're not having them.

Yes. Resolution 502. Argentina must get all military personnel off the islands. They never so were kicked off very easily. Silly sods!!!

Yes, "very easily"....you lost majestic ships at a speed rate even higher than that at WWII in the worst scenario....not to talk of various battles where improvised conscripts were about to make Paras withdraw with tail in tongue as stated by the British 3rd Commando Brigade commander, Brigadier Julian Thompson :
"I was on the point of withdrawing my Paras from Mount Longdon. We couldn't believe that these teenagers disguised as soldiers were causing us to suffer many casualties"
Very easily is to identify your stupidity also showing a lack of respect four your own affected of Post-traumatic Disease, which took a toll of around 270 british veterans lifes after the war.

Who do you think you are to believe that you have contributed to spread "democracy", are you bloody joking??????
Among the worst places to live in this world are many pseudo-countries that have been either under british rule or were traditional colonies: Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, India, and some more convulsive places like Sierra Leona or Uganda....
The 2. most poor country of America (right behind Haiti): Jamaica
And this was not so long ago!
Also a thing which causes massive laughing is to read your dumb thoughts and stupid talk about dictators and to recall at the same time the image of Old Maggie thanking personal friend Augusto for essential favours during the conflict!!!
What?????? Help from one "good" dictator to beat one "bad" dictator???????...that is very anlo-saxon logic!!!!!
Remember: when the greco-latin word was creating what you know as western democracy you were a bunch of savages hammering your heads at each other...and for a long long time till you got somehow civilized (by Latins)!!!

By the way, I am not latin but slavic-hebrew....

Read history please, not "Sun" covers....!!

..
Either he did or didn't. Anglo Saxon logic here.

Britain was there before Argentina was thought of and NEVER renounced sovereignty at all. Now to the next....

Yes, you did. I don't make these things up. And we go on and on... I previously stated that Spain has always claimed sovereignity over the islands. And Britain didn't discovered them. Prove me wrong.



Soory sunshine. The British went there and found anarchy. Quelled the archay and expelled the perpetrators being thanked by the Argentinian leader there. They should not have been on the islands anayway.,,,next....

Yeah... Ok...



But Britian was a world power with the largest empire kniown in history. A country that spread civilization and democracy like no other ..,a pity it never reach your lands though, with constant military dictatorships..and vis the revolution one year after the next.

It actually did reach here, and that's what we're discussing right now.
So thanks mighty Britain, I guess you were just caring about us and the rest of the poor world, filthy unciviliziced cave men. It wasn't in benefit of your own interests, no, no...
Just don't spread too much civilization and democracy, people might get angry and bomb things.
Oh and Revolution? We had a revolution? Please enlighten me.



According to who? If proximity was cause for sovereignty claims the UK would have the Faeroe Islands. France the Channel Islands, etc. That claim is bunkum.


These islands are in our continental shell, which equals to = sovereignity rights, according to the continental shells convention of the UN in 1958.


It's not proximity, it's location. They are in our shell.



And as the Falklands are 400 miles of the most southerly part of a very large country that clearly does not apply.

It doesn't? Why? What does it have to do that we are a large country?



And Parquay

..and previously Bolivia and Uruguay.

No we don't have any disputes with "Parquay", neither Bolivia and Uruguay.
Of course we had them in colonial times, like EVERY country in America did.



They are crap, the islands have been in continual British settlement since the 1830s for Gods sake!!! Almost as long as the USA has been in existence. and there was previous British settlements.

So your point is? It's easy, you renounced sovereignity with Spain claiming it since they discovered them, we settled in, populated them and designed a governor as an independent country. You came in 1833 and expelled us by force and remained there ever since. Logic says that, since the descendants are of British origin, they want to remain British. But we don't care, we consider the islands as a part of Argentina that is occupied by a foreign power. So we couldn't care less how much time they've been in your hands because Argentina has mantained a claim ever since.



Live with it for Gods sake!!!! The islands are well away from Argentina and pose no thread whatsoever. Use it to some good to cement relations with the UK, instead of this awful old fashioned Latin mentality you adopt.

I live with it. I'd probably never go there if they were in our possession. But when you post such crap and you even think you're right, I see myself with the duty of telling you you're an idiot.



You could have used the islands to form a concrete relationship with the UK which your country would have gained from in many ways. But you were so dumb and arrogant you could not see that. You can learn from adopting our ways, because your ways have been a disaster for your own people.

We were dumb yes, before the war they were almost in our pockets.
European ways? Killing each other for centuries and then going into not one, but two big wars?
Thanks, we're fine.

Oh I'm loving this!

The Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus are not disputed.
Ferdinandea is merely Wikicruft - there's no dispute at all.
Gibraltar is similar to the Falklands business - it's British, end of.
Rockall - yes, this is disputed, but the nations claiming it are friendly about it and there are on-going negotiations.

Pathetic. :|

By Jupiter, Mistah Manchester! Did you think all this by yourself?

Remarkable effort!

Now, Tuan Manchester, I want you to do a similar intellectual hazard.

Ready? Take a deep breath.

First: Realize that I didn’t make the list. If you aren’t happy with it, go to complain to Wikipedia.

The Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus are not disputed.

Maybe some people don’t agree with you.

Gibraltar is similar to the Falklands business - it's British, end of.

Maybe some people don’t agree with you.

Rockall - yes, this is disputed, but the nations claiming it are friendly about it and there are on-going negotiations.

This is important, Sahib. Center your attention around this phrase of yours:

The nations claiming it are friendly about it and there are on-going negotiations.

Summon all your brain’s skills, and repeat after me:

Same thing happens with respect to Chile and Argentina.

Why if you didn’t noticed, I only was using Wikipedia for answering to the delusional insinuation of your fellow. Great shock, but the South Cone is a place without wars.

Still with me? Good.

Ferdinandea is merely Wikicruft - there's no dispute at all.

If this is Wikicruft, so it is the Ilha Brasileira/ Isla Brasilera thing. Until two days ago, I didn’t know of this matter.

Finished?

Well done, Inkosi! Now go to get your bottle of gin, your fair reward.

But don’t drink too much. You have to take care of your neurons.

a pity it never reach your lands though.

Thank God. :D

Better said, thanks to Liniers and the former inhabitants of Buenos Aires.


But Britian was a world power with the largest empire kniown in history. A country that spread civilization and democracy like no other ..

:fiddle:

…If nowadays you aren’t up to the task, you always can beg for the help of your American cousins, as Kipling did.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5478/


The White Man’s Burden

Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child
Take up the White Man’s burden
In patience to abide
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit
And work another’s gain
Take up the White Man’s burden—
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah slowly) to the light:
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
“Our loved Egyptian night?”
Take up the White Man’s burden-
Have done with childish days-
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

Source: Rudyard Kipling, “The White Man’s Burden: The United States & The Philippine Islands, 1899.” Rudyard Kipling’s Verse: Definitive Edition (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1929).

:lol::lol::lol:

The hostility and clear bitterness of the Argentine forumers posting here shows that they have not learnt from the mistakes of the past.

Facts-
1. Argentina invaded the Falkland islands that were occupied by British civilians, had no spiritual or strategic importance to Argentina and posed no threat.

2. Britain decided to defend the rights of its civilians and its claim on the islands by expelling the Argentine forces

3. After this decisive victory the British government could have decided to further attack Argentine naval forces, or even Buenos aires itself (this could also have been done during the conflict) but decided not to, due to the fact it could destabilise the region and would make further communication between the two nations impossible.

4. Now to this day they uphold their 'right' to the islands which has had no connection to Argentina for hundreds of years, and have yet to make a valid argument.



All i can say about the Argentinian claim to the Falklands comes in the form of a comparison to a baby that wants something it doesn't need, and cant have.

The baby will cry, throw its toys out of its pram and will repeat the same words over and over, and it will still not get what it wants, because why should the baby have something that belongs to someone else.

Silly baby. ;)

The hostility and clear bitterness of the Argentine forumers posting here

Nah, forget it. Neither hostility nor bitterness.

I have nothing against the British people. Of course, I don’t agree with a lot of your late governments´ actions (you can easily figure which ones).

Sometimes it seems too hard and irritating to communicate some thoughts and to erase some stereotypes. Like swimming in molasses.

If also it seems that tonight I am in poetry mood, let’s put this one.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/peace-&-war/start/peace-poems/index.htm

Juan Lopez and John Ward

It was their luck to be born into a strange time.

The planet had been parceled out among various countries, each
one provided with loyalties, cherished memories, with a past
undoubtedly heroic, with rights, with wrongs, with a particular
mythology, with bronze forefathers, with anniversaries, with
demagogues and symbols.

This arbitrary division was favorable for wars.

Lopez was born in the city beside the tawny river; Ward, on the
outskirts of the city where Father Brown walked. He had
studied Spanish in order to read Quijote.

The other one professed a love for Conrad, who had been revealed
to him in a classroom on Viamonte Street.

They might have been friends, but they saw each other face to
face only once, on some overly famous islands, and each one of
them was Cain, and each was Abel.

They were buried together. Snow and corruption know them.

The incident I mention occurred in a time that we cannot understand.

by Jorge Luis Borges
Argentina (1899-1986)

:)

Britain never relinquished its sovereignty over the islands. It only left in 1774 because 1) the Spanish bulllied the British out and 2) Britain needed to concentrate on the ongoing American Revolution.

Enough of this "evil Brits stole our islands" crap. I don't care who the islands belong to, but Argentina's claims aren't as strong as some of you would like to believe.

Enough of this "evil Brits stole our islands" crap

Well quite. We really are the big bad wolf aren't we? :lol:

Our current intervention in Iraq kissing US butt also meets with the dissaproval of most of our citizens.

Don't think a country that had willingly harboured Nazi war criminals for 50 years and manages to 'lose' 30,000 of its own people by throwing them out of aeroplanes on death flights should be lecturing us on how to behave or labelling us 'evil' though.

Well quite. We really are the big bad wolf aren't we? :lol:

Our current intervention in Iraq kissing US butt also meets with the dissaproval of most of our citizens.

Don't think a country that had willingly harboured Nazi war criminals for 50 years and manages to 'lose' 30,000 of its own people by throwing them out of aeroplanes on death flights should be lecturing us on how to behave or labelling us 'evil' though.
Well Chap, I will talk some word about the crap you posted since I am second generation in Argentina, but hebrew, and lost over 60% of my family in KZ´s (concentration camps) in eastern Europe, in places and countries which I am sure you cannot locate in a map.
Argentina harbouring nazis? Yes, as done by the USA, Egypt, Spain and the CCCP but it was indeed done through the pressure of UK, USA, Switzerland and the Vatican.
Are you too a Sun reader and believe to live in a fair country? Well you live in hell man.
Havent´you army officers summarily executed thousands of young unexperienced OWN soldiers (white-mummy´s boy-faced-anglo-saxon brits, not the "ugly" discartable asian, african or caribbean mercenaries which you usually consider "Untermenschen" and you use as cannon fodder) in Gallipoli????????
Haven´t one of your stupid chancellours who accepted and defended ADOLF´S PARTITION OF A SOUVERAN COUNTRY -AS CZECHOSLOVAKIA WAS- since he made the british believe this was the best solution?
Wasn´t YOUR CHANCELLOR Chamberlain sucking Adolf´s cock until last invaded Poland challenging Britains´ Chartae of Protection and then planned Sealion-Op?????
Haven´t your security forces kidnapped, tortured&killed hundreds of civilians in Ulster??????
Haven´t you security forces been shooting in the head of a civilian in London´s tube?
Is this not the same brutal "internal enemy" theory applied by the Junta in the 60&70´s? YES. IT IS.
Well, our murderers went to trial (they still do), your mudererers got medailles from your Queen.
Aren´t you RIGHT NOW taking part on an ILLEGAL OCCUPATION of a foreign country which -of course- was once part of your Empire?
We have done quite big shit but you too, and certainly bigger.
We are young and inmature nation, you Brits have over 1000 years on your backs and should have learned to behave!

blah blah blah

You really are a complete fuckwit aren't you?

Basically you can't accept the simple truth about Britain's foreign relations in Europe. We have no hostile territorial disputes in Europe. Gibraltar is disputed only by Spain and they know they have no argument and so have practically given up, Rockall is an on-going matter between a number of friendly European nations (all NATO members) and the only dispute on Cyprus is between the Republic and Turkey! As for this tiny island you've mentioned - well that's just, as I said, wikicruft. Basically some "contributors" on Wikipedia love exaggerating these sort of things. I'm sure no-one, or nearly no-one, in our Foreign Office has heard about it.

Look, continue campaigning for the ""return"" :| of the Falklands (they were never Argentina's anyway), but don't expect to get anywhere. Instead why don't you try diverting your efforts to building up relations with the UK. It is after all our government's policy to share oil exploration in the Falklands area with Argentina. But the Falklands are British, with British people living on them. This is recognised by every major power on Earth.

Britain never relinquished its sovereignty over the islands. It only left in 1774 because 1) the Spanish bulllied the British out and 2) Britain needed to concentrate on the ongoing American Revolution.

Enough of this "evil Brits stole our islands" crap. I don't care who the islands belong to, but Argentina's claims aren't as strong as some of you would like to believe.

The Spanish bullying the British?! :lol:
No, you realized that your claim was wrong and backed down. It almost went to war in 1770, but by 1774 everything was settled by diplomacy.

You didn't protest anything Spain or Argentina did after 1774 in the islands. Not until 1829. Not complaining for over half a century if another country occupies your territory equals to relinquishing sovereignty.

As far as I know the American War of Independence started in 1775, a year after the facts.

Besides, "evil brits" stole everything in the world back then, what makes our islands any different?

Besides, "evil brits" stole everything in the world back then, what makes our islands any different?

Considering that Argentina didn't even exist "back then" how were they your islands?

What a boring thread, especially the Argentinians who are behaving like small kids.

Yes, "very easily"....you lost majestic ships at a speed rate even higher than that at WWII in the worst scenario....not to talk of various battles where improvised conscripts were about to make Paras withdraw with tail in tongue as stated by the British 3rd Commando Brigade commander, Brigadier Julian Thompson :
"I was on the point of withdrawing my Paras from Mount Longdon. We couldn't believe that these teenagers disguised as soldiers were causing us to suffer many casualties"
Very easily is to identify your stupidity also showing a lack of respect four your own affected of Post-traumatic Disease, which took a toll of around 270 british veterans lifes after the war.

Who do you think you are to believe that you have contributed to spread "democracy", are you bloody joking??????
Among the worst places to live in this world are many pseudo-countries that have been either under british rule or were traditional colonies: Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, India, and some more convulsive places like Sierra Leona or Uganda....
The 2. most poor country of America (right behind Haiti): Jamaica
And this was not so long ago!
Also a thing which causes massive laughing is to read your dumb thoughts and stupid talk about dictators and to recall at the same time the image of Old Maggie thanking personal friend Augusto for essential favours during the conflict!!!
What?????? Help from one "good" dictator to beat one "bad" dictator???????...that is very anlo-saxon logic!!!!!
Remember: when the greco-latin word was creating what you know as western democracy you were a bunch of savages hammering your heads at each other...and for a long long time till you got somehow civilized (by Latins)!!!

By the way, I am not latin but slavic-hebrew....

Read history please, not "Sun" covers....!!

Oh dear....these countries problems are nothing to do with them, and all to do with us. You have no idea of your history at all. You are not doing yourself any favours on this forum, but I will let you carry on and shoot yourself in the foot.

Yes, "very easily"....you lost majestic ships at a speed rate even higher than that at WWII in the worst scenario....

Funny, last time I checked the Royal Navy bottled up the Argentine Navy in port after sinking the Belgrano and nearly all of the Argentine air force was destroyed. It is only natural that a few ships of the RN were sunk.

not to talk of various battles where improvised conscripts were about to make Paras withdraw with tail in tongue as stated by the British 3rd Commando Brigade commander, Brigadier Julian Thompson :
"I was on the point of withdrawing my Paras from Mount Longdon. We couldn't believe that these teenagers disguised as soldiers were causing us to suffer many casualties"


Each of these battles was won by the UK, depite being the attacking force. I didn't really wanted to post this, but some Argentinians are spinning their own little myth.

Mount Longdon: British victory

UK casualties: 70 (23 killed, 47 wounded)
Argentine casualties: 151 (31 killed, 120 wounded) and 50 captured

Goose Green: British victory

UK casualties: 81 (17 killed, 64 wounded)
Argentine casualties: 167 (47 killed, 120 wounded) and 961 captured

Wireless Ridge British victory

UK casualties: 14 (3 killed, 11 wounded)
Argentine casualties: 150 (25 killed, 125 wounded) and 37 captured

Mount Tumbledown British victory

UK casualties: 62 (9 killed, 54 wounded)
Argentine casualties: 130+ (30 killed, 100+ wounded) and 30 captured

Mount Harriet British victory

UK casualties: 28 (2 killed, 26 wounded)
Argentine casualties: 68 (18 killed, 50 wounded) and 300 captured

Yes, "very easily"....you lost majestic ships at a speed rate even higher than that at WWII in the worst scenario....


They went there in 100 ships half way around the world, landed and after 3weeks against a superior force forced them to surrender.

Next time we might get angry.


not to talk of various battles where improvised conscripts were about to make Paras withdraw with tail in tongue as stated by the British 3rd Commando Brigade commander, Brigadier Julian Thompson :


The Paras at Goose Green overcame a superior force with heavier weapons, yet again.


"I was on the point of withdrawing my Paras from Mount Longdon. We couldn't believe that these teenagers disguised as soldiers were causing us to suffer many casualties"
Very easily is to identify your stupidity also showing a lack of respect four your own affected of Post-traumatic Disease, which took a toll of around 270 british veterans lifes after the war.


The entrenched and well dug in Argentinians had heavier weapons on high ground - even a dumbo can shot one of those. The Paras were to pull down and re-group and re-attack. And they did win - remember? And spanked the children and sent them home.


Who do you think you are to believe that you have contributed to spread "democracy", are you bloody joking??????
Among the worst places to live in this world are many pseudo-countries that have been either under british rule or were traditional colonies: Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, India, and some more convulsive places like Sierra Leona or Uganda....


You have cheek. Look at South American where every city has favellas around it. India is the world's largest democracy and a industrial power house. Do a Google. Democracy is alien to Latin America. A land filled with everything and people live in squalor.


The 2. most poor country of America (right behind Haiti): Jamaica


Not rules by the UK. Was fine when it was.


And this was not so long ago!
Also a thing which causes massive laughing is to read your dumb thoughts and stupid talk about dictators and to recall at the same time the image of Old Maggie thanking personal friend Augusto for essential favours during the conflict!!!
What?????? Help from one "good" dictator to beat one "bad" dictator???????...that is very anlo-saxon logic!!!!!


Yep. use one twat to get rid of another one.


Remember: when the greco-latin word was creating what you know as western democracy you were a bunch of savages hammering your heads at each other...and for a long long time till you got somehow civilized (by Latins)!!!


We are actually Celtic (mid European) and Anglo Saxon (German/Danish). Savages? Look at Stone Henge.


By the way, I am not latin but slavic-hebrew....


Same mentality.


Read history please, not "Sun" covers....!!

I don't read your versions. Viva the Revolution!!!!

Considering that Argentina didn't even exist "back then" how were they your islands?

Argentina's independence - 1816.
Argentina's presence in the islands - 1820
Britain recognizing Argentina's independence - 1825. (No complaints regarding our possession of the islands)
Britain comes up with a spurious new claim on the islands - 1829.
Britain stealing our islands - 1833.

Argentina's independence - 1816.
Argentina's presence in the islands - 1820
Britain recognizing Argentina's independence - 1825. (No complaints regarding our possession of the islands)
Britain comes up with a spurious new claim on the islands - 1829.
Britain stealing our islands - 1833.

And the most important thing: JURIS UTI POSSIDETIS
But I am not quite sure if this bunch of functional analphabets need a translator o a brain implant....

Alright I have come out against some of the British in this thread for unneccessary war baiting, but I think I should also mention to the Argentines that whatever happened in 1833, it hardly makes a sensible argument over sovereignity in the 21st Century. Since that time in 1833, countless border changes have taken place across the world in Europe and across the world that have meant far more suffering and confusion over misplaced people and misplaced loyalties than is the case over some small somewhat insignificant islands, two million Hungarians in Romania because of wrongful border changes, America's wars against Mexico, almost the entire African Continent in that time, even border changes in South America, however not one of those countries is going to say "you're right, we shouldn't have changed the borders in the nineteenth century". Was it right or wrong in 1833? I don't know enough about it and to be honest those who argue on both sides are dripping with bias, but it doesn't matter much now, it doesn't justify changing the current sovereign agreements and it is rather silly to think that any country would use events two hundred years ago, to do so. Does Argentina have legitimate claims, quite possibly, but another line of argument might be a better one to follow.

Argentina's independence - 1816.
Argentina's presence in the islands - 1820


They were Spanish as they were not recognised as Argentinians yet.


Britain recognizing Argentina's independence - 1825. (No complaints regarding our possession of the islands)


If Britain want to so-call "steal" these islands, they would not have recognised a breakaway country like Argentina.


Britain comes up with a spurious new claim on the islands - 1829.
Britain stealing our islands - 1833.

Correction. Britain rightfully occupies island they discovered and had previously occupied and laid claim to.

It must be something in Latin blood - a ingrained feeling of being hard done by. Spain still carps on about Gibraltar, after 300 years. Argentina still carping after nearly 200 years.

No one takes you people seriously. The claims are so ridiculous.

Not once with Britain owning the Falklands has Argentina been threatened. Any country with brains would use the proximity (if islands 400 miles from the most southerly part of Argentina can be called close) to form a bond with that country - and the UK is a world leading high tech country that can benefit Argentina.

It's not proximity, it's location. They are in our shell.


In that case the UK should claim Ireland and the Faroes, etc, Or France should claim them including the UK, or maybe Germany or Belgium should . Well Canada should throw the French out the St Pierre islands shouldn't they? What about Alaska? Nearer to Canada so maybe the USA should be thrown out of there. What tripe!!!!! Recipe for anarchy. A charter for egotistical tinpot dictators.

There is 400 miles of rough cold sea between Argentina and the Falklands - the islands are not near at all. Draw a line from the Belgium coast 400 miles out into the Atlantic and who should own all that? Belgium? Or maybe the UK should draw a line 400 miles into Europe and claim all that. Then Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark etc will all be in the UK. We will have to make this claim in the UN soon then, as so will Germany and France, etc. We can all draw lines on maps 400 mile around us all, and all claim all that, all over the world!!!

Look at your own country and deal with the many internal problems you have. My God you have enough!

The islands are our country, and you're one of the problems.

The islands are our country, and you're one of the problems.

The UN recognises them as part of the UK, they are part of the UK, they are nowhere near argentina (400 miles is a LONG way), they are occupied by British People, leave them in peace and stop making an issue. As bay city saide, the UK is a high tech world leading country that can benifit argentina, stop provoking us by laying claim to our islands. The Falklanders want to British, so the Falklands are British.
So lets summarise.
The UN Says they are British.
The Falklanders say they are British.
The World Says they are British.
They are British.
End of Story.

The islands are our country, and you're one of the problems.

We certainly are when you try and invade British sovereign territory yes. I would say we are a dinstinctly large problem when this occurs.

...they are part of the UK...

A minor pedantic correction - they are not part of the UK (only England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom). But they are one of the British Overseas Territories. And all the people on the islands are British and have been there for nearly 2 centuries, with only the very short illegal occupation by Argentine troops in 1982 breaking nearly 2 centuries of organised British activity on the islands.

Well Chap, I will talk some word about the crap you posted since I am second generation in Argentina, but hebrew, and lost over 60% of my family in KZ´s (concentration camps) in eastern Europe, in places and countries which I am sure you cannot locate in a map.
Argentina harbouring nazis? Yes, as done by the USA, Egypt, Spain and the CCCP but it was indeed done through the pressure of UK, USA, Switzerland and the Vatican.
Are you too a Sun reader and believe to live in a fair country? Well you live in hell man.
Havent´you army officers summarily executed thousands of young unexperienced OWN soldiers (white-mummy´s boy-faced-anglo-saxon brits, not the "ugly" discartable asian, african or caribbean mercenaries which you usually consider "Untermenschen" and you use as cannon fodder) in Gallipoli????????
Haven´t one of your stupid chancellours who accepted and defended ADOLF´S PARTITION OF A SOUVERAN COUNTRY -AS CZECHOSLOVAKIA WAS- since he made the british believe this was the best solution?
Wasn´t YOUR CHANCELLOR Chamberlain sucking Adolf´s cock until last invaded Poland challenging Britains´ Chartae of Protection and then planned Sealion-Op?????
Haven´t your security forces kidnapped, tortured&killed hundreds of civilians in Ulster??????
Haven´t you security forces been shooting in the head of a civilian in London´s tube?
Is this not the same brutal "internal enemy" theory applied by the Junta in the 60&70´s? YES. IT IS.
Well, our murderers went to trial (they still do), your mudererers got medailles from your Queen.
Aren´t you RIGHT NOW taking part on an ILLEGAL OCCUPATION of a foreign country which -of course- was once part of your Empire?
We have done quite big shit but you too, and certainly bigger.
We are young and inmature nation, you Brits have over 1000 years on your backs and should have learned to behave!



:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

The things some people say.. and the things people read in dictators books that they still believe true! Remember, the same people told you there where no 'disappearences' either!

I love all these arguments, great fun :lol:

I'd say the Argentinians on this thread have lost the plot somewhat, fair play to them though - they've tried just about every argument they can think of.

Btw Bay City, well said - good posts :yes:

Just to sum up for our South American 'friends', Falklands = British. That is not just somebodies opinion or an emotive claim, it is fact.

I hope you will someday be able to accept that and therefore end your nationalistic torment. But you probably won't and I'd imagine at some point Argentina will throw another hissy fit and do something stupid.

Ironically if they hadn't invaded I reckon we'd have let them have a say on the Islands but their actions put paid to any chances of that happening.

Argentine President Nestor Kirchner has said Britain won a "colonial victory" in the Falklands War that was unacceptable in the eyes of the world.

1. The Argentinians were the aggressors. Unacceptable.
2. Who exactly sides with the Argentinians?

Actually the world seemed to back our actions, maybe it's unacceptable in the eyes of the latin world but that doesn't matter :lol:

Me thinks Nestor is trying to claim false support there to try and justify their false claim.

The Argentinans invaded British territory and were sent back home by British military, simple as that.

Actually the world seemed to back our actions

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/GACOL3067.doc.htm

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/GACOL3067.doc.htm

From that very document:

"She said that the children of the Islands were provided with further education in Britain if they chose to obtain higher education or university degrees. Young people in the Islands today felt they had a future in their homeland, unlike the young people of her generation, who had left the Islands mainly because they felt their future might be threatened by the constant pressure from Argentina during the 1960s and the 1970s –- pressure which culminated in the invasion of the Islands in April 1982.

After the conflict, she said, the people of the Islands were able to decide their own future. Britain had recognized their right to self-determination. As a result of that, the Islanders were also able to rewrite their Constitution, which in turn had led to the end of absentee landlords and provided more autonomy for the Falkland Islands Government.

She found it amazing, she said, that Argentina still insisted that the Falkland Islands were rightly theirs at the beginning of the twenty-first century, when, apart from the period between 2 April to 14 June 1982, the Falkland Islands had been under constant British rule since 1833. The Islands were discovered by the British at the end of the sixteenth century and claimed for it in the eighteenth century, long before Argentina existed as a country. It was unjustified for Argentina to persist with its claim to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. She suggested that Argentina recognize the right of the Falkland Islands to live under the government of their own choosing. "

Another one, more recent:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gacol3162.doc.htm

What I mean is that the UN backs the peaceful negotiations between the two countries, because recognizes a pending issue of colonization and dispute there.

There are no negotiations! The Islands are British and there is nothing to negotiate.

What I mean is that the UN backs the peaceful negotiations between the two countries, because recognizes a pending issue of colonization and dispute there.

There was a chance of negotiation, that was before 1982, now the only option for Argentinia to ever get them back is war and you'll loose such a war.

"FODE S. KAMARA (Sierra Leone) said that the existence of colonialism in any form was incompatible with the United Nations Charter. He reiterated that the Islanders must be allowed to exercise their right to self-determination. They must be allowed to determine what political status best suited them. He remained confident that the United Kingdom and Argentina would work to consolidate the process of dialogue to resolve their dispute over the Islands."

The islanders want to be British. This is why Argentina will never be given the islands. It isn't just arbitrary colonialism, you Argentineans may want to note that almost all of the British empire's former colonies (what, a quarter of the world?) have received their independence, precisely because the civilians have wanted it. In this case, and in the case of all of Britain's remaining over-seas territory, the British government is democratically respecting the wishes of the inhabitants, and keeping them.

The islanders want to be British. This is why Argentina will never be given the islands. It isn't just arbitrary colonialism, you Argentineans may want to note that almost all of the British empire's former colonies (what, a quarter of the world?) have received their independence, precisely because the civilians have wanted it. In this case, and in the case of all of Britain's remaining over-seas territory, the British government is democratically respecting the wishes of the inhabitants, and keeping them.

Quite.

Infact the Argies were so desperate to show the Falklanders how much love there could be between them they decided to use the Port Stanley post office as a toilet...

This is an UN resolution, not an Argentine paper.

Please, read again the title and the first two paragraphs:


special committee on decolonization adopts resolution expressing regret
over delay in talks to resolve falkland islands (malvinas) dispute


The Special Committee on Decolonization adopted a resolution today expressing regret that, despite widespread international support for talks between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to resolve the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), implementation of General Assembly resolutions aimed at peacefully ending that dispute had not yet begun.



Taking that action by consensus, the Special Committee also reiterated that a peaceful and negotiated settlement was the way to end the special and particular colonial situation concerning the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). It further requested the two States concerned to consolidate the current process of dialogue and cooperation by resuming their negotiations.

yeh, and read my post.

He reiterated that the Islanders must be allowed to exercise their right to self-determination. They must be allowed to determine what political status best suited them

So, the current political status of the Falkland Islands strictly adheres to the UN resolutions.

Please read a bit more ...


Recalling that the Malvinas question had been introduced by the United Kingdom itself, he said that had led the Special Committee to adopt a resolution as recently as 2006, which stated that the dispute over the Territory was about sovereignty, and that it could only be resolved through negotiations.

That text determined that the principle of self-determination, applicable in the case of most Territories to be decolonized, was not applicable in the Malvinas case, which involved a Territory dismembered by force after the expulsion of the original Argentine population. Having been prevented from returning, it had been replaced by a population of British people.

They were Spanish as they were not recognised as Argentinians yet.

Uti possidetis juris. If you googled it we wouldn't have to explain it to you in every post.


If Britain want to so-call "steal" these islands, they would not have recognised a breakaway country like Argentina.

So you bought them? Accept it, you illegally occupied them. Argentina had a govt there and the UK had already recognised the spanish claim. It was legally ours.
With the islands (after trying with Buenos Aires in the 1806-07 invasions) you controlled the southern seas. Australia-NZ-South Africa-Malvinas. Now you want them because of the resources they may have and to reassure your possition on your antarctica claims.

Correction. Britain rightfully occupies island they discovered and had previously occupied and laid claim to.

Not really.

The islands appear on spanish and portuguese maps and documents since 1501. Many years before you "discovered" them.

It must be something in Latin blood - a ingrained feeling of being hard done by. Spain still carps on about Gibraltar, after 300 years. Argentina still carping after nearly 200 years.

Or there must be something in British blood ... an ingrained instinct to apropriate and keep playing the empire

Not once with Britain owning the Falklands has Argentina been threatened. Any country with brains would use the proximity (if islands 400 miles from the most southerly part of Argentina can be called close) to form a bond with that country - and the UK is a world leading high tech country that can benefit Argentina.

Should we feel threatened? Why, you just want the islands, not Mainland. But, of course, this is Britain we're dealing with... no one knows.


..

In that case the UK should claim Ireland and the Faroes, etc, Or France should claim them including the UK, or maybe Germany or Belgium should . Well Canada should throw the French out the St Pierre islands shouldn't they? What about Alaska? Nearer to Canada so maybe the USA should be thrown out of there. What tripe!!!!! Recipe for anarchy. A charter for egotistical tinpot dictators.

There is 400 miles of rough cold sea between Argentina and the Falklands - the islands are not near at all. Draw a line from the Belgium coast 400 miles out into the Atlantic and who should own all that? Belgium? Or maybe the UK should draw a line 400 miles into Europe and claim all that. Then Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark etc will all be in the UK. We will have to make this claim in the UN soon then, as so will Germany and France, etc. We can all draw lines on maps 400 mile around us all, and all claim all that, all over the world!!!

Look at your own country and deal with the many internal problems you have. My God you have enough!

Go and complain with the UN. I didn't come up with that. And Again, Belgium has no islands with historical settlements in them, in their shell. And Ireland is an independent country, not a colony.
You should realize, that the case is different between countries, and a country and a "British Overseas territory", because we don't even recognise it as one. If 480 km is a lot for you (not for me) then what's 12.700 km? Stop with the distance thing, you lose. It's not about "everything in a 400 mile radio is mine", our claim is about the shell, which happens to extend over 400 miles.
And Alaska is not an island, is part of the mainland, BOUGHT from Russia.

Of course we got problems. But not because of that we renounce to the claim or give priority to this issue above others

And you just answer what you want. What about the rest of my post?

I Love Britain, I already said it. But... cut the hypocresy come on. Who are you British to lecture us on behaviour? It’s…. :hilarious

This discussion leads to nowhere. Both sides think they are right.
For me it's clear that they belong to Argentina, same goes to Britain, and they are now in their hands (for the moment :D). It's useless.

Please read a bit more ...


Yes and that commitee was reminded that...


Argentina’s arguments were “morally, historically and intellectually flawed” in that they masked a cynical attempt to justify the annexation of a small and peaceful neighbour, he said. Such ambitions had no place in the twenty-first century. Annexation by negotiation or conquest meant colonization and occupation by a foreign Power. To claim that the islanders were a transplanted people and, thus, had no right to determine their future was “historical nonsense” as many of them traced their ancestry back to the 1840s. Like most countries, including Argentina, the Falklands constituted a nation of immigrants who had developed a distinctive culture and identity. For Argentina to deny them the right to self-determination was to question their own claim to the same right.


But we could end up quoting masses of text at each other ad nauseum...

What i'd like to see is an independent Falkland Islands, or for us to follow the French model and make it an integral part of the UK. That would wind a few people up ;)

If the Spanish can unofficially get over Gibraltar being British, why can't the Argies get over the Falklands being British? Is it because the Spanish government respects the will of the people living there? Or is it because Spain doesn't need to scapegoat problems on to another country? Frankly Spain has more claim to Gibraltar than Argentina to the Falklands.

There's potential for oil exploration near the Falklands... the Argies - and British - would benefit a damn lot more if they cooperated and got over a petty non issue from history.

If the Spanish can unofficially get over Gibraltar being British

:lol:

You should realize, that the case is different between countries, and a country and a "British Overseas territory", because we don't even recognise it as one.

That you don't recognise it as a British Overseas Territory is irrelevant - because fact is they are. It's a similar argument that Palestinians use when refusing to recognise Israel. Say it as many times as you like the situation doesn't change.

I'd have just as valid an argument by refusing to recognise Argentina's right to the land they currently occupy.

There's not even an argument to be had here, they are ours and will remain so.

Btw am I the only one who finds it a tad bit hypocritical that Argentinan forumers point out the UN's advisement of negotiations on the Islands future but seem to ignore that the UN backs Britains soverignty over the Falklands?

..
I Love Britain, I already said it.

I too, with exception made of their ruling elite.

What the hell, it is a slaughtering machine.

http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/2008.cfm

Unpeople, Dirty Wars and a Web of Deceit – Britain’s Foreign Policies

Paul Cochrane

According to new research, Britain bears “significant responsibility” since 1945 for the direct or indirect deaths of 8.6 million to 13.5 million people throughout the world from military interventions and at the hands of regimes strongly supported by Britain.

Less than a year after the publication of Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World, a highly praised book that critiques modern British foreign policy, British popular historian Mark Curtis has aggravated the authorities yet again with his latest publication, Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses.

This book, like its predecessor, uses declassified files to reveal Britain’s foreign policies since 1945 toward Russia/Chechnya, Israel, Uganda, Chile, Vietnam, Nigeria and the Middle East.

Curtis chronicles the “dirty war” conducted by Britain in North Yemen in the 1960’s – a conflict which lasted for a decade and claimed up to 200,000 lives – Britain’s intervention in Oman in 1957, and the British backed coups in Sharjah in 1965, Abu Dhabi in 1966 and Oman in 1970. [Sharjah and Abu Dhabi are two of the seven sheikdoms that became the United Arab Emirates in 1971.]

Curtis also recounts the British backing of repressive and brutal regimes in Iraq from 1958 until1968, and its complicity in Iraq’s use of chemical weapons and aggression against the Kurds.

The most searing accounts, however, regard the Blair government’s selling of the war on Iraq to the British public, citing fallacious intelligence reports and claims, and the “irrelevance of international law.”

Curtis said he came up with the term “Unpeople” because he thought it adequately described the British government’s attitude towards people who are expendable in Britain’s pursuit of economic and political goals.

“Last year,” Curtis said in a phone interview, “there was a British army officer who was quoted in Iraq as saying the Americans view the Iraqis only as Untermenschen, the Nazi concept of subhuman. In a way, the British have no real different regard for Iraqis than Americans, but [Unpeople] is a kind of similar concept. The attitude of the British policy making elite’s towards people on the opposing end of policies, I really don’t believe that has changed very much, not from the files I’ve seen. The attitudes towards people on the ground are very rarely a factor in decision making at all.”

What is unique about Curtis’s research is that he is the only person to have accessed these declassified files, despite many of the files being available to the public for over a decade. Curtis thinks this is due to more emphasis being placed on critiquing U.S. rather than British foreign policy, in Britain as much as elsewhere.

“I think that many activists on the Left know far more about, and write far more about the U.S. than Britain,” he said. “I have been trying to encourage writers to pay more attention to the U.K. than the U.S. I think there is an intellectual understanding of that, but I think partly it has got to do with what I think is a failure of the academic community. At least in the U.S. there is a large body of very good critical analysis of U.S. foreign policy … whereas in the U.K. academics have been appalling in revealing these secret documents. One amazing thing is how long these documents sit just in the archives where no one has looked at them … academics are simply failing to reveal this stuff.

“There are not that many people looking at Britain as a discipline, within international relations or politics whereas you get courses on U.S. foreign policy and the E.U.’s role in the world. There aren’t that many courses or specialists working solely on Britain which is amazing in itself considering this country’s role in the world.”

Curtis, who is currently the director of the London-based World Development Movement, believes history is crucial to understanding how contemporary British foreign policy is shaped: “If you look at some of the files that were revealed during the [2004] Hutton enquiry for example in the U.K. around planning for Iraq, and compare them to some of the secret files I have uncovered with regard to Iraq [in 1963] or other countries, they reveal exactly the same cynicism about the public, about the need to pull the wool over the public’s eyes … they reveal the same kind of great power machinations as 30 years ago.”

These machinations are geared toward maintaining Britain’s great power status and its place on the world stage, “and ensuring the global economy is organized to benefit western corporations,” Curtis said. “Those in essence are the two ultimate goals of British foreign policy and I don’t think they have changed over time.”

On the probability of genuine democracy in Iraq, Curtis is far from optimistic.

“When [British Premier] Blair now stands up and says we are supporting democracy in Iraq, to me the proper response to that is to burst out laughing,” he said. “The idea that Britain would in any way be interested in promoting a genuine democracy in a state in the Middle East is so ridiculous based on our knowledge of what kind of regimes Britain supported in the past and what its interests are in the region.”

Britain and America’s interests in Iraq were not solely about oil. “I do think it was about the U.S. demonstrating its military might, and wanting to reshape the wider Middle East,” Curtis said.

In regard to what the Bush administration calls the broader Middle East, Curtis talked of the recent, seemingly unrelenting media coverage of Iran’s nuclear programs: “My interpretation is that the Europeans are trying to stop an American intervention by trying to get the Iranians to curb their uranium enrichment program, and the Europeans are actually quite fearful of what the Americans will do.”

Curtis said that Britain’s foreign and defense policies are based on the United States’ war on terror rationale. “I refer to in the book the [British government’s] 2003 white paper on defense which outlines these unprecedented plans for intervention around the world, really under the pretext for fighting terrorism,” he said. “This is really the new rationale now for Britain’s interventionist foreign policy. Previously it was humanitarian intervention in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, but now it is terrorism.”

In British domestic politics, Curtis said that after the criticism Blair has faced over the war on Iraq, in the media as much as from within his own party, the threat of terrorism against Britain could play out in two ways.

“If there were a major terrorist attack on Britain,” he said, “Blair would be very vulnerable, because people know that Blair was presented with intelligence reports two weeks before the invasion of Iraq saying that if Britain invaded Iraq the terror threat toward the U.K. would increase, and yet he still went ahead. On the other hand they are obviously using the wider threat of terrorism and the war against terror rather like Bush is using it in America, of scaring the public and justifying an interventionist foreign policy.”

However, Curtis believes that the massive demonstrations that took place in Britain against the invasion of Iraq may have deterred Blair’s government from “further adventures.”

“It must be the case,” he said, “that Bush and Blair discussed Iran and Syria, probably at the same time as Iraq, and everyone knows that Iran and Syria have been in Bush’s targets, but presumably what Blair is now telling Bush is that there is no way he can carry the British public if the U.K. were to sign up to some American attack on any other country at the moment. The huge public protests have probably had a deterrent on Blair.”

Curtis calls for significant change to occur within Britain’s political system to prevent such an aggressive foreign policy from continuing, which are frequently carried out without a mandate by the British public.

“We have significantly been kept in the dark as to this country’s real role in the world,” he said. “We the public don’t know a fraction of what this country has been up to in the last 50 years, even though the evidence of what the country has been up to is actually sitting there ready to be documented by interested academics or journalists. That is the reason for wanting to write these books, to expose what’s been going on in our name for such a long time, and to compare it to what is going on now and show that not much has changed really. Britain is a very centralized decision making system at the end of the day, and there is only a democratic façade really. The actual democratic elements of policy making are few and far between. A prime minister can get away with whatever he or she wants, and clearly elites want to keep it that way. They don’t want the public interfering in policymaking and they have been protected in that system by the fact that we the public know very little what they have been actually doing. It is not a giant conspiracy at all, it is not that conspiratorial, but the system has served to protect elites from public scrutiny and properly holding them to account.”

Curtis’s book is a powerful condemnation of Britain’s real role in the world, in which the reader is left shaken by the contempt and ambivalence of the British government toward other people and what is done in the name of the British public.

Mark Curtis’s Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses (2004) and Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World (2003) are published by Vintage.

Have you had a good read of all that and taken note of all it's points?

If so just think what we're capable of doing if Argentina dares to invade our territory again! :lol:

Lol that is brilliant. God you know we're so fucking EVIL in this country aren't we. We are the MURDERING MACHINE ! Lol brilliant.

According to new research, Britain bears “significant responsibility” since 1945 for the direct or indirect deaths of 8.6 million to 13.5 million people throughout the world from military interventions and at the hands of regimes strongly supported by Britain.

Is there no end to our EVIL! LOL God no...it goes on!

When Blair now stands up and says we are supporting democracy in Iraq, to me the proper response to that is to burst out laughing,” he said. “The idea that Britain would in any way be interested in promoting a genuine democracy in a state in the Middle East is so ridiculous based on our knowledge of what kind of regimes Britain supported in the past and what its interests are in the region.”

[B]Evil Blair, and the EVIL british intentions. We never do anything for the good of it, no, never have done, never will. Unlike Argentina and other countries that spread democracy around the world, gave us 50% of the worlds greatest inventions. Oh and lets thank them for kickstarting Industrialisation shall we, oh and many economic principles.

Britain and America’s interests in Iraq were not solely about oil. “I do think it was about the U.S. demonstrating its military might, and wanting to reshape the wider Middle East,” Curtis said.

Yes reshaping the Middle East means stopping tyrannical regimes kill us in the future. Selfish that is. Unlike Argentina and other countries that actively engages those who wish to stop freedom and democracy.



Just in case I forgot to mention, they aren't getting them back.

I have spent a year of my life in total in the falkland islands, and the people their have had a taste of being under Argentinian rule.
Lets just say they dont want you back.
And if you think we would let you take control of nearly 2000 BRITISH citizens lives you have another thing coming!
P.S Do you think we would listen to the UN? We didnt last time when we sailed halfway around the world to slaughter you on your own doorstep.
End of conversation really.

If they invaded again we'd probably just send some tornadoes into the air over Buenos Airies, they could fly about a bit, take out some strategic targets perhaps.

We could even float a few of these into their waters, that would shit them up enough to leave:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/990712581f.jpg

even an army of pregnant women with no arms or legs would be able to defeat any Argentinian invasion.

Or an Army of mildy annoyed cats.

But this is all academic. You aint having em sunshine.

But still you need to hide behind your Astutes or aircraft-carriers.
You british wussies !!!:lol:

...

Mexico 86... Mmmmhhh... Hand of God !!!! :banana:

In fairness to that, it is usual in Naval wars for sailors to be in big metal boats, rather than rubber dinghys or swimming, as cowardly and unmanly as this is.

Mexico 86... Mmmmhhh... Hand of God !!!! :banana:

Japan/Korea 02...Foot of Beckham !!!! :banana:

Argies go bye bye :lol:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/a/a3/Argentina_football_2002_handbag_mockup.jpg

In fairness to that, it is usual in Naval wars for sailors to be in big metal boats, rather than rubber dinghys or swimming, as cowardly and unmanly as this is.

Argentinians like to hide behind civilians and only invade when there is little military opposition.

But still you need to hide behind your Astutes or aircraft-carriers.

At least we can afford and have the technical and industrial ability to build such beasts of war! :lol:

KI3hYJ2vrlg

*tear*

Out of all the photos I have seen over the years from the conflict, this one always sticks with me -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/falklands/images/falklands_6_yomp.jpg

When the BBC did a new documentary on the Falklands War last year near the end they showed the clip (the photo is actually a still from moving footage) where that soldier with the flag marches past and in front of the camera. It somehow gives an air of British defiance, how thousands of miles away from Great Britain a small band of soldiers under the command of ministers and officers (and ultimately the Queen) in London march across these icy islands and restore our sovereignty.

It just makes you so proud to be British :eat:

I always liked that photo of the defeated Argentine soldiers being led away by British troops and then one of the Argentinians (no doubt thinking it would be a good symbol of defiance) sticks his finger up at the camera and ends up doing the almost impossible act of making himself look even more of a twat :lol:

British accomplishment and Argentine despair and bitterness in one still picture.

I always liked that photo of the defeated Argentine soldiers being led away by British troops and then one of the Argentinians (no doubt thinking it would be a good symbol of defiance) sticks his finger up at the camera and ends up doing the almost impossible act of making himself look even more of a twat :lol:

British accomplishment and Argentine despair and bitterness in one still picture.

I bet millions of Brits at home watching it stuck either one or the "English" two fingers (it's an English custom) up at him!

You have cheek. Look at South American where every city has favellas around it. India is the world's largest democracy and a industrial power house. Do a Google. Democracy is alien to Latin America. A land filled with everything and people live in squalor.


This is just hilarious!!! ... "the largest democracy in the world" :lol:... who cares??? They are still living in the pleistocene and you can never compare it to South America's issues... and remember that Argentina, apart from all the problems, is still years ahead from the rest of Latin America, with the exception of Chile and Uruguay maybe...

bye... (back to the squalor):nuts:

:goodnight

But still you need to hide behind your Astutes or aircraft-carriers.
You british wussies !!!:lol:


Ok, which probably means you think you won't be. Easier pickings for us it is then.

Out of all the photos I have seen over the years from the conflict, this one always sticks with me -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/falklands/images/falklands_6_yomp.jpg

When the BBC did a new documentary on the Falklands War last year near the end they showed the clip (the photo is actually a still from moving footage) where that soldier with the flag marches past and in front of the camera. It somehow gives an air of British defiance, how thousands of miles away from Great Britain a small band of soldiers under the command of ministers and officers (and ultimately the Queen) in London march across these icy islands and restore our sovereignty.

What sticks with me is that if my Dad didn't leave the lunch queue on HMS Glamorgan he would be dead.

But still you need to hide behind your Astutes or aircraft-carriers.
You british wussies !!!:lol:

OK then, next time you try and invade, we'll bring our Atutes, Type 45s and CVFs, and you just swim. and show us all how big and clever you are. Very brave, I salute you!:lol:

involved a Territory dismembered by force after the expulsion of the original Argentine population.

you mean like the argentines former spanish masters and forefathers expelled the amerindians from their lands and slaughtered them? *grins* we white british are indigenous to our country, unlike you argentines who are a beneficiary of the expulsion of the original population.

I'm just here for moral support.

HqEWpHuib9A

^^

LPfCuxUyidQ

Japan/Korea 02...

There is a slight difference with Mexico 86 ...
We were WORLD CHAMPIONS !!!! :banana:

I'm just here for moral support.



You must be kidding :ohno:
Let this talk for adult people, I mean, FIRST WIN A WORLD CUP !!!!

Go and bother Maxima, you will have an Argentine queen :lol:

Argentinians like to hide behind civilians ....

Ohhh, that's a big LIE, and you know... ;-)
All the battles were open-fielded (someone posted the list before in this forum), even against much powerful enemies.

I always liked that photo of the defeated Argentine soldiers being led away by British troops and then one of the Argentinians (no doubt thinking it would be a good symbol of defiance) sticks his finger up at the camera and ends up doing the almost impossible act of making himself look even more of a twat :lol:

British accomplishment and Argentine despair and bitterness in one still picture.

I always liked this one :lol:

http://www.distritalbrown.com.ar/noticias/data/upimages/Malvinas15.jpg

You must be kidding :ohno:
Let this talk for adult people, I mean, FIRST WIN A WORLD CUP !!!!

We would have if Cruijff had not boycotted 1978 because of an Argie dictatorship.


Go and bother Maxima, you will have an Argentine queen :lol:

Does it hurt much we get your ladies pregnant?

I always liked this one :lol:

Two or three more soldiers and they would have won.

those were probably 2 members of the original 8-man island garrison force.

a crack argentine special forces unit (comprising 800 troops) successfully overwhelmed the garrison station (housed in the post office), receiving only light casualties in the process (approximately 80 dead, 217 wounded).

There is a slight difference with Mexico 86 ...
We were WORLD CHAMPIONS !!!! :banana:

Emphasis on the 'were' bit, now you are not.

War, what is it good for?

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/FalklandsPA460.jpg

I always liked this one :lol:

http://www.distritalbrown.com.ar/noticias/data/upimages/Malvinas15.jpg

This one's better (clear evidence that it was Argentina which started the hoody problem):

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/fa1.jpg

Oh and this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/03/27/falklands/3.jpg

What the hell, here's some more from the Falklands:

http://www.falklandislands.com/gallery/images/D97E71B5-8CCD-483E-9ED6-B532FFE85EED.jpg

http://www.army.mod.uk/img/news/army_news_current_stories/falklands_memorial/16h250w400m.jpg

http://www.ppu.org.uk/falklands/falklands-falg.gif

those were probably 2 members of the original 8-man island garrison force.

a crack argentine special forces unit (comprising 800 troops) successfully overwhelmed the garrison station (housed in the post office), receiving only light casualties in the process (approximately 80 dead, 217 wounded).

It's Argentinas claim to fame that they managed to temporarily conquer an island of civilians and a very small group of soldiers.

Ohhh, that's a big LIE, and you know... ;-)
All the battles were open-fielded (someone posted the list before in this forum), even against much powerful enemies.

The only reason Argentina invaded the Falklands is because they knew it only had a small military presence and mostly civilians with no way of defending themselves. The stories to come out of Falklands during that time suggests the Argentinians were a bunch of dirty inhumane cowards.

Luckily for Argentina we treated your soldiers with much more respect and decency then they deserved otherwise they wouldn't have been coming back home at all.

Doubley lucky that we confined the military action to our own territory rather then finish the job off on yours.

I'm just here for moral support.

HqEWpHuib9A

The commentator is the winner of Dennis Bergkamp bingo :lol:

I remember taking great satisfaction from that goal - have always liked the Netherlands :yes:

We would have if Cruijff had not boycotted 1978 because of an Argie dictatorship.

It's ok, the Netherlands are still better at football then Argentina even without any World Cups. The Netherlands are the best team to have never won a world cup, Argentina are the worst side to have won a world cup.

The stories to come out of Falklands during that time suggests the Argentinians were a bunch of dirty inhumane cowards.


You are such a damned coward to insult this way, hiding in a forum...
Tell me, how many casualties had the islanders during the occupation?
Now tell me, how many civil casualties had the countries that your army attacks/occupy? (Iraq, Afganistan, ...)
In this forum, some were glad to "nuke" BA and other major cities. Killing babies, women and all kind of innocent civilians. What kind of cowards would do that?

It's ok, the Netherlands are still better at football then Argentina even without any World Cups. The Netherlands are the best team to have never won a world cup, Argentina are the worst side to have won a world cup.

:lol::lol:

:nuts:... yes it's all coincidence!!!!

World cups:

Argentina 2
England 1
Netherlands 0

U-20 World cups:

Argentina (1979, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2007) 6
Brazil (1983, 1985, 1993, 2003)
Portugal (1989, 1991)
Spain (1999)
USSR (1977)
Germany (1981)
Yugoslavia (1987)
...........
..........
England 0
Netherlands 0

Now at club level...


Intercontinental cups by countries:

Argentina (1967, 1968, 1973, 1977, 1984, 1986, 1994, 2000, 2003) 9
Italy (1964, 1965, 1969, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1996)
Uruguay (1961, 1966, 1971, 1980, 1982, 1988)
Brazil (1962, 1963, 1981, 1983, 1992, 1993)
Spain (1960, 1974, 1998, 2002)
Germany (1976, 1997, 2001)
Netherlands (1970, 1972, 1995) 3
Portugal (1987, 2004)
Paraguay (1979)
England (1999) only 1!!! :lol:
Yugoslavia (1991)

... neverthless i agree that the Netherlands are the best country at football that never win the cup.

:cheers:

You are such a damned coward to insult this way, hiding in a forum...
Tell me, how many casualties had the islanders during the occupation?
Now tell me, how many civil casualties had the countries that your army attacks/occupy? (Iraq, Afganistan, ...)
In this forum, some were glad to "nuke" BA and other major cities. Killing babies, women and all kind of innocent civilians. What kind of cowards would do that?

Your Argentinian troops were a bunch of dirty inhumane cowards - I'm glad that has annoyed you because it's true.

Invade our territory again and they'll get the treatment all dirty inhumane cowards deserve.

As for hiding in a forum, that's exactly what you're doing.

:lol::lol:

:nuts:... yes it's all coincidence!!!!

World cups:

Argentina 2
England 1
Netherlands 0

U-20 World cups:

Argentina (1979, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2007) 6
Brazil (1983, 1985, 1993, 2003)
Portugal (1989, 1991)
Spain (1999)
USSR (1977)
Germany (1981)
Yugoslavia (1987)
...........
..........
England 0
Netherlands 0

Now at club level...


Intercontinental cups by countries:

Argentina (1967, 1968, 1973, 1977, 1984, 1986, 1994, 2000, 2003) 9
Italy (1964, 1965, 1969, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1996)
Uruguay (1961, 1966, 1971, 1980, 1982, 1988)
Brazil (1962, 1963, 1981, 1983, 1992, 1993)
Spain (1960, 1974, 1998, 2002)
Germany (1976, 1997, 2001)
Netherlands (1970, 1972, 1995) 3
Portugal (1987, 2004)
Paraguay (1979)
England (1999) only 1!!! :lol:
Yugoslavia (1991)

... neverthless i agree that the Netherlands are the best country at football that never win the cup.

:cheers:

You've won the Under-20 world cup 6 times and yet you've only one the real thing one more time then us - does that not tell you something? :lol:

As for the Intercontinental cup, that's about as important as our Community Shield. The champions league is the worlds best club competition - sadly your clubs can't take part in that but they'd only get thrashed anyway.

Hope compiling that list didn't take up too much time.

.............

I always liked this one :lol:

http://www.distritalbrown.com.ar/noticias/data/upimages/Malvinas15.jpg

Hmm funny that photo is meaningless considering you lost....badly, but if that little moment cheers you up, well, you have to take what you can get I suppose. War is never a good thing, so it is a terrible shame your country had to start one for such silly reasons. I am not levelling this at you personally, but at the junta of the time. Truth is your men were lied to and your people cheated. How many lives were lost for a reckless, and futile invasion. Our forces are too battle hardened to trifile with, unless you have a lot of serious backup and weaponry. Noone is saying that all Argentine troops are cowards. They fought at thier best, and any life lost is tragic. Incidentally do you realise at the recent Falklands War anniversary here in Britain, we invited Argentina to attend. That is not the sign of a country that is vindictive or malicous, that is a noble thing to do...even if your government refused.

Many jokes are made on this forum, it is all part of British humour, which we turn on ourselves also. We do not like killing people, but we will defend the rights of our citizens, and the rights of others. Britain loses valuable men every year in wars where it is trying to make a differnce. That is what our soldiers are actively doing, even if the reasons may be flawed. Like it or not we actually want Iraq and Afghanistan to be free of religious war fighting zealots, and the world to be rid of evil dictators. If your country wants to sit back and do nothing then that is your choice, but Britain does not shy from what it sees as it's responsibility. Whether you like it or not that is a brave choice. How's about showing a little bit of respect, rather than being narrow minded. I'm not saying we always do the right thing, but we do try.

We fought for Britain and the freedom of all countries in World War 2, because it was the right thing to do. We took the hardest route possible, and we payed dearly. There are those who will never thank us, and we do not require it. I am not comparing the present wars to that one, which was fought for far more noble reasons, but I am trying to make you understand the British mindset.

You are such a damned coward to insult this way, hiding in a forum...
Tell me, how many casualties had the islanders during the occupation?
Now tell me, how many civil casualties had the countries that your army attacks/occupy? (Iraq, Afganistan, ...)
In this forum, some were glad to "nuke" BA and other major cities. Killing babies, women and all kind of innocent civilians. What kind of cowards would do that?

Stop being a numpty man.

Stop being a numpty man.

Don't tell him that man!

Hmm funny that photo is meaningless considering you lost....badly, but if that little moment cheers you up, well, you have to take what you can get I suppose. War is never a good thing, so it is a terrible shame your country had to start one for such silly reasons. I am not levelling this at you personally, but at the junta of the time. Truth is your men were lied to and your people cheated. How many lives were lost for a reckless, and futile invasion. Our forces are too battle hardened to trifile with, unless you have a lot of serious backup and weaponry. Noone is saying that all Argentine troops are cowards. They fought at thier best, and any life lost is tragic. Incidentally do you realise at the recent Falklands War anniversary here in Britain, we invited Argentina to attend. That is not the sign of a country that is vindictive or malicous, that is a noble thing to do...even if your government refused.

Many jokes are made on this forum, it is all part of British humour, which we turn on ourselves also. We do not like killing people, but we will defend the rights of our citizens, and the rights of others. Britain loses valuable men every year in wars where it is trying to make a differnce. That is what our soldiers are actively doing, even if the reasons may be flawed. Like it or not we actually want Iraq and Afghanistan to be free of religious war fighting zealots, and the world to be rid of evil dictators. If your country wants to sit back and do nothing then that is your choice, but Britain does not shy from what it sees as it's responsibility. Whether you like it or not that is a brave choice. How's about showing a little bit of respect, rather than being narrow minded. I'm not saying we always do the right thing, but we do try.

We fought for Britain and the freedom of all countries in World War 2, because it was the right thing to do. We took the hardest route possible, and we payed dearly. There are those who will never thank us, and we do not require it. I am not comparing the present wars to that one, which was fought for far more noble reasons, but I am trying to make you understand the British mindset.

Incredibly smart post.
No, I really don´t like that photo. I showed it after previous tons of "we defeated you" photos. If you read my previous posts, you´ll see I don't like wars at all.
You also can see I like jokes and answered in that way some direct attacks.
But last post was a reaction to a direct insult. Many people died both sides, even fighting in face-to-face combats, against superior forces, to call them "cowards"... while sitting in front of a computer.
British mindset... Is there a countrywide mindset?
I mean, perhaps I feel much alike with some british forumers (that includes you -even Salif before last post-,etc.) than others, even of my own country.
Think the mindsets are more "horizontal" -groups of same thoughts in different countries- than "vertical" -all in one country think different of all of other country.

And we werent in 66? :cheers:

Hope compiling that list didn't take up too much time.

Don't worry, it's just copy/paste from wikipedia... ;)

You've won the Under-20 world cup 6 times and yet you've only one the real thing one more time then us - does that not tell you something? :lol:

No... :dunno:, maybe that we have best teams and players in the world.

As for the Intercontinental cup, that's about as important as our Community Shield. The champions league is the worlds best club competition - sadly your clubs can't take part in that but they'd only get thrashed anyway.

Well that is something we'll never know... The real story tells me that the champion and best team of that... "worlds best club competition" can't beat South American clubs most of the times. ;)

:banana:

to call them "cowards"... while sitting in front of a computer.

What else would anyone be sitting infront of whilst making a post on this forum?

You're right though, it is unfair to label people like that so I apologise.

Don't want to be glorifying war either because it's anything but glorious no matter which side you're on.

Don't worry, it's just copy/paste from wikipedia... ;)

I hope you had it saved on your favourites to save you even more valuable seconds.

No... :dunno:, maybe that we have best teams and players in the world.

I was thinking along the lines of how your successful Under-20 players don't seem to be carrying that sort of form onto the senior stage which might indicate a serious lack of development/adaption?

Well that is something we'll never know... The real story tells me that the champion and best team of that... "worlds best club competition" can't beat South American clubs most of the times. ;)

:banana:

I'd take it more seriously if it was a proper competition with more teams - but a one off game is like random pot luck.

Something needs to be organised as a proper summer competition.

Are Argentinians proud of heroically cheating their way to victory in Mexico 86?

I didn't want to bring this up, but a certain forumer is raving about how Argentina has won the world cup so many times more than England.

All over, Salif. I'll invite you a beer if you come to BA :cheers:

Are Argentinians proud of heroically cheating their way to victory in Mexico 86?
We can talk about England 1966 ...
Quarterfinals: With a German referee in England-Argentina and an English referee in Germany-Uruguay... Both did their jobs :rofl:
Semifinals: England-Portugal .... What can I say... :nuts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_FIFA_World_Cup


The quarter-finals provided a controversial victory for West Germany as they cruised past Uruguay 4-0; the South Americans claimed that this occurred only after the referee (who was Jim Finney, from England) had not recognised a handstop by Schnellinger on the goal line and then had sent off two players from Uruguay: Horacio Troche and Héctor Silva[2]. It appeared as though the surprise package North Korea might do the same to Portugal when after 22 minutes they were in the lead 3-0. It fell to one of the greatest stars of the tournament, Eusébio, to change that. He scored four goals in the game and with José Augusto adding a fifth in the 78th minute, one of the most incredible comebacks was complete.

Meanwhile in the other two games, Ferenc Bene's late goal for Hungary against the USSR, who were led by Lev Yashin's stellar goalkeeping, proved little more than a consolation as they crashed out 2-1, and the only goal between Argentina and England came courtesy of England's Geoff Hurst. During that controversial game (for more details see Argentina and England football rivalry), Argentina's Antonio Rattín became the first player to be sent off in a senior international football match at Wembley. Afterwards, the German referee, Rudolf Kreitlein, said that he had sent off Rattín because he didn't like how he had looked at him (it is worth noting that the referree did not understand Spanish)[3]. Rattín at first refused to leave the field and eventually had to be escorted by several policemen. Only after 30 minutes England was able to score against an Argentinian team with 10 players. This game, even today, is called by Argentina as el robo del siglo (the century robbery)[4].

At this point, all semifinalists were from Europe. The first semifinal between England and Portugal was controversial as well. Liverpool was the original venue for the first semifinal. However, due to intervention of the English officials, the venue changed to Wembley. [5]Eusebio alone had 4 goals wrongfully called back by the offside flag while Bobby Charlton scored both goals in England's triumph against Portugal. Portugals' goal came from a penalty kick in the 82nd minute after an intentional handball by Jack Charlton on the goal line. [6] The other semi-finals finished 2-1: Franz Beckenbauer provided the winning goal for West Germany as they beat the USSR. Portugal went on to beat the USSR 2-1 to take third place.

The moral of the story is...........we should cheat more often! :lol:

Argentine soldiers were not cowards, they were not soldiers, just boys snatched from their mothers and girlfriends to fight in a war they couldn't really understand for a dictator who was desperate for a distraction from his dictatorial rule.

^^And nevertheless many of the poor wretches did fight bravely. Against psychopathic freaks like the Paras. Its like if the Germans had have landed at Warmington on Sea and Captain Mainwaring and his crew had found themselves up against the Waffen-SS.

Its like if the Germans had have landed at Warmington on Sea and Captain Mainwaring and his crew had found themselves up against the Waffen-SS.

I'd love to see that episode.

^^Me too. It wouldn't have lasted very long, however.

And nevertheless many of the poor wretches did fight bravely. Against psychopathic freaks like the Paras.

yeah you could see how one sided it was from battles like goose green. a force of 500 paras attacks a well dug in and defended argentine force of twice their size with almost no air and artillery support having marched there on foot in near arctic conditions. what the hell did the argentines expect... your conscripts are faced with a bunch of battle hardened crack troops who often have no respect for their own lives and will bayonet you in your trenches. it was a complete fucking waste. what was even more stupid was that with the argentine positions no longer defensible, the argentines then negotiated for a whole day before accepting an unconditional surrender.

my dad told me how they forced the argentine surrender in stanley. having taken all of the hills surrounding the town they landed some lynx helicopters behind them armed with air to ground missiles. the british would then announce over the radio to the argentines which of their positions would be destroyed next, a helicopter would appear above the ridge, fire a missile then duck back down. after a few hours the argentines got the message and started talks on surrendering.

the stupid thing is the british didnt give a toss about the falklands until the argentines marched in. even then they only gave a toss because they actually started shooting! did they think that pictures of royal marines surrendering splashed over the frontpages of the british newspapers would do anything other than call for blood, even if the argentines did have a claim to the islands that was valid? the argentines had actually occupied the south sandwich islands since 1976 with the british trying peaceful negotiation to get them off. of course when they invaded the falklands we kicked them off. the sandwich islands are over 1000 miles away from argentina and are closer to british antarctic territory. actually does argentina claim that too? britain is closer to russia than argentina is to them.

the stupid thing is the british didnt give a toss about the falklands until the argentines marched in. even then they only gave a toss because they actually started shooting! did they think that pictures of royal marines surrendering splashed over the frontpages of the british newspapers would do anything other than call for blood, even if the argentines did have a claim to the islands that was valid? the argentines had actually occupied the south sandwich islands since 1976 with the british trying peaceful negotiation to get them off. of course when they invaded the falklands we kicked them off. the sandwich islands are over 1000 miles away from argentina and are closer to british antarctic territory. actually does argentina claim that too? britain is closer to russia than argentina is to them.

Was reading up on it the other day and apparantley until Argentina invaded many Brits hadn't even heard of the Falklands.

There was also mention of softening of attitudes towards Argentina's claim over the Falklands but the invasion forced our hand in the other direction - bit of a cruel irony for Argentina.

There needs to be an acceptance that the people who live on those islands are perfectly entitled to do so and are effectively it's owners. If Argentina recognises that then I think there's something to talk about.

Argentine soldiers were not cowards, they were not soldiers, just boys snatched from their mothers and girlfriends to fight in a war they couldn't really understand for a dictator who was desperate for a distraction from his dictatorial rule.

Just another example of blood being the currency used to pay for somebodies personal campaign.

Somebody mentioned Argentinians were invited to a rememberance service on the Falklands. I hope they took up the invitation, it would represent an important step.

All over, Salif. I'll invite you a beer if you come to BA :cheers:

Handy as BA is on my 'list of places to visit before I die' :)

I'd love to see that episode.

I have it on DVD...but it is rated 27. A new rating invented just for this DVD, but it didn't catch on. 5 minutes of the worst violence in history. I didn't know a jetty would even fit there.

Just another example of blood being the currency used to pay for somebodies personal campaign.

Somebody mentioned Argentinians were invited to a rememberance service on the Falklands. I hope they took up the invitation, it would represent an important step.

It was me, and no as far as I remember they refused.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L9nzk3co-M

Why it isn't a good idea to have the British against you ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L9nzk3co-M

Why it isn't a good idea to have the British against you ;)

Corrected the tags for you.

[Edit] thought I had, bollocks - here's the URL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L9nzk3co-M

British Soldiers, so good even enemy bullets are scared of them.

And wasn't it nice of Phil Collins to join them and play a little number as they were running through the desert.

The reason the video wont work is embedding is disabled. ;)

Clever.

Would be surprised if Argentina invaded again it will never be as poorly manned numbers wise as it was back then.

Forces used to refer to it as fraggle rock seeing as there aint much there.

....except tons of oil and gas off its coastline. That's what the Argies are interested in, not fraggle rock.

I just don't get it though. If there is tonnes of gas and oil why has nothing been built there to drill for it ever....over 20 years.

Test drilling was done several years ago, but commercial quantities of oil were not found. But various surveys have shown that the conditions are right for oil to be present in the ocean bed off the Falkland Islands.

It is hugely expensive to drill for oil there, but new test drilling is underway. Experts say that if oil is discovered it could be worth 50 billion + pounds at today's soaring oil prices.

When the original test drilling was done, oil was 10 dollars a barrel. Look what it is now... Even a modest find would be commercial at today's oil prices.

I think the Argentinian government will stake a claim to the oil. In effect they already have, as them claim the Falkland Islands belong to them. Then, things get interesting again...

We should hear about whether oil has been found any time from now on.

I'd love to see that episode.

Have you ever seen Eye of the Needle with Donald Sutherland?

It would have been like that scene http://www.novahq.net/forum/images/smilies/stab.gif with the Home Guards in that :runaway:

Just wish to point out that Jersey gave the Falkland Islands
£5 million and Guernsey £100,000 towards rebuilding the islands:)
from fellow islands that had suffered same fate of Occupation and
having strong British links...

however British Government then asked the islands for a contribution
to the UK defence bill as the (cat was out the bag) that both Jersey
and Guernsey had become very wealthy!!!!!!!!!!!!

and the islands continue to pay to this day...

the affair is called the 'Falklands saga'!! to this day..in Jersey and Guernsey.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=21756150&posted=1#post21756150

hey there starting again about the falklands! see the above thread and google
in to english

Come and 'ave a go if you think you're 'ard enough!

http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/content_image/bae_cimg_sfs_type_45_daring.jpg

Seriously, if they ever want those islands back, there going to have to hurry themselves up before our new 'stuff' is launched properly.

Edit: Wait, haven't we already had this conversation?:D

So is there gonna be a war or not?

It'd be interesting to see a conventional war for once in my life.

So is there gonna be a war or not?

It'd be interesting to see a conventional war for once in my life.

The old Chinese curse goes:
'May you live in interesting times.'

The whole point of armed forces is to deter war and to stabilize conflicts. It may seem odd that a world without armed forces would collapse into war, but armed force is a balancing force. War is a bad thing brightside. You don't want it in your life.

War is a bad thing brightside. You don't want it in your life.

:yes:

The old Chinese curse goes:
'May you live in interesting times.'

The whole point of armed forces is to deter war and to stabilize conflicts. It may seem odd that a world without armed forces would collapse into war, but armed force is a balancing force. War is a bad thing brightside. You don't want it in your life.

I know war is not fun and I apologize if I came across as wishing for a war in my last post. I am a military enthusiast and I only said it would interest me greatly if indeed Britain and Argentina went to war over the Falklands again.

The thing is, when two countries claim an area, the only viable peaceful solution seems to be to allow that area to belong to both countries. Citizens of the Falklands should have dual-nationalities, and both Argentines and Brits should be able to live/work there. However, since Britain controls all of it, why would they want to share? If the Argentines feel robbed, why should they give up their claim? This is where the problem lies and possibility of war becomes real.

Everyone feels like the position of their own country is justified and the other side is being unreasonable. I know if I was an Argentine, I'd feel the islands belonged to Argentina and if I was a Brit, I'd feel they belonged to Britain. Same story with conflicts over territory the world over.

I know war is not fun and I apologize if I came across as wishing for a war in my last post. I am a military enthusiast and I only said it would interest me greatly if indeed Britain and Argentina went to war over the Falklands again.

The thing is, when two countries claim an area, the only viable peaceful solution seems to be to allow that area to belong to both countries. Citizens of the Falklands should have dual-nationalities, and both Argentines and Brits should be able to live/work there. However, since Britain controls all of it, why would they want to share? If the Argentines feel robbed, why should they give up their claim? This is where the problem lies and possibility of war becomes real.

Everyone feels like the position of their own country is justified and the other side is being unreasonable. I know if I was an Argentine, I'd feel the islands belonged to Argentina and if I was a Brit, I'd feel they belonged to Britain. Same story with conflicts over territory the world over.

No one on the Island is from Argentina.

They can talk and whinge about it as much as they like, the Falklands will forever be British :yes:

Any further attempts to steal them from us will be met by another swift response. And seeing as nobody wants more bloodshed all they will do is talk and whinge about it and we will just keep reminding them we are ever ready to protect the Falklands if called on to do so.

It's win win really, there's never a danger of us losing our territory and they've got something they can use for any nationalistic propoganda campaigns to divert attention from whatever domestic problems they may be suffering.

here's a video especially for LOSTBOY:

VJ5Lupkvgfs&feature=related

there are a few shots of a type 45 near the end. it's a mean looking bastard.

Oh dear... wah,wah,wah

Argentina upset at Prince William's deployment to Falklands Tue Feb 3, 6:02 AM

BUENOS AIRES (AFP) - Prince William's military deployment to the Falkland Islands has reignited the festering issue of the archipelago's sovereignty, Argentina said Monday.

"This circumstance only serves to once again highlight Britain's ongoing military presence in land and sea areas that are part of the Argentine Republic's national territories," an aide to Foreign Minister Jorge Taina said.

Argentina claims ownership of the islands it calls the Malvinas.

Prince William, second in line to the throne, will be sent to the Falklands by the Royal Air Force to serve as a search and rescue pilot for a period of three months, after he completes his 18-month RAF course in 2009, Britain's Daily Telegraph said Sunday, quoting RAF News.

Britain and Argentina fought over the Falkland islands in 1982, when Argentine forces invaded the islands, prompting then-British prime minister Margaret Thatcher to deploy naval forces to retake the territory.

After a near-three month conflict in which 649 Argentines and 255 Britons were killed, Buenos Aires surrendered on June 14 but maintained its claim to the archipelago.

Prince William's uncle, Prince Andrew, took part in the military operation while serving as a helicopter pilot in the Royal Navy.

This thread again?!

*grabs popcorn*

Seriously, what the fuck is Argentina's problem? If Prince William in present in the Falkland Islands, so fucking what? It changes nothing. Goodness sake, they see everything as a threat.

I'm amazed actually at how the Spanish government reacted similarly a couple of years ago when a member of the Royal Family visited Gibraltar. The funny thing is, if the same Royal visited Spain itself it would have been great diplomatically. But visiting the British territory adjacent to Spain - oh no, that won't do.

I do wish some countries would grow the fuck up.

"This circumstance only serves to once again highlight Britain's ongoing military presence in land and sea areas that are part of the Argentine Republic's national territories," an aide to Foreign Minister Jorge Taina said.

But the Falklands are not part of your national territory. And the only reason for the massive military presence is because your country attacked without due attention to international law a community which wishes to be British, islands which have been British for hundreds of years (since before the very existence of Argentina!) and then tried to fight off clearly superior forces sent to liberate the islands. Our military presence would go overnight (it does cost a fuckload of money to maintain) if you didn't keep threatening to take the islands again.

Argentina claims ownership of the islands it calls the Malvinas.

Yeah and I claim Texas. Means diddle squat. Now fuck off to your polo field.

Oh and my final thoughts on the matter:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3429/3234503766_a30e224f8a_b.jpg

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/imagesbig/astute15.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/cvf-thales-2005-stovl-image1.jpg

:horse:

not forgetting the Eurofighters ^^

"This circumstance only serves to once again highlight Britain's ongoing military presence in land and sea areas that are part of the Argentine Republic's national territories," an aide to Foreign Minister Jorge Taina said.

Has this arrogant piece of filth stopped for a fraction of a second to consider the wishes of the islanders? I doubt it, somehow. Learn the lessons of 1982, you utter numpty.

not forgetting the Eurofighters ^^

Speaking of which, are they already there? Or are there still F3's at Mount Pleasant?

not forgetting the Eurofighters ^^

Well, they wouldn't be out there fighting a hypothetical Falklands War II - but the F-35s would be!

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-35_JSF_On_Tarmac_lg.jpg

36 of those aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Prince of Wales... heck, 10 would do.

We should just invade Argentina and be done with it.

:fiddle::|

Seriously, what the fuck is Argentina's problem?

I'm sure they don't see it as a threat. The falklands is so deep in their national psyche now and yet all they have left to fire back are words.

They know full well they blew their chance in the early 80's

the eurofighters are set to be carried on the 2 carriers arnt they? i thought they were its main load?

the eurofighters are set to be carried on the 2 carriers arnt they? i thought they were its main load?

Eurofighter aren't navalised. They can only operate from bases.

F35 STOVL variety will be the planes for the carriers.

my mistake! :)

thanks, so it will be F-35 Lightning II's?

Oh and my final thoughts on the matter:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3429/3234503766_a30e224f8a_b.jpg

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/imagesbig/astute15.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/cvf-thales-2005-stovl-image1.jpg

:horse:

HAHA, once those carriers are built i would love them to even think about commenting on those islands again!

If they invaded the falklands tomorrow... what do we think would happen back here in the UK In terms of the governments reaction..
As the country is almost near a depression and our armed forces are already over stretched in afganistan?

my mistake! :)

thanks, so it will be F-35 Lightning II's?

yup. F-35B's to replace the harrier.

my mistake! :)

thanks, so it will be F-35 Lightning II's?

Yup, the Royal Navy should be getting around 40 F-35s (to load fully one of the aircraft carriers (full load: 36 F-35s)). Should being the key word there!!

If they invaded the falklands tomorrow... what do we think would happen back here in the UK In terms of the governments reaction..
As the country is almost near a depression and our armed forces are already over stretched in afganistan?

They'd find it hard to invade these days thanks to the fairly large tri-service base maintained on the islands. Back in 1982 the islands were guarded by a mere garrison of 50 Royal Marines. I say "mere" though they still managed to hold out against the hundreds of invading Argies, only surrendering when the ammunition ran out!!

So if the Argies invaded tomorrow they'd probably be repelled. If the British military presence were over-run however, we would send in a task force to take them back. Thing is, around now is probably the best time for the Argies to try to take the islands by force, before the Type 45 destroyers, Astute SSNs and new aircraft carriers come into service! Saying that, HMS Daring could be put into full service early should it be needed to protect a task force setting off tomorrow. It is practically ready - and will be in full service this summer.

They'd find it hard to invade these days thanks to the fairly large tri-service base maintained on the islands. Back in 1982 the islands were guarded by a mere garrison of 50 Royal Marines. I say "mere" though they still managed to hold out against the hundreds of invading Argies, only surrendering when the ammunition ran out!!

So if the Argies invaded tomorrow they'd probably be repelled. If the British military presence were over-run however, we would send in a task force to take them back. Thing is, around now is probably the best time for the Argies to try to take the islands by force, before the Type 45 destroyers, Astute SSNs and new aircraft carriers come into service! Saying that, HMS Daring could be put into full service early should it be needed to protect a task force setting off tomorrow. It is practically ready - and will be in full service this summer.

I agree it is highly doubtful that they would be able to take the islands anyway, they're still using the same equipment from 25 years ago in most cases.

Plus we now have our subs equipped with Tomahawk I believe. We could take out various naval targets in Buenos Aries from 1500 miles away if necessary. Whilst attacking Argentina itself was no-go in 1982, I don't think that would apply today.

They would be mad to even try and I think they know this too. Also agree, if any attempt was to be made it would have to come in the next 10 years. Anytime after that and they may as well pull a pin out of a grenade and sit on it.

thanks for your quick response, im sure we could send the odd nuclear sub over again to shit them up!

I agree it is highly doubtful that they would be able to take the islands anyway, they're still using the same equipment from 25 years ago in most cases.

Plus we now have our subs equipped with Tomahawk I believe. We could take out various naval targets in Buenos Aries from 1500 miles away if necessary. Whilst attacking Argentina itself was no-go in 1982, I don't think that would apply today.

They would be mad to even try and I think they know this too. Also agree, if any attempt was to be made it would have to come in the next 10 years. Anytime after that and they may as well pull a pin out of a grenade and sit on it.

hahhaa! yep! good points being made!
One of the reasons why i brought that suggestion up was i dont know much about the argentinians capabilities these days, but i think you just summed it up with their lack of updated equipment for me!

On top of all that military hardware, I highly doubt that the Argies want to go another round with the modern day version of these boys again!

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00030/SNF02SPDX1_30713a.jpg

im also sure the Argies foot soldiers arent anything special that a couple of armed UAV's couldnt sort out....

I cant wait till one of the more aggressive Argentine forumers comes in insisting that the islands belong to Argentina, that they could take them back whenever they want and that their loss in the 80's was all down to french/American/Chilean help.

Yup I'm waiting for the moment too. Always a good laugh.

Argentina upset at Prince William's deployment to Falklands Tue Feb 3, 6:02 AM

BUENOS AIRES (AFP) - Prince William's military deployment to the Falkland Islands has reignited the festering issue of the archipelago's sovereignty, Argentina said Monday.

"This circumstance only serves to once again highlight Britain's ongoing military presence in land and sea areas that are part of the Argentine Republic's national territories," an aide to Foreign Minister Jorge Taina said.

Argentina claims ownership of the islands it calls the Malvinas.

Prince William, second in line to the throne, will be sent to the Falklands by the Royal Air Force to serve as a search and rescue pilot for a period of three months, after he completes his 18-month RAF course in 2009, Britain's Daily Telegraph said Sunday, quoting RAF News.

Britain and Argentina fought over the Falkland islands in 1982, when Argentine forces invaded the islands, prompting then-British prime minister Margaret Thatcher to deploy naval forces to retake the territory.

After a near-three month conflict in which 649 Argentines and 255 Britons were killed, Buenos Aires surrendered on June 14 but maintained its claim to the archipelago.

Prince William's uncle, Prince Andrew, took part in the military operation while serving as a helicopter pilot in the Royal Navy.


British Military presence on British land? Whatever next? Caramel in a chocolate bar?

The falklands problem could be a good way for us to annex Argentina. Make a half-hearted false flag assault on the Falklands, and in return we launch a land invasion of Argentina. If our deception gets found out later, we can just claim to have gone in to protect the British descendents living there. The locals might even welcome us as saviours from the communists. What do you guys reckon? Should I write in to the Queen about this idea?

On top of all that military hardware, I highly doubt that the Argies want to go another round with the modern day version of these boys again!

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00030/SNF02SPDX1_30713a.jpg

*Doffs cap*

623 Argie aircraft against 1,069 British aircraft, wonder who'd win the air battle?

Speaking of which, are they already there? Or are there still F3's at Mount Pleasant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1435_Flight_RAF

Some time in 2009.

All their aircraft date from before 1980 and nearly all of the fighters are in storage. The only thing they really have is something from 1975 which up against the Eurofighter isn't going to last long. Our two new aircraft carriers could have more fighters in the air than they'd have on the ground ready to go. That's how poorly equipped their airforce is.

The falklands problem could be a good way for us to annex Argentina. Make a half-hearted false flag assault on the Falklands, and in return we launch a land invasion of Argentina. If our deception gets found out later, we can just claim to have gone in to protect the British descendents living there. The locals might even welcome us as saviours from the communists. What do you guys reckon? Should I write in to the Queen about this idea?

I like your plan. But why stop at Argentina? once we saved Queen and county from them their neighbours would be a threat...invade them too, take all of South America. In the long run, move northwards and reclaim what is rightfully ours...the U, S of A. Good old Canada could take them in a pincer movement from the north, OZ takes them from the West.

A new Empire is born :horse:

I agree it is highly doubtful that they would be able to take the islands anyway, they're still using the same equipment from 25 years ago in most cases.

Plus we now have our subs equipped with Tomahawk I believe. We could take out various naval targets in Buenos Aries from 1500 miles away if necessary. Whilst attacking Argentina itself was no-go in 1982, I don't think that would apply today.

They would be mad to even try and I think they know this too. Also agree, if any attempt was to be made it would have to come in the next 10 years. Anytime after that and they may as well pull a pin out of a grenade and sit on it.


Yep.

And now we have the Block IV or TacTom missile.

A major improvement to the Tomahawk is its network-centric warfare-capabilities, using data from multiple sensors (aircraft, UAVs, satellites, foot soldiers, tanks, ships) to find its target. It will also be able to send data from its sensors to these platforms. It will be a part of the networked force being implemented by the Pentagon.

”Tactical Tomahawk” equips the TLAM with a TV-camera for battlefield observation loitering that allows warfighting commanders to assess damage to the target and to redirect the missile to an alternative target. Additionally the Tactical Tomahawk is able to be reprogrammed in-flight to attack one of 16 predesignated targets with GPS coordinates stored in its memory or to any other GPS coordinates. Also, the missile can send data about its status back to the commander.

http://defense-update.com/images/TacticalTomahawkRN.jpg

http://www.defense-update.com/images_new/Tomahawk_B4.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1435_Flight_RAF

Some time in 2009.

Awesome. So the Argies have until later on this year before we base Eurofighters in the Falklands and have a Type 45 destroyer in active service.

The thought of land-based Eurofighters and carrier-based F-35s in action together over the South Atlantic... :drool:

Yep.

And now we have the Block IV or TacTom missile.



Imagine the difference an asset like that would have made in 82.

Imagine the difference an asset like that would have made in 82.


yep... as the war would never have started!

Some have said the war need not have started in 82, it just helped to relect an unpopular Prime Minister.

Not my words I must add :)

HAHA, once those carriers are built i would love them to even think about commenting on those islands again!

So, if the Argentines bought some bigger and better aircraft carriers themselves, then they should have the islands?

Some have said the war need not have started in 82, it just helped to relect an unpopular Prime Minister.

Not my words I must add :)

Well I don't know if these people have realised, but we didn't start the war, so unless the Argies were planning to lose the war and help re-elect Thatcher in Britain... :nuts:

Anyway, thank goodness she did win in '83. The alternative would have been a total and utter and complete disaster.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39473000/jpg/_39473493_foot203.jpg

:runaway:

So, if the Argentines bought some bigger and better aircraft carriers themselves, then they should have the islands?

Possibly. Yes, why not?

Can they build these bigger and better aircraft carriers? No.

Do they have the money to buy these bigger and better aircraft carriers? No.

Would any country who can build such carriers want to export them to Argentina? No.

Ditto for nuclear attack submarines (SSNs). The Argentine Navy consists almost entirely of second-hand foreign ships. In '82 they were fighting us with ex-Royal Navy ships FFS!

:banana:

Some have said the war need not have started in 82, it just helped to relect an unpopular Prime Minister.

Not my words I must add :)

apparantly thatcher was in the process of discussion on some decleration to hand over the falklands, and the war was just a political boost for her?

So, if the Argentines bought some bigger and better aircraft carriers themselves, then they should have the islands?

yes because thats what i said???:ohno:

I'm sure the Royal Marines only surrendered when they were ordered to by the Governor on the islands.

That being said, we'd probably have to wait until 2015 or 2018 for them to invade just so that the carriers we're building are actually operational.

One or two T45's could negate the air threat aswell as the Typhoons or F3's that are actually based there.

If there was to be a repeat performance around the 2018 mark, then the carriers wouldn't actually be needed would they? Troop transport could be done with Bulwark and Albion, aswell as Ocean.

Perhaps the carriers would be better off as a helicopter platform in this situation :dunno:

One or two T45's could negate the air threat aswell as the Typhoons or F3's that are actually based there.

If there was to be a repeat performance around the 2018 mark, then the carriers wouldn't actually be needed would they? Troop transport could be done with Bulwark and Albion, aswell as Ocean.

Perhaps the carriers would be better off as a helicopter platform in this situation :dunno:

Would be nice to station a carrier some 300 miles from the falklands and let wave after wave of F35's fly in just in case.

Possibly. Yes, why not?


Well I was exploring your might is right hypothesis. That was the assumption of India when it annexed Goa from the Portuguese. Which was the inspiration of the Argentines. The Goan population didn't want to be part of India either but they're not complaining now. Nor would the tiny Falkland population, who would not have been badly treated. The annexation was bloodless as was the Argentine absorption of the Falklands, well almost. The 1,000 deaths were a result of the UK belatedly deciding to retake it.

The Argentine government fucked up because if they'd held tight, they would have their beloved islands back by now. It was their pre-emption that caused the problem. The merits of their claim are as valid (or invalid) as they ever were. Before the war, Britain wanted to hand them over. Only political considerations led to the silly war down there. As it happened, the Ag junta were fuckwits for preemting the situation but there are plenty of precedents for what they did (Britain excelled at it for two centuries - always an excuse to snaffle the next colony, which is what lead to la disputa Malvinas of course). But the rights and wrongs of the situation are moot when one party in an argument has a bigger navy you think.

Let us hope that, in fifty years time, China doesn't fancy Kent for examplt. Nice pears there I hear.

Would be nice to station a carrier some 300 miles from the falklands and let wave after wave of F35's fly in just in case.

I'd prefer to station it 30 miles off Argentinas coast :lol:

I'd prefer to station it 30 miles off Argentinas coast :lol:

Yeah but it'd be in harms way then.

Keep it well out of danger and have the birds fly in and sort every fucker out! :lol:

I cant wait till one of the more aggressive Argentine forumers comes in insisting that the islands belong to Argentina, that they could take them back whenever they want and that their loss in the 80's was all down to french/American/Chilean help.

Yup I'm waiting for the moment too. Always a good laugh.

If you go to the Argie forum you'll notice that there isn't a thread that is 37 pages long and gets revived every couple of months with hostile comments.

If you go to the Argie forum you'll notice that there isn't a thread that is 37 pages long and gets revived every couple of months with hostile comments.

It was revived by me because of hostile comments made by the Argentine foreign minister. Perfectly acceptable reason for doing so.

the real thing is the antarctic claim