cams? the Argentinian soldiers didn't have even enough food ....
this is a good true story:
There where collects and donations the people made back there in Argentina.
There´s been lot of cases where people sent messages to Argentinian soldiers in between the wrapping paper of donated chocolates for an example, and lots of reports by people finding them (this little msgs. or letters)when buying chocolates at the supermarket... lol
yeah Argentinian are now the neighbourhood bully, i thought we where talking bout world piracy and colonialism. can express yourself in another language? well the guy u say numbnut did it...
In fact the islands were French, the "Brits" and Spanish came after...
who is the bully of the neighborhood ...?, you really think the British should "protect" the islanders ...? or is it just an excuse to continue colonial presence.
@aleu650 Actually the British predate the French, though the first permanent settlement was indeed French.
The British do simply protect the islands, they are also not a colony, having self-government with the exception of Foreign Relations and Defence undertaken by the UK. The UK remains because of the threat from Argentina, otherwise there would be virtually no presence. We had 40 RM in 1982, to put this into perspective.
Creo que los ingleses saben que si pierden el control de las Islas Malvinas, en el escenario actual, ni se arriman mas por aca, la experiencia del 82 significo una leccion muy dura, estuvieron al borde del papelon en tierra, fueron un desastre en el agua y nunca interceptaron un ataque aereoSi Chile hubiera sido neutral regresaban a Gran Bretaña como los yankees de VietNam, en puras bolsas y todos averiados o hundidos.En la Guerra pierden todos...
para que eso suceda,tienen que viajar a esas islas mierderas y entregarles sus culitos a los britanicos a ver si se las devuelven...jajaja deberian bañarse con un barril de mierda argentinos hijos de putas
@fcomfernandez En la guerra de malvinas el ejercito argentino peleo con honra, muchos soldados dejaron su vida por su país. Y uds ? tengo que recordarte lo de la laguna del desierto y el teniente merino ? quedaron como cobardes, entregaron la laguna si disparar una bala. Awewonao.
@leontiveros morite maldito hijo de puta,vos no sabe nada de guerra,los ingleses se cagaron y se limpiaron sus culitos con tu bandera albiceleste,pedazo de puto,anda a chuparle la pija a los ingleses
@fcomfernandez, me uno al movimiento estudiantil chileno, que busca la merecida gratuidad en la educación. Por eso digo: ¡ Educación gratuita para todo Chile y en especial para "fcomfernandez", él la necesita urgente !
@fcomfernandez no sabes chupar una concha ? jaja. Ahora entiendo por que las chilenas prefieren a los argentinos. Tipos como fcomfernandez que ni siquiera saben chupar una XUXA. No me hagas reír mas ! JAJAJA
si esto, si aquello, si Argentina no fuese Argentina, poblada de argentinos, no sería Argentina. Guste o no, los ingleses siempre han sido guerreros y luchadores... Ninguna campaña es intachable: no desembarcar las tropas a toda prisa en Bluff Cove fue un grave error, entre otros, pero, seamos honrados, el ejercito británico y los Royal Marines combatieron muy bien, en conjunto. mejor que los reclutas argentinos y los mandos británicos fueron bastante superiores a los argentinos.
@bosterinho Yeah right genius, we parked it in front of Spanish journalists and not one took a picture. Newsflash oh mighty intellect, not everyone believes the crappy propaganda Argentina published during and after the Falklands War.
In persisting with this crap you devalue the memory of the Argentine pilots who died in the war.
@bosterinho Its a shame no one in Spain took a picture as Gibraltar is clearly visible from Algericas during the time Invincible was supposedly being repaired,or none of the day trippers or workers on the rock its self thought to take a picture of this badly damaged carrier,its literally unbelievable isn't it?.....
At least you have been educated to answer me like that, not like the other idiot. My father fought in that war as a pilot and the pilots who hit the ship were his partners, why would they lie? everybody knows that the argentinean air force made an amazing work, they dont have to lie! in the other hand its ok for you people to think It wasn´t damaged but It s also ok for us to think It was: It wouldn´t been the first time british national army forces lied,about a case like this, am I wrong?
@bosterinho Im not saying they are lieing im saying they are mistaken there is a difference,in WW2 a German Ju88 pilot claimed to have scored a hit on Ark Royal German propaganda turned that claim of a possibe hit into a definite sinking,when it transpired the Ark hadn't been sunk the pilot killed himself .
@bosterinho There is no historical precedent for such a long term cover up it was tried both in WW1 and WW2 with HMS Marlborough and HMS Barham to confuse an enemy in an ongoing war but even then with wartime censorship news got out and the losses were admitted while both those wars were still raging . So how do you think in a modern democracy so many thousands of people have been kept so absolutely silent on the subject .
@bosterinho No it isn't when it never happened you devalue the memory of those who died. Clinging to wartime propaganda 30 years after the event is just sad.
And it was the RN who expressed their admiration for the bravery of the Argentine pilots, they have nothing to hide. The truth alwasy gets out.
Oh and this is my page, my rules. OK so keep it civil
Yawn, newsflash genius, there are plenty of images of Invincible from this period, including Vinny anchored in Port William Falkland Islands - all immediately after the war. Vinny remained in Falklands waters waiting for the runway at Stanely to be extended. Vinny was not in South Georgia.
As to talking tough, I seem to remember Argentines talking tough in '82, they still do to this day. You held all the aces and still got your arse kicked. You have a nice day now.
Not the first crowd of fascists to claim to have sunk a particular British aircraft carrier. Of course the first lot were professionals and finally managed it off Gibraltar, whereas Argentina, well, what can I say? Their refusal to accept reality demeans those of their pilots who showed skill and courage and did not make exaggerated claims for their endeavours. Of course given the amount of rubbish on YouTube they don't have to. Too many others are willing to do it for them.
As a side point the memory i have the most is all the hundreds of junk being unloaded from the surrender of Argentine conscripts and the stink of sea water and defeat
Un amigo español contó a los medios argentinos que vió en Gibraltar al HMS Invencible y no podía moverse por sus propios medios de lo hecho pelota que estaba, asique...
Nuestro A4C/B/Q no tenian camaras, los unicos creo que era los Dagger, tampoco tenian contra medidas chaff, flares, no tenian radio altimetro, los cañones de 20mm en su gran mayoria se atascaban, tampoco tenian warning lock ni misiles de defensa como sidewinder ni shafir que si tenian los dagger, muy pocos tenian sistema de navegacion. y los mas importante murieron 2 hereos en ese ataque lo hiciero 2 super etendart de la armada y 4 A4 C de los cuales 2 volvieron
The FACT is that British fire power won.Today we have our latest Typhoon fighters based on the falklands,at least 2 warships on patrol there and a submarine on patrol at the falkland islands.If the Argies come again we'll wip their arses again.We are GREAT BRITAIN and we dont mess!!!!
cOMO SE EXPLICAN QUE DESPUES DEL ATAQUE AL INVENCIBLE SE SUSPENDIIERON LOS VUELOS DE LOS HARRIER . ADEMAS DE QUE LOS RADRES Y LOS OJOS DE LOS PILOTOS NO MIENTEN, FUE ALCANZADO, SIN DUDA CASO CONTRARIO QUE EL GOBIERNO BRITANICO, SAQUE A LA LUZ LA VERDAD DEL CONFLICTO
Like so many things about the Argentine "version" this is simply a lie. The Invincible Harriers remained active, Cmdr Sharky Ward shot down a Hercules the next day. Invincinle was nowhere near. Sad indeed that wartime propaganda has such a hold over the Argentine psyche that they feel the need to invent imaginary victories rather than defeat with honour.
No we don't, not since the Freedom of Information Act in 2000. Damaged ships go to port to be fixed, they don't hang around iin the South Atlantic and the reason she stayed is very credible; she was there to defend against further Argentine attacks. The other carrier Hermes was overdue an overhaul.
@sonelihcsotup Ascension island has no port facility or repair facility, there are plenty of photos showing Vini in the Falklands including her anchored in Port William.
el invencible fue remolcado en la base britanica de gibraltar en 1982, ya que no se podia movilizar por sus propios medios. Esto lo afirman testigos españoles que vieron al portaaviones en el puerto. Le reparon dos tubinas entre otras cosas, que prueban que el portaaviones efectivamente fue tocado. Sino de que otra forma explican porque demoro tanto en volver a gran bretaña?
Invincible blew a gear box and it was repaired on board. Invincible did not put into Gibraltar and it is utterly ludicrous to claim that she would have put into Gib under the noses of the Spanish and not one photo was taken.
Invincible stayed in the Falklands to provide air cover, well known, well documented, there are hundreds of photos. Grow up.
SM Invencibles nunca fueron atacados exitosamente por el Fuerza Aerea Argentina. Tenido que sucedió, la Marina Británica nunca podría haber apoyado exitosamente la campaña como hizo. Eche una mirada en la Tierra de Google, "Invencible" sobrevive en Portsmouth.
Yo podria traducir en ingles por mi señora, pero hablo castellano . Me gustaria que algun dia inglaterra , reconozca que el invencible fue atacado, segun historiadores de distintos lugares , investigando a ex marinos , sin dar nombres , por amenaza de la Corona Real , ningun hombre esta autorizado hablar del tema , pero sea infiltrado informacion . DEMORO 4 MESES EN RETORNAR A INGLATERRA. POR QUE ?
Invincible wasn't attacked, it is that simple. Hermes returned before Invincible because she was overdue a refit, Invincible drew the short straw and stayed in the vicinity of the islands to protect the islands till Port Stanley was fully operational as an airbase. No one is forbidden from talking and the Argentines who scream conspiracy about the closure order are out of date. The Freedom of Information act means the files are opened. Britain admitted to ALL its losses.
Jajaj because of it they ordered a nose to repair noses in altamar urgently. In addition there are Venezuelans' testimonies that they say that you asked for permission for it(he,she) repairs the invincible one in venezuela and they denied it to him(you,them).
There are testimosnio that were in gibraltar and they saw to enter(approach) to tow the invincible one.
Ah right so now they went to Venezuela as well as Gibraltar and not one iota of photographic evidence to back this up. 1000s of matelots, the embedded journalists just missed the attack. Must tell my mate Spider that he had a long swim home in 1982 and didn't notice.
Right and this just slipped the attention of the international press. And they went to Venezuela, a hostile country, ignoring the friendly Commonwealth ports nearby? Mmm, I think not.
So instead they went to Gibraltar in full view of the only European nation to support Argentina, a hulking great aircraft carrier and not one person took a photograph.
It is the major lie stimulated by a propaganda to that I have listened.
For if you did not realize mandaro a nose for repairs noses in altamr urgently and there are witnesses who saw the invincible one to enter to gilbraltar and they were highlighting: " I enter to tow "
Right so to hide the damage to Invincible they put into Gibraltar, in full view of the only European nation to support Argentina and no one took a holiday snap. You will happily believe the most ludicrous crap if it re-inforces your preconceived ideas.
The ship is sitting in Portsmouth, you can see it on Google Earth.
Any ship that this great time in algua salty and in the conditions that were, besides the time, not llegaria practically 0 km to a port. As the invincible one.
The radar Argentine port I confirm that after the assault the activity airs British under to the half.
The general do moore happen(pass) of commanding the troops of the invincible one to land (after May 30) because sera?
Yawn, it is physically impossible to repair the damage you allege without recourse to a dockyard. And the Argentine radar is yet another invention to cover up the embarassing fact that contrary to the pathetic claims you make Invincible wasn't touched. Continuing to cling to wartime propaganda is just sad.
There were embedded reporters on Invincible throughout the war. Invincible remained in the Falklands to provide air cover. There was no change in British air activity, Cmdr Sharky Ward shot down a C-130 the very next day. And the difference between Invincible and Hermes on here return is easily explained by the fact that Hermes was due a refit before the war and was significantly older. That older ships are rustier apparently is a surprise to Argentines.
It does actually, the newer ships suffered far less rust than older ships. It is easily demonstrated by the pictures of the returning ships. Its also easy to demonstrate that battle damage repairs outside of a dockyard are very easy to spot.
The air activity on the day is also well documented, this is not the only thing that happened.
Obviously that we didn't sunk the HMS Invencible, the only thing that we did was hit it with an exocet missile, three bombs and cannon, but if we had the missiles that France would give us, probably we could sunk the invencible and Margaret Thatcher would give up and the UN would say that those islands are british because british hate us
No you didn't, it never happened. Time it seems for Argentina to grow up. As my granny used to say, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Sad to say that Argentines fail to realise that you were the bad guys in 1982, you invaded a peaceful island community in pursuit of a sovereignty claim contrived by a bunch of fascists in the 1930s.
Equally sad that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary a democratic Argentina still clings to the propaganda of a right wing junta.
1.The missile hitted the ship,it doesnt mean that it had to sunk,it is sitting there because it got fixed O_o
2.Sooooo,they sunked the Sheffield with a Exocet,plus the sheffield being more smaller,more fast,with a crew firing at it (missile) and being warned about it before the missile had even been fired,but it "didnt" hit the Invincible??,mmm,if you are intelligent you should think twice.
3.How people would react to reading a story about a "Indigena" firing a missile and hitting one of the
Exactly, the effect of the portion fake in that picture its more obvious because it has been done on film, take a look at the right portion of the picture, the change on the color (exposure) particulary in the water.
Hi, im a professional photographer, the rear part of the ships are modified by using photoshop, you can see that on the color of the wather around the ships.
Hola, soy fotografo profesional, la parte trasera de los barcos fue modificada con Photoshop, lo cual se advierte en el color y la textura del agua entrono a ellos.
Im sure Sky hawks would not have even reached HMS invincable Becacuse she was not near the island. I was told she was put out of range and was not on the main assault.
Don't be so over confident my friend, those exact words were said about America. I am happy we are allies of course! However if a people wish Independence for themselves just like life itself, a way could be found. By the way I remain neutral in this debate if there is one still. I am just sighting the logic. I see a more painful war going on here, of Ego's ouch!
The kelpers rest to inglaterra because they give them of everything. Before the war it was not important for him(her) the wreath what was happening(passing) in the islands.
If it(he,she) was not for the Argentine help the kelpers estarian died before 1982.
Nostros they vendiamos food between(among) other one sew
Basically he is claiming that the Falklands only existed before 1982 because of Argentine "benevolence". The Communications Agreement of 1971 was a collusion between the FCO and the Argentine Government to force the islands to be dependent on Argentina with the eventual aim of the FCO being able to dump the islands upon the Argentines. For benevolence read narrow self-interest.
8 aviones, un misil, una verdad... El 30 de Mayo de 1982, a las 1430hs 4 aviones A4-C SkyHawk junto a 2 KC-130H Hércules de la Fuerza Aérea Argentina en conjunto con 2 SuperEtendard de la Armada Argentina,llevaron a cabo el ataque conjunto más importante del Conflicto Malvinas. Esta misión se llamó OPERACION INVENCIBLE A 1er Ten. Vázquez y 1er Ten. Castillo Q. E. P. D
1. suponiendo que fuese verdad la (falaz) teoría de que no se atacó al Invincible, dígame, el misil Exocet que fue lanzazo el 30 de mayo por el Super Etendard, ¿en que buque ingles impactó?
2. No me irá a decir que fue atacado "los restos del Atlantic Conveyor", buque derruido y quemado anteriormente.
3. Un buque quemado no podría haber destruido nunca a los 2 de los 4 A-4C que realizaron la Mision.
1. None it missed, decoyed by chaff from HMS Avenger
2. It possibly hit AC, she was still afloat and in that area; it is not certain.
3. The ship that shot down the 2 A-4C was HMS Exeter, the first Type 42 with the 1022 radar and updated Sea Dart software, she engaged the A-4C at less than 30 m altitude. Invincible had the Type 965 and could not have engaged under those circumstances.
yo no te llame pirata a ti, sino a tu gobierno. asi como tu puedes llamar corrupto y ladrón a mi gobierno (de hecho yo y todos los argentinos lo llamamos asi). Cada gobierno tiene sus vicios, algunos son piratas, otros son mas corruptos que el resto, otros son fundamentalistas, algunos denotan cierta soberbia, etc.
Hecho! buenisimo entonces. Averiamos un barco, y además desde ese 30 de mayo dejó el Invincible de operar en la Guerra de Malvinas. No se entiende la gentileza de los piratas de tener un barco en optimas condiciones y dejarlo fuera de combate a partir del 30 de mayo... no habrán subestimado a la Fuerza Aerea Argentina (de 1982)??? hasta los gurkas les tenían miedo
Yawn, really it is deeply, deeply, deeply sad that you're still creating the most fantastical conspiracy theories to explain the embarassing fact that Invincible continued to operate as normal. Sharky Ward shot down a C-130 the very next day. Double yawn, I see you slipped in a pirate insult there, but of a waste of time as we just find it funny.
por qué el gobierno pirata ordenó mantener el secreto de guerra de Malvinas por 90 años, siendo que lo normal es de 30? claro, ningún ex combatiente va a estar vivo para cuando uds admitan sobre la avería del Invincible.
No a 90 year closure order was normal to protect the identity of individuals. However, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 means that the Falklands War files are now available on the MOD's website.
Keep up with the programme, this is all explained on my other videos.
Oh and pirate, please, grow up.
Its deeply, deeply sad that you undermine the achievements of the Argentine Air Forces by still clinging to this ridiculous war time propaganda.
¿que por qué digo piratas? muy facil. las malvinas son argentinas; el gobierno pirata inglés las usurpó en 1833. otros antecedentes de piratería inglesa los podés observar en los años 1806 y 1807 ¿te suena? tal vez la frase "Fuerte Barragán" te ayude a recordar de lo que hablo. Volviendo al "Invincible" (que no fue tan invencible que digamos...) decime, para que dejó de operar el Portaviones? es publico e innegable que el portaviones fue reparado en las Georgias
I'm wounded, you called me a pirate again. Take a hint, I realise you intended it as an insult, we just find it exceedingly childish.
The invasions of 1806/7 took place in the context of the Anglo-Spanish War. As regards 1833, no we did not but then as you've been indoctrinated since birth I know you're incapable of listening to another opinion.
South Georgia is a barren wilderness, there is nowhere to repair a major warship, that needs a dockyard; that is merely conspiracy theory crap.
War could be avoided. Not only Galtieri needed popularity, also Tathcher. She were reelected. She wanted to go further with the war sinking the Belgrano, and distroying the diplomacy efforts.
It will have to be solve by diplomacy, in 20 50 or more years. May be the islanders will claim for their own country, nor argentinien nor british, and that could be something.
Mmm, no Thatcher didn't need a war, a peace deal would have done her credibility just as much good. And a war wouldn't guarantee re-election; Churchill won WWII and he was then immediately defeated. The record on the peace negotiations is also self-evident; it was Perez de Cuellar who expressed amazement at how far the British were prepared to compromise to avoid war, whilst Argentina did not budge an inch.
And the Falklands have been self-governing for some time, the latest constitution starting in Jan 2009 was written by themselves. Britain and the Falkland Islands have modernised their relationship whilst Argentina remains mired in a 19th Century timewarp.
Diplomacy? Somehow I doubt it, at least not whilst Argentina refuses to acknowledge that the islanders have a say in their future. I guess Argentina will just get left further and further behind.
The Freedom of Information Act means that information on the Falklands War is now in the public domain. Has been for nearly 10 years, I do point this out elsewhere but I guess it spoils the Argentine conspiracy theory nutters day so they simply ignore it.
And gloat about cheating at football, I'm Scottish so don't give a shit.
Yes that just means you cheat at sport and lie about the war.
If you used your brain you would realise that it is impossible to hide casualties (they have friends and families) and impossible to repair the type of damage that Argentina claims without dock facilities which would mean the whole world knowing easily. Isn't it obvious that after 27 years all Argentina can produce is Ureta to tell the lie over and again. Ureta must have a nose as long as pinocchio !
And sorry, but i dont want to forget this. You said that "it was utter horse shit" my argument that th possesion of the Malvinas/Falklands by UK would lead to UK to claim rights over Antartica. Well, I have new for you from the Time. "The British Are Coming to Antarctica. British troops taking part in an exercise on the southern Atlantic island of South Georgia in 2004. Britain is preparing a claim for sovereign rights covering gas and oil resources over a wedge of the Antarctic seabed. "
Nope, thats propaganda. It was a requirement on the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention that Britain lodged a claim. And if the claim is disputed its parked. It actually mean nothing as exploration for oil and gas is banned by the Antartic treaty but it would permit Britain to exercise its obligations to protect fishing resources.
Typically however Argentina has to go off on one and make mountains out of molehills.
Richard Gott? Is that the best you can do? Do some research on the guy.
"After repeated accusations of being anti-British, he finally resigned as literary editor of the Guardian in 1994 after allegations were made in The Spectator that he had been an "agent of influence" for the KGB, claims which he rejected, arguing that "Like many other journalists, diplomats and politicians, I lunched with Russians during the cold war.""
Ok, but you say acusations of being anti British,,,made by whom? If you read the article you will find he describes the situation pretty well. And is not the only one i read doing this. More: why now he is writting in the guardian if he resigned?
I have read the article, to be polite, its a pile of offensive nonsense. And to be even blunter it justifies one of the most disgraceful acts the British Government did in the '60s, the expulsion of the Chagos islanders and suggests doing the same to the Falklanders. It was immoral and completely unjustified.
and about Vernet and this, let me check. But honestly, is ok with the current islanders, i dont want to use any offensive term agains them. I just was trying to point out some weird "double standars" some british had
It was our ancestors who were imperialist and not the current generations on the shores of the UK.
It is like me blaming the Italians for the things that the Romans did. or me blaming the scandanavian and french vikings for invading britain many, many, many years ago.
As you will well accept (hopefully) this is a ridiculous way to behave. Britain is no longer an imperialist nation and has not been for nearly 100years.
Argentina invaded the falklands against the will of the people.
i totally agree with you., i wont blame your ancestors or you about the British Empire as you are pointing here. But, in the malvinas issue, the problem still exists because its foundation is a colonial and usurpation issue. do you know what I mean? The problem persists even if know GB is not longer an Empire. But lets dont be naive Despite UK is not an Empire since 1920 their Foregein pollicy remains and remained in much cases in that foundations.
Argentina's foundation is based upon a colonial heritage, does that mean the people of Argentina do not get to determine their own future.
Usurpation? No. The version of events that Argentina claims is full of holes, most of it never happened. For instance Argentina claimed the British expelled the settlement, it never actually happened.
Regarding ARG invading against their ppl wishes,,,well If you invaded in 1833, and then transplanted population into the islands, and if they are british, what ARG did was to recover a territory inhabitated with british transplanted population, not to colonize a territory inhabitated with original population. See: GB recognized ARG independence in 1820, not mention were done to the ARG garrison in Malvinas but that time. 13 years after you expelled the ARG authorities...how you call this?
Didn't invade in 1833, didn't expel the population.
We recognised Argentine independence in 1825, one of the 1st European nations to do so but you weren't in the Falklands Vernet didn't establish a settlement till 1828. The inconvenient fact missing from the Argentine history is that Vernet asked the British for permission to do so, provided regular reports to the British and urged the British to set up a permanent garrison.
And on imperialism. Britain has returned the old empire back over to the rightful owners. Britain has as a whole returned around 1/3 of the entire world back.
Britain largely accepts the mistakes it made with the imperialist nature of its ruling classes. This is taught in schools and in homes thoughout the UK. This is why Britain is so adament that the same mistakes will not be made by other nations with imperialist agendas.
Britain as a whole accepts large numbers of people from around the world. Are they persecuted NO, are they refused state help NO, are they prevented from getting jobs NO, are they prevented from using the NHS NO, are they prevented from sending their children to school NO, are they expected to be treated as second class citizens NO.
Yes in small groups racism and intolerance exists, as in all countries of the world. Again though, Britain is by and far one of the most tolerant country of all.
I agree with you and i wont deny it. But how many years these toke. I mean, as far I knew the gurkhas were near starving in Nepal asking for more than 20 pounds per year to live. That´s mean near 60 years after ww2. 25 after Malvinas war. I know now GB is tolerant, what talking about ARG being an Imperialist country while you have such historical backgroun,,,well is too much. I m not denying that Britain now (at least in some governamental policies) is tolerant country. But ...
To explain, the situation with the Gurkhas related back to Indian independence when the Gurkhas in the Indian Army were split between India and the UK. An anachronism rather than anything to do with nascent racism; what is telling is the huge upwell of support from the ordinary British public in their favour.
Britain's past is not an excuse for Argentina's current imperialist ambitions.
Tootired c mon man. Please c mon! I dont care if India and UK splited gurkhas. Them were probably too pride to fight for UK. The point here is the unfair situation they had to live for more than 100 years to be recognized as britsh being fighting for that country in many wars,,,and based I assume in a kind of racist or supremacist foundation,,,or how you would call that? NOw is solved,,or it seems to be. British racism and or imperialism is not an excuse for be same,
Nope, you're trying to make something out of it that wasn't there. Purely to try and use the issue to knock the UK rather than any compassion for the plight of the Gurkhas - and thats what motivated the British public.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with racism, don't judge people by your standards.
What? Mmmm I was very clear despiste my English doesnt help me for that. I m not trying to make anything...if you talk about racism i can give you lots of examples from your side (gurkhas), if you talk about imperialism i will answer that exactly the other way. I m not racist, is not my standard. But you know what annoyme a bit these discussion. Is your cinism. You say OK, we were not that good, but now we are very nice and good. The problem is that you were not that good, you stole ARG land.
Thats BS, you have no concern for the Gurkhas other than to use the issue as knocking copy to slag off the British. The issue is not one of racism, the British people have overwhelmingly backed the Gurkhas.
And we didn't steal Argentine land, Argentina however stole Patagona, and bits of Paraguary, and Uruguay and attempted to steal bits of Chile in 1978.
Jaja. Well i have to be a gurkha fan for support my argument that you were unfair with them up to the last year?? What kind of logic is this? 2nd Again no...please. dont compare ARG formation of the territory with invading every piece of land arround the globe. Look, i have nothing agianst actual inhabitants of the islands. Really i dont. And also i want peace. But, talking about diplomatic foundations clearly the ARG claim looks much more fair.
No we weren't unfair, they were treated differently for reasons that were anachronistic and out of place in modern Britain. Britain lives in the 21st Century, its Argentina that wants to turn the clock back to the 19th to pursue an illogical irredentist imperialist sovereignty claim and trampling over the rights of a smal island community. Fair? The big regional bully seeking to dominate a tiny island community.
cmon.Again I dont want any islander to be affraid about any ARG imperialistic invasion, We live in 21st century and I d like to prove this to you. You mentioned Chile. As you know ARG and Chile, sadly, were close to war. 10 years ago ARG and Chile solved every territorial issue. In fact both countries are now working together. YOu see ARG is a pacefull country and if you could talk we can talk. See that Chile still have issues with bolivia and Peru. Arg solved all. That should show you something
Appart from that Chile (ally of Uk in the war) support now ARG claim. Well, nevermind, ARG now doesnt have any territorial problem with any of these neightbours,,,you can´t say the same about other countries in the world (and south america of course) We are pacefull. and we live in 21st century regarding territorial claims.
Chile supported Britain purely because Argentina threatened that after the Falklands Chile would be next. One the hand you say you live in the 21st Century but still pursue an illogical revived 19th Century gripe for little more than macho national pride. Peaceful but seek every opportunity for confrontation over the Falklands. Thats pure hypocrisy.
Is not hypocresy. Look:is not against the islanders.And if you call ilogical 19century something issue, is because of you. ButUK knows what he does. NOw ARG and Chile are together because you use the islands to claim terrirory over the Antartica.you dont care the inhabitants at all. ARG knew allways that a british territory there would lead in future to british claim over the Antartica and the british claim is over the ARG and Chilean territory.NOw chile knows what we were talking about.
Thats utter horse shit, Britain had such little interest that back in 1982 we'd virtually withdrawn all forces from the South Atlantic. We had 40 Royal Marines and that was about it; Endurance was due to be scrapped. The only reason for the British presence in the Falklands is to deter further Argentine aggression. If Argentina hadn't invaded we would not have needed to maintain a garrison. The Antarctic treaty means no one has sovereignty.
Ah no??? Why ARg and chilean politicians are working together to stop british claim over the Antartica? that´s horse shit? REally??? I saw arg and chileans representatives in argentinían bases in Antartica to protest against british claims...i assume they should have a reason to do such action.
¨"The Antarctic treaty means no one has sovereignty. " yes and ARG was the country to started this treaty.
What is horse shit is claiming the British are only in the Falklands to pursue claims over Antartica. The British are there purely to deter further Argentine aggression, in 1982 there was virtually no presence at all.
And Argentina was one of the original 12, the originator of the treaty was the USA.
And again its utter hypocrisy, justifying Argentine aggression on the basis of a nonsense conspiracy theory. Noticeably nothing is ever Argentina's fault.
is not conspiracy theory man. If Uk claim right of sovereignity over the Antartica (and their claim overlap arg and chilean territory) you would call it a theory? Is a fact and i hope no discussion about this would progress otherwise would be a problem from UK in southamerica.
Its BS, the only reason the British are there is because of Argentina's aggression in 1982. Your BS conspiracy theory is entirely contradicted by the fact that the British had just about pulled out the South Atlantic in 1982, the Falkland Islands were barely defended.
Really, who was the one justifying the unprovoked act of aggression in 1982 less than 1 hr ago. And why does Argentina still pursue a bullying and confrontational attitude towards the Falklands as a matter of national policy. Argentina won't even allow the Falklands cricket team to tour Chile without kicking up a huge fuss, anything they do Argentina finds some excuse to get on their backs. Your country behaves like a big bully, don't complain if you're labelled as one.
Well, I m not justifying and unprovoked act of agression at all. What i justify is the fact that there is problem still unsolved and mainly (no all i admit) because of the British reluctancy of having negotiations talk with ARG as the UN asked the UK to do it every year.
Argentina isn't prepared to negotiate it simply sits there and demands that the UK capitulates to its demands. And you were the one justifying Argentina's act of aggression, you're still pursuing an aggressive national policy of confrontation and then wonder why its counter productive.
Correction: The issue is that when you were not that good and nice, you invaded and stole land arround the world, one of these situation persists today in the ARG claim, despiste now GB is a nice a tolerant country. And be fair: GB wanted to lease or give back the Islands to ARG in many times. So , as you and me know, that means they assumed the foundations of their claims about sovereignity and rights over these lands are so weak. You have 2 strong points; your army and the islanders (british).
And you are the one seeking to justify and exonerate a corrupt Argentine military regime that launched an act of unprovoked aggression; one responsible for the deaths of nearly 1000 young men. The Argentine claim is little more than macho pride, its an invented 20th Century claim you've dropped and resurrected for internal political reasons.
and talking about a claim that last 175 years, led to a war, now pursued pacefull in the UN as a kind of macho pride is don´t know anything about ARG. WE solve every territorial dispute so what kind of macho pride you talk about?? We were asking every UN forum to aks the UK to talk with us to solve the problem for one time...is this a macho pride claim? NO man, the fact a war were between us, doesnt mean that previous there were pacefull attemps to solve the problem for 150 years, and now...
Not a claim that lasted 175 years, one you've frequently dropped and given up on altogether, even to the point of signing a treaty renouncing all claims only to resurrect it for domestic political purposes. In its current form it was revived in the 1930s, then adopted by Peron as a device to raise anti-British feeling; even Peron cheerfully admitted to Bill Hunter-Christie he didn't believe in the claims but it was useful to unite the people.
"Not a claim that lasted 175 years, one you've frequently dropped and given up on altogether," as you also tried to give back the islands to ARG...and again you talk about Peron, i could talk to you about the members of the F Office that assumed in privacy the weakness of the british claim
One sided polemic, carefully selecting only those officials who expressed doubts, ignoring those who said the opposite.
And we didn't try to give the islands back, the British Government and specificially the FCO considered the islands of little value and worth losing for better relations with Argentina, if nothing else to stop you whining about it. What stymied that was the Falkland Islanders clearly expressed their desire to remain British.
Yes UK wanted to give back the islands,,,the opposition of the islanders stopped that. Yes they wanted to remain british cuz they are british. So nothing change.
No the British Government was prepared to contemplate transferring sovereignty, not to give back, they were never Argentine. They were considered of little value thats all. And not so long ago you were claiming the British weren't prepared to negotiate, now you acknowledged they were. No chance of a consistent argument then.
The Falkland Islanders do consider themselves British but they also consider themselves Falklanders, they choice one guaranteed by the UN Charter.
"No the British Government was prepared to contemplate transferring sovereignty, not to give back," c mon,,,thats really BS!...I always said that UK sometime seemed to be willing to negotiate and is possible some ARG paranoia and bad decissions didnt help to make this negotiations succesfull. I say paranoia cuz ARG though UK was trying to gain time and time, without no significant progress,,,as usual
No you did not, you said the British weren't prepared to negotiate. And no that is not BS, that is what happened. And the Argentina paranoia you refer to merely illustrates that Argentina did not enter into negotiations in good faith whereas Britain did. The policies pursued by Argentina stymied progress, like shooting up an unarmed survey vessel, and the policies you pursue to this day merely further alienate the Falklanders and make any hope of Argentine ambitions recede even further.
And again I can also mention Argentine officials who expressed doubts about the Argentine claim. Which now includes the guy who wrote the official Argentine history who now concedes the Argentine claim is baseless.
All of which ignores that what actually counts is what the people living there desire and they have overwhelmingly rejected Argentina; largely as a result of the confrontational and bullying attitude of Argentina.
cams? the Argentinian soldiers didn't have even enough food ....
this is a good true story:
There where collects and donations the people made back there in Argentina.
There´s been lot of cases where people sent messages to Argentinian soldiers in between the wrapping paper of donated chocolates for an example, and lots of reports by people finding them (this little msgs. or letters)when buying chocolates at the supermarket... lol
Some people donate jewels and such 2.....
chevydeo 10 months ago
@tootiredtobeoriginal
yeah Argentinian are now the neighbourhood bully, i thought we where talking bout world piracy and colonialism. can express yourself in another language? well the guy u say numbnut did it...
chevydeo 10 months ago
Sorry my neybour was on invincible,didn't happen.
TrentVenture 1 year ago
@tootiredtobeoriginal
In fact the islands were French, the "Brits" and Spanish came after...
who is the bully of the neighborhood ...?, you really think the British should "protect" the islanders ...? or is it just an excuse to continue colonial presence.
aleu650 1 year ago
@aleu650 Actually the British predate the French, though the first permanent settlement was indeed French.
The British do simply protect the islands, they are also not a colony, having self-government with the exception of Foreign Relations and Defence undertaken by the UK. The UK remains because of the threat from Argentina, otherwise there would be virtually no presence. We had 40 RM in 1982, to put this into perspective.
tootiredtobeoriginal 1 year ago
Creo que los ingleses saben que si pierden el control de las Islas Malvinas, en el escenario actual, ni se arriman mas por aca, la experiencia del 82 significo una leccion muy dura, estuvieron al borde del papelon en tierra, fueron un desastre en el agua y nunca interceptaron un ataque aereoSi Chile hubiera sido neutral regresaban a Gran Bretaña como los yankees de VietNam, en puras bolsas y todos averiados o hundidos.En la Guerra pierden todos...
joralsss 1 year ago
para que eso suceda,tienen que viajar a esas islas mierderas y entregarles sus culitos a los britanicos a ver si se las devuelven...jajaja deberian bañarse con un barril de mierda argentinos hijos de putas
fcomfernandez 7 months ago
@fcomfernandez En la guerra de malvinas el ejercito argentino peleo con honra, muchos soldados dejaron su vida por su país. Y uds ? tengo que recordarte lo de la laguna del desierto y el teniente merino ? quedaron como cobardes, entregaron la laguna si disparar una bala. Awewonao.
leontiveros 2 months ago
@leontiveros morite maldito hijo de puta,vos no sabe nada de guerra,los ingleses se cagaron y se limpiaron sus culitos con tu bandera albiceleste,pedazo de puto,anda a chuparle la pija a los ingleses
fcomfernandez 1 month ago
@fcomfernandez, me uno al movimiento estudiantil chileno, que busca la merecida gratuidad en la educación. Por eso digo: ¡ Educación gratuita para todo Chile y en especial para "fcomfernandez", él la necesita urgente !
leontiveros 1 month ago
@leontiveros decile a la recontra puta de tu maldita madre que me enseñe educacion pero con su concha,que me enseñe a chuparle su concha
fcomfernandez 1 month ago
@fcomfernandez no sabes chupar una concha ? jaja. Ahora entiendo por que las chilenas prefieren a los argentinos. Tipos como fcomfernandez que ni siquiera saben chupar una XUXA. No me hagas reír mas ! JAJAJA
leontiveros 1 month ago
@leontiveros entonces decime para chupar el culito de vos
fcomfernandez 1 month ago
@joralsss
si esto, si aquello, si Argentina no fuese Argentina, poblada de argentinos, no sería Argentina. Guste o no, los ingleses siempre han sido guerreros y luchadores... Ninguna campaña es intachable: no desembarcar las tropas a toda prisa en Bluff Cove fue un grave error, entre otros, pero, seamos honrados, el ejercito británico y los Royal Marines combatieron muy bien, en conjunto. mejor que los reclutas argentinos y los mandos británicos fueron bastante superiores a los argentinos.
HookahBurdar 5 months ago
you put the boat in gibraltar to fix it, all countries knows that
bosterinho 1 year ago
@bosterinho Yeah right genius, we parked it in front of Spanish journalists and not one took a picture. Newsflash oh mighty intellect, not everyone believes the crappy propaganda Argentina published during and after the Falklands War.
In persisting with this crap you devalue the memory of the Argentine pilots who died in the war.
tootiredtobeoriginal 1 year ago
@bosterinho And by the way genius, in case you hadn't noticed some other prat made the same comment a year ago and I toasted him.
tootiredtobeoriginal 1 year ago
@bosterinho Its a shame no one in Spain took a picture as Gibraltar is clearly visible from Algericas during the time Invincible was supposedly being repaired,or none of the day trippers or workers on the rock its self thought to take a picture of this badly damaged carrier,its literally unbelievable isn't it?.....
iroscoe 1 year ago
Comment removed
bosterinho 1 year ago
At least you have been educated to answer me like that, not like the other idiot. My father fought in that war as a pilot and the pilots who hit the ship were his partners, why would they lie? everybody knows that the argentinean air force made an amazing work, they dont have to lie! in the other hand its ok for you people to think It wasn´t damaged but It s also ok for us to think It was: It wouldn´t been the first time british national army forces lied,about a case like this, am I wrong?
bosterinho 1 year ago
@bosterinho Im not saying they are lieing im saying they are mistaken there is a difference,in WW2 a German Ju88 pilot claimed to have scored a hit on Ark Royal German propaganda turned that claim of a possibe hit into a definite sinking,when it transpired the Ark hadn't been sunk the pilot killed himself .
iroscoe 1 year ago
@bosterinho There is no historical precedent for such a long term cover up it was tried both in WW1 and WW2 with HMS Marlborough and HMS Barham to confuse an enemy in an ongoing war but even then with wartime censorship news got out and the losses were admitted while both those wars were still raging . So how do you think in a modern democracy so many thousands of people have been kept so absolutely silent on the subject .
iroscoe 1 year ago
@bosterinho No it isn't when it never happened you devalue the memory of those who died. Clinging to wartime propaganda 30 years after the event is just sad.
And it was the RN who expressed their admiration for the bravery of the Argentine pilots, they have nothing to hide. The truth alwasy gets out.
Oh and this is my page, my rules. OK so keep it civil
tootiredtobeoriginal 1 year ago
@Argentina2O1O
Yawn, newsflash genius, there are plenty of images of Invincible from this period, including Vinny anchored in Port William Falkland Islands - all immediately after the war. Vinny remained in Falklands waters waiting for the runway at Stanely to be extended. Vinny was not in South Georgia.
As to talking tough, I seem to remember Argentines talking tough in '82, they still do to this day. You held all the aces and still got your arse kicked. You have a nice day now.
tootiredtobeoriginal 1 year ago
Not the first crowd of fascists to claim to have sunk a particular British aircraft carrier. Of course the first lot were professionals and finally managed it off Gibraltar, whereas Argentina, well, what can I say? Their refusal to accept reality demeans those of their pilots who showed skill and courage and did not make exaggerated claims for their endeavours. Of course given the amount of rubbish on YouTube they don't have to. Too many others are willing to do it for them.
littmann03 1 year ago
@littmann03 Nobody said in Argentina that Invicible was sunk, only that was hitted by argentinian bombs.
nikorey27 2 months ago
ki tosco
absolutod2 1 year ago
Oh and i also saw the SHAR's, their extra dark sea grey dulled and peeling and they had a metallic kerosene smell......that smelt like.... victory
silverblueeye 1 year ago
As a side point the memory i have the most is all the hundreds of junk being unloaded from the surrender of Argentine conscripts and the stink of sea water and defeat
silverblueeye 1 year ago
I was in the Royal Navy.
I saw Invincible return.
If you damaged her then whoever repaired between Falkands and home did a very good job because i saw no trace other than weather wear and tear.
silverblueeye 1 year ago
hey- any chnce the UK would sell Vinnie w/ some SHARS to Chile????
paratrooper629 2 years ago
Un amigo español contó a los medios argentinos que vió en Gibraltar al HMS Invencible y no podía moverse por sus propios medios de lo hecho pelota que estaba, asique...
KiniArgentina 2 years ago
Yeah right, they parked the Invincible in the full view of the Spanish press and not one of them took a picture.
Its amazing the crap people will believe.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Nuestro A4C/B/Q no tenian camaras, los unicos creo que era los Dagger, tampoco tenian contra medidas chaff, flares, no tenian radio altimetro, los cañones de 20mm en su gran mayoria se atascaban, tampoco tenian warning lock ni misiles de defensa como sidewinder ni shafir que si tenian los dagger, muy pocos tenian sistema de navegacion. y los mas importante murieron 2 hereos en ese ataque lo hiciero 2 super etendart de la armada y 4 A4 C de los cuales 2 volvieron
Un saludo.
sethloner 1 year ago 2
@sethloner
All A4 are fitted with a gun camera as standard, if you had none, how come gun camera film of the attack on Coventry was published.
tootiredtobeoriginal 1 year ago
The FACT is that British fire power won.Today we have our latest Typhoon fighters based on the falklands,at least 2 warships on patrol there and a submarine on patrol at the falkland islands.If the Argies come again we'll wip their arses again.We are GREAT BRITAIN and we dont mess!!!!
bannon1000 2 years ago
cOMO SE EXPLICAN QUE DESPUES DEL ATAQUE AL INVENCIBLE SE SUSPENDIIERON LOS VUELOS DE LOS HARRIER . ADEMAS DE QUE LOS RADRES Y LOS OJOS DE LOS PILOTOS NO MIENTEN, FUE ALCANZADO, SIN DUDA CASO CONTRARIO QUE EL GOBIERNO BRITANICO, SAQUE A LA LUZ LA VERDAD DEL CONFLICTO
vekhio 2 years ago
Like so many things about the Argentine "version" this is simply a lie. The Invincible Harriers remained active, Cmdr Sharky Ward shot down a Hercules the next day. Invincinle was nowhere near. Sad indeed that wartime propaganda has such a hold over the Argentine psyche that they feel the need to invent imaginary victories rather than defeat with honour.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
It's not correct. Argentine Air Force said Invincible was not sank, but damaged.
Why it took so long to get back to England? Explanations here aren't very solid.
You have 99 years of secret for Malvinas War. Why?
llorieb 2 years ago
No we don't, not since the Freedom of Information Act in 2000. Damaged ships go to port to be fixed, they don't hang around iin the South Atlantic and the reason she stayed is very credible; she was there to defend against further Argentine attacks. The other carrier Hermes was overdue an overhaul.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Hms Invincible no se quedó en las islas, estuvo en Isla Ascensión supuestamente para reparar propulsores, volviendo en setiembre del 82 a uk...
sonelihcsotup 2 years ago
@sonelihcsotup Ascension island has no port facility or repair facility, there are plenty of photos showing Vini in the Falklands including her anchored in Port William.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
@tootiredtobeoriginal Pero eso no lo digo yo, sino muchos británicos incluso se puede leer en muchos sitios web.
sonelihcsotup 2 years ago
Sorry but thats BS
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
YO solo dije lo que he leído y lo que un inglés me dijo aqui mismo en youtube
lo de la escala del hms invincible en ascension... para reparacion de propulsores... no lo he inventado yo
sonelihcsotup 2 years ago
Nope, Invincible changed a gear box whilst underway, she blew a gearbox leaving Portsmouth.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
I love my country and i have a lot of friends in England,
Armies and politician, SUCKS.
English and Argentinian.
PLUR.
nebazo 2 years ago
Argentine propaganda, no creo
hoplite1766 2 years ago
Clearly no, you don't think.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
el invencible fue remolcado en la base britanica de gibraltar en 1982, ya que no se podia movilizar por sus propios medios. Esto lo afirman testigos españoles que vieron al portaaviones en el puerto. Le reparon dos tubinas entre otras cosas, que prueban que el portaaviones efectivamente fue tocado. Sino de que otra forma explican porque demoro tanto en volver a gran bretaña?
Tribucab 2 years ago
Invincible blew a gear box and it was repaired on board. Invincible did not put into Gibraltar and it is utterly ludicrous to claim that she would have put into Gib under the noses of the Spanish and not one photo was taken.
Invincible stayed in the Falklands to provide air cover, well known, well documented, there are hundreds of photos. Grow up.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
SM Invencibles nunca fueron atacados exitosamente por el Fuerza Aerea Argentina. Tenido que sucedió, la Marina Británica nunca podría haber apoyado exitosamente la campaña como hizo. Eche una mirada en la Tierra de Google, "Invencible" sobrevive en Portsmouth.
leswest67 2 years ago
eu q alguien tradusca lo q hablan estos gringos
DONT CRY ! ingleses se quedaron sin portaviones admitanlo
ignafe0394 2 years ago
Don't Cry for us Argentina.
The truth is you missed on May 30
Even on your best days
You were nowhere near us
Its just sad
You couldn't go the distance
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Yo podria traducir en ingles por mi señora, pero hablo castellano . Me gustaria que algun dia inglaterra , reconozca que el invencible fue atacado, segun historiadores de distintos lugares , investigando a ex marinos , sin dar nombres , por amenaza de la Corona Real , ningun hombre esta autorizado hablar del tema , pero sea infiltrado informacion . DEMORO 4 MESES EN RETORNAR A INGLATERRA. POR QUE ?
ivanexocet 2 years ago
Invincible wasn't attacked, it is that simple. Hermes returned before Invincible because she was overdue a refit, Invincible drew the short straw and stayed in the vicinity of the islands to protect the islands till Port Stanley was fully operational as an airbase. No one is forbidden from talking and the Argentines who scream conspiracy about the closure order are out of date. The Freedom of Information act means the files are opened. Britain admitted to ALL its losses.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
HMS Invincible was fitted with the GoalKeeper System (similar to the Phalanx)
wochilds 2 years ago
It was fitted with Phalanx after the Falklands War, this was later upgraded to GoalKeeper.
In 1982 it had neither.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Jajaj because of it they ordered a nose to repair noses in altamar urgently. In addition there are Venezuelans' testimonies that they say that you asked for permission for it(he,she) repairs the invincible one in venezuela and they denied it to him(you,them).
There are testimosnio that were in gibraltar and they saw to enter(approach) to tow the invincible one.
Jaja
bartcensurado 2 years ago
Ah right so now they went to Venezuela as well as Gibraltar and not one iota of photographic evidence to back this up. 1000s of matelots, the embedded journalists just missed the attack. Must tell my mate Spider that he had a long swim home in 1982 and didn't notice.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Not, they asked to repair it in venezuela and they denied them.
They were to gibraltar and despues enter like newly to the close(united) kingdom
bartcensurado 2 years ago
Right and this just slipped the attention of the international press. And they went to Venezuela, a hostile country, ignoring the friendly Commonwealth ports nearby? Mmm, I think not.
So instead they went to Gibraltar in full view of the only European nation to support Argentina, a hulking great aircraft carrier and not one person took a photograph.
You're utterly deluded.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Jaja do not stop saying senseless things.
Whenever I discuss with vos, I realize that you speak with base to what it happens today.
Not tenes the minor notion of the relations of some time ago I leave you, the night is young in this part of the world.
bartcensurado 2 years ago
Really?
It you talk idiocy, don't be upset if I call you an idiot.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Wow that you me cover calling idiot, do not put to say insults because you are going to enter unfavorable area
bartcensurado 2 years ago
Read it again, If you talk idiocy, don't be upset if I call you an idiot.
I'm also unimpressed by empty threats.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
And?
That it(he,she) has to see.
If they repaired it
bartcensurado 2 years ago
You can't repair that sort of damage outside of a dockyard and battle damage repairs are easy to spot.
All together now.
There is a hole in my bucket, dear Liza...
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
It is the major lie stimulated by a propaganda to that I have listened.
For if you did not realize mandaro a nose for repairs noses in altamr urgently and there are witnesses who saw the invincible one to enter to gilbraltar and they were highlighting: " I enter to tow "
bartcensurado 2 years ago
Right so to hide the damage to Invincible they put into Gibraltar, in full view of the only European nation to support Argentina and no one took a holiday snap. You will happily believe the most ludicrous crap if it re-inforces your preconceived ideas.
The ship is sitting in Portsmouth, you can see it on Google Earth.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Any ship that this great time in algua salty and in the conditions that were, besides the time, not llegaria practically 0 km to a port. As the invincible one.
The radar Argentine port I confirm that after the assault the activity airs British under to the half.
The general do moore happen(pass) of commanding the troops of the invincible one to land (after May 30) because sera?
bartcensurado 2 years ago
Yawn, it is physically impossible to repair the damage you allege without recourse to a dockyard. And the Argentine radar is yet another invention to cover up the embarassing fact that contrary to the pathetic claims you make Invincible wasn't touched. Continuing to cling to wartime propaganda is just sad.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Because the invincible one was 5 mese in altamar?
Because it was the only one nose that could not be visited by the press?
Because when I enter(approach) to the port after the war not tape-worm I oxidize?
Because the activity airs British after low May 30 to the half?
The invincible one was not sunk(destroyed) but if position(place) out of combat
bartcensurado 2 years ago
Nope.
There were embedded reporters on Invincible throughout the war. Invincible remained in the Falklands to provide air cover. There was no change in British air activity, Cmdr Sharky Ward shot down a C-130 the very next day. And the difference between Invincible and Hermes on here return is easily explained by the fact that Hermes was due a refit before the war and was significantly older. That older ships are rustier apparently is a surprise to Argentines.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
It(He,She) does not matter, the fact of being mas old does not imply that a nose that this 5 months in altamar returns to a port without oxide.
On that you base to say that the activity airs do not I diminish?
bartcensurado 2 years ago
It does actually, the newer ships suffered far less rust than older ships. It is easily demonstrated by the pictures of the returning ships. Its also easy to demonstrate that battle damage repairs outside of a dockyard are very easy to spot.
The air activity on the day is also well documented, this is not the only thing that happened.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
To knock down an exocet who travels to 315 meters per second with a cannon of 4.5 ".
Jaja it if that is a propaganda
bartcensurado 2 years ago
Nope, a fluke shot. The British don't say that was what happened, they report that the crew of Avenger thought that was what happened.
We leave propaganda for the Argentines with their ridiculous claims.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Comment removed
45545512 2 years ago
Obviously that we didn't sunk the HMS Invencible, the only thing that we did was hit it with an exocet missile, three bombs and cannon, but if we had the missiles that France would give us, probably we could sunk the invencible and Margaret Thatcher would give up and the UN would say that those islands are british because british hate us
pancho133 2 years ago
No you didn't, it never happened. Time it seems for Argentina to grow up. As my granny used to say, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Sad to say that Argentines fail to realise that you were the bad guys in 1982, you invaded a peaceful island community in pursuit of a sovereignty claim contrived by a bunch of fascists in the 1930s.
Equally sad that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary a democratic Argentina still clings to the propaganda of a right wing junta.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
1.The missile hitted the ship,it doesnt mean that it had to sunk,it is sitting there because it got fixed O_o
2.Sooooo,they sunked the Sheffield with a Exocet,plus the sheffield being more smaller,more fast,with a crew firing at it (missile) and being warned about it before the missile had even been fired,but it "didnt" hit the Invincible??,mmm,if you are intelligent you should think twice.
3.How people would react to reading a story about a "Indigena" firing a missile and hitting one of the
patria0tehuelche 2 years ago
1. No they didn't it missed. It didn't need repair, tens of thousands saw it return home untouched.
2. Two missiles were fired at Sheffield, one missed. Sheffield had absolutely no idea that she was under attack till it was too late.
3. Whatever, I have no idea what you're on about.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Exactly, the effect of the portion fake in that picture its more obvious because it has been done on film, take a look at the right portion of the picture, the change on the color (exposure) particulary in the water.
pablosena 2 years ago
Ah right first it was faked in photshop, now its faked on film. Give it up.
Its a simple artefact introduced by the fish eye lens.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Hi, im a professional photographer, the rear part of the ships are modified by using photoshop, you can see that on the color of the wather around the ships.
Hola, soy fotografo profesional, la parte trasera de los barcos fue modificada con Photoshop, lo cual se advierte en el color y la textura del agua entrono a ellos.
pablosena 2 years ago
BS, they were taken with a fish eye lens. Some "professional" photgrapher.
Photoshop didn't exist in 1982 when those pictures were taken and published.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Im sure Sky hawks would not have even reached HMS invincable Becacuse she was not near the island. I was told she was put out of range and was not on the main assault.
madjaime2007 2 years ago
The Falkland are british and it will remaind like that forever.
Zalaquett123 2 years ago
Don't be so over confident my friend, those exact words were said about America. I am happy we are allies of course! However if a people wish Independence for themselves just like life itself, a way could be found. By the way I remain neutral in this debate if there is one still. I am just sighting the logic. I see a more painful war going on here, of Ego's ouch!
BattleBornJackalope 2 years ago
The people on the island voted to remain with Britain and rejected Argentine rule many times.
mrgeorgeallison 2 years ago 2
The kelpers rest to inglaterra because they give them of everything. Before the war it was not important for him(her) the wreath what was happening(passing) in the islands.
If it(he,she) was not for the Argentine help the kelpers estarian died before 1982.
Nostros they vendiamos food between(among) other one sew
bartcensurado 2 years ago
I'm sorry but I barely understand that.
mrgeorgeallison 2 years ago
The translator walks badly
bartcensurado 2 years ago
Basically he is claiming that the Falklands only existed before 1982 because of Argentine "benevolence". The Communications Agreement of 1971 was a collusion between the FCO and the Argentine Government to force the islands to be dependent on Argentina with the eventual aim of the FCO being able to dump the islands upon the Argentines. For benevolence read narrow self-interest.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
lauchafsx 2 years ago
So what? The group of ships attacked did not include HMS Invincible and they hit nothing.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
1. suponiendo que fuese verdad la (falaz) teoría de que no se atacó al Invincible, dígame, el misil Exocet que fue lanzazo el 30 de mayo por el Super Etendard, ¿en que buque ingles impactó?
2. No me irá a decir que fue atacado "los restos del Atlantic Conveyor", buque derruido y quemado anteriormente.
3. Un buque quemado no podría haber destruido nunca a los 2 de los 4 A-4C que realizaron la Mision.
chiquitoromero 2 years ago
1. None it missed, decoyed by chaff from HMS Avenger
2. It possibly hit AC, she was still afloat and in that area; it is not certain.
3. The ship that shot down the 2 A-4C was HMS Exeter, the first Type 42 with the 1022 radar and updated Sea Dart software, she engaged the A-4C at less than 30 m altitude. Invincible had the Type 965 and could not have engaged under those circumstances.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
yo no te llame pirata a ti, sino a tu gobierno. asi como tu puedes llamar corrupto y ladrón a mi gobierno (de hecho yo y todos los argentinos lo llamamos asi). Cada gobierno tiene sus vicios, algunos son piratas, otros son mas corruptos que el resto, otros son fundamentalistas, algunos denotan cierta soberbia, etc.
chiquitoromero 2 years ago
Either way is comes across as childish to us. Did it never occur to you the corrupt Government you refer to might be lying about historical events.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Hecho! buenisimo entonces. Averiamos un barco, y además desde ese 30 de mayo dejó el Invincible de operar en la Guerra de Malvinas. No se entiende la gentileza de los piratas de tener un barco en optimas condiciones y dejarlo fuera de combate a partir del 30 de mayo... no habrán subestimado a la Fuerza Aerea Argentina (de 1982)??? hasta los gurkas les tenían miedo
marialaura1991 2 years ago
Yawn, really it is deeply, deeply, deeply sad that you're still creating the most fantastical conspiracy theories to explain the embarassing fact that Invincible continued to operate as normal. Sharky Ward shot down a C-130 the very next day. Double yawn, I see you slipped in a pirate insult there, but of a waste of time as we just find it funny.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
por qué el gobierno pirata ordenó mantener el secreto de guerra de Malvinas por 90 años, siendo que lo normal es de 30? claro, ningún ex combatiente va a estar vivo para cuando uds admitan sobre la avería del Invincible.
chiquitoromero 2 years ago
No a 90 year closure order was normal to protect the identity of individuals. However, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 means that the Falklands War files are now available on the MOD's website.
Keep up with the programme, this is all explained on my other videos.
Oh and pirate, please, grow up.
Its deeply, deeply sad that you undermine the achievements of the Argentine Air Forces by still clinging to this ridiculous war time propaganda.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
¿que por qué digo piratas? muy facil. las malvinas son argentinas; el gobierno pirata inglés las usurpó en 1833. otros antecedentes de piratería inglesa los podés observar en los años 1806 y 1807 ¿te suena? tal vez la frase "Fuerte Barragán" te ayude a recordar de lo que hablo. Volviendo al "Invincible" (que no fue tan invencible que digamos...) decime, para que dejó de operar el Portaviones? es publico e innegable que el portaviones fue reparado en las Georgias
chiquitoromero 2 years ago
I'm wounded, you called me a pirate again. Take a hint, I realise you intended it as an insult, we just find it exceedingly childish.
The invasions of 1806/7 took place in the context of the Anglo-Spanish War. As regards 1833, no we did not but then as you've been indoctrinated since birth I know you're incapable of listening to another opinion.
South Georgia is a barren wilderness, there is nowhere to repair a major warship, that needs a dockyard; that is merely conspiracy theory crap.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
HMS Invincible was 100% successful, it is just Argentines that have to invent myths to compensate for their defeat.
As for secret files the freedom of information act 2000 declassified means these files can be read online
flashgrim 2 years ago
War could be avoided. Not only Galtieri needed popularity, also Tathcher. She were reelected. She wanted to go further with the war sinking the Belgrano, and distroying the diplomacy efforts.
It will have to be solve by diplomacy, in 20 50 or more years. May be the islanders will claim for their own country, nor argentinien nor british, and that could be something.
piperbrian 2 years ago
Mmm, no Thatcher didn't need a war, a peace deal would have done her credibility just as much good. And a war wouldn't guarantee re-election; Churchill won WWII and he was then immediately defeated. The record on the peace negotiations is also self-evident; it was Perez de Cuellar who expressed amazement at how far the British were prepared to compromise to avoid war, whilst Argentina did not budge an inch.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
And the Falklands have been self-governing for some time, the latest constitution starting in Jan 2009 was written by themselves. Britain and the Falkland Islands have modernised their relationship whilst Argentina remains mired in a 19th Century timewarp.
Diplomacy? Somehow I doubt it, at least not whilst Argentina refuses to acknowledge that the islanders have a say in their future. I guess Argentina will just get left further and further behind.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Does this hurt you that bad ? i mean, why holding the secret for 50 years ? just show proof that the thing wasn't hit.... ahh... you can't... mmmhh...
we have already acknowledge that we left you out of the world cup with a goal using God's hand :-P
goblend 2 years ago
The Freedom of Information Act means that information on the Falklands War is now in the public domain. Has been for nearly 10 years, I do point this out elsewhere but I guess it spoils the Argentine conspiracy theory nutters day so they simply ignore it.
And gloat about cheating at football, I'm Scottish so don't give a shit.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Yes that just means you cheat at sport and lie about the war.
If you used your brain you would realise that it is impossible to hide casualties (they have friends and families) and impossible to repair the type of damage that Argentina claims without dock facilities which would mean the whole world knowing easily. Isn't it obvious that after 27 years all Argentina can produce is Ureta to tell the lie over and again. Ureta must have a nose as long as pinocchio !
flashgrim 2 years ago
And sorry, but i dont want to forget this. You said that "it was utter horse shit" my argument that th possesion of the Malvinas/Falklands by UK would lead to UK to claim rights over Antartica. Well, I have new for you from the Time. "The British Are Coming to Antarctica. British troops taking part in an exercise on the southern Atlantic island of South Georgia in 2004. Britain is preparing a claim for sovereign rights covering gas and oil resources over a wedge of the Antarctic seabed. "
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Nope, thats propaganda. It was a requirement on the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention that Britain lodged a claim. And if the claim is disputed its parked. It actually mean nothing as exploration for oil and gas is banned by the Antartic treaty but it would permit Britain to exercise its obligations to protect fishing resources.
Typically however Argentina has to go off on one and make mountains out of molehills.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
OK Hot Shot, why does Argentina lie and claim that the British expelled Vernet's settlement in January 1833?
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
May be you want to check that.
Argentina's claim on the Falklands is still a good one
Regardless of the islanders' wishes, the issue of sovereignty will at some point have to get back on the agenda
Richard Gott
Monday April 2, 2007
The Guardian
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Richard Gott? Is that the best you can do? Do some research on the guy.
"After repeated accusations of being anti-British, he finally resigned as literary editor of the Guardian in 1994 after allegations were made in The Spectator that he had been an "agent of influence" for the KGB, claims which he rejected, arguing that "Like many other journalists, diplomats and politicians, I lunched with Russians during the cold war.""
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Ok, but you say acusations of being anti British,,,made by whom? If you read the article you will find he describes the situation pretty well. And is not the only one i read doing this. More: why now he is writting in the guardian if he resigned?
CCASPARR 2 years ago
I have read the article, to be polite, its a pile of offensive nonsense. And to be even blunter it justifies one of the most disgraceful acts the British Government did in the '60s, the expulsion of the Chagos islanders and suggests doing the same to the Falklanders. It was immoral and completely unjustified.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
and about Vernet and this, let me check. But honestly, is ok with the current islanders, i dont want to use any offensive term agains them. I just was trying to point out some weird "double standars" some british had
CCASPARR 2 years ago
"I just was trying to point out some weird "double standars" some british had "
No the double standards on that issue are entirely Argentine, like justifying an act of unprovoked aggression in 1982.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
OK Hot Shot, why does Argentina lie and claim that the British expelled Vernet's settlement in January 1833?
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
It was our ancestors who were imperialist and not the current generations on the shores of the UK.
It is like me blaming the Italians for the things that the Romans did. or me blaming the scandanavian and french vikings for invading britain many, many, many years ago.
As you will well accept (hopefully) this is a ridiculous way to behave. Britain is no longer an imperialist nation and has not been for nearly 100years.
Argentina invaded the falklands against the will of the people.
ISHSTFC 2 years ago
i totally agree with you., i wont blame your ancestors or you about the British Empire as you are pointing here. But, in the malvinas issue, the problem still exists because its foundation is a colonial and usurpation issue. do you know what I mean? The problem persists even if know GB is not longer an Empire. But lets dont be naive Despite UK is not an Empire since 1920 their Foregein pollicy remains and remained in much cases in that foundations.
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Argentina's foundation is based upon a colonial heritage, does that mean the people of Argentina do not get to determine their own future.
Usurpation? No. The version of events that Argentina claims is full of holes, most of it never happened. For instance Argentina claimed the British expelled the settlement, it never actually happened.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Regarding ARG invading against their ppl wishes,,,well If you invaded in 1833, and then transplanted population into the islands, and if they are british, what ARG did was to recover a territory inhabitated with british transplanted population, not to colonize a territory inhabitated with original population. See: GB recognized ARG independence in 1820, not mention were done to the ARG garrison in Malvinas but that time. 13 years after you expelled the ARG authorities...how you call this?
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Didn't invade in 1833, didn't expel the population.
We recognised Argentine independence in 1825, one of the 1st European nations to do so but you weren't in the Falklands Vernet didn't establish a settlement till 1828. The inconvenient fact missing from the Argentine history is that Vernet asked the British for permission to do so, provided regular reports to the British and urged the British to set up a permanent garrison.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Argentina claims the British expelled the population, it didn't happen. Why lie about it?
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
And on imperialism. Britain has returned the old empire back over to the rightful owners. Britain has as a whole returned around 1/3 of the entire world back.
Britain largely accepts the mistakes it made with the imperialist nature of its ruling classes. This is taught in schools and in homes thoughout the UK. This is why Britain is so adament that the same mistakes will not be made by other nations with imperialist agendas.
You should stop blaming the population of the UK.
ISHSTFC 2 years ago
Britain as a whole accepts large numbers of people from around the world. Are they persecuted NO, are they refused state help NO, are they prevented from getting jobs NO, are they prevented from using the NHS NO, are they prevented from sending their children to school NO, are they expected to be treated as second class citizens NO.
Yes in small groups racism and intolerance exists, as in all countries of the world. Again though, Britain is by and far one of the most tolerant country of all.
ISHSTFC 2 years ago
I agree with you and i wont deny it. But how many years these toke. I mean, as far I knew the gurkhas were near starving in Nepal asking for more than 20 pounds per year to live. That´s mean near 60 years after ww2. 25 after Malvinas war. I know now GB is tolerant, what talking about ARG being an Imperialist country while you have such historical backgroun,,,well is too much. I m not denying that Britain now (at least in some governamental policies) is tolerant country. But ...
CCASPARR 2 years ago
To explain, the situation with the Gurkhas related back to Indian independence when the Gurkhas in the Indian Army were split between India and the UK. An anachronism rather than anything to do with nascent racism; what is telling is the huge upwell of support from the ordinary British public in their favour.
Britain's past is not an excuse for Argentina's current imperialist ambitions.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Tootired c mon man. Please c mon! I dont care if India and UK splited gurkhas. Them were probably too pride to fight for UK. The point here is the unfair situation they had to live for more than 100 years to be recognized as britsh being fighting for that country in many wars,,,and based I assume in a kind of racist or supremacist foundation,,,or how you would call that? NOw is solved,,or it seems to be. British racism and or imperialism is not an excuse for be same,
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Nope, you're trying to make something out of it that wasn't there. Purely to try and use the issue to knock the UK rather than any compassion for the plight of the Gurkhas - and thats what motivated the British public.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with racism, don't judge people by your standards.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
What? Mmmm I was very clear despiste my English doesnt help me for that. I m not trying to make anything...if you talk about racism i can give you lots of examples from your side (gurkhas), if you talk about imperialism i will answer that exactly the other way. I m not racist, is not my standard. But you know what annoyme a bit these discussion. Is your cinism. You say OK, we were not that good, but now we are very nice and good. The problem is that you were not that good, you stole ARG land.
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Thats BS, you have no concern for the Gurkhas other than to use the issue as knocking copy to slag off the British. The issue is not one of racism, the British people have overwhelmingly backed the Gurkhas.
And we didn't steal Argentine land, Argentina however stole Patagona, and bits of Paraguary, and Uruguay and attempted to steal bits of Chile in 1978.
What annoys me is your pompous double standards.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Jaja. Well i have to be a gurkha fan for support my argument that you were unfair with them up to the last year?? What kind of logic is this? 2nd Again no...please. dont compare ARG formation of the territory with invading every piece of land arround the globe. Look, i have nothing agianst actual inhabitants of the islands. Really i dont. And also i want peace. But, talking about diplomatic foundations clearly the ARG claim looks much more fair.
CCASPARR 2 years ago
No we weren't unfair, they were treated differently for reasons that were anachronistic and out of place in modern Britain. Britain lives in the 21st Century, its Argentina that wants to turn the clock back to the 19th to pursue an illogical irredentist imperialist sovereignty claim and trampling over the rights of a smal island community. Fair? The big regional bully seeking to dominate a tiny island community.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
cmon.Again I dont want any islander to be affraid about any ARG imperialistic invasion, We live in 21st century and I d like to prove this to you. You mentioned Chile. As you know ARG and Chile, sadly, were close to war. 10 years ago ARG and Chile solved every territorial issue. In fact both countries are now working together. YOu see ARG is a pacefull country and if you could talk we can talk. See that Chile still have issues with bolivia and Peru. Arg solved all. That should show you something
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Appart from that Chile (ally of Uk in the war) support now ARG claim. Well, nevermind, ARG now doesnt have any territorial problem with any of these neightbours,,,you can´t say the same about other countries in the world (and south america of course) We are pacefull. and we live in 21st century regarding territorial claims.
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Chile supported Britain purely because Argentina threatened that after the Falklands Chile would be next. One the hand you say you live in the 21st Century but still pursue an illogical revived 19th Century gripe for little more than macho national pride. Peaceful but seek every opportunity for confrontation over the Falklands. Thats pure hypocrisy.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Is not hypocresy. Look:is not against the islanders.And if you call ilogical 19century something issue, is because of you. ButUK knows what he does. NOw ARG and Chile are together because you use the islands to claim terrirory over the Antartica.you dont care the inhabitants at all. ARG knew allways that a british territory there would lead in future to british claim over the Antartica and the british claim is over the ARG and Chilean territory.NOw chile knows what we were talking about.
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Thats utter horse shit, Britain had such little interest that back in 1982 we'd virtually withdrawn all forces from the South Atlantic. We had 40 Royal Marines and that was about it; Endurance was due to be scrapped. The only reason for the British presence in the Falklands is to deter further Argentine aggression. If Argentina hadn't invaded we would not have needed to maintain a garrison. The Antarctic treaty means no one has sovereignty.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Ah no??? Why ARg and chilean politicians are working together to stop british claim over the Antartica? that´s horse shit? REally??? I saw arg and chileans representatives in argentinían bases in Antartica to protest against british claims...i assume they should have a reason to do such action.
¨"The Antarctic treaty means no one has sovereignty. " yes and ARG was the country to started this treaty.
CCASPARR 2 years ago
What is horse shit is claiming the British are only in the Falklands to pursue claims over Antartica. The British are there purely to deter further Argentine aggression, in 1982 there was virtually no presence at all.
And Argentina was one of the original 12, the originator of the treaty was the USA.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
And again its utter hypocrisy, justifying Argentine aggression on the basis of a nonsense conspiracy theory. Noticeably nothing is ever Argentina's fault.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
is not conspiracy theory man. If Uk claim right of sovereignity over the Antartica (and their claim overlap arg and chilean territory) you would call it a theory? Is a fact and i hope no discussion about this would progress otherwise would be a problem from UK in southamerica.
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Its BS, the only reason the British are there is because of Argentina's aggression in 1982. Your BS conspiracy theory is entirely contradicted by the fact that the British had just about pulled out the South Atlantic in 1982, the Falkland Islands were barely defended.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Really, who was the one justifying the unprovoked act of aggression in 1982 less than 1 hr ago. And why does Argentina still pursue a bullying and confrontational attitude towards the Falklands as a matter of national policy. Argentina won't even allow the Falklands cricket team to tour Chile without kicking up a huge fuss, anything they do Argentina finds some excuse to get on their backs. Your country behaves like a big bully, don't complain if you're labelled as one.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Well, I m not justifying and unprovoked act of agression at all. What i justify is the fact that there is problem still unsolved and mainly (no all i admit) because of the British reluctancy of having negotiations talk with ARG as the UN asked the UK to do it every year.
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Argentina isn't prepared to negotiate it simply sits there and demands that the UK capitulates to its demands. And you were the one justifying Argentina's act of aggression, you're still pursuing an aggressive national policy of confrontation and then wonder why its counter productive.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Correction: The issue is that when you were not that good and nice, you invaded and stole land arround the world, one of these situation persists today in the ARG claim, despiste now GB is a nice a tolerant country. And be fair: GB wanted to lease or give back the Islands to ARG in many times. So , as you and me know, that means they assumed the foundations of their claims about sovereignity and rights over these lands are so weak. You have 2 strong points; your army and the islanders (british).
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Nope Article 73 of the UN Charter
Article 103 of the UN Charter
9 generations of Falkland Islanders
And you are the one seeking to justify and exonerate a corrupt Argentine military regime that launched an act of unprovoked aggression; one responsible for the deaths of nearly 1000 young men. The Argentine claim is little more than macho pride, its an invented 20th Century claim you've dropped and resurrected for internal political reasons.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
and talking about a claim that last 175 years, led to a war, now pursued pacefull in the UN as a kind of macho pride is don´t know anything about ARG. WE solve every territorial dispute so what kind of macho pride you talk about?? We were asking every UN forum to aks the UK to talk with us to solve the problem for one time...is this a macho pride claim? NO man, the fact a war were between us, doesnt mean that previous there were pacefull attemps to solve the problem for 150 years, and now...
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Not a claim that lasted 175 years, one you've frequently dropped and given up on altogether, even to the point of signing a treaty renouncing all claims only to resurrect it for domestic political purposes. In its current form it was revived in the 1930s, then adopted by Peron as a device to raise anti-British feeling; even Peron cheerfully admitted to Bill Hunter-Christie he didn't believe in the claims but it was useful to unite the people.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
"Not a claim that lasted 175 years, one you've frequently dropped and given up on altogether," as you also tried to give back the islands to ARG...and again you talk about Peron, i could talk to you about the members of the F Office that assumed in privacy the weakness of the british claim
CCASPARR 2 years ago
Angel M Oliveri-Lopez's book?
One sided polemic, carefully selecting only those officials who expressed doubts, ignoring those who said the opposite.
And we didn't try to give the islands back, the British Government and specificially the FCO considered the islands of little value and worth losing for better relations with Argentina, if nothing else to stop you whining about it. What stymied that was the Falkland Islanders clearly expressed their desire to remain British.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Yes UK wanted to give back the islands,,,the opposition of the islanders stopped that. Yes they wanted to remain british cuz they are british. So nothing change.
CCASPARR 2 years ago
No the British Government was prepared to contemplate transferring sovereignty, not to give back, they were never Argentine. They were considered of little value thats all. And not so long ago you were claiming the British weren't prepared to negotiate, now you acknowledged they were. No chance of a consistent argument then.
The Falkland Islanders do consider themselves British but they also consider themselves Falklanders, they choice one guaranteed by the UN Charter.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
"No the British Government was prepared to contemplate transferring sovereignty, not to give back," c mon,,,thats really BS!...I always said that UK sometime seemed to be willing to negotiate and is possible some ARG paranoia and bad decissions didnt help to make this negotiations succesfull. I say paranoia cuz ARG though UK was trying to gain time and time, without no significant progress,,,as usual
CCASPARR 2 years ago
No you did not, you said the British weren't prepared to negotiate. And no that is not BS, that is what happened. And the Argentina paranoia you refer to merely illustrates that Argentina did not enter into negotiations in good faith whereas Britain did. The policies pursued by Argentina stymied progress, like shooting up an unarmed survey vessel, and the policies you pursue to this day merely further alienate the Falklanders and make any hope of Argentine ambitions recede even further.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
And again I can also mention Argentine officials who expressed doubts about the Argentine claim. Which now includes the guy who wrote the official Argentine history who now concedes the Argentine claim is baseless.
All of which ignores that what actually counts is what the people living there desire and they have overwhelmingly rejected Argentina; largely as a result of the confrontational and bullying attitude of Argentina.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago