Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/1121577/

Topic: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Derico
Posted 2006-02-20 18:37:23 and read 5334 times.

Breaking news!

This certainly is some good comic relief from the periodical Falklands 'bluster' topics here at A.net...

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2006/02/20/um/m-01145373.htm

The ship did not resist, apperently, and now is on toe headed for the port of Comodoro Rivadavia.

In these days of GPS, the 'my dog at the map' excuse won't work too well  Wink

Will London come out and officialy claim Argentine waters as British? Or maybe say 'our mistake'? Probably neither, in a fine show or respect  blockhead 

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: ANCFlyer
Posted 2006-02-20 18:44:57 and read 5319 times.

Not this shit again??

You want to translate the article? Or tell me if this is a decent interpretation:

If I'm reading it right, the ship, the John Cheek with 31 people aboard strayed 2 miles inside the 200 mile limit???

Bravo for the Argentine Navy . . . they seized a 53 meter long ship two miles the wrong side of the imaginary line . . . whoo hoo . . . what an INVASION. And now that ship is cooperating and heading to an Argentine port???

Say, you never did answer me in the other thread when I asked if Argentina had ever replaced the General Belgrano . . . you know, the Cruiser the Brits sent to the bottom of the Atlantic . . .

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Aloges
Posted 2006-02-20 18:47:51 and read 5314 times.

 redflag   redflag   redflag   redflag 

and one more  redflag 

It was a fishing vessel that, as the image you posted suggests, "invaded" the Argentine Exclusive Economic Zone maybe two or three miles deep. The EEZ does not equal territorial waters, so Argentina was not "invaded" by the evil, evil British fishing vessel. Though I can see why you're so worried about a fishing vessel; considering the outcome of the last war that your country started, anything qualifies as a threat to Argentina's forces.

and one for the road:  redflag 

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Banco
Posted 2006-02-20 18:56:53 and read 5286 times.

Whilst we're on this subject, I have a confession to make:

A few years ago, acting on the instructions of the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, I undertook a secret mission to invade Buenos aires. under cover of wandering around the city and doing such devious, devilish things as going into bars, eating in restaurants and generally acting as a tourist, I secretly planned for an invasion of the country by British forces in 2007.

My cover was impeccable. Had you been watching me 24 hours a day, you'd never have been able to tell I wasn't a tourist.

Who'd have thought it, eh?  Yeah sure

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: YOWza
Posted 2006-02-20 19:07:06 and read 5247 times.

Hopefully we see another England vs Argentina clash in the world cup this year. It could very well happen. If it does maybe the winner of the game should get the Falklands.

YOWza

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: GDB
Posted 2006-02-20 19:20:30 and read 5228 times.

So crack is now cheaper in Argentina?

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Slider
Posted 2006-02-20 19:26:27 and read 5215 times.

Quoting YOWza (Reply 4):
Hopefully we see another England vs Argentina clash in the world cup this year. It could very well happen. If it does maybe the winner of the game should get the Falklands

LOL!

Yeah, play for the proverbial "pink slips!"

That's high stakes soccer...wow.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Cfalk
Posted 2006-02-20 20:05:09 and read 5168 times.

Quoting Derico (Thread starter):
The ship did not resist, apperently, and now is on toe headed for the port of Comodoro Rivadavia.

Right. As if your everyday fishing boat carries Harpoon missiles. The most resistance it could offer was bad language, and I'm sure the Argentinian crew recieved a couple of barrels' worth.

Three cheers for the brave Argentinian Navy for a great victory over... a fishing boat.  crackup 

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: ANCFlyer
Posted 2006-02-20 20:10:03 and read 5161 times.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 7):
Three cheers for the brave Argentinian Navy for a great victory over... a fishing boat

BwaaaHaaaHaaaa . . . whoo Hoo . . .

We got us a fishin' boat!!! Lookie here!!! Salute!!!

 sarcastic 

Great Victory Argentina . . .

Quoting Banco (Reply 3):
cover was impeccable. Had you been watching me 24 hours a day, you'd never have been able to tell I wasn't a tourist.

You sneaky bastad you . . .  laughing 


Hey, any word on the Gen. Belgrano ????

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11junkie
Posted 2006-02-20 20:15:58 and read 5150 times.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
Not this shit again??

You want to translate the article? Or tell me if this is a decent interpretation:

If I'm reading it right, the ship, the John Cheek with 31 people aboard strayed 2 miles inside the 200 mile limit???

Say, would you happen to feel the same way if a ship was caught fishing illegally in your territorial waters, out of YOUR resources? Bravo to the US Coast Guards?  Yeah sure

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
Bravo for the Argentine Navy . . .

It was not the Navy, it was Argentine Coast Guards.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
So crack is now cheaper in Argentina?

Yes, apparently you've been on some.  Wink

Cheers! wave 
Gastón - The MD11 Junkie

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11junkie
Posted 2006-02-20 20:18:11 and read 5150 times.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8):
Hey, any word on the Gen. Belgrano ????

ANC, please knock it off with that. You have NO idea how offensive that is. I'm asking you with all due respect. You're trying to pass it as a joke, and it is not slightly funny

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Boeing7E7
Posted 2006-02-20 20:19:11 and read 5144 times.

Quoting Derico (Thread starter):
This certainly is some good comic relief from the periodical Falklands 'bluster' topics here at A.net...

WHO CARES!

Laugh it up and move on. It's not like it was China with a nuke sub.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Francoflier
Posted 2006-02-20 20:36:49 and read 5120 times.

Y'all laughing and all, but few people really have an idea of how much that Falklands crap is still right in the throat of MANY Argentinians (Argentines?)...

I remember one of my type rating ground school was given by a pilot from Argentina, a former military pilot, to make matters worse.

Program of day 1: The Falklands war and how unfair its outcome was considering the SUPERIORITY of the Argentinian forces & aircraft generalities.

And now the irony of it all: He is an instructor on a BAe aircraft...!!

A lot of hurt national pride for a piece of rock and a couple of pinguins if you ask me.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Usnseallt82
Posted 2006-02-20 20:44:56 and read 5111 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 9):
Say, would you happen to feel the same way if a ship was caught fishing illegally in your territorial waters, out of YOUR resources? Bravo to the US Coast Guards?

Nope. Happens all the time here.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 9):
It was not the Navy, it was Argentine Coast Guards

In case you haven't researched much lately, there's not much difference between the two.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 10):
ANC, please knock it off with that. You have NO idea how offensive that is. I'm asking you with all due respect. You're trying to pass it as a joke, and it is not slightly funny

Aren't you the same guy who finds it necessary to take pictures of your face 3 inches away from the camera and post them all over this site? I can't tell you how offensive that is..........I'm asking you with all due respect for humanity.........you're trying to pass it as a joke, and it is not slightly funny.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: EGGD
Posted 2006-02-20 20:47:32 and read 5106 times.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 12):
Y'all laughing and all, but few people really have an idea of how much that Falklands crap is still right in the throat of MANY Argentinians (Argentines?)...

Well I know that it's in the throat of one Argentinian for sure  thumbsup 

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11junkie
Posted 2006-02-20 20:49:50 and read 5097 times.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 13):
In case you haven't researched much lately, there's not much difference between the two.

Well, that might be in your country not here. They are TWO different institutions.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 13):
Aren't you the same guy who finds it necessary to take pictures of your face 3 inches away from the camera and post them all over this site? I can't tell you how offensive that is..........I'm asking you with all due respect for humanity.........you're trying to pass it as a joke, and it is not slightly funny.

Then don't look at them if they offend you. And what's this gotta do with this? Seriously, you need to get help.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Usnseallt82
Posted 2006-02-20 20:56:53 and read 5083 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 15):
Well, that might be in your country not here. They are TWO different institutions.

Then you really haven't done your research if you think the USCG and the USN are the same.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 15):
Then don't look at them if they offend you. And what's this gotta do with this? Seriously, you need to get help.

Don't look at his post if it offends you..........that's what it has to do with this thread.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2006-02-20 20:59:54 and read 5082 times.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8):
Hey, any word on the Gen. Belgrano ????

ANC, you know we get along fairly well, and I do apreciate your input on this forum, but this time I agree with Gaston. The sinking of the Belgrano is a big issue here. It's like saying "any news on the WTC"? (with obvious differences and I think I don't need to explain how I feel about 9/11. ). Let's keep the forum with respect Big grin

regards  Smile

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11junkie
Posted 2006-02-20 21:01:30 and read 5078 times.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 16):
Don't look at his post if it offends you..........that's what it has to do with this thread.

What does ARA General Belgrano have to do with this thread?  Yeah sure

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 16):
Then you really haven't done your research if you think the USCG and the USN are the same.

I never mentioned the US Navy. Guess you didn't read.  Yeah sure

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Usnseallt82
Posted 2006-02-20 21:05:46 and read 5071 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 18):
I never mentioned the US Navy. Guess you didn't read.

I think you're having some problems here, so let me help you....

You said...

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 15):
Well, that might be in your country not here. They are TWO different institutions.

In response to...

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 13):
In case you haven't researched much lately, there's not much difference between the two.

Which was in response to...

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 9):
It was not the Navy, it was Argentine Coast Guards.

In case you can't see very well, I'm from the United States. You said that it might be that way in my country, which means you're talking about the United States Navy and the United States Coast Guard.

If you need some more help, let me know.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Aloges
Posted 2006-02-20 21:08:21 and read 5068 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 15):
Then don't look at them if they offend you.

Pot, kettle, black.  Wink

Derico started a thread to stir up some... err, "residues". We played and called him out on hyping up a totally mundane irrelevant incident. So where's the problem?

As for the Belgrano jokes: Do you have any idea how many jokes the British crack about Germany? The best way to deal with it is to get over it. The UK won and got the islands back.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: L-188
Posted 2006-02-20 21:09:40 and read 5068 times.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 12):
Program of day 1: The Falklands war and how unfair its outcome was considering the SUPERIORITY of the Argentinian forces & aircraft generalities.

Sorry but that is ego talking.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8):
Hey, any word on the Gen. Belgrano ????

Low blow. Did you know realize that boat was a Pearl Harbor survivor? That being said, the attempts by the families to try and get the sinking of the boat classified as a "War Crime" is BS. But those guys really don't need to be made a joke of either.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 9):
Say, would you happen to feel the same way if a ship was caught fishing illegally in your territorial waters, out of YOUR resources? Bravo to the US Coast Guards?

Happens quite a bit up here. One of the big critisms of moving the USCG to DHS was the worry that the fisheries protection mission would be given a lesser priority...in many ways that has come to pass.

Also there have been a few cases in Dixon Entrance where the CDN-CG has tried and move the fishing boundary on US fishermen too. This was particularly common during the 1996 AK-BC salmon war.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argent
Username: MD11junkie
Posted 2006-02-20 21:10:32 and read 5055 times.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 19):
In case you can't see very well, I'm from the United States. You said that it might be that way in my country, which means you're talking about the United States Navy and the United States Coast Guard.

Of course. Because you suggested there was no difference between the Argentine Navy and Coast Guard.

There is a difference between each other, here in Argentina.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Usnseallt82
Posted 2006-02-20 21:10:47 and read 5055 times.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 20):
Do you have any idea how many jokes the British crack about Germany? The best way to deal with it is to get over it.

Spot on.  checkmark  yes 

And do you know how many jokes 99% of the world cracks about us? If I got mad at each one, I'd shat all over myself on a daily basis.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: ANCFlyer
Posted 2006-02-20 21:13:09 and read 5044 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 9):
Say, would you happen to feel the same way if a ship was caught fishing illegally in your territorial waters, out of YOUR resources? Bravo to the US Coast Guards?

Yup, it's a damn fishing boat, not an invasion - and yes, we get them ALL the time . . . particularly from Japan and Russia . . . we don't escort them anywhere, we send them out to International waters . . . . next???? We don't seize them, unless there are drugs or other actions not associated with fishing involved . . . rarely, very damned rarely do we escort a ship back to an Alaskan port . . . navigation isn't perfect.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 10):
NC, please knock it off with that. You have NO idea how offensive that is. I'm asking you with all due respect.

OK, deal. No offense to you Gaston . . . all respect intended.

Derico's commentary in other threads speaks volumes about this chip he maintains on his shoulder, and anything insulting is directed solely at his attitude. Certainly not at you Gaston . . .

In the big scheme of things, it was a fishing boat, a couple miles on the wrong side of an imaginary line . . . . even here, the US COast Guard just escorts them to the "right" side of said imaginary line . . . .

What's the big deal . . . I have a theory . . . some Argentines are still bristling at the pasting the Royal Navy gave them . . . and in some cases it might be warranted, in most cases it is not.

Derico's chip is evident . . . his thread title is bullshit. He earned the replies he got here . . .

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 17):
ANC, you know we get along fairly well, and I do apreciate your input on this forum, but this time I agree with Gaston.

I didn't realize the impact. You have my apologies EZEIZA . . . I shall not bring it up again . . .

[Edited 2006-02-20 21:14:52]

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Usnseallt82
Posted 2006-02-20 21:14:02 and read 5044 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 22):
There is a difference between each other, here in Argentina.

So which is it? Argentina or Portugal? I like to have an idea about who I'm talking to without them hiding behind something that's false.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Gman94
Posted 2006-02-20 21:14:35 and read 5044 times.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 17):
ANC, you know we get along fairly well, and I do apreciate your input on this forum, but this time I agree with Gaston. The sinking of the Belgrano is a big issue here. It's like saying "any news on the WTC"?

Sorry wheres the issue, we were at war with Argentina, we sunk an Argentinian navy ship. Big deal, war is a dirty business, do you hear us crying about the HMS Sheffield?

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11junkie
Posted 2006-02-20 21:15:19 and read 5027 times.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 20):
As for the Belgrano jokes: Do you have any idea how many jokes the British crack about Germany? The best way to deal with it is to get over it. The UK won and got the islands back.

Aloges, this was an English (or British) Submarine sinking an Argentine boat outside conflict waters. It did hurt, and the wound is still opened. Are you going to say the same about the jews and the holocaust? Get over it?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 21):
Low blow. Did you know realize that boat was a Pearl Harbor survivor? That being said, the attempts by the families to try and get the sinking of the boat classified as a "War Crime" is BS. But those guys really don't need to be made a joke of either.

Thank you for your fine replies, L-188.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Banco
Posted 2006-02-20 21:15:45 and read 5027 times.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 20):
As for the Belgrano jokes: Do you have any idea how many jokes the British crack about Germany?

Mmmm. The Belgrano hasn't really been the subject of too many jokes in the UK. We remember the Sheffield, Coventry, Atlantic Conveyor, Ardent, Antelope and Sir Galahad.

The Falklands was a nasty little war.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2006-02-20 21:19:42 and read 5020 times.

Quoting Gman94 (Reply 26):
Sorry wheres the issue, we were at war with Argentina, we sunk an Argentinian navy ship. Big deal, war is a dirty business, do you hear us crying about the HMS Sheffield?

Do you hear anyone cracking jokes about it? Come on, let's keep it civilized. It has been posted several times that the Blegrano is a sensitive issue, regardless of if its justified or not, so do we really have to go there?

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 24):
I didn't realize the impact. You have my apologies EZEIZA . . . I shall not bring it up again . . .

No problem. Always good talking to you  Smile

regards  Smile

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: A319XFW
Posted 2006-02-20 21:21:46 and read 5007 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 27):
Are you going to say the same about the jews and the holocaust? Get over it?

The Jews in Germany were German citizens and some even fought for Germany in WW1. Comparing mass genocide to the sinking of an enemy warship is plain ignorant to what happened under the Nazis.

[Edited 2006-02-20 21:24:46]

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: L-188
Posted 2006-02-20 21:23:59 and read 5007 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 27):
Aloges, this was an English (or British) Submarine sinking an Argentine boat outside conflict waters.

Actually it was outside the EEZ that the British had declared around the islands. But what are really conflict waters? I don't think anybody ever decided that the exclusion zone translated into a declared field of battle. I would go so far as to agree with the European Human Rights court hen they threw out that human rights lawsuit against the RN filed by the Belgrano families.


Actually it always surprised me that the RN never really made any attempts to hit the mainland bases that where providing air support for the islands.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11junkie
Posted 2006-02-20 21:25:05 and read 4998 times.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 24):
OK, deal. No offense to you Gaston . . . all respect intended.

THANK YOU very much.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 25):
So which is it? Argentina or Portugal? I like to have an idea about who I'm talking to without them hiding behind something that's false.

When someone makes a point and you have no other way back other than admitting, you attack something else? It's Argentina, just so you know.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 24):
We don't seize them, unless there are drugs or other actions not associated with fishing involved . . . rarely, very damned rarely do we escort a ship back to an Alaskan port . . . navigation isn't perfect.

We do seize them, temporarily that is. We take back all the things that came from the Argentine Sea, fine the company that owns the ship and then its released back -- that's what Newspapers DO NOT tell. Thank you for your explanation, ANC.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argent
Username: Aloges
Posted 2006-02-20 21:26:17 and read 4998 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 27):
Aloges, this was an English (or British) Submarine sinking an Argentine boat outside conflict waters.

"Outside conflict waters"? As far as I know, the Belgrano was transporting troops to the Falklands. That's about as involved in a war as a warship can be, short of firing rounds. Argentina started the war, so the Argentine Navy should not have wondered if British subs would try to sink its ships.

Edit: Wikipedia doesn't say the Belgrano was carrying troops, but patrolling. However, ANCFlyer has apologised and maybe it's best to let the Belgrano issue and of course the victims rest in peace.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 27):
It did hurt, and the wound is still opened.

I see. Dresden did hurt, too. Hamburg, Hannover, Pforzheim, Berlin hurt. And the people killed in those cities were civilians, many civilians. Yet we got over it, and the British donated the cross for the church in Dresden (Frauenkirche) that was rebuilt as a sign of overcoming the past.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 27):
Are you going to say the same about the jews and the holocaust? Get over it?

The sinking of a warship during a war cannot be compared to the Shoa. Period.

[Edited 2006-02-20 21:31:40]

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Banco
Posted 2006-02-20 21:29:38 and read 4984 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 31):
Actually it always surprised me that the RN never really made any attempts to hit the mainland bases that where providing air support for the islands.

It was considered, but felt to be politically disastrous. Hitting Argentina itself would have removed the moral high ground the British were maintaining.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 31):
Actually it was outside the EEZ that the British had declared around the islands.

The British reserved the right to take action against any vessel felt to be a threat, regardless of location.

The Belgrano, with guns of a higher calibre than anything possessed by the task force, was unquestionably a threat. The position and the direction of sailing was immaterial. Ships have been known to turn around.

Having said all of that, the Belgrano's sinking was nothing short of a tragedy, no matter how militarily justifiable it might have been.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: ANCFlyer
Posted 2006-02-20 21:30:36 and read 4974 times.

So, Gaston, what will be - in your opinion - the end result with this wayward fishing vessel . . . the one Derico contends is invading Argentina . . .

Surely you see the hillarity of his thread title?

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Usnseallt82
Posted 2006-02-20 21:32:40 and read 4974 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 32):
When someone makes a point and you have no other way back other than admitting, you attack something else? It's Argentina, just so you know.

You're kidding me, right? You didn't even acknowledge the fact that you contradicted yourself in your own posts. You WERE talking about the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, then denied it, then didn't answer when I re-posted what you said.

Please, buddy......I'd like to try to understand where you're coming from, but if you respond like this, you don't make yourself look very good.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: L-188
Posted 2006-02-20 21:34:06 and read 4964 times.

Here is a picture of CL-46 the USS Phoenix Later the Belgrano. Photo was taken on 12/7/41, I don't think you need to be told where.

BBC on the anniversary had an interesting piece where they tracked down some American vets who where on board that day, and most of them had some very hard anti-british feelings when they boat was suck 40 years later. I tried looking for it but I didn't find it.



Quoting Aloges (Reply 33):
As far as I know, the Belgrano was transporting troops to the Falklands. That's about as involved in a war as a warship can be, short of firing rounds.

That is pretty much my opinon on the matter too. See my early comment about the EEZ.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 32):
We take back all the things that came from the Argentine Sea, fine the company that owns the ship and then its released back -- that's what Newspapers DO NOT tell.

Ditto up here. USCG usually escorts a couple of vessels into Kodiak a year. A few of them run and there is a lot of footage of these boats running and the crewmen dumping fish into the ocean.....presumably it is illegally caught.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: L-188
Posted 2006-02-20 21:38:25 and read 4957 times.

Quoting Banco (Reply 34):
Having said all of that, the Belgrano's sinking was nothing short of a tragedy

War is period.

Which is why I can't give any other special consideration to this sinking then I would give any other acts of war between one combat vessel and another.

Quoting Banco (Reply 34):
It was considered, but felt to be politically disastrous. Hitting Argentina itself would have removed the moral high ground the British were maintaining.

And men died because of that decision. The British pretty much shut down the Argentinan navy after sinking the Belgrano. They didn't leave port. Seems that if they had hit the bases the A-4's and Entards where flying from, they may have stayed home too.....at least more of them would have to provide air support.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: BHXFAOTIPYYC
Posted 2006-02-20 21:44:41 and read 4943 times.

I'm sure that the vast majority of Argentinians couldn't give a damn about the Falklands, just as the majority of Spaniards couldn't give a damn about Gibraltar UNTIL someone has to get the big wooden spoon out and stir it all up. I don't believe for a minute that this is a matter of Argentinian pride, but if they do lie awake at night lamenting the Falklands then maybe they should try to be nice to the Falkland Islanders for a couple of decades, instead of crap like forcing a fishing boat to travel to an Argie port, or the usual sabre rattling and veiled threats. Until the day the Falklanders or Gibraltarians no longer wish to be British this is a non issue.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Banco
Posted 2006-02-20 21:47:36 and read 4934 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 38):
War is period.

Which is why I can't give any other special consideration to this sinking then I would give any other acts of war between one combat vessel and another.

Certainly true. But the lack of preparedness on the ship (she wasn't even zig-zagging), and the poor level of training of large numbers of conscripts that resulted in such a high level of casualties. Whilst the war itself was close run thing due to the British operating so far from base, the contact between a WWII cruiser and a nuclear submarine that it wasn't even aware was present was a total mismatch.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 38):
And men died because of that decision. The British pretty much shut down the Argentinan navy after sinking the Belgrano. They didn't leave port. Seems that if they had hit the bases the A-4's and Entards where flying from, they may have stayed home too.....

Don't forget that the British were very limited in terms of air operations. they absolutely couldn't afford to lose assets. In order to attack the mainland, a carrier would have had to get reasonably close to the coast. Lose a carrier, lose the war. Although the political ramifications of attacking the mainland meant that the plan was a non-starter, it would have been an incredibly risky undertaking anyway.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11junkie
Posted 2006-02-20 21:49:56 and read 4930 times.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 33):
The sinking of a warship during a war cannot be compared to the Shoa. Period.

Yes, I acknowledge that, it was a stupid comparison. My apologies.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 35):
So, Gaston, what will be - in your opinion - the end result with this wayward fishing vessel . . . the one Derico contends is invading Argentina . . .

Nothing will come out of it, Clarin [the newspaper] is making much big of a deal than it really is for the government. This will not be exploited for political purposes, this is something that goes alongside with the policies of protecting the fauna in the Argentine Sea. There are several incursions a day, but they all result in the ships leaving the limit area. They are trying to touch a nerve here, by remarking that this as some "victory", because the vessel was British. Plain stupid from the article writer, if you'd ask me.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 35):
Surely you see the hillarity of his thread title?

Yes I do. And, no offense Derico -- but I think you overworked it a little.  Wink

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 36):
Please, buddy......I'd like to try to understand where you're coming from, but if you respond like this, you don't make yourself look very good.

Sorry man, heat of the moment. I apologize.

Quoting Banco (Reply 34):
The Belgrano, with guns of a higher calibre than anything possessed by the task force, was unquestionably a threat.

Good point. But, I've seen in a NatGeo documentary, that many British didn't feel as victorious as the Excelsior's crew did -- is that true?

Quoting Banco (Reply 34):
Having said all of that, the Belgrano's sinking was nothing short of a tragedy, no matter how militarily justifiable it might have been.

 checkmark 

Quoting L-188 (Reply 37):

Ain't she beautiful?  Smile L-188, if you can get a link for the BBC documentary, please let me know. Thank you.

Cheers! wave 
Gastón - The MD11 Junkie

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Banco
Posted 2006-02-20 21:54:37 and read 4922 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 41):
that many British didn't feel as victorious as the Excelsior's crew did -- is that true?

I can remember it well. There was the initial jubilation ("Gotcha" - the infamous Sun headline) but pretty quickly the reaction was one of horror. And of course just a few days later the Sheffield was hit.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2006-02-20 21:56:01 and read 4922 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 31):
Actually it was outside the EEZ that the British had declared around the islands. But what are really conflict waters? I don't think anybody ever decided that the exclusion zone translated into a declared field of battle. I would go so far as to agree with the European Human Rights court hen they threw out that human rights lawsuit against the RN filed by the Belgrano families.



Quoting Aloges (Reply 33):

"Outside conflict waters"? As far as I know, the Belgrano was transporting troops to the Falklands. That's about as involved in a war as a warship can be, short of firing rounds. Argentina started the war, so the Argentine Navy should not have wondered if British subs would try to sink its ships.

Edit: Wikipedia doesn't say the Belgrano was carrying troops, but patrolling. However, ANCFlyer has apologised and maybe it's best to let the Belgrano issue and of course the victims rest in peace.

To add a bit more info on the subject.

The Belgrano combat group was outside the exclusion zone at the time of the attack, but it had turned onto a heading that would have put it into striking distance of the main British taskforce within a few days.

Conquerer had the fleet under survellience constantly and reported this change of direction back to London. The new course would have taken the Belgrano into shallow waters, thus forcing the submarine to take a different route, dropping survellience while it was doing so.

It could not be determined if the submarine could reestablish contact with the Argentinian combat fleet before they became an unequivocable threat to the British taskforce, so the decision to sink her had to be made before the Belgrano entered the shallow waters.

It was made, and she was sunk, heading toward the British taskforce.

It was outisde the exclusion zone, but this zone was not legally binding and observed as a matter of course by the British commanders. It was in no means a 'safe' zone. The reason so many brave crew died was because the escort ships fled the scene, frightened of another strike.

Arguably that strike saved more lives than it ended, as it caused the Argentinian navy to stay at home for the rest of the conflict, ending the threat of further sinkings by Conquerer.

There are many things that various groups have tried to take to court, the most recent being that the British taskforce was dispatched carrying nuclear weapons (even tho they were offloaded to another ship en route, there was simply no time to offload them in port and take them to a secure location, so they were transfered to another ship).

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Cfalk
Posted 2006-02-20 22:01:33 and read 4908 times.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 12):
The Falklands war and how unfair its outcome was considering the SUPERIORITY of the Argentinian forces & aircraft generalities.

Which just goes to show that British troops, ships and planes were superior in the most important aspect: TRAINING. They kicked ass. Argentina should take the lesson in humility and forget about the Falklands, unless they want to go up against the UK again.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 38):
Which is why I can't give any other special consideration to this sinking then I would give any other acts of war between one combat vessel and another.

That's right. War is all about killing as many of the enemy as you can until he screams for mercy. Restraint just prolongs the war, and in the end creates more casualties.

If your potential enemies know that that is your operating philosophy of war, then they will be much less likely to screw with you. Do you think that Iran would thumb its nose at the rest of the world if they thought that anyone might respond without any restraint?

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Usnseallt82
Posted 2006-02-20 22:05:39 and read 4903 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 41):
Sorry man, heat of the moment. I apologize.

No problem at all. At least you have the balls to apologize, while Derico keeps stirring stuff up.  Big grin

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Aloges
Posted 2006-02-20 22:06:16 and read 4903 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 41):
Yes, I acknowledge that, it was a stupid comparison. My apologies.

So many sensible people on tonight... Big grin If only it were always like that.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2006-02-20 22:08:52 and read 4896 times.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 44):
War is all about killing as many of the enemy as you can until he screams for mercy.

Actually, a properly fought war is precisely about none fatal casualties. If you kill an enemy soldier, you might enrage his friends and if you kill enough then they might give in, but if you wound an enemy soldier, you now force your enemy to expend resources on caring for that soldier which means people, medical supplies, time. Eventually, they have no more ability to do so.

A filled up hospital is more likely to demoralise than a filled up cemetary.

One of the reasons the NATO assault rifle round calibre is set at 5.56mm, less killing power and more chance of an injury.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: WhiteHatter
Posted 2006-02-20 22:29:30 and read 4865 times.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 44):
That's right. War is all about killing as many of the enemy as you can until he screams for mercy. Restraint just prolongs the war, and in the end creates more casualties.

There has been considerable speculation about just how seriously Thatcher took the Cordoba option.

It was definitely a tactic which many on the hard right were in favour of, but Thatcher didn't want to go down as the second leader in history to authorise use of nuclear weapons. The eventual release of Cabinet papers should show just how serious the proposal became.

Quoting Derico (Thread starter):
The ship did not resist, apperently, and now is on toe headed for the port of Comodoro Rivadavia.

how typically British to hold your hands up and allow justice to take its course then. You should take note of the lesson, which is admitting that taking other peoples' property is wrong.

It might have averted a nasty little war you lost 20 or so years ago.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Prebennorholm
Posted 2006-02-20 22:51:29 and read 4838 times.

A fishing boat seen 2 miles inside the 200 limit...!

There must be at least half a dozen embassies which need to be set ablaze somewhere...  expressionless 

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: LVZXV
Posted 2006-02-20 22:56:00 and read 4836 times.

A pretty sickening thread to which I will only contribute a necessary correction:

The Belgrano was carrying 1,093 sailors, not troops. The Belgrano was a cruiser, not a troop carrier.

What I find most horrific about the attack of May 2 was the Royal Navy were prepared to wipe out almost 1,100 lives. Had it not been for relatively "successful" evacuation (insofar as over 750 lives were saved), I doubt Britain would have got off so lightly...

Finally, there are two reasons why even The Economist argued the sinking constituted a war crime:

1. HMS Conqueror never bothered to pick-up any survivors. That the Argentine destroyers Piedrabuena and Hipólito Bouchard chased the sub after the attack and showered it with Hedgehog depth charges has never been fully proven. Considering that it took them so long to arrive at the scene, it is more probable that, as a reliable Anglo-Argentine source alleged, both were sitting in the port of Ushuaia during the attack.

2. The big faux pas, the Conqueror's flying of the Jolly Roger flag upon her return to base in Faslane. Am I the only one who remembers that it was Royal Navy tradition to sink any ship that flew that flag in situ?

Goes to show the English for what they are: a bunch of PIRATES.

Saludos,

ZXV

[Edited 2006-02-20 22:56:45]

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: ANCFlyer
Posted 2006-02-20 23:04:47 and read 4818 times.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 49):
A fishing boat seen 2 miles inside the 200 limit...!

There must be at least half a dozen embassies which need to be set ablaze somewhere...

I believe this to be one of the best posts in the thread . . . .Derico, I hope you're reading this!

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 50):
The Belgrano was a cruiser, not a troop carrier.

A ship of war, in war, Hence a target in war . . .

Your post is no different than Derico's. .. someone still has a chip on their shoulder. . .

I have a great deal of resect for members here, EZEIZA as example . . . but to say that this was anything but a casualty of war is preposterous . . . moreso since Argentina arbitrarily began the conflict and had their asses handed to them.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 50):
Goes to show the English for what they are: a bunch of PIRATES.

Allow me:  redflag  redflag 

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Gman94
Posted 2006-02-20 23:08:15 and read 4811 times.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 50):
A pretty sickening thread

One which one of your fellow countrymen started for dubious reasons.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 50):
The Belgrano was carrying 1,093 sailors, not troops. The Belgrano was a cruiser, not a troop carrier.

What I find most horrific about the attack of May 2 was the Royal Navy were prepared to wipe out almost 1,100 lives. Had it not been for relatively "successful" evacuation (insofar as over 750 lives were saved), I doubt Britain would have got off so lightly...

Finally, there are two reasons why even The Economist argued the sinking constituted a war crime:

1. HMS Conqueror never bothered to pick-up any survivors. That the Argentine destroyers Piedrabuena and Hipólito Bouchard chased the sub after the attack and showered it with Hedgehog depth charges has never been fully proven. Considering that it took them so long to arrive at the scene, it is more probable that, as a reliable Anglo-Argentine source alleged, both were sitting in the port of Ushuaia during the attack.

2. The big faux pas, the Conqueror's flying of the Jolly Roger flag upon her return to base in Faslane. Am I the only one who remembers that it was Royal Navy tradition to sink any ship that flew that flag in situ?

Goes to show the English for what they are: a bunch of PIRATES.

Saludos,

I really don't know why this is so hard for Argentinians to grasp. We were at war with your country, we sunk one of your Navy's warships. The loss of life is a tragedy but not a war crime.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 50):
Goes to show the English for what they are: a bunch of PIRATES.

Interesting, there is so much I would like to say but I don't fancy a ban at this time.

[Edited 2006-02-20 23:12:37]

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: EGGD
Posted 2006-02-20 23:10:46 and read 4802 times.

Wait!

Make that, TWO Argentinians.  bigthumbsup 

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2006-02-20 23:14:09 and read 4795 times.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 50):
Finally, there are two reasons why even The Economist argued the sinking constituted a war crime:

1. HMS Conqueror never bothered to pick-up any survivors. That the Argentine destroyers Piedrabuena and Hipólito Bouchard chased the sub after the attack and showered it with Hedgehog depth charges has never been fully proven. Considering that it took them so long to arrive at the scene, it is more probable that, as a reliable Anglo-Argentine source alleged, both were sitting in the port of Ushuaia during the attack.


Conqueror was a submarine, where do you reckon it was going to put any survivors? More than likely, in the rising seas, Conqueror herself would have not been able to maintain a stable platform on the surface.

There is no legal basis in the concept of an enemy being required to pick up survivors from their target.

The two escort cruisers were indeed within fleet range of the Belgrano, indeed the Bouchard was struck by a third torpedo which failed to detonate. Both cruisers however were unawares of what had happened to the Belgrano, and both fled when the Bouchard reported being struck by what the captain took to be a torpedo (later confirmed).

Quote:

2. The big faux pas, the Conqueror's flying of the Jolly Roger flag upon her return to base in Faslane. Am I the only one who remembers that it was Royal Navy tradition to sink any ship that flew that flag in situ?

This I agree with, it was insensative and uncalled for.

Quote:
Goes to show the English for what they are: a bunch of PIRATES.

All of this could have been avoided if the Islands werent invaded in the first place. Remember that before you throw names around.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: L-188
Posted 2006-02-20 23:15:11 and read 4795 times.

Quoting Banco (Reply 40):
But the lack of preparedness on the ship (she wasn't even zig-zagging), and the poor level of training of large numbers of conscripts that resulted in such a high level of casualties.

That isn't the fault of the British, but rather the Argentinians

Quoting Banco (Reply 40):
Whilst the war itself was close run thing due to the British operating so far from base, the contact between a WWII cruiser and a nuclear submarine that it wasn't even aware was present was a total mismatch.

If I remember correctly the torpedo that was fired was a WWII vintage Mk8. It was selected because of it's larger warhead.

Quoting Banco (Reply 40):
Don't forget that the British were very limited in terms of air operations. they absolutely couldn't afford to lose assets. In order to attack the mainland, a carrier would have had to get reasonably close to the coast.

Agreed, but a couple of night raids by Vulcan's and Victors couldn't have been less effectual then that raid they made on Stanley.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 50):
What I find most horrific about the attack of May 2 was the Royal Navy were prepared to wipe out almost 1,100 lives

I don't think that there has been any ship commander who in a simular situation has counted how many people would be killed. They are thinking of stopping the material that can harm them....in this case-the ship.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 50):
1. HMS Conqueror never bothered to pick-up any survivors. That the Argentine destroyers Piedrabuena and Hipólito Bouchard chased the sub after the attack and showered it with Hedgehog depth charges has never been fully proven. Considering that it took them so long to arrive at the scene, it is more probable that, as a reliable Anglo-Argentine source alleged, both were sitting in the port of Ushuaia during the attack.

I know they wouldn't have been able to get 750 on her. And I have my doubts about the ability of modern submarines to do that. Particularly with two enemy destroyers doing something above you.

I have issues with the idea that the Argentinans would have hung the Belgrano out there without escort. Their navy was smarter then that.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 50):
2. The big faux pas, the Conqueror's flying of the Jolly Roger flag upon her return to base in Faslane. Am I the only one who remembers that it was Royal Navy tradition to sink any ship that flew that flag in situ?

Ok, in bad taste, but that is it. US Navy subs in WWII used to hang a broom from their periscope to signify a "Clean Sweep" if they sunk every ship they shot at.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Cfalk
Posted 2006-02-20 23:20:49 and read 4775 times.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 50):
Goes to show the English for what they are: a bunch of PIRATES.

Interesting for you to make that charge when it is Argentina that initiated the war by trying to take something that was not theirs. Look up in the dictionary under hypocrite and check your mirror.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: LVZXV
Posted 2006-02-20 23:22:52 and read 4770 times.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 54):
All of this could have been avoided if the Islands werent invaded in the first place.

A lot could have been avoided, including the intensity of the fire of Argentine nationalism, had the English not "moved in" to the Islands in 1833. Their capture was as good an example of piracy as any.

Edit: Sorry Mr Switzerland, but I'll have you know that Argentina was recovering what was theirs in the first place. The British presence in the islands was purely artificial and de facto, most of the Kelpers were not even granted full UK citizenship until after the war. Let's not even pretend that Britain gave a damn until the British Marine contingent in Stanley were pictured face down on Ross Road. Were it not for that humiliation (a big boo-boo on the part of the Argentines), who knows, Britain may have even sought a diplomatic solution...

ZXV

[Edited 2006-02-20 23:27:59]

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argent
Username: Aloges
Posted 2006-02-20 23:29:52 and read 4755 times.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 57):
A lot could have been avoided, including the intensity of the fire of Argentine nationalism, had the English not "moved in" to the Islands in 1833. Their capture was as good an example of piracy as any.

Mhm, sure. And you mean to say the British are to blame for the sad fact that something that went on peacefully for about 150 years, according to your mention of 1833, erupted in a war? Heck, even the Germans and the French weren't able to remain "hereditary enemies" for that long!

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 57):
a big boo-boo on the part of the Argentines

That's what you could call the entire war. Pure, crafted, packaged and delivered stupidity on the part of the Argentine dictatorship.

[Edited 2006-02-20 23:31:59]

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: A319XFW
Posted 2006-02-20 23:30:58 and read 4746 times.

So going back a few years - how would you classify the sinking of merchants in WW2 by German subs, the sinking of the Bismark by the British or the sinking of the Tirpitz finally by the RAF (and the Navy with the mini-subs)?
As if I remember correctly, these weren't classed as war crimes.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argent
Username: Renton_WA
Posted 2006-02-20 23:31:09 and read 4746 times.

I try to keep quiet in the forums simply because it's sometimes more entertaining to read than to get in a debate with people online. But with that said I must agree with this...

Quoting BHXFAOTIPYYC (Reply 39):
I'm sure that the vast majority of Argentinians couldn't give a damn about the Falklands

... sorry Derico, Gaston and all other Argentinos in here with whom I might disagree with but let's move on! You all know the only reason why Argentina ever invaded the islands was to get the country to forget about all the internal issues we were having at the time.

Again sorry Derico, but the title of this thread is a bit much.

I will say on last thing... reading last week's posts about the Falklands and now this one, it sure has brought back way too many memories, particularly about my oldest brother who my family unnecessarily lost in that pointless war.

Thanks.

Respectfully,
Federico

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2006-02-20 23:33:20 and read 4746 times.

In every war there are atrocities done by all sides, no matter what hollywood shows. The German troops during WW II were not all evil by nature. Some o them were just plain soldiers, just as not all Allied troops were the nice flawless, humanitarian heroes. The same goes for the Malvinas War (to a much lesser degree), Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other armed conflict you can think of.
If the a.net community wants to go on talking abou the war, fine, in fact I think its always positive to hear views and opinions from everyone. But let's stop focusing on the Blegrano. It is very clear that some think it was a simple act of War and that others think it was more than that. As I posted earlier, maybe we should just let the Blegrano out of it, especially since ANC already appologized for the joke.

Regards  Smile

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Aloges
Posted 2006-02-20 23:34:46 and read 4737 times.

Quoting Renton_WA (Reply 60):
You all know the only reason why Argentina ever invaded the islands was to get the country to forget about all the internal issues we were having at the time.

gracias/thank you/danke/merci/obrigado/dank je/takk  Smile

Quoting Renton_WA (Reply 60):
my oldest brother who my family unnecessarily lost in that pointless war.

Sorry to hear that, may he rest in peace.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argent
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2006-02-20 23:35:06 and read 4737 times.

Post was worded a little strongly, apologies to any who took offence.

But seriously, Argentina has no legal claim to the islands, so please stop with the accusations that the British hold them illegally, because we dont.

[Edited 2006-02-20 23:38:36]

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2006-02-20 23:36:43 and read 4726 times.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 33):
Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 27):
Aloges, this was an English (or British) Submarine sinking an Argentine boat outside conflict waters.

During a war any enemy military vessel, institution (except a military hospital), personnel ( again except wounded soldiers or medical institutions) or vehicle becomes a legetimate target, wherever it may be. The exclusion zone was more a warning to ships of nations not involved in the war to stay out or they might get hit.

Jan

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: L-188
Posted 2006-02-20 23:40:50 and read 4717 times.

Quoting Renton_WA (Reply 60):
particularly about my oldest brother who my family unnecessarily lost in that pointless war.

Sorry if we are rehashing a bunch of rought memories for you and your family.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2006-02-20 23:42:38 and read 4711 times.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 64):
Quoting Aloges (Reply 33):
Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 27):
Aloges, this was an English (or British) Submarine sinking an Argentine boat outside conflict waters.

During a war any enemy military vessel, institution (except a military hospital), personnel ( again except wounded soldiers or medical institutions) or vehicle becomes a legetimate target, wherever it may be. The exclusion zone was more a warning to ships of nations not involved in the war to stay out or they might get hit.

One final matter on the subject of the 'conflict waters' or 'exclusion zone' - it was not the limit of hostilities.

On the 23rd April, the following message was passed to the Argentine government:

Quote:

In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.

And in 2003 it was proven that the commander of the Belgrano had orders to attack the British taskforce.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...tional/story/0,6903,963156,00.html

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: LVZXV
Posted 2006-02-20 23:45:48 and read 4705 times.

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 59):
So going back a few years - how would you classify the sinking of merchants in WW2 by German subs, the sinking of the Bismark by the British or the sinking of the Tirpitz finally by the RAF (and the Navy with the mini-subs)?
As if I remember correctly, these weren't classed as war crimes.

I sadly don't enjoy the privilege of knowing you, but with this comment you really put your foot in it. Germany invaded Poland, Dolfy declared war on half of Europe for no other reason than lebensraum. Tirpitz was a lovely ship, but please pray tell what was it doing in Norway?

And seriously, a note to all Germans: do not lecture anyone about the ethics of war. And cut the Argentines some f***ing slack, it wasn't they who bombed you into oblivion during WWII, and they provided refuge to the survivors of the stricken Graf Spee. And yet, your country couldn't even remain neutral in the 1982 war. You disgust me.

ZXV

[Edited 2006-02-20 23:48:11]

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Banco
Posted 2006-02-20 23:47:17 and read 4705 times.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 50):
1. HMS Conqueror never bothered to pick-up any survivors

Even if there was any capacity for a submarine so to do, it is certainly not expected. The Conqueror became a target the moment the Belgrano went down. If you seriously expect a submarine to come to the surface and say "Hello, here we are" to two armed to the teeth destroyers just after popping their cruiser, you really are dreaming.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 50):
2. The big faux pas, the Conqueror's flying of the Jolly Roger flag upon her return to base in Faslane. Am I the only one who remembers that it was Royal Navy tradition to sink any ship that flew that flag in situ?

Only if you fail to understand the tradition of the submarine service. The Jolly Roger is (and has been since 1914) always flown by an RN submarine on return to its home port after a successful tour of duty or mission. This is because of the view early on that submarine warfare was somehow underhand. Therefore the flying of the Jolly Roger was an ironic comment on that opinion. It is only because of people's rank ignorance of this history that they took offence. The flying of the flag in 1982 was not a particular comment aimed at the Argentine people or sailors, and whilst some misunderstanding at the time is forgivable, maintaining that misunderstanding 25 years on is not. You've had plenty of time to find out the truth.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Aloges
Posted 2006-02-20 23:48:18 and read 4705 times.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 67):
You disgust me.

Aw, I'm insulted. I just need to find a pillow to cry into.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Gman94
Posted 2006-02-20 23:52:26 and read 4684 times.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 67):
Quoting A319XFW (Reply 59):
So going back a few years - how would you classify the sinking of merchants in WW2 by German subs, the sinking of the Bismark by the British or the sinking of the Tirpitz finally by the RAF (and the Navy with the mini-subs)?
As if I remember correctly, these weren't classed as war crimes.

I sadly don't enjoy the privilege of knowing you, but with this comment you really put your foot in it. Germany invaded Poland, Dolfy declared war on half of Europe for no other reason than lebensraum. Tirpitz was a lovely ship, but please pray tell what was it doing in Norway?

And seriously, a note to all Germans: do not lecture anyone about the ethics of war. And cut the Argentines some f***ing slack, it wasn't they who bombed you into oblivion during WWII and provided refuge to the survivors of the stricken Graf Spee. And yet, your country couldn't even remain neutral in the 1982 war. You disgust me.

It seems to me that Germany has learnt a lot from it's countries dark past whereas you sound like your pining for the good old days of Galtieri.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2006-02-20 23:52:49 and read 4684 times.

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 59):
So going back a few years - how would you classify the sinking of merchants in WW2 by German subs, the sinking of the Bismark by the British or the sinking of the Tirpitz finally by the RAF (and the Navy with the mini-subs)?
As if I remember correctly, these weren't classed as war crimes.

Actually the sinking of Merchent ships by German U-Boats was considered a warcrime, and was one of the charges against Admiral Donitz at Nerumberg (crimes against the laws of war).

The US also used the same tactics against Japanese merchant vessels in the pacific, and this was used by Donitz as an attempt to mitigate the charge, even including a letter from Admiral Nimitz testifying that the US forces used the same tactics.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argent
Username: Renton_WA
Posted 2006-02-20 23:53:50 and read 4684 times.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 62):
gracias/thank you/danke/merci/obrigado/dank je/takk Smile

No problem!

Quoting Aloges (Reply 62):
Sorry to hear that, may he rest in peace.



Quoting L-188 (Reply 65):
Sorry if we are rehashing a bunch of rought memories for you and your family.

Thank you both!

And in total agreement with RichardPrice, Argentina has no legal claim to the islands.
End of story!

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: L-188
Posted 2006-02-20 23:59:06 and read 4666 times.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 67):
Tirpitz was a lovely ship, but please pray tell what was it doing in Norway?

Hiding.

Quoting Banco (Reply 68):
The Jolly Roger is (and has been since 1914) always flown by an RN submarine on return to its home port after a successful tour of duty or mission. This is because of the view early on that submarine warfare was somehow underhand

Wasn't familiar with that tradition.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 71):
Actually the sinking of Merchent ships by German U-Boats was considered a warcrime, and was one of the charges against Admiral Donitz at Nerumberg (crimes against the laws of war).

The US also used the same tactics against Japanese merchant vessels in the pacific, and this was used by Donitz as an attempt to mitigate the charge, even including a letter from Admiral Nimitz testifying that the US forces used the same tactics.

Did it work? I don't remember.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: A319XFW
Posted 2006-02-20 23:59:09 and read 4666 times.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 67):
I sadly don't enjoy the privilege of knowing you, but with this comment you really put your foot in it

And would you know me, you'd realise I am not German.
I included the merchants for a bit of balance, but after RichardPrice's answer I stand corrected and perhaps should have mentioned the Hood and Prince of Wales instead?

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2006-02-21 00:02:39 and read 4661 times.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 67):
And seriously, a note to all Germans: do not lecture anyone about the ethics of war. And cut the Argentines some f***ing slack, it wasn't they who bombed you into oblivion during WWII, and they provided refuge to the survivors of the stricken Graf Spee. And yet, your country couldn't even remain neutral in the 1982 war. You disgust me.

ZXV

I'm NOT responsible for what my grandfathers did, period. We can voice our opinion about this matter, just as anybody else, and IMO the Galtieri government F*cked up big time. I can also ask you why Argentina didn't join the Allied side, like e.g. Brasil did and why the Argentinian governments, after the war, allowed so many Nazi war criminals to hide in the country, maybe to set up a Gestapo type secret polic?

Fact:
The population of the Falklands wanted to stay British. Due to the selfdetermination of the peoples, the British government had the duty to act on their behalf, no matter if there used to be an Argentinian colony on the islands for a couple of years 150 years ago.

Fact:
the Galtieri government faced troubles at home and to defuse them, ordered the invasion to instill patriotic feelings.
They sent lots of conscripts over to do the fighting. AFAK, at the hight of the war, Argentinian professional crack troops were withdrawn from the war zone to crush a rebellion in some Argentinian town, leaving the concripts to fend for themselves.

Fact:
the Argentinian conscripts faced British professionals, who were better trained and won.

Fact:
According to the rules of war the Belgrano was fair game.

Fact:
Since WW2 did vulnerable submarines not surface, especially with enemy escorts around, to pick up survivors. This would be suicidical. Actually, Doenitz and various German submarine commanders had to be aquitted on this charge after WW2, the American, British and Japanese submarines acted in the same way.
The only German submarine commander to be executed for war crimes did in fact surface and have the survivors machine gunned to hide the presence of a German submarine in the Indian ocean in WW2. During WW2, German submarines hunted as far as the Indian ocean, the Southern Atlantic and even went to Japan.

Jan

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Gman94
Posted 2006-02-21 00:08:57 and read 4640 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 73):
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 71):
Actually the sinking of Merchent ships by German U-Boats was considered a warcrime, and was one of the charges against Admiral Donitz at Nerumberg (crimes against the laws of war).

The US also used the same tactics against Japanese merchant vessels in the pacific, and this was used by Donitz as an attempt to mitigate the charge, even including a letter from Admiral Nimitz testifying that the US forces used the same tactics.

Did it work? I don't remember.

Not sure he wasn't charged with crimes against humanity like other Nazi's. His charges were:

'Conspiracy to wage aggressive war'
'Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression'
'crimes against the laws of war'

And part of his defense including the letter from Nimitz was that he done nothing that the Allies didn't order their Navy's to do. He served 10 years for these crimes and lived out the rest of his days in Germany until his death in 1980.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2006-02-21 00:09:02 and read 4640 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 73):
Did it work? I don't remember.

No, Donitz was convicted of counts 2 and 3 (Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression, and crimes against the laws of war) and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

After he was convicted on the third count, he received a lot of letters of support from officers on BOTH sides of the war, deploring the fact he was convicted on the basis of attacking merchant shipping.

He was cleared of Conspiracy to wage aggressive war (count 1), and was never charged with crimes against humanity.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 75):

I seem to have had the wrong impression about you, Im glad that you have cleared that misconception up in this thread!

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Theredbaron
Posted 2006-02-21 00:31:35 and read 4620 times.

This thread proves beyond any doubt why ALL WARS are stupid, and chewing old battles only fuels misunderstanding and misplaced nationalism...NO ONE deserves to die fighting a war....

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2006-02-21 00:37:13 and read 4610 times.

Quoting Renton_WA (Reply 72):
And in total agreement with RichardPrice, Argentina has no legal claim to the islands.

First of all, I would also like to apologize if this thread brings bad memories.
And regarding the legal claim on the islands, I can not decide what territory can be legally claimed since I don't know that much about the islands' history. However, I do want to point out that what Galtieri did was a stupid move with the sole reason of gaining popularity back home. it was obvious that the British would win. Did Galtieri really think he could beat a navy that has been constantly defending their own island since .... well, ever? If he thought that the Britsh would have not responded he was even more stupid.
Was there a chance that the islands might have been given to Argentina through diplomacy had Galtieri not attacked? We'll never know, but for sure Argentina had better chances than by militarily confronting the British.
what's sad is that every now and then, you can still see some of this false nationalism. when the people sing "el que no salta es un ingles" (who does not jump is an Englishman) during every single Argentina football match i feel embarrassed. The war was nasty, ugly, evil, but it took place over two decades ago. Always remembering the dead, it's time to move on before some other nutjob decides to make another stupid move.

Sorry if people are offended by wht I say, it's just the way I feel, and I don't mean to cause any harm with this. I love Argentina, and always will, but I can't agree with everyone and everything all the time

regards  Smile

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Gkirk
Posted 2006-02-21 01:39:11 and read 4557 times.

Lets see....
1) Those living on the Falklands want to remain part of Britain.
2) The Argentinians are annoyed that the Falkland Islands residents want to remain part of Britain.
3) Argentina can't do a thing about it, unless they want to try military action, in which they'd get their arses handed to them  Wink

Overall.
The Falkland Islanders want to remain British, so thats it  Wink

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: L-188
Posted 2006-02-21 01:45:57 and read 4552 times.

Well I guess we got that answer on Donitz...thanks guys.

I still haven't figured out who was worse kitted out, the Argentinians or the British.

The Brits has that excellent Light Gun 105 howitzer, the Argentines used the FN-FAl. British troops had the deritive L1, which was not full auto, so their troops where swapping them out with captured Argentine ones. The Brits had a lot of issues with their boots. And tractors ripping up the ground trying to move their heavy gear around.

One thing that always struck me about that campaign is the similarities between the terran there and in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. Both sides would have been well served if they had studied the equipment issues that rose for the Americans when they fought the Japanese in the Aleutians during WWII.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Arsenal@LHR
Posted 2006-02-21 01:52:33 and read 4542 times.

Give it a break, Falklands is a non-issue for most in Britain, doesn't seem to be the case for some Argentinians. The day the islanders decide to become Argentine then we can start discussing the Falklands, otherwise the UK has far more pressing and important problems to deal with (and i'm sure Argentina has too).

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: VC10
Posted 2006-02-21 01:59:48 and read 4530 times.

EZEIZA,

One of the most well balanced replies so far on this subject and yes it was a long time ago now and the dead & injured of both sides should be remembered but the arguments should cease. One can learn from history but never honestly change it.

L-188 ,
I think the British army has always had trouble with their boot design, but it was highlighted in the Falklands by the amount of un planned walking that the troops had to do after the loss of the container ship [ Atlantic Conveyor ?] which was carrying the majority of the British Transport helicopters for that campaign.

little vc10

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: L-188
Posted 2006-02-21 02:08:33 and read 4515 times.

Quoting VC10 (Reply 83):
L-188 ,
I think the British army has always had trouble with their boot design, but it was highlighted in the Falklands by the amount of un planned walking that the troops had to do after the loss of the container ship [ Atlantic Conveyor ?] which was carrying the majority of the British Transport helicopters for that campaign.

Partially, but it was a leather shoe design in a soggry tundra type terrain and that is just a recipie for trench-foot in those conditions. Add to the fact that the design at the time didn't give a lot of Ankle support, which on that spongy ground is going to cause a lot of problems too.

Edit: It is really unfortunate that Gore-tex socks really wheren't on the market at the time of the campaign. They would have saved a lot of problems.

But then again this is comming from a guy who is convinced that the US M14 would have been a better battle weapon then the FN-FAL/L1A1's that the sides where packing.

[Edited 2006-02-21 02:11:28]

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Dougloid
Posted 2006-02-21 02:24:36 and read 4498 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 21):
Low blow. Did you know realize that boat was a Pearl Harbor survivor? That being said, the attempts by the families to try and get the sinking of the boat classified as a "War Crime" is BS. But those guys really don't need to be made a joke of either.

Exactly. What's important here is that upwards of 300 sailors on the General Belgrano lost their lives that day. Regardless of what the people on the bridge or back on the mainland were thinking, the crew was just ordinary folks like anyone else, trying to do their job and get home safely.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MDorBust
Posted 2006-02-21 02:30:15 and read 4494 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 84):
But then again this is comming from a guy who is convinced that the US M14 would have been a better battle weapon then the FN-FAL/L1A1's that the sides where packing.

 checkmark 

In other breaking news, the M14's great grandchild gets sexy for the new century



 bigthumbsup 

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: L-188
Posted 2006-02-21 05:41:37 and read 4444 times.

Sorry MD, don't get the purpose of that modified M-14.

To be honest if I had ended up in the Falklands, I would have prefered a M1D.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Gilligan
Posted 2006-02-21 06:48:20 and read 4430 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 32):
We take back all the things that came from the Argentine Sea,

Ok, you got me, I'll bite. How do you figure which fish were caught inside the 200 mile limit and which ones weren't? Are they labeled or decaled somehow? Do you just scrape off the top layer? Or do you just take all of them and so sorry charlie it's a feast day for the seagulls?
 bigmouth  sticks hook in.

One other thing, Argentine Sea? I looked in my world atlas and on my globe, both places it's called the South Atlantic Ocean. Is it just you are is your whole country really that vain? That's like us calling everything out to Bermuda the "United States Sea". Sounds pretty silly when you are talking about open ocean.

Quoting Derico (Thread starter):
The ship did not resist, apperently,.

Thank goodness for that, "launch the fish" would have had a whole new meaning.



Quoting Derico (Thread starter):
and now is on toe headed for the port of Comodoro Rivadavia.

On toe? Man that's gotta hurt.  wink 

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: ANCFlyer
Posted 2006-02-21 07:11:09 and read 4424 times.

We're still on the topic of the Argentine Coast Guard seizing an INVADING fishing trawler . . . lets not lose sight of the laughable original topic here . . .

So, how long before they determine which fish are legal and which are not? What is the process for doing that? What is the fine for this INVASION? Surely someone is going to get paid off here . . . nothing happens without a price.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: AR1300
Posted 2006-02-21 07:35:28 and read 4413 times.

Damn it, you all.
Move on!!! it's over.
Don't waste your fingertips energy in typing on this subject.
War is over.We lost.Too bad.
We want them?yes.Fine.But let's leave this to Mr. K and Mr.Blair.we wont change the course of things.
And don't start arguing.Both sides have said right and wrong things.
And no side will ever give up.
This is like an A vs. B war.Pointless.
Move on, life continues.

Quoting VC10 (Reply 83):
One of the most well balanced replies so far on this subject and yes it was a long time ago now and the dead & injured of both sides should be remembered but the arguments should cease. One can learn from history but never honestly change it.

First time ever that I agree with you.Hope stays that way  Wink

Mike

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Cfalk
Posted 2006-02-21 07:51:50 and read 4410 times.

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 59):
So going back a few years - how would you classify the sinking of merchants in WW2 by German subs, the sinking of the Bismark by the British or the sinking of the Tirpitz finally by the RAF (and the Navy with the mini-subs)?
As if I remember correctly, these weren't classed as war crimes.

All enemy-flagged ships are legitimate targets of war, with the exception of clearly marked hospital ships. It is a war crime to sink a hospital ship, and it is also a war crime to falsely mark a hospital ship.

The Japanese became notorious for this in WWII, when they would paint their most important ammo ships and troopships as hospital ships. The Americans finally figured it out, and that meant that all Japanese ships became legitimate targets, including hospital ships, because the Japanese had forfeited their right to protection.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 64):
During a war any enemy military vessel, institution (except a military hospital), personnel ( again except wounded soldiers or medical institutions) or vehicle becomes a legitimate target, wherever it may be. The exclusion zone was more a warning to ships of nations not involved in the war to stay out or they might get hit.

Again, by all rules of war, the British Submarine had every right to sink the Belgrano where it was, and could even creep it into an Argentinian harbor and sink it there. Remember U-47 at Scapa Flow? There is no safe harbor for combatants in war.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 67):
And cut the Argentines some f***ing slack, it wasn't they who bombed you into oblivion during WWII, and they provided refuge to the survivors of the stricken Graf Spee.

Funny you should mention Spee. Admiral Graf Spee, for whom the WWII ship was named after, led the German Far East Battle Squadron, and was defeated at... (drum roll please)... The Battle of the Falklands, in December 1914.

Spee also thought that the Falklands would be unprotected, and instead unpleasantly found that the British had a pair of battle-cruisers, an old battleship, and attending lighter ships anchored there.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: 11Bravo
Posted 2006-02-21 07:57:37 and read 4408 times.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 90):
What is the process for doing that?

A friend of mine is a NMFS enforcement officer and she's told me that we use radar, and sometimes satellite, surveillance data for that here in the US. You can generally tell what a fishing vessel is up to (transit, trawling) based on speed, course, etc. They board the boat, estimate the total catch in the hold, calculate the proportion from the US fishery based on the surveillance tape, and start writing tickets.

I was always kind of jealous of her job; I get a Chevy Tahoe with a light-bar, and she gets a USCG cutter with a helo. Big grin

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Banco
Posted 2006-02-21 10:11:23 and read 4379 times.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 92):
The Battle of the Falklands, in December 1914.

Spee also thought that the Falklands would be unprotected, and instead unpleasantly found that the British had a pair of battle-cruisers

One of which was called.....HMS Invincible. Cue Twilight Zone music.  Wink

Thankfully the latest Invincible has had a happier history that its WWI namesake, which exploded at Jutland ("There's something wrong with our bloody ships today" Adml Beatty) along with several of her consorts in 1916.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2006-02-21 12:57:02 and read 4346 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 81):
I still haven't figured out who was worse kitted out, the Argentinians or the British.



Quoting VC10 (Reply 83):
L-188 ,
I think the British army has always had trouble with their boot design, but it was highlighted in the Falklands by the amount of un planned walking that the troops had to do after the loss of the container ship [ Atlantic Conveyor ?] which was carrying the majority of the British Transport helicopters for that campaign.

The boots used by the British army back then were essentially the old WW2 ammo boots (BTW still used by the Brigade of Guards for ceremonial duty), only that the original hobnailed leather sole had been replaced by a directly molded rubber sole in the 1950s, hence the name DMS boots. These ankle high boots, worn with gaiters or puttees were suitable for Europe, where the British Army expected their fighting to happen (against the Soviets), but not for cold, wet arctic weather. The Argentinian Army was much better equiped uniformwise (boots, which became a priced possession by victorious troops and parkas) than the British Army.

Quoting AR1300 (Reply 91):
Damn it, you all.
Move on!!! it's over.
Don't waste your fingertips energy in typing on this subject.
War is over.We lost.Too bad.

You are right. It would be like us complaining about the loss of the former German eastern provinces to Poland and Russia. There are at least two new generations living there, Poland is now a member of the EU and a democracy. This land belongs now to them and the Russians, period. This includes also the ancient farmland of my own family.

Jan

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2006-02-21 12:59:33 and read 4346 times.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 89):
One other thing, Argentine Sea? I looked in my world atlas and on my globe, both places it's called the South Atlantic Ocean. Is it just you are is your whole country really that vain?

How would you call it? Territorial waters? Despite that I disagree with Derico and the topic at hand here, You know what he meant by "Argentine Sea", call it however you want

regards  Smile

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11junkie
Posted 2006-02-21 15:20:49 and read 4311 times.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 89):
One other thing, Argentine Sea? I looked in my world atlas and on my globe, both places it's called the South Atlantic Ocean. Is it just you are is your whole country really that vain? That's like us calling everything out to Bermuda the "United States Sea". Sounds pretty silly when you are talking about open ocean.

Check again. The 200mi limit zone off the Argentine coast is called "Mar Argentino" --- there's no dispute on that name with any country, it's recognized by the International Community. Perhaps your Atlas is not updated or accurate enough.  Wink --- Check also for the Sea of Japan, Adriatic Sea, Eastern China Sea (I believe it was called that way).

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 89):
Ok, you got me, I'll bite. How do you figure which fish were caught inside the 200 mile limit and which ones weren't? Are they labeled or decaled somehow? Do you just scrape off the top layer? Or do you just take all of them and so sorry charlie it's a feast day for the seagulls?
bigmouth sticks hook in.

Ok, I guess I'm no scientist here, nor I work for Prefectura Naval (Coast Guards), but I believe they use an estimated TOD, or because of the specimens they see in the "fridges" of the boat. Mainly, these boats come in for the "Merluza" (I do not know how do you say it in English) and shrimps.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 90):
We're still on the topic of the Argentine Coast Guard seizing an INVADING fishing trawler . . .

Well, ANC, invasion was called by the thread starter. I wouldn't call it that. Because if not, we would have been invaded by Taiwan, China and other asian countries A LOT of times. It would have been going off limits, because this is not an act of war.  Smile --- The reason there is so much crap going on about this is because of the low amount of fishes left due to the indiscriminate fishing era (the 90s) where big boats would collect fishes without any limitation. That led to an almost non existing fauna. So, the new law was passed, and inside the Mar Argentino (or the Argentine territorial waters) NO fishing boat is allowed fish.

As for the Falkands, let's give it a rest.  Smile

Cheers! wave 
Gastón - The MD11 Junkie

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Flyingbabydoc
Posted 2006-02-21 15:29:09 and read 4304 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 97):
Check again. The 200mi limit zone off the Argentine coast is called "Mar Argentino" --- there's no dispute on that name with any country, it's recognized by the International Community.

Sorry, but that is not correct. The usual international limit is 12 miles. Brazil and Argentina got into big trouble in the 70s or 80s (don't remember exactly) because they have increased the territorial limit in the atlantic ocean to 200 miles. It is still being disputed, at least in Brazil (because of Fernando de Noronha, which is far offshore, and gives us a huge amount of the Atlantic as territorial water).

AS for the Falklands, I agree with you. It was a stupid war for stupid reasons. Maybe it would be better to give it a rest.

Alex

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11junkie
Posted 2006-02-21 15:38:44 and read 4293 times.

Sorry, I used wrong wording.

What the Argentine Sea is, an exclusive Economic Zone, that is recognized by the United States.

Quote:

Argentina's maritine claims:
territorial sea: 12 nm
contiguous zone: 24 nm
exclusive economic zone: 200 nm
continental shelf: 200 nm or to the edge of the continental margin

From the CIA's World Factbook: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ar.html

Cheers! wave 
Gastón - The MD11 Junkie

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: ME AVN FAN
Posted 2006-02-21 15:41:21 and read 4290 times.

Well, the Falklands NEVER were Argentine. They were Spanish, but became British long before Argentina got established. And the Islands were NOT settled by Spanish / Argentine people.
-
Geographical names differ depending on language and place. What is the "Persian Gulf" for the Iranians is the "Arabian Gulf" on the other side. What is "Lake of Constance""Lac de Constance" in English/French is Bodensee in German. What is "Lake of Geneva""Genfersee" in English/German is "Lac de Geneve" for the Genevois but Lac Leman for those in Lausanne. And what is a "Yankee" for people "overseas" possibly is NOT a Yankee from his own perspectives !  duck 

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: ANCFlyer
Posted 2006-02-21 16:34:05 and read 4268 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 97):
As for the Falkands, let's give it a rest.

I'm all for that . . . now if you and your fellow Countryman can get Serico to understand . . .

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 97):
The reason there is so much crap going on about this is because of the low amount of fishes left due to the indiscriminate fishing era (the 90s) where big boats would collect fishes without any limitation. That led to an almost non existing fauna. So, the new law was passed, and inside the Mar Argentino (or the Argentine territorial waters) NO fishing boat is allowed fish.

A lot of similar problems with the fisheries up here. Cod, Halibut, Crab all being overfished out in the Bering Sea. Our Coast Guard watches it closely . . .

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: GDB
Posted 2006-02-21 20:57:09 and read 4223 times.

The Belgano group, was the Southern part of a pincer movement, with the carrier the Northern part, Adm Lombardo's plan to attack the RN.

Replies 22, and 33 to 39, of this topic, deal with the Falklands conflict, reply 37 specifically with aspects of the Belgrano;
U.K. Vs. France (by MigFan Feb 3 2006 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: LVZXV
Posted 2006-02-21 23:00:49 and read 4186 times.

Of course Thatcher didn't start the war; she just stopped all diplomatic negotiations between both governments regarding the Malvinas that had begun many years before, and which had made a war unwanted on both sides.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 75):
I'm NOT responsible for what my grandfathers did, period. We can voice our opinion about this matter, just as anybody else, and IMO the Galtieri government F*cked up big time. I can also ask you why Argentina didn't join the Allied side, like e.g. Brasil did and why the Argentinian governments, after the war, allowed so many Nazi war criminals to hide in the country, maybe to set up a Gestapo type secret polic?

OK, so Argentina has helped both sides and consequently been fairly "open to all". So what? Argentina fed British troops in WWII and became home to one of the largest Jewish communities in the world (some 250,000). Argentina is not alone in this. Both Sweden and Switzerland, though nominally neutral, also helped both sides, neither one of whom were reprimanded. Neutrality has both its active and passive forms.
Argentina's stance, however you wish to view it, owed to the fact that the military (which had been influenced by the Axis powers since 1930) were in power during the war and, being nationalistic, were not going to wholeheartedly back the British with the Malvinas dispute unresolved. Brazil backed the Allies because they had nothing to lose in so doing. The Argentine military's gamble (actually agreed upon with the Germans as far back as 1914) was that a German victory would translate to Argentine sovereignty over the Islands. You could easily argue this to be immoral, but geopolitically it made sense.
As for Argentina's welcoming of Nazi war criminals, were they really as major or as numerous as those received by the US? The only "big boy" in Argentina was Adolf Eichmann, subsequently captured by the Israelis. Bormann and Mengele went to Bolivia and Paraguay respectively. Hell, some even fetched up in Brazil.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 75):
Fact:
The population of the Falklands wanted to stay British. Due to the selfdetermination of the peoples, the British government had the duty to act on their behalf, no matter if there used to be an Argentinian colony on the islands for a couple of years 150 years ago.

In this you are actually wrong. The United Nations has rejected the right to self-determination in the case of a population "artificially" installed upon the invasion of foreign territory. The UN have applied this to both the Malvinas and Gibraltar (as far back as the 1960s). I can show you the documents to prove it.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 75):
Fact:
the Galtieri government faced troubles at home and to defuse them, ordered the invasion to instill patriotic feelings.

C'mon! And Maggie didn't?

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 100):
Well, the Falklands NEVER were Argentine. They were Spanish, but became British long before Argentina got established. And the Islands were NOT settled by Spanish / Argentine people.

It is true that Argentina wasn't even so called at the time (1833) and had not expanded its frontiers to what they are today, but it had been independent since 1816 and, though numbering less than 500, gauchos from the mainland had settled there. What you could call Argentine "sovereignty" was established in 1820, with a governor (Louis Vernet) appointed the following year from Buenos Aires. With US backing, the British destroyed the settlement of Port Louis in 1833 and forced Vernet out after a "dispute" over whaling rights. The islands were not empty when the British landed.

At this point, I agree, let's drop the issue of the Islands. I doubt any of you have actually been to them, but go, and regardless of your nationality, a lump will form in your throat at the thought of anyone dying for them and their jumped-up inhabitants.

Saludos,

ZXV

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Flyingbabydoc
Posted 2006-02-21 23:09:27 and read 4179 times.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 103):
Brazil backed the Allies because they had nothing to lose in so doing.

Easy now.. That was not the case. Brazil flerted with the Axis because its president (Getulio Vargas) had instituted the "Estado Novo" in 1937, along the lines of a fascist dictatorship. The pressure of the US and the allies "convinced" the dictator to change his stance and support the allies. The price he paid was being overthrown in 1945. Indeed Brazil would have lost a lot if it had kept its support for the Axis.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 103):
I doubt any of you have actually been to them

I have pictures to show! I was there in 1980 with my grandparents - we were on a cruise to Patagonia (Eugenio C was the ship) and stopped briefly in Port Stanley. I remember vividly that the roofs were painted in accordance to the origine of the family living there - green, red and yellow for England, Wales and Scotland or Ireland (don't remember which is which). It reminds me now of the area north of Inverness in Scotland. But certainly not worth what happened 2 years later.
I will try scanning some pictures...they are rather old.

Alex

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Sprout5199
Posted 2006-02-22 05:20:51 and read 4139 times.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 19):
Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 18):
I never mentioned the US Navy. Guess you didn't read.

I think you're having some problems here, so let me help you....

You said...

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 15):
Well, that might be in your country not here. They are TWO different institutions.

In response to...

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 13):
In case you haven't researched much lately, there's not much difference between the two.

Which was in response to...

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 9):
It was not the Navy, it was Argentine Coast Guards.

In case you can't see very well, I'm from the United States. You said that it might be that way in my country, which means you're talking about the United States Navy and the United States Coast Guard

Lets get something straight. The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard are TOTALLY different. You have to be at least six foot tall to be in the Coast Guard---that way if the boat sinks all you have to do is stand up.(a little Navy humor.)

Dan in Jupiter, U.S. Navy 1985-1991

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Traindriver
Posted 2006-02-22 06:40:43 and read 4127 times.

Hey Dan,
That's a good way to lighten up this thread by goofing on the
"shallow water" sailors of the USCG.

Traindriver U.S.N. 1968-1972

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Paulc
Posted 2006-02-22 08:35:31 and read 4113 times.

Another reason why the Argentine Navy stayed in port was a wrong assumption on their part about the weapons carried by our Sea Harriers.

I attended a lecture by John Farley (test pilot) and he was involved in the testing of the Sea Harrier and its weapons. 1 of the aircraft was modified to test fire 'sea eagle' air to surface missile and this aircraft was the first Sea Harrier to be lost in the war. JF saw some footage of the wreckage shown on US tv and recognised the individual aircraft - this would have been inspected by the Argentine military and the pylons / panels etc for sea eagle would have been noted. They wrongly assumed that all Sea Harrier's had the sea eagle capability and so their navy stayed close to home rather than be exposed to such a threat.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: AviationMaster
Posted 2006-02-22 15:01:39 and read 4073 times.

Does anyone know where Derico is? Big grin

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: TERRA
Posted 2006-02-23 21:00:34 and read 3973 times.

Quoting Paulc (Reply 106):
Another reason why the Argentine Navy stayed in port was a wrong assumption on their part about the weapons carried by our Sea Harriers.

Yeah but the sinking of the Belgrano was the main reason. The Argentine navy quickly returned to port due to the submarine threat which they couldn't counter. They could attempt to shoot down a small number of Harriers but a sub was a different kettle of fish.
The decision to go to port would have ultimately saved lives on both sides.

Despite the fors or againsts, the sinking of the Belgrano was tactically a good option as it meant enemy ships would not be a threat and caused the Argentine naval aircraft to launch from the mainland thus be low on fuel when they got to the islands.

Oh and who is calling us Brits pirates?!!! Well of course we are!! That's what made up most of the Royal Navy in the ye old days and that's how we got most of our booty from the Spanish. They would bring the gold from the Americas only for the British to rob them at sea.
Why do all pirates in movies have an English accent? Ahhhhh Jim Lad and all that. Nothing to be ashamed of and is part of our history.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: GDB
Posted 2006-02-23 23:06:02 and read 3947 times.

HMS Superb, or possibly HMS Spartan, was tracking the Argentine carrier group, though like the Belgrano group, there was a problem with shallows, addtionally, the carrier group had much better ASW assets.
Doubtless that if the RN sub got into a good position to fire, when the group was perceived to be a threat, the carrier 25 Of May might well have been sunk too.

But after Belgrano was sunk, the threat disappeared, along with the Argentine surface fleet as a whole.
The loss of life for Argentine sailors could have been far worse.

Even accounting for the shock of Belgrano's sinking, it seems strange that the carrier ran for home, the wind might have been too light for the planned 2nd May strike by the ship's A-4s, subsequent days might have been more favourable, allowing much greater fuel reserves for the aircraft as well as multi directional attacks.

One problem the Harriers did not have, the need for favourable winds over deck.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Piercey
Posted 2006-02-23 23:23:06 and read 3937 times.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
So crack is now cheaper in Argentina?

Depends. Like the fish smell in crack?  Wink

Quoting Slider (Reply 6):
Yeah, play for the proverbial "pink slips!"

That's high stakes soccer...wow.

Loser get GWB!

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 11):
It's not like it was China with a nuke sub.

Or was it......  stirthepot 

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8):
Hey, any word on the Gen. Belgrano ????

 no  dude, you didn't just kick Argentina in the balls, you nuke'd them.

Quoting AR1300 (Reply 90):
This is like an A vs. B war.

It is! Argentina vs. Britain  Wink

Quoting AR1300 (Reply 90):
Pointless.

That is right as well. Move along people, nothing to see.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Banco
Posted 2006-02-23 23:40:39 and read 3918 times.

Quoting TERRA (Reply 108):
Oh and who is calling us Brits pirates?!!! Well of course we are!! That's what made up most of the Royal Navy in the ye old days and that's how we got most of our booty from the Spanish. They would bring the gold from the Americas only for the British to rob them at sea.

Not quite. They were mainly privateers, not pirates. There is an important difference there, and privateers were commonplace well into the 19th century.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Derico
Posted 2006-02-24 03:36:50 and read 3896 times.

To All, particularly to answers #1 and #2:

Read the title of this thread, and then read up on the subject 'headline misexageration', something used by the print media all the time.

The invasion thing was a joke...  Wink

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Derico
Posted 2006-02-24 03:44:32 and read 3893 times.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 35):
So, Gaston, what will be - in your opinion - the end result with this wayward fishing vessel . . . the one Derico contends is invading Argentina . . .

LOL, ANC, I certainly lay the bait and you just ripped in. It's all good.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Derico
Posted 2006-02-24 03:51:14 and read 3889 times.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 88):
One other thing, Argentine Sea? I looked in my world atlas and on my globe, both places it's called the South Atlantic Ocean. Is it just you are is your whole country really that vain? That's like us calling everything out to Bermuda the "United States Sea". Sounds pretty silly when you are talking about open ocean.

Just as I find it silly Americans singing their anthem in sports games. Totally beyond ridiculous.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Derico
Posted 2006-02-24 18:54:38 and read 3848 times.

So... I guess to the A.net moderators it is OK for ANC flyer to mock 300 people that drowned, but if I dare to do the same about New Orleans (only to show the double standard) the post gets deleted?

Is the position of this forum that some nationalities are more worth than others??

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11junkie
Posted 2006-02-24 18:58:29 and read 3841 times.

Quoting Derico (Reply 115):
So... I guess to the A.net moderators it is OK for ANC flyer to mock 300 people that drowned, but if I dare to do the same about New Orleans (only to show the double standard) the post gets deleted?

Is the position of this forum that some nationalities are more worth than others??

He apologized, end of story, Derico.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Derico
Posted 2006-02-24 18:59:51 and read 3841 times.

I didn't read about his apology, and I really don't care.

He can say whatever he wishes, as long as I can do the same. But when selective censorship is applied, I get annoyed. Sorry.

[Edited 2006-02-24 19:00:30]

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argent
Username: NoUFO
Posted 2006-02-24 19:00:06 and read 3841 times.

Quoting Derico (Reply 115):
So... I guess to the A.net moderators it is OK for ANC flyer to mock 300 people that drowned, but if I dare to do the same about New Orleans (only to show the double standard) the post gets deleted?

Is the position of this forum that some nationalities are more worth than others??

This reply wins the "Most Stupid Post of the Day" Award. Hands down.
And this thread wins the ... well ... whatever, but it's certainly not a flower pot.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11junkie
Posted 2006-02-24 19:01:31 and read 3834 times.

Quoting Derico (Reply 117):
I don't about his apology, I really don't care.

He can say whatever he wishes, as long as I can do the same. But when selective censorship is applied, I get annoyed. Sorry.

Hey, I got really annoyed too -- but he apologized from the bottom of his heart -- and I believe him. Mocking how Argentina perform in the war is one thing, mocking dead Argentine service men is another --- he apologized for the latter.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Derico
Posted 2006-02-24 19:02:41 and read 3834 times.

So why was my comment banned (which was a simply a juxtapose to make people see how ANC sounds), if this is not the case?

I don't need to explicitly say that I used New Orleans so I didn't have to use another example, that wold enrage Americans if I had used it the way ANC celebrates the death of people.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: MD11junkie
Posted 2006-02-24 19:07:32 and read 3818 times.

Quoting Derico (Reply 120):
So why was my comment banned (which was a simply a juxtapose to make people see how ANC sounds), if this is not the case?

I don't need to explicitly say that I used New Orleans so I didn't have to use another example, that wold enrage Americans if I had used it the way ANC celebrates the death of people.

Then this is not the place to discuss it. Send an email to moderators@airliners.net to discuss this issue, before they ban you for breaking any other rule.

Cheers! wave 
Gastón - The MD11 Junkie

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Derico
Posted 2006-02-24 19:07:35 and read 3818 times.

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 119):
Hey, I got really annoyed too -- but he apologized from the bottom of his heart -- and I believe him. Mocking how Argentina perform in the war is one thing, mocking dead Argentine service men is another --- he apologized for the latter.

LOL, yeah, well LMAO to this one.

It's the original thought that really portrays people's thoughts, and ANC made his very clear, and has for a long time about Argentina. Really, only a fool would believe he didn't know what he was saying. Just replace the 'Belgrano' with the 'Arizona', and well, lets see how funny it is to him.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: ANCFlyer
Posted 2006-02-24 20:19:49 and read 3801 times.

Quoting Derico (Reply 122):
Just replace the 'Belgrano' with the 'Arizona', and well, lets see how funny it is to him.

Look, you're beginning to sound very simple minded here.

First, I apologized not only publically but via IM to several Argentine members here that I respect. I didn't intend to mock the dead sailors, only to point out the pasting you got from the British Navy. I wouldn't mock a dead serviceman/woman no matter where they are from.

Furthermore, I didn't know the true impact that the loss of the Belgrano had on the Argentine people - and I should have studied it more before making the post. I apologized publically for it. Short of cutting off a limb, what would you prefer.

Now - if you can grow up just a fraction that'd be nice. If not, don't expect any quarter from me, you'll certainly get none.

I'd invite your fellow countrymen to peruse the current forums where you continue - without reason - to take stabs at the US where the thread subject is entirely and completely different. Now, I've got a pretty thick skin, and stabbing at the US doesn't bother me too much. Elementary School attempts to twist any thread and any subject - such as you're doing - into an anti-US thread does bother me. And it sends your credibility right into the toilet, as if you ever had any from the start.

Grow up junior . . . you're losing ground here even amongst your own countrymen . . .

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2006-02-24 21:52:25 and read 3784 times.

Quoting Derico (Reply 122):
Really, only a fool would believe he didn't know what he was saying. Just replace the 'Belgrano' with the 'Arizona', and well, lets see how funny it is to him.

Derico, really, ANC did apologize, several times for that matter, and he also made clear that he did not realize how big a deal the sinking of the Belgrano is for Argentina. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes, right? We all screw up every now and then  Wink

saludos  Smile

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: YOWza
Posted 2006-02-24 21:56:10 and read 3781 times.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 123):
Now, I've got a pretty thick skin, and stabbing at the US doesn't bother me too much.

I think we both know that might be stretching the truth just a little.

YOWza

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: F4phantom
Posted 2006-02-24 23:17:46 and read 3760 times.

the Royal Navy and the rest of the British Armed Forces sailed thousands of miles from home, took on and thoroughly spanked a occupying invasion force many times larger than ours. When the fighting got tough the British stood up to be counted, no surrender, the Union Jacks flies proudly over Port Stanley, God Save the Queen

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: ANCFlyer
Posted 2006-02-25 02:33:51 and read 3730 times.

Quoting YOWza (Reply 125):
I think we both know that might be stretching the truth just a little.

Na, not really . . . we deserve a lot of the shit we get . . . what chaps my ass, is the undeserved and "inventive" shit we get . . . or the twisting of the slightest idea into anti-Bush or anti-US bullcrap . . .

That is simply a display of igorance and lack of anything worth posting on the part of the poster . . . or a sublime hatred of all things US . . . either way, uncalled for and ignorant . . .

That's all . . . .

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: YOWza
Posted 2006-02-25 02:53:50 and read 3724 times.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 127):
That's all . . .

I can respect that. I'm a reasonable guy, despite being a liberal I voted conservative in our last elections because I beleive that they were best for Canada for now. At least we can both agree that ignorance is a major problem for those both outside and inside the US.

YOWza

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Pdpsol
Posted 2006-02-26 01:57:51 and read 3676 times.

I have only now read some of the ridiculous posts on this thread. I find it unbelievable this topic has been raised AGAIN here on a.net.

Frankly, I am baffled with this obsession over a petty conflict started by a military government bent on maintaining political power at any cost. May I remind everyone this "war" ended in June 1982, almost 24 years ago.

For some bizarre reason, certain a.net members [who shall remain nameless] appear to believe [and, of course, I am assuming they believe this as they have not stated it outright] Argentines are a warmongering, militaristic, fascist-loving, Nazi-protecting, nationalistic people with a "chip on their shoulder".

Nothing could be further from the truth. A short stay in Buenos Aires and some social interaction will convince anyone that Argentines despise totalitarian ideologies and reject any use of violence to achieve political ends.

Argentina has enjoyed continuous democratic rule since 1983. The republic maintains the highest respect for civil and human rights and, may I remind everyone, was the first nation in Latin America with a municipality [namely, Buenos Aires] to ratify a domestic partnership law for same-sex couples. Argentina is a tolerant, boisterous democracy where all ideological sides get their say.

As I stated in my posts from two weeks ago, it is very inaccurate to refer to Argentina's military government in 1982 as being representative of popular opinion.

Argentina's military assumed power through a coup d'etat in 1976, not through democratic elections. It never represented the sovereign interests of the Argentine people and never held their popular support. Argentina's military was a fascist institution bent on maintaining political power at any cost. It was a massive, corrupt organization that applied violence and fear to assume and maintain power.

So, for the record, enough of these petty squabbles.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Aloges
Posted 2006-02-26 02:10:44 and read 3671 times.

Quoting Pdpsol (Reply 129):
For some bizarre reason, certain a.net members [...] appear to believe [...] Argentines are a warmongering, militaristic, fascist-loving, Nazi-protecting, nationalistic people with a "chip on their shoulder".

I don't necessarily agree, although I have to admit I stopped reading this humourous piece of discussion after about half of the posts. I don't have a problem with Argentina, the country's people and their national pride. What I do find funny is the jingoism expressed by a select few users who repeatedly claim Argentina was "robbed" off the islands, is continuously "bashed" in this forum and is, in general, being abused and mistreated by foreigners and other nations.

Quoting Pdpsol (Reply 129):
So, for the record, enough of these petty squabbles.

Certainly - but I won't be able to help replying if the same issue is raised again.  Wink

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: ANCFlyer
Posted 2006-02-26 02:22:14 and read 3667 times.

Quoting Pdpsol (Reply 129):
For some bizarre reason, certain a.net members [who shall remain nameless] appear to believe [and, of course, I am assuming they believe this as they have not stated it outright] Argentines are a warmongering, militaristic, fascist-loving, Nazi-protecting, nationalistic people with a "chip on their shoulder".

Certainly I for one think at least ONE member from Argentina maintains a hufe chip on his shoulder - and have so stated - I can only imagine I'm the target of the [who shal remain nameless]. I'm okay with that, you see, because there are certainly members on A-Net from Argentina that I maintain a great deal of respect for - EZIEZA and MD11Junkie as two examples. I don't always agree with them or their views, nor do they with mine. That said, it is not often I see EZIEZA or Gaston pop in to any given thread and twist and turn it's point(s) into a US or Pres. Bush bash to satisfy some sort of twisted anti-US view . . . Derico is prone to that.

But no matter . . . if he, or you, or anyone else were to pop into ANC, they'd be my guest . . .

As adults, we don't have to agree, and we can call 'em like we see 'em. It's only the children here that take easily and quickly offense at casual - or even less than casual - conversation . . . it is, afterall, the internet.

I'd consider it a priviledge to meet EZ, Gaston, you and Derico . . . and chance to expand my horizons is a priviledge . . . even if personal opinion and politics don't meet on even ground. There's always time for that later.

I have no doubts that Argentina is a great place . . . I'd love to visit . . . I need to get there and to Brazil and to Rio (I've a fascination for Rio for some unexplained reason). Just haven't checked that block yet.

Beautiful people, beautiful culture, beautiful land . . . don't mistake my disdain for a single members posts for a blanket dislike of a people or their country.

Hell if that were the case, most of my friends in Oregon would be dead by now . . . danged Bunny Huggers.  wink 

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: AR385
Posted 2006-02-26 03:51:28 and read 3654 times.

My mother is from Argentina. Hence all my maternal family is in Argentina.

The Guerra de las Malvinas was the ego-trip of an alcoholic fascist-military president. Galtieri. He thought that, with the war, as in a soccer game, he could take the mind of his citizens off the countries problems.

He also was stupid. If he had waited until April the 20th to invade, instead of April the 2nd he would have gotten the whole compliment of Exsocet missiles from France, but with the embargo, those 40 extra missiles were not delivered. As it was, the Argentine Air Force was thus left with only 9 Exsocet missiles. Talk to the Coventry, the Sheffield, the Atlantic Conveyor, et al, about what that extra compliment of missiles would have done to the Brithish task force.

Chile had a lot to do in this war. It provided aid and intelligence to the British. Wether that made a difference, I don't know, but the Chileans had an AWACS plane aloft all through the conflict.

The Americans were really in a bind. They had to support the British, but they were worried about losing their big anti-communist ally in South America. Alexander Haig really tried, but you really cannot deal logically with a drunk.

Argentine conscripts at that time were a laughable rival to Nato trained British troops. They were also provided with non-working weapons and living conditions that were inhumane.

I'm sorry to say this, but I'm glad events turned out the way they did. Otherwise, Argentina would have had to endure God knows how many more years of Fascist military rule.

If anybody is wondering. I had an uncle in Bahia Blanca, an Argentine aerospace engineer. He was killed in the war. We miss him.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2006-02-26 17:08:57 and read 3618 times.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 132):
Argentine conscripts at that time were a laughable rival to Nato trained British troops. They were also provided with non-working weapons and living conditions that were inhumane.

AR I don't know if you have seen it, but if you haven't, you (and all fellow a.netters that have an interest in what happened in Malvinas) must watch the movie "Iluminados por el Fuego". It is a true story about one Argentine soldier that fought there. Once you see that movie you will see the desperate conditions the Argentine soldiers were living in the Islands.
And also let me say that I'm sorry about your uncle, really.

regards  Smile

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: RobertNL070
Posted 2006-02-26 18:07:41 and read 3603 times.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 132):
to Nato trained British troops

With respect, while British forces will surely welcome tips and advice from NATO partners, I think you'll find that British troops are very much British trained.

Regards, Robert  bouncy 

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: GDB
Posted 2006-02-26 18:36:23 and read 3597 times.

AR385, interesting stuff.
However, only 5 AM-39 Exocets were operational at the time of conflict, one hit HMS Sheffield, one hit the unarmed merchant ship pressed into service, the Atlantic Conveyor, the rest were decoyed by countermeasures such as chaff.
The biggest threat was actually the sheer numbers of aircraft armed with 'dumb' bombs, as it turned out.

But you are right, had there been a larger stock, British planning would have changed, possilbly a Vulcan bomber attack on the Super Etendard's base, or a visit from the SAS/SBS, presumably escaping through Chile).

Such a plan was looked at, the RN Conventional sub HMS Onyx was in the area, was equipped to get close to shore and deploy people, and what was that RN Sea King HC.4 helicopter doing burned out on the Chile/Argentine border?
It was a transport version, so crew claims of a anti sub mission that got lost were a cover, (it was launched from HMS Hermes, at night, after the carrier and escorts dashed to the rest of the Islands, much closer to Argentina than any other RN carrier went).
Presumably they deployed an advance party, should any raid on an airbase been given the go ahead.

Chile had no AWACS in 1982 (no one did save the US and NATO), but RAF Canberra PR.9's of 39 Sqn got a Falkland Battle Honour, despite the aircraft not having anything like the range to cover the Islands from Acension Island, no in flight refuelling provision either.

However, a UK reporter mentioned seeing Chilean Canberra's during the war, he knew the aircraft having reported from places like Rhodesia where it was used, he also was aware that some Latin American AF's had them (including Argentina, who lost some to Sea Harrier and Sea Dart missiles).
What he did not know was that up to then, despite having legacy UK equipment such as Hawker Hunters, some warships, Chile had never had Canberra aircraft.

Clearly, some 39 Sqn aircraft operated from Chile, months later, in October 1982, Chile DID get some surplus Canberra PR.9's, (as a 'thank you?')
So aircraft were watching, not AWACS, but the high altitude, specialised recon version of the Canberra.

You are also right in that Al Haig despaired of dealing with the Junta, who often had a lot to drink.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: AR385
Posted 2006-02-26 21:26:22 and read 3574 times.

Quoting RobertNL070 (Reply 134):
With respect, while British forces will surely welcome tips and advice from NATO partners, I think you'll find that British troops are very much British trained.

I did not write that properly. What I meant was that while I'm sure British troops are British trained, they are trained at least to a minimum NATO standard.

Quoting GDB (Reply 135):
But you are right, had there been a larger stock, British planning would have changed, possilbly a Vulcan bomber attack on the Super Etendard's base, or a visit from the SAS/SBS, presumably escaping through Chile).

While I'm sure this type of missions were looked at, and planned, had Chile's open support were discovered at the time and the scale of it (as an SAS team escaping through Chile might have been given a clue) the conflict would have turned into a big regional mess. As it was, Peru had pledged open military assitance to Argentina, and Peruvians would have loved any excuse to get Chile from the North. Brazil could have gotten involved too. Plus, MDZ is less than 25 mins flight time from SCL. MDZ was an even bigger air force base at the time than it is today. SCL could have gotten a bad surprise. The Beagle channel fiasco was still too fresh in the minds of the Junta. Given the above, I'm glad cooler heads prevailed in the British decisions. And you are right, the amount of dumb bombs was laughable too. However, I'm still sure they had more than 5 exocet missiles, but I'll go back and check.

Quoting GDB (Reply 135):
Chile had no AWACS in 1982 (no one did save the US and NATO), but RAF Canberra PR.9's of 39 Sqn got a Falkland Battle Honour, despite the aircraft not having anything like the range to cover the Islands from Acension Island, no in flight refuelling provision either.

Again, I wrote this wrong. Chile had no AWACS plane at the time, you are right. What I tried to say is that there was some kind of AWACS support provided from Chile. Wether this was a NATO plane, an American one, or, as you say, the 39th sqd Canberras, electronic intelligence and survelliance from "high altitude" was provided from Chile. Support was also provided in different forms. Otherwise you wouldn't have had that old Thatcher wench come to the defense of Pinochet so madly when he was in Britain under house arrest on a Spanish warrant.

Quoting GDB (Reply 135):
You are also right in that Al Haig despaired of dealing with the Junta, who often had a lot to drink.



Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 133):
AR I don't know if you have seen it, but if you haven't, you (and all fellow a.netters that have an interest in what happened in Malvinas) must watch the movie "Iluminados por el Fuego". It is a true story about one Argentine soldier that fought there. Once you see that movie you will see the desperate conditions the Argentine soldiers were living in the Islands.

EZEIZA, I have not seen the movie. I have heard about it though, but I'm not sure I could stomach it.

GDB, In my opinion the Guerra de las Malvinas was a tragedy. A consequence of what happens when you have military dictatorships in power. But, you also have to keep in mind that the Malvinas war was a wonderful political opportunity for Thatcher at the time. Another sad fact overlooked by the drunks in Buenos Aires. As I said before, from a very stoic and pragmatic point of view, I'm glad the final result was a victory for Britain.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: Pdpsol
Posted 2006-02-26 22:23:08 and read 3561 times.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 136):
As I said before, from a very stoic and pragmatic point of view, I'm glad the final result was a victory for Britain.

I wholeheartedly agree with AR385 on this point. Today, the ENTIRE region enjoys infinitely superior security and strong political cooperation on a wide range of economic, cultural and military issues. There is nominal risk of a regional conflict today in South America [although that silly man in Caracas is a wild card].

As I mentioned in my post last week, both Argentina and Brazil are signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty [NPT]. Both nations are GUARANTORS to the NPT, ensuring nuclear weapons will NEVER be found in Latin America. Despite Chavez' crazed rantings screaming for scientific cooperation with Iran to develop nuclear technolgies, Brazil will ensure this does not happen.

Democratic political and social institutions in South America [with the important exception of Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela] are stronger today than ever before.

The past three decades have seen enormous progress in economic, political and social liberalization for the region. Despite many real current challenges, Argentina and its neighbors face a bright future, full of economic opportunity, political transparency and respect for the civil rights of their citizens, irrespective of race, ethnicity, ideology, sexual orientation or religion.

Topic: RE: Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina!
Username: LVZXV
Posted 2006-03-11 16:01:04 and read 3457 times.

Quoting GDB (Reply 135):
However, only 5 AM-39 Exocets were operational at the time of conflict, one hit HMS Sheffield, one hit the unarmed merchant ship pressed into service, the Atlantic Conveyor, the rest were decoyed by countermeasures such as chaff.
The biggest threat was actually the sheer numbers of aircraft armed with 'dumb' bombs, as it turned out.

Correct, and as it was, of the five Super Etendard platforms that had been delivered in time for the war (3-A-201 thru 205), 201 had to be cannibalised in order to provide spares for the rest of the fleet. The four operational aircraft only made five sorties during the war (usually a pair), two of which were aborted on account of bad weather.
Personally, however, I think the fate of most of the missiles may never become publicly known. My own gut instinct is that one or two went astray. Sheffield was probably hit by an Exocet, though there is also an obscure (but not outlandish) possibility that she was struck by a bomb released from a Mirage 5 Dagger on May 1, not far from Stanley. The British claim the victim of said attack was the County Class destroyer Glamorgan, which itself subsequently endured (and somehow survived) a hit from a land-launched Exocet on June 12/13.
One British source (I forget which) claims the Atlantic Conveyer was hit by not just one but both the missiles launched on May 25. Considering that she was the only ship in the area unable to fire decoys, this is possible.
And finally, I have always found British explanations to what really happened during the attack on the Invincible somewhat weak, especially the claims that the Avenger downed the Exocet with its 4.5-inch bombardment gun (from a range of 8 miles) or that the Argentine Skyhawk pilots confused a destroyer's helicopter landing pad for the carrier's platform. I'm not saying the above is entirely impossible, though I do find it unlikely.

Quoting GDB (Reply 135):
and what was that RN Sea King HC.4 helicopter doing burned out on the Chile/Argentine border?

This was the botched Operation "Mikado" of May 19/20. The objective was to raid the Argentine naval airbase at Río Grande, destroy the Super Etendards, their weapons, and kill the pilots. Two RAF Hercules C.1Ks were going to provide support, crash-landing on the runway and painted in fake Chilean Air Force markings (one even wore the incorrect titles "FUERZA AREA DE CHILE").

Quoting GDB (Reply 135):
Chile had no AWACS in 1982 (no one did save the US and NATO), but RAF Canberra PR.9's of 39 Sqn got a Falkland Battle Honour, despite the aircraft not having anything like the range to cover the Islands from Acension Island, no in flight refuelling provision either.

One of these located the Belgrano on May 2.

Quoting GDB (Reply 135):
Clearly, some 39 Sqn aircraft operated from Chile, months later, in October 1982, Chile DID get some surplus Canberra PR.9's, (as a 'thank you?')

Yes.

Saludos,

ZXV

[Edited 2006-03-11 16:02:42]


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/