Las Malvinas.

The Diabolical Monocle · 24-02-2014 10:16pm #1

Thought I might stir it up a bit as this topic tends to separate into two camps fairly quickly from what I've seen.
This forum seemed to fit best.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/12/argentina-falklands-oil-international-courts

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/152905/british-%E2%80%98monitor-argentine-military-revamp%E2%80%99

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/461327/New-arms-threat-Argentina-s-3billion-boost-to-military

South Atlantic.

Las Malvinas/The Falkland islands.

President De Kirchner has just upped her country's defence budget by some 26.7%.

BRITISH military chiefs were last night “carefully monitoring” developments after Argentina announced a £3billion revamp of its armed forces:

Random lazy quote:

"Buenos Aires will acquire military hardware including fighter aircraft, anti-aircraft weapons and specialised radar, as well as beefing up its special forces. The news comes months before drilling for oil begins in earnest off the Falkland Islands, provoking Argentina’s struggling President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. Last month she created a new cabinet post of Secretary for the Malvinas, her country’s name for the Falklands."
(israeli air defence systems too apparently)

Note also, come 2020 Britain will have 2 new aircraft carriers.

Also theres supposedly a sht load of oil off the islands, although this is still speculated on and yet to produce...investors remain faaairly positive yet nothing certain.

So there you have it.
1)History of bad blood, from 1833 to 1982...and '82 to present day....and from present day to, well theres enough national sentiment in both countries (moreso Argentina) to keep that one going another century or two.

2)Oil. Say no more.

3)A hypothetical invasion deadline of 2020.

4)A sudden peak in Argentine military spending.

5)Argentinas govt not very happy with companies drilling there, prison terms threatened for company execs, various financial dissuasion to companies for taking part. Argentina not doing so brilliantly financially at the same time as someone, in their eyes, travelling 12,000 km to siphon off lots of oil/money thats (quite possibly) on their continental shelf.

So if ever there was a probable time since 1982 its not far off.

(imho, this aside, Falklands are doomed in the long to very long term, by diplomacy or military it will become Argentinian land. And rightly)

tac foley · 25-02-2014 10:38am

...and your point in 'stirring it up a bit' is?

A vested interest in either location?

A 'quiet time'?

Try posting your ****-stirring on www.arrse.co.uk - you'll certainly get your required response there, of that there is no doubt.

tac

The Diabolical Monocle · 25-02-2014 1:07pm

tac foley wrote: »

...and your point in 'stirring it up a bit' is?

A vested interest in either location?

A 'quiet time'?

Try posting your ****-stirring on www.arrse.co.uk - you'll certainly get your required response there, of that there is no doubt.

tac

mmmmm.... its an internet forum specifically dedicated to discussing issues like this. Feel free to leave if you dont like it.

A vested interest ?? ....... what in the hell... yes Im an Argentine or British politician or in the arms trade or oil or something. Absolutely.

A 'quiet time'? ....... what are you referring to.

Im not bothered to post on some anus related site you like. Ill leave that to you.

Buenos Dias and las islas Malvinas son Argentinas.

:pac:

tac foley · 25-02-2014 1:46pm

www.arrse.co.uk = army rumour service, with a readership of almost half a million people, many of whom are or were military, many of whom served in the Falklands Campaign, and an unofficial 'voice' of the British Armed forces, often quoted in the press and in parliament.

Just sayin'.

tac

The Diabolical Monocle · 25-02-2014 2:51pm

tac foley wrote: »

www.arrse.co.uk = army rumour service, with a readership of almost half a million people, many of whom are or were military, many of whom served in the Falklands Campaign, and an unofficial 'voice' of the British Armed forces, often quoted in the press and in parliament.

Just sayin'.

tac

Ok, good for you, feel free to open a thread about it there if you want.
I really really dont care about your arse site.
Happy enough here.

Now if you've nothing to say about the topic itself then .... "(good)" "(day)"

tac foley · 25-02-2014 4:17pm

From abcnews -

Argentina's defense chief expressed shame Wednesday after a Navy destroyer sank at its moorings, putting on display the declining fortunes of a once-proud fleet.
The ARA Trinidad led Argentina's 1982 sea war against Britain, but has long been mothballed and used for spare parts to sustain what's left of Argentina's Navy.

A Navy statement said that a pipe burst, flooding the ship below decks. Defense Minister Arturo Puricelli denied that cuts to the fleet's maintenance budget were to blame. He said negligence or "sabotage" were possible and demanded a complete investigation.

"When the president asks me, I'll be ashamed, frankly, to tell her that a boat sank while tied to the dock," Puricelli told Radio 10. "There has to be a well-founded reason for this."

Opposition congressmen blamed a decade of disinvestment in Argentina's military, and said the country is ill-equipped to defend its seas.

"That a boat sinks in port due to a lack of maintenance reveals the deterioration and abandonment of our fleet, vital to the defense of a sovereignty that our president never loses an opportunity to proclaim to the world, but which we are very far from being able to defend," Congressman Gustavo Ferrari said.

Ferrari presented a study last year concluding that Argentina's army, air force, coast guard and navy were all badly underfunded.

Several Navy ships have had trouble operating: the warship Espora was stuck in South Africa last year for lengthy repairs, and breakdowns kept the destroyer Argentina from completing a mission in Brazil. The icebreaker Almirante Irizar is still in repairs after a 2007fire. Puricelli acknowledged the delays, but said nearly $100 million has been spent on repairs.

Meanwhile, Argentina's 3,100-mile (4,989-kilometer) coastline is being protected by a fleet that has been reduced to three destroyers, two other warships, several patrol boats, two scientific vessels, an icebreaker and the Libertad, the tall ship used to train cadets that was detained for months in Africa last year as collateral for unpaid debts.

Congressman Julio Martinez said Wednesday that of a total of 70 navy ships, only 16 are in sailing condition, and even then only barely. He said increases in defense spending have gone to salaries, leaving little or nothing for maintenance or investment in hardware. "It's hugely hypocritical to talk of sabotage when for 10 years the ship has been abandoned," Martinez told Argentina's Todo Noticias channel.

The Trinidad was mothballed only a few years after leading the ultimately unsuccessful occupation of the Falklands, which Argentines claim as the Islas Malvinas. Martinez said he, like most Argentines, has no desire to wage another war, "but if the country lacks defenses, and the British know that, they won't ever negotiate a peaceful resolution."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...-port-18294579

tac

I am pie · 25-02-2014 4:41pm

There is more chance of England invading Argentina than Argentina invading las Malvinas right now. It would be extremely unpopular and Argentina could not afford it. It would also create uncomfortable echoes with the military dictatorship which invaded in the 80s.

Nothing is more unlikely, especially with a currency crisis and potential default (depending on US supreme court case) on the horizon next year.

Simply not an option.

Jawgap · 25-02-2014 4:49pm

Two completely unrelated points.....

If you go to the RAF Museum at Cosford you can see the Pucara and a few other bits and pieces the British took away as trophies of war from the airport.

The South Georgia element of the operation featured what has to be one of the better expressions of commander's intent I've ever heard.....

"sod that, I'll make their eyes water" - Lt Keith Mills, Royal Marines, when told he was only required to put up a token resistance before surrendering. I think in the end they forced an Argentinian corvette to retreat and brought down a Puma.

Lemming · 25-02-2014 5:00pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Two completely unrelated points.....

If you go to the RAF Museum at Cosford you can see the Pucara and a few other bits and pieces the British took away as trophies of war from the airport.

The South Georgia element of the operation featured what has to be one of the better expressions of commander's intent I've ever heard.....

"sod that, I'll make their eyes water" - Lt Keith Mills, Royal Marines, when told he was only required to put up a token resistance before surrendering. I think in the end they forced an Argentinian corvette to retreat and brought down a Puma.

That radio trasnsmission was the prelude to a two hour battle at Grytviken between a handful of Royal Marines, later nicknamed Mills Marauders, and a considerably larger Argentine invasion force.

tac foley · 25-02-2014 5:19pm

An Argentine friend of mine, whose brother's A4 Skyhawk was shot down by the British Rapiers in 1982, told me last christmas that any thought of Argentina going to war with ANYBODY in the foreseeable future was unthinkable. With Chile next door - a military-minded nation if ever there was one - Argentina has rightly decided to keep its head below the parapet for the time being.

And BTW, why on earth would 'England' [I'm assuming that 'I am pie' means the UK] invade Argentina? Apart from corned beef, they have little else that the UK would want. Besides, with the UK's drawdown in military strength, invading a country eleven and a half times bigger than UK makes no military or political sense.

tac

The Diabolical Monocle · 25-02-2014 6:09pm

tac foley wrote: »

From abcnews -

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...-port-18294579

tac

Broken link.
What year was this.

tac foley · 25-02-2014 6:13pm

Assuming that you are asking me, it was in January of 2013 -

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/01/24/argentine-defence-minister-ashamed-of-the-santisima-trinidad-sinking-in-port

See also Argentina Independent online newspaper -

The defence minister Arturo Puricelli today announced that the sinking of the warship ‘Santísima Trinidad’ in Belgrano Port in Buenos Aires Province was “undoubtedly” due to “sabotage”.

“When I talk about sabotage I am not necessarily talking about an explosive. Sabotage is for example the leaving of doors open into certain parts of the ship,” said the minister, who is due to meet with President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner at 5.30pm this evening in Olivos to discuss the issue.

The verdict comes after Puricelli announced that sabotage was a suspected cause when the ship sank yesterday.

The ‘Santísima Trinidad’, a missile destroyer that participated in the Falklands/Malvinas war, has been docked and unused since 2000. Since then, it has been guarded by a small number of soldiers, whose job it was to maintain and protect the ship. Puricelli pointed the finger at them.

Speaking in a radio interview with El Mundo this morning, he said that the guards “had not fulfilled their role”. The defence minister went on to staunchly deny that the ships demise had anything to do with a lack of funding. “This is not a budget issue”, he concluded.

tac

The Diabolical Monocle · 25-02-2014 7:00pm

tac foley wrote: »

Assuming that you are asking me, it was in January of 2013 -

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/01/24/argentine-defence-minister-ashamed-of-the-santisima-trinidad-sinking-in-port

See also Argentina Independent online newspaper -

The defence minister Arturo Puricelli today announced that the sinking of the warship ‘Santísima Trinidad’ in Belgrano Port in Buenos Aires Province was “undoubtedly” due to “sabotage”.

“When I talk about sabotage I am not necessarily talking about an explosive. Sabotage is for example the leaving of doors open into certain parts of the ship,” said the minister, who is due to meet with President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner at 5.30pm this evening in Olivos to discuss the issue.

The verdict comes after Puricelli announced that sabotage was a suspected cause when the ship sank yesterday.

The ‘Santísima Trinidad’, a missile destroyer that participated in the Falklands/Malvinas war, has been docked and unused since 2000. Since then, it has been guarded by a small number of soldiers, whose job it was to maintain and protect the ship. Puricelli pointed the finger at them.

Speaking in a radio interview with El Mundo this morning, he said that the guards “had not fulfilled their role”. The defence minister went on to staunchly deny that the ships demise had anything to do with a lack of funding. “This is not a budget issue”, he concluded.

tac

Ok so an incident about a year ago, speculated as a sabotage, on a permanently moored 1970's vessel being used as spare parts since 1989*, embarrassed a politician and helped bring about a £3 Billion re-vamp programme.

Sounds like an appropriate response.

intellectual dosser · 25-02-2014 7:28pm

This article is two years old but I don't think it's a stretch to say it's still fairly accurate.

15/42 vessels in operational condition spending less than 11 days at sea, while their submarine force barely spend any time underwater. It seems to me that if you take the two upcoming aircraft carriers out of the equation it would still be an extremely unfair fight, suicide for the Argentines and a path to a financial default (their second in 15 years) leading to years of depression.

I think the $3billion is simply serving to keep their current navy afloat and to bring them up to acceptable levels of maintenance. The diplomatic route is their only option for Las Malvinas, and even that looks very bleak.

sparky42 · 25-02-2014 11:41pm

intellectual dosser wrote: »

This article is two years old but I don't think it's a stretch to say it's still fairly accurate.

15/42 vessels in operational condition spending less than 11 days at sea, while their submarine force barely spend any time underwater. It seems to me that if you take the two upcoming aircraft carriers out of the equation it would still be an extremely unfair fight, suicide for the Argentines and a path to a financial default (their second in 15 years) leading to years of depression.

I think the $3billion is simply serving to keep their current navy afloat and to bring them up to acceptable levels of maintenance. The diplomatic route is their only option for Las Malvinas, and even that looks very bleak.

Pretty much this, if you have a situation with so many ships not operational then I imagine the level of training for their crews must be well below combat ready levels. Even with the substantial reduction in numbers in the Royal Navy the SSN's alone would still be enough to stop them and the Falklands guardship (ie Frigate or Destroyer) along with the Typhoon's would make things very difficult just to attack the islands (Tyhpoons against A-4 Skyhawks, it would be more humane to just kill the pilots I'd bet). And the Argentinian Army hasn't seen anything like the level of combat that the British Army has since 82, and would be well out classed.

Argentina had a chance back in the late 90's I think to make a deal with the UK over shared profits from exploration and they walked away from it.

tac foley · 25-02-2014 11:43pm

Yup, about it. They wanted all or nothing, walked, and got nothing.

The Argentine military forces have not been involved in any form of military action except parades since 1982.

Meanwhile, the British have been involved in two wars in Iraq, Bosnia nd Kosovo, a number of incursions into other warzones [Sierra Leone] and 9 years non-stop mayhem in Afghanistan....the Navy has also been deployed non-stop since then, in major exercises all over the world, in operations in war and in anti-pirate patrolling in the Indian Ocean.

Argentina......................................?

tac

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 1:25am

tac foley wrote: »

Yup, about it. They wanted all or nothing, walked, and got nothing.

The Argentine military forces have not been involved in any form of military action except parades since 1982.

Meanwhile, the British have been involved in two wars in Iraq, Bosnia nd Kosovo, a number of incursions into other warzones [Sierra Leone] and 9 years non-stop mayhem in Afghanistan....the Navy has also been deployed non-stop since then, in major exercises all over the world, in operations in war and in anti-pirate patrolling in the Indian Ocean.

Argentina......................................?

tac

More wars = less public and political support for a new one.

Lemming · 26-02-2014 1:39am

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

More wars = less public and political support for a new one.

It also means a very experienced and battle-hardened military that know the application of their craft and know it well.

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 2:17am

Lemming wrote: »

It also means a very experienced and battle-hardened military that know the application of their craft and know it well.

hmm I dunno, is there any actual proof to suggest that a force carrying bad experiences and probably tainted with ptsd, are at an advantage.

intellectual dosser · 26-02-2014 9:42am

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

More wars = less public and political support for a new one.

There's a difference between the deployments in Eastern Europe / Middle East, and a second Falklands war. The former were where the British Government decided to invade a country 'for the good of it's people' or to 'stave off tyranny' or however way you wish to look at it.

If Argentina invaded the Falklands or fired the first shot in anger then that's a different scenario and I'd think that the British people would be adamant that the islands were defended.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

hmm I dunno, is there any actual proof to suggest that a force carrying bad experiences and probably tainted with ptsd, are at an advantage.

I think you'd first need to show proof that the entire force is carrying bad experiences(?) and PTSD first. The Royal Navy wouldn't have experienced much losses in any of the recent conflicts, bar a couple of their personnel being captured by the Iranians, who were returned.

I think you're just going to have to face it, regardless of who you think is the rightful government of the islands, the Argentines will not be taking it by force any time in the next 2-3 decades.

tac foley · 26-02-2014 9:45am

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

hmm I dunno, is there any actual proof to suggest that a force carrying bad experiences and probably tainted with ptsd, are at an advantage.

..and having read that ludicrous, baseless and ignorant comment, here ends my involvement in this thread.

tac

Jawgap · 26-02-2014 10:31am

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

hmm I dunno, is there any actual proof to suggest that a force carrying bad experiences and probably tainted with ptsd, are at an advantage.

Hmmm, there wasn't much to suggest that a navy lacking strike carriers, friendly infra-structure with draining NATO commitments could go to the far end of the world and using basically untried airframes operate with impugnity within 300 miles of an enemy coastline before undertaking that most hazardous of military undertakings - the contested amphibious assault.

Then moving across some pretty rotten terrain, dislodging an enemy from defensive positions they've had weeks to prepare before forcing the surrender of a mechanised infantry brigade in an urban area......

.......and of course they did all this on the fly, lacking a contingency plan against an enemy who had been thinking and planning such an operation for years.....

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 12:02pm

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I think you'd first need to show proof that the entire force is carrying bad experiences(?) and PTSD first.

I think you're just going to have to face it, regardless of who you think is the rightful government of the islands, the Argentines will not be taking it by force any time in the next 2-3 decades.

I never said the entire force.

Please see very first post "Falklands are doomed in the long to very long term".
So no news there.

tac foley wrote: »

..and having read that ludicrous, baseless and ignorant comment, here ends my involvement in this thread.

tac

This was actually your most informative and objective post during your short tantrum filled visit.

Bye now. Adios. :pac:

Jawgap wrote: »

Hmmm, there wasn't much to suggest that a navy lacking strike carriers, friendly infra-structure with draining NATO commitments could go to

Yesterdays news, yesterdays battle is not todays.

Jawgap · 26-02-2014 12:58pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

......
Yesterdays news, yesterdays battle is not todays.

"If there is one attitude more dangerous than to assume that a future war will be just like the last one, it is to imagine that it will be so utterly different that we can afford to ignore all the lessons of the last one"

John Slessor, Marshal of the RAF, Air Power & Armies

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 1:16pm

Jawgap wrote: »

"If there is one attitude more dangerous than to assume that a future war will be just like the last one, it is to imagine that it will be so utterly different that we can afford to ignore all the lessons of the last one"
John Slessor, Marshal of the RAF, Air Power & Armies

Which is exactly what I said ....... emmm where now ??

Jawgap · 26-02-2014 1:24pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Which is exactly what I said ....... emmm where now ??

Did you not say that.....

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Yesterdays news, yesterdays battle is not todays.

Where upon I quote Slessor, who is basically saying don't assume the next war will be like the last one but, equally, you ignore the lessons of the past wars at your peril......

Jawgap wrote: »

"If there is one attitude more dangerous than to assume that a future war will be just like the last one, it is to imagine that it will be so utterly different that we can afford to ignore all the lessons of the last one"
John Slessor, Marshal of the RAF, Air Power & Armies

If he really is saying ignore all the lessons of the last war, they have no bearing on the next one, then he wrote several books that a generations of air power historians have misinterpreted

So where to now?

Reading and basic comprehension lessons maybe?

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 1:49pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Did you not say that.....

Where upon I quote Slessor, who is basically saying don't assume the next war will be like the last one but, equally, you ignore the lessons of the past wars at your peril......

If he really is saying ignore all the lessons of the last war, they have no bearing on the next one, then he wrote several books that a generations of air power historians have misinterpreted

So where to now?

Reading and basic comprehension lessons maybe?

"ignore all the lessons of the last one".

Show me where I said this.

Show it to me.

No rush, take your time.

intellectual dosser · 26-02-2014 2:07pm

You implied it.

This is a joke.
\Thread

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 2:10pm

intellectual dosser wrote: »

You implied it.

This is a joke.
\Thread

Show me where I implied it.

Lemming · 26-02-2014 2:12pm

Read below ...

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Yesterdays news, yesterdays battle is not todays.

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 2:13pm

Lemming wrote: »

Read below ...

Does this say to ignore all the lessons of the last one?

Lemming · 26-02-2014 2:24pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Does this say to ignore all the lessons of the last one?

It infers by being old news that it is not relevant. The important part of the sentence is the first two words, not that yesterday's battle is not today's (although I'm sure there's a few WW1 survivors somewhere that might disagree with that assessment)

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 2:33pm

Lemming wrote: »

It infers by being old news that it is not relevant. The important part of the sentence is the first two words, not that yesterday's battle is not today's (although I'm sure there's a few WW1 survivors somewhere that might disagree with that assessment)

No that is subjective interpretation.

Yesterdays battle is not todays. (read the words literally....for what they say.... not what you want them to say)

Tell me how this infers a disregard for similar factors.

Yesterdays boxing match is not todays - this infers I disregard what I have learned from prior matches. Yes or no ?

Yesterdays mock maths exam is not todays - this infers I dismiss what I learned from yesterday. Yes or no ?

Yesterdays battle is not todays - this infers I dismiss what I learned from the previous battle. Yes or no ?

Jawgap · 26-02-2014 2:41pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

"ignore all the lessons of the last one".

Show me where I said this.

Show it to me.

No rush, take your time.

Really?

Having highlighted the last few words of the quote thus...

"If there is one attitude more dangerous than to assume that a future war will be just like the last one, it is to imagine that it will be so utterly different that we can afford to ignore all the lessons of the last one"
John Slessor, Marshal of the RAF, Air Power & Armies

You then proceeded to say.....

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Which is exactly what I said ....... emmm where now ??

in respect of your words in another post....

"Yesterdays news, yesterdays battle is not todays."

Are you now saying that is what you didn't say.....

You're retreating faster than an Argentinian aircraft carrier.....

Lemming · 26-02-2014 2:43pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

No that is subjective interpretation.

Yesterdays battle is not todays. (read the words literally....for what they say.... not what you want them to say)

Tell me how this infers a disregard for similar factors.

Yesterdays boxing match is not todays - this infers I disregard what I have learned from prior matches. Yes or no ?

Yesterdays mock maths exam is not todays - this infers I dismiss what I learned from yesterday. Yes or no ?

Yesterdays battle is not todays - this infers I dismiss what I learned from the previous battle. Yes or no ?

One word. "Context". The examples you have given lack context. In themselves your questions cannot be answered because they lack ... wait for it .... context.

As I said before; the words preceding your statement provide context as to how the statement should be read.

Regardless, this thread is a mess so that's my cue, just after I point out that following your logical fallacy from earlier about the Falklands being "doomed", why bother? The earth is doomed because one day the Sun will go supernova.

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 2:49pm

@jawgap
@lemming

Hmm, lets see.

Heres what I said.

"Yesterdays battle is not todays."

Do you agree.

Yes/No

Now that you're done with that, you can point out to me the bit where I disagree with the air marshals quote.

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 2:53pm

Lemming wrote: »

logical fallacy from earlier about the Falklands being "doomed", why bother? The earth is doomed because one day the Sun will go supernova.

Which is why I said 'in my opinion'.

In my opinion the falklands are doomed in the long-very long term.

Show me the logical fallacy.

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 2:58pm

Jawgap wrote: »

You're retreating faster than an Argentinian aircraft carrier.....

Resorting to ad hominem.

Jawgap · 26-02-2014 3:06pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

@jawgap
@lemming

Hmm, lets see.

Heres what I said.

"Yesterdays battle is not todays."

Do you agree.

Yes/No

Now that you're done with that, you can point out to me the bit where I disagree with the air marshals quote.

As I said - retreating faster than an Argentinian aircraft carrier!

By the way, Slessor was a Marshal - you've just knocked him back about two ranks and three stripes:)

You know what you meant - you now want to move to a literal interpretation of your words.

OK, I agree that is what you said and absence of apostrophes notwithstanding (I assume you'd prefer that not be literally interpreted) - "yesterdays battle" can never be "todays battle" - because yesterday is not today (but it will be tomorrow) and today is not yesterday, but yesterday today was tomorrow so "yesterdays battle" while not being "todays battle" cannot be tomorrow's battle - although at some point "yesterdays battle" will become last week's battle - and that even less like "todays battle".....

Never a good sign when someone starts discussing logical fallacies and ad hominem........the last refuge and all that.....

And that's it for me.....

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 3:18pm

Jawgap wrote: »

As I said - retreating faster than an Argentinian aircraft carrier!

Again, really ? - Well, I'll put it down to frustration.

By the way, Slessor was a Marshal - you've just knocked him back about two ranks and three stripes:)

Very well. ... maybe minor corrections can make up for an overall lose.

You know what you meant - you now want to move to a literal interpretation of your words.

Yes I do know what I meant. Yes I generally rely more on the actual words themselves rather than emotions and subjectivity.

OK, I agree that is what you said and absence of apostrophes notwithstanding (I assume you'd prefer that not be literally interpreted) - "yesterdays battle" can never be "todays battle" - because yesterday is not today (but it will be tomorrow) and today is not yesterday, but yesterday today was tomorrow so "yesterdays battle" while not being "todays battle" cannot be tomorrow's battle - although at some point "yesterdays battle" will become last week's battle - and that even less like "todays battle".....

emmm... ok whatever.

Never a good sign when someone starts discussing logical fallacies and ad hominem........the last refuge and all that.....

Yeah they're generally...... recognized for what they are.

And that's it for me.....

Bye now.

ChicagoJoe · 25-03-2014 3:19pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

(imho, this aside, Falklands are doomed in the long to very long term, by diplomacy or military it will become Argentinian land. And rightly)

The British actually were hinting that they wanted to get rid of them, the Galtieri then jumped at the opportunity of gaining public support as Argentina's economy was in the toilet by invading This was a Godsend to Thatcher too who was doing very badly in the polls in the UK after race riots in Brixton, Liverpool etc. And so we had a ' war ' about two little known islands in the south Atlantic.

So in the long term they will indeed go to the Argentinians and people will ask what the 1982 deadly fiasco was all about.

ChicagoJoe · 25-03-2014 3:26pm

Jawgap wrote: »

"sod that, I'll make their eyes water" - Lt Keith Mills, Royal Marines, when told he was only required to put up a token resistance before surrendering. I think in the end they forced an Argentinian corvette to retreat and brought down a Puma.

Lemming wrote: »

That radio trasnsmission was the prelude to a two hour battle at Grytviken between a handful of Royal Marines, later nicknamed Mills Marauders, and a considerably larger Argentine invasion force.

Do you have an independent source to back this up like one of the Argentine soldiers or a non British journalist ? Sounds like typical British tabloid journalism sh*t like the ' heroic failure ' of Dunkirk, Gallipoli, Gordon of Khartoum :rolleyes:

Jawgap · 25-03-2014 7:33pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Do you have an independent source to back this up like one of the Argentine soldiers or a non British journalist ? Sounds like typical British tabloid journalism sh*t like the ' heroic failure ' of Dunkirk, Gallipoli, Gordon of Khartoum :rolleyes:

I don't think there were any journalists there, and he said it while in communication with HMS Endurance so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest none of the Argentine soldiers were present at either end of the line or were eavesdropping.

Only two people know exactly what was said, but maybe they colluded to make up the story about what was said?

My Spanish isn't great but Wikipedia en Espanol doesn't seem to disagree.....

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3%B3n_Georgias

They cite the following book as the source for their information on Grytviken.....

"Admiral Horacio A. Mayorga: No Expired . Ed Planeta, Buenos Aires, 1998."

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-03-2014 12:55pm

And that's it for me.

ah hes back.

knucklehead6 · 27-03-2014 8:52am

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't think there were any journalists there, and he said it while in communication with HMS Endurance so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest none of the Argentine soldiers were present at either end of the line or were eavesdropping.

Only two people know exactly what was said, but maybe they colluded to make up the story about what was said?

My Spanish isn't great but Wikipedia en Espanol doesn't seem to disagree.....

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3%B3n_Georgias

They cite the following book as the source for their information on Grytviken.....

"Admiral Horacio A. Mayorga: No Expired . Ed Planeta, Buenos Aires, 1998."

Jawgap, I really don't think there's any point talking to these two. Whether or not Mills actually said that will be what they fixate on, not the actions of him and his men in repulsing the initial assault.

Jawgap · 27-03-2014 9:12am

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Jawgap, I really don't think there's any point talking to these two. Whether or not Mills actually said that will be what they fixate on, not the actions of him and his men in repulsing the initial assault.

I'm taking one for the team - if they're posting here they're leaving other people in peace:)

Actually, @the diabolical monocle's last post reminds me of Brian Hanrahan's "I counted them all out and I counted them all back" news report......

ChicagoJoe · 28-03-2014 3:57pm

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't think there were any journalists there, and he said it while in communication with HMS Endurance so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest none of the Argentine soldiers were present at either end of the line or were eavesdropping.

Only two people know exactly what was said, but maybe they colluded to make up the story about what was said?

My Spanish isn't great but Wikipedia en Espanol doesn't seem to disagree.....

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3%B3n_Georgias

They cite the following book as the source for their information on Grytviken.....

"Admiral Horacio A. Mayorga: No Expired . Ed Planeta, Buenos Aires, 1998."

You might as well have got in up in Chinese while you were at it buddy

And wiki too !!! Like I said, typical British tabloid journalism sh*t like the ' heroic failure ' of Dunkirk, Gallipoli, Gordon of Khartoum.

Jawgap · 28-03-2014 5:28pm

seen as you don't speak Spanglish....

The next morning the captain of the Bahia Paraiso at Leith, South Georgia, radioed news of the Falklands surrender to the 23-man British detachment at Grytviken, urging them to capitulate to avoid further violence.

He subsequently sent a corvette and two Alouette helicopters to Grytviken, where the Royal Marines opened fire with small arms and 84 mm anti-tank rockets. Their surprise resistance damaged one of the helos
and forced the corvette to retreat hastily. After two hours of heavy fighting, however, the marines, low on ammunition and facing a far superior Argentine force now established ashore, surrendered.

HMS Endurance, at sea nearby, was preparing to come to the assistance of the marines at Grytviken, but was directed by Fleet Headquarters to refrain from engaging in offensive action and to conceal its whereabouts until given further guidance. Frustrated, it consequently turned north to rendezvous with its replenishment ship, Fort Austin.

From "The 1982 Falklands-Malvinas Case Study," THE UNITED STATES NAVAL WAR COLLEGE, JOINT MILITARY OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT

ledgebag1 · 28-03-2014 5:39pm

Argentina have to modernise and upgrade their naval and army/ air equipment. A lot of governments do this, in essence to keep up with other nations who may be a potential threat, it's not uncommon. Spending on this equipment is not purely a military upgrade but also political, in that they will buy the equipment from as mentioned Israel and possibly America/ Russia. These contracts are politically very strategic and with the equipment may come alliances, guarantees of protection.

Oil is the key here! Not military action.

The Diabolical Monocle · 30-03-2014 4:34am

Hes gone, hes back, gone, back. More comebacks than Lazarus, and still as emotional as ever.
Ah well, better he lets it all out here. :pac:

Reminds me of the way the old empire died.

Jawgap · 30-03-2014 8:14am

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Hes gone, hes back, gone, back. More comebacks than Lazarus, and still as emotional as ever.
Ah well, better he lets it all out here. :pac:

Reminds me of the way the old empire died.

In my defence, I think I only left once and came back once, so you seem to be over-egging your pudding there old chap.

I'm not sure where you get your evidence for me being emotional - the capitalisation in that last post wasn't me being emotional, it was me being lazy when I cut and paste the title of the document into the posting.

I don't know which 'old empire' you're referring to (there've been a few) but certainly some arguments on this thread have reminded me of the ARA Belgrano - impressive at first sight, but oh so easy to torpedo.........

Las Malvinas.

Comments