PDA

View Full Version : Argentinian Government Needs an Enema


Ozzy
5th Feb 2013, 17:57
Why the fcuk don't we just do a pre-emptive strike on Buenos Aires? And shut them the fcuk up once and for all.

BBC News - Argentina 'will control Falklands within 20 years' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21341578)


Ozzy

con-pilot
5th Feb 2013, 18:05
Well, hate to say this, but with the cut backs of the British Military, they most likely will, take over the Falkland Islands.

Who is going to stop them? As if the currnet trends in the US continues, we wouldn't be able to stop them either, if asked that is.

Ozzy
5th Feb 2013, 18:10
con-pilot I hear ya. But a bright burst of sunshine from an HMS sub off the coast would do the job now....

I am getting very pissed off with the volume of bitchiness coming out of the joke that is the Argie guvnment. It needs to be taught a lesson,,,, again...

A relative of mine died in 1982 on Tumbledown.

Ozzy

500N
5th Feb 2013, 18:15
Ozzy

Thread running in Military forum already on the Argies
including this latest bit.

toffeez
5th Feb 2013, 19:40
From the nuclear submarine the lights of Buenos Aires seem so close and rather seductive.

Where's the Casa Rosada?

Believe me, one sub is always there, watching.
.

con-pilot
5th Feb 2013, 19:56
Believe me, one sub is always there, watching.


Hope they get shore leave from time to time, that's a fun city. :p

toffeez
5th Feb 2013, 20:21
Pattaya beach babes here we come ... only 10000 miles to go.

Any better ideas?

broadreach
5th Feb 2013, 23:31
Ozzy, I'm guessing that your post is in reaction to the press coverage of Argentina's foreign minister, Hector Timerman, interviews with the Guardian and the Independent during a visit to the UK this week.

As an attentive watcher of Argentina resident in a neighboring country, and one with many Argentine friends, I am expecting and hoping that the pre-emptive strike will come from within via the vote.

Ms Fernandez de Kirchner's approval rating continues to fall, inflation is generally acknowleged to be more than double official statistics, the IMF have just censured the country for fiddling stats (ironically, until the state intervention in INDEC, the stats institute, Argentina had one of the world's best national statistics), the Navy have been humiliated in Ghana with the lengthy arrest of the ARA Libertad sail triaining ship, the delay in Cape Town for repairs to the ARA Espora corvette (due reportedly to delay in Argentina's paying MTU for previous repairs), the sinking at berth in Puerto Belgrano of the ARA Santisima Trinidad last week, the black market dollar (called the "blue" in Argentina) trading at 52% over the official rate, the attacks on the judiciary and on the press. The bad news just goes on and on. And she, with her government, just goes on and on making enemies within and without.

God only knows how this - yet another - unfortunate Argentinian phase will end. As said above I am only an attentive observer, but there is an increasing stink of pending implosion about the present government. And, whereas one would expect an effective opposition in a democracy to be capitalising on all the problems, opposition in Argentina just hasn't got its act together.

Wiping out Buenos Aires isn't really the solution. The government are doing a reasonable job by themselves without assistance.

airship
6th Feb 2013, 00:33
Ozzy, and just how are you / we're going to accomplish this pre-emptive strike on Buenos Aires? Ask the French if they'd kindly lend us their Charles de Gaulle and their Rafale jets for a few months? Or wait until the UK receives her 1st new aircraft carrier "on order" currently - delivery expected about 2018, but without any suitable jets? :D

Or were you thinking along the lines of "1 cruise-missile equipped with a nuclear warhead, launched from 1 of the 2 suitably-equipped and servicable UK subs (out of a grand total of 4 subs) currently plying the oceans...

PS. Kill all the Argies, to the last woman and child, by all means if you must. But leave the Argie cats alone. Otherwise, I'll have to come after you myself.

500N
6th Feb 2013, 00:38
"just how are you / we're going to accomplish this pre-emptive strike on Buenos Aires ?"

Who needs an aircraft carrier ?

Why not use the jets on the Falklands ????


"Or were you thinking along the lines of "1 cruise-missile equipped with a nuclear warhead, launched from 1 of the 2 suitably-equipped and servicable UK subs (out of a grand total of 4 subs) currently plying the oceans..."

Why not ?

The UK did it in Libya, why not the mainland of South America ?

Airborne Aircrew
6th Feb 2013, 00:46
Who needs an aircraft carrier

I'm fairly sure that the Falklands are the most unsinkable aircraft carrier close to Argentina that the Brits have free access to...

So, Mrs Kirchner, (a good Argentinian name there), come try and sink it... If you choose your course correctly I'm sure that Great Britain will be able to park any other ship you have remaining in the slots alongside the Belgrano... Get the heading right too and we'll try to dress them by the right... :ok:

airship
6th Feb 2013, 00:56
500N wrote: The UK did it in Libya, why not the mainland of South America ? What, the UK used a nuclear warhead in Libya...? :ugh:

Usual RAF assets in the Falklands: a single wing of 4 x Typhoons supported by 1 x air to air re-fuelling tanker and 1 x Hercules C-130 transport. We're going to invade / attack Argentina with that? The Argentinians must be trembling in their beds, unable to sleep, as I write... :p

500N
6th Feb 2013, 01:01
God your picky.

OK, we launched sub based missiles, not nuclear but still sub based.
A sub launched cruise missile is a sub launched cruise missile,
regardless of warhead.

RAF Assets Falklands - so what, we can fly more down there.

Either way, as AA said, we still have a very unsinkable launch pad
for aircraft which can be defended and would be very hard to knock
the UK off.

All good platforms for sending a message to the President.
Maybe even save her some money and do it New Years eve :O

Metro man
6th Feb 2013, 01:06
The situation today is very different to 1982. Whilst today Britain would be unable to retake the Falklands, Argentina would be unable to mount a successful invasion.

With a nuclear submarine on patrol together with a type 45 destroyer, a fast jet base on the islands with inflight refuelling capability, a large contingent of troops all dug in and well prepared. Rapid reinforcement is easily possible with battle hardened forces having actual combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Argentine military has advanced very little in the last 30 years, the navy has no aircraft carrier or amphibious landing capability, the airforce are still operating the same aircraft used during the 1982 conflict. The type 45 destroyer can track all of Argentinas airforce and all the other airforces of South America combined. Any invading force could easily be sunk or shot out of the sky before getting near the islands.

A drone could loiter over Buenos Aires and fire a missile straight into the Plaza De Mayo whilst the old dragon was giving one of her speeches, which should shut her up.:E

airship
6th Feb 2013, 01:37
500N / Metro man, the distance which separates the Falklands Islands from Buenos Aires is approx. 1,900km one way (so 3,800km round-trip = 2050 nautical miles if you prefer). I don't believe that BAE's Typhoon / Eurofighter has even 1/3rd that range in a ground-attack mode. They should have bought the French dassault Rafales instead...

I'm also somewhat surprised at 500N's ignorance concerning long distances (as he's in Oz), as for Metro man, keep droning on... :zzz:

500N
6th Feb 2013, 01:48
"Usual RAF assets in the Falklands: a single wing of 4 x Typhoons supported by 1 x air to air re-fuelling tanker and 1 x Hercules C-130 transport."

Then what is the point of having and air to air re-fuelling tanker ?

I work on how to achieve the mission. If everyone worked the way you think, America would never have bombed Libya from the UK !

BTW, I did look up the range of the Typhoon and knew it was short
in Ground attack mode. Personally, I'd bomb a military target
somewhere close to BA where they could see the fireworks :O

airship
6th Feb 2013, 01:57
I was just (mainly) kidding 500N, matey. Must be almost time for breakfast over there in Oz? Remember to check yer slippers for scorpions / brown snakes or whatever... :)

500N
6th Feb 2013, 02:00
airship

I didn't mind the joke / dig at the end of your post, I give it so expect it :ok:

It's 2.00pm here, more like a late lunch.

Had my breakky of deep fried snakes and crocodile this morning :O

airship
6th Feb 2013, 02:32
2 o'clock in the afternoon already? I guess somewhere that I should be grateful that this bleedin' planet is as big as it is.

PS. You must have one hell of a deep-fat fryer. Do you know con-pilot? He's posted some great recipes for frying whole turkeys (and perhaps also whole Afghan insurgents) in his own backyard deep-fat fryer.

I suddenly have this urge for BBQ'd pork spareribs. The sort you can only get in the USA and which will kill you if consumed more often than once a week apparently. That's the problem with JB and worldwide contributors. Creates insatiable desires for "exotic" foods, not easily available locally (especially at 4am) and incomprehension between peoples generally concerning diverse subjects. Will be going to bed soon hopefully, but on an empty stomach - oh wait, I should still have a couple of packets of Walker's cheese & onion crisps remaining...

500N
6th Feb 2013, 02:39
"BBQ'd pork spareribs"

Yum, love them. One of the few meats I like in the US
(not a great fan of the "broiled" meat you guys seem to like).

Skinned 3 beautiful young sows the other week, all wild,
that night we had a great pork fry up. I had planned to have
the ribs and the Pork belly flap the next 2 nights but the plan
all turned inwards :O

Plenty of others to be had :ok:


Now you have me drooling at the mouth.

Ozzy
6th Feb 2013, 02:50
airships were designed to be shot down easily. I think the tradition continues. And we laugh and laugh

Ozzy

con-pilot
6th Feb 2013, 02:53
airships were designed to be shot down easily. I think the tradition continues. And we laugh and laugh



Well said. :p

500N
6th Feb 2013, 02:54
airship
"ground-attack mode"

You listed a C130 as being in the Falklands.
Well, use that to drop a few bombs. We know it can be done.

Problem of distance solved - again :O
So that's two air options you now have :ok:

con-pilot
6th Feb 2013, 02:57
Well, use that to drop a few bombs. We know it can be done.

Yup, just open the back door and roll them out. :p

ORAC
6th Feb 2013, 04:40
The Argies did that during the war IIRC, to a civvie tanker.

As an aside, did you ever see this?

It7SQ546xRk

500N
6th Feb 2013, 04:45
Impressive.

You have to wonder what the US haven't tried !!!

G&T ice n slice
6th Feb 2013, 08:30
hmmmm... maybe an illustration of why you shouldn't let engineers get anywhere near beer?

"hay guysh, I got, hic, i got thish really real' grea' idea, hic..."

Sallyann1234
6th Feb 2013, 10:46
Any invading force could easily be sunk or shot out of the sky before getting near the islands.
I expect they could, but what are the rules of engagement?
I suspect that the Argies will have landed on the islands before the message passes up the chain through MoD to ministers who will want to chew their fingers around a table before making up their minds whether to respond by issuing an ultimatum...

500N
6th Feb 2013, 11:00
Sallyanne

In that case, we need a few men like Lt "I'm fairly famous" Mills, RM
to disregard ROE orders. They almost sunk a frigate last time, they
would probably get it right the second time :O

Sallyann1234
6th Feb 2013, 11:16
I know what we need, but what will we actually get?

MagnusP
6th Feb 2013, 11:18
Sallyann, The Typhoons are there to provide a Quick Reaction to any threat to the zone. I don't think any response would require ministerial approval.

Sallyann1234
6th Feb 2013, 11:26
You think that govennment/MoD have devolved that decision to the guys on the ground? I doubt it.
What if the Argies send a probing force stuffed with observers from neutral countries to approach 'their' islands? At what point do the defenders open fire? 100 miles? 10 miles? On the beach?
We wipe them out and then find they were all unarmed. How does that look?

Blacksheep
6th Feb 2013, 12:40
I find the Argentine position very strange. They ascribe colonialism to UK but, for long after we established the first and only ever successful colony on the islands, the pre-Argentina Spanish colonists of Buenos Aires were still in armed conflict with Chile over Patagonia while trying hard to occupy the territory against stiff opposition from the natives. Given their own colonial past, the Argentinian position on the matter doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Indeed, their steadfast refusal to meet with, or talk to, the resident community parallels their treatment of the Patagonians.

Then there's that strange comparison they have made with Israeli settlers. What exactly are they trying to say there?

Blacksheep
6th Feb 2013, 12:48
At what point do the defenders open fire? As with the Belgrano, when an armed military vessel enters the exclusion zone.

Should an unauthorised approach be made in an unarmed civilian vessel, it can be stopped and boarded immediately upon entering territorial waters. The boarding troops can respond with appropriate force should they be attacked.

Given the size of the garrison, we are of course, talking about many more than a thousand "invaders" plus your "neutral" observers.

Sallyann1234
6th Feb 2013, 13:07
blacksheep, that does sound reassuring and I would like to think it was true.

What is the current exclusion zone, and is it legal under the Geneva Convention considering that there is no declared state of war?

Andy_S
6th Feb 2013, 13:39
What is the current exclusion zone, and is it legal under the Geneva Convention considering that there is no declared state of war?

There was no declared state of war last time round; didn't stop us declaring (and enforcing) an exclusion zone.

As for the Argentinian position on colonialism being strange, that would only be the case if we were dealing with rational and consistent people.......

Sallyann1234
6th Feb 2013, 13:53
It's irrational people who are the most dangerous. You can't predict what they might do.
Is there currently a restriction zone, and do other countries respect it?

toffeez
6th Feb 2013, 20:47
Can't we send Her Majesty's most eligible secret agent to seduce and blackmail Christina? I know he'd have to be well paid, but if successful he could get to poke her daughter, slightly more arousing ...
.

Milo Minderbinder
6th Feb 2013, 21:52
I remember last time, one of the Navy's middle ranking officers causing consternation by being quoted in the Torygraph that we should drop a "big white hot one" on Buenos Aires.
No-one ever made clear later if he was making his own comment, or whether he'd been directed to say it to try and make the argies believe that there was a degree of "instability" in the UK command structure. It was printed a day or two before the first Black Buck, and the implied threat is obvious.
'fraid I can't remember the chaps name, but the Torygraph devoted a page or so to his comments

Solid Rust Twotter
7th Feb 2013, 06:18
Send in a B&E team to leave a steamer coiled in Frau Kirchner's bowl of corn flakes. The implied message being "We can get to you if we want".

Ozzy
7th Feb 2013, 13:12
Hector Timerman just keeps on sharing the love....

Argentina foreign minister Hector Timerman disputes term 'Falkland Islander' (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/argentina/130206/argentina-falkland-island-hector-timerman-war-prince-william)

Ozzy

radeng
7th Feb 2013, 13:48
We've seen from the returns to the IMF that the Argentine government lie like troopers. Totally dishonourable and untrustworthy liars.

Maybe the civil unrest will get them - preferably make them into more 'disappeared'.

Meanwhile, all loans from the IMF should be blocked.

fitliker
7th Feb 2013, 13:49
It was a mistake not to invade Argentina and humiliate those Generals.
Argentina would be a better country today,if we had of replaced the military junta with a democracy.
We should have hanged the generals for war crimes against a peaceful civilian population on the Falkland Islands.
Thatcher was far too soft on the Argie bargie for my liking.

Andy_S
7th Feb 2013, 14:15
It was a mistake not to invade Argentina and humiliate those Generals. Argentina would be a better country today,if we had of replaced the military junta with a democracy.

The Generals were well and truly humiliated without the need to invade Argentina. And the junta actually collapsed shortly after the Falklands conflict without the need for us to intervene.

500N
7th Feb 2013, 14:19
Agree Andy


Remember Captain Astiz, he surrendered South Georgia ?

I noticed the other day that he was at last convicted in 2011
of various crimes committed during the Junta period and
jailed.

Certainly took them long enough.

bcgallacher
7th Feb 2013, 17:27
Astiz was the only Argentinian POW brought to the UK - at the request, I believe of the Swedish government for the shooting of a female Swedish student in B.A. at the Naval Mechanics School. unfortunately as we are signatories to the Geneva Convention we were not allowed to hand him over.

airship
7th Feb 2013, 19:28
Ozzy wrote: airships were designed to be shot down easily. I think the tradition continues. And we laugh and laugh

Followed by con-pilot who wrote: Well said :p

What "cheap-shots", from both of you, if I may be allowed to say so on an American-owned forum but inhabited by mostly Brits or ex...?!

The "Brits" back in 1982 may have been confused by how the French had supplied their "Exocets" to the Argentinians in the first place. In wartime, apparently the French communicated certain useful info to the Brits concerning the French-produced Exocets supplied to the enemy. Of what help were the Americans really (to any side) in that war?

Apart from all the "cheap-shots" against "lighter than air entities" etc., do you have anything else to contribute here? What have the Americans to say about the secretly-built under-ground / sea tunnel currently being constructed by unemployed masses of hitherto Argentinians, sworn to secrecy, (at risk of being shoved out of a helicopter at 2000m into the sea), or was that Chile...?!

What's most important is to conserve the idea of the double BigMac sandwich, available everywhere...?! :ok:

500N
7th Feb 2013, 19:33
"Of what help were the Americans really (to any side) in that war?"


Well, they tried to help the Argies, even to the extent of warning
the Argies over the timing of forces landing and location of certain
British ships but luckily Maggie grabbed hold of certain US politicians
balls and squeezed them tightly until she got the response she wanted
- that no advance warning would be given of any attacks.

US State dept - what a bunch of lilly livered wankers they were
during the war.

Casper / Def Dept - much more supportive.


So some in the US tried to help the Argies but weren't allowed.

500N
7th Feb 2013, 19:39
bcg

Yes, I remember it well. I read the other day he was put on a
"slow boat to the UK" to allow more time to sort out the mess.

I also read that in looking back, the UK probably did have the
right to had him over but at the time and the then reading of
the GC used (I think the third), it seemed all to hard and messy.

radeng
7th Feb 2013, 19:40
I suspect more a case of the US DoD, NSA and the CIA realising that if the Brits kicked them out of UK radio monitoring stations (GCHQ and military, such as RAF Chicksands) and out of the Cyprus military ones, life would be very much harder. I also wonder exactly what the Diego Garcia lease says.....

500N
7th Feb 2013, 19:45
radeng

I'm sure things like that were included in the conversation.
But I think DoD et al are less political than the State Dep't
- which I think was worried about how it would affect
them in South America as a whole (US influence).

Capser W seemed to be right behind the British.

Ozzy
7th Feb 2013, 21:54
What "cheap-shots", from both of you, if I may be allowed to say so on an American-owned forum but inhabited by mostly Brits or ex...?!

airship said: The "Brits" back in 1982 may have been confused by how the French had supplied their "Exocets" to the Argentinians in the first place. In wartime, apparently the French communicated certain useful info to the Brits concerning the French-produced Exocets supplied to the enemy. Of what help were the Americans really (to any side) in that war?

Apart from all the "cheap-shots" against "lighter than air entities" etc., do you have anything else to contribute here? What have the Americans to say about the secretly-built under-ground / sea tunnel currently being constructed by unemployed masses of hitherto Argentinians, sworn to secrecy, (at risk of being shoved out of a helicopter at 2000m into the sea), or was that Chile...?!

What's most important is to conserve the idea of the double BigMac sandwich, available everywhere...?!

and we laughed and laughed - this is great!

Ozzy

Metro man
8th Feb 2013, 01:17
A very good article from the BBC.

BBC News - Could the UK still defend the Falklands? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373)

Brian Abraham
8th Feb 2013, 04:54
Of what help were the Americans really (to any side) in that war?
Lets not rewrite history completely. The US supplied the UK with the latest Sidewinder which was responsible for 17 kills. Margaret Thatcher stated that "without the Harrier jets and their immense manoeuvrability, equipped as they were with the latest version of the Sidewinder missile, supplied to us by U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, we could never have got back the Falklands." This is not only politically but militarily questionable, however, as all the Fleet Air Arm Sidewinder engagements proved to be from the rear.

radeng
8th Feb 2013, 06:38
Depending which version of Sidewinder, it could well have had UK designed and manufactured integrated circuits in it.........For a good many years, a substantial amount of US military electronic equipment relied on ICs from Plessey Semiconductors.

Brian Abraham
8th Feb 2013, 08:51
Depending which version of SidewinderThe AIM-9L first all aspect version. The Falklands was its first use in a war, though it had been used the previous year by F-14 to take out two Libyan SU-22.

Blacksheep
8th Feb 2013, 12:38
. . . all the Fleet Air Arm Sidewinder engagements proved to be from the rear. Ho-Ho! It goes with the rum and baccy, doncha know. ;)

Brian Abraham
9th Feb 2013, 00:20
Ho-Ho! It goes with the rum and baccy, doncha know.The RAF chaps were quick learners. :p

MAINJAFAD
9th Feb 2013, 01:48
Con-Pilot

The Argies didn't chuck a few bombs out of the back of a Herc, they did a Vulcan plyon type mod, by mounting a MER on one of the fuel tank plyons and wiring it up to release 500lbs bombs.

con-pilot
9th Feb 2013, 01:53
The Argies didn't chuck a few bombs out of the back of a Herc,

Never said they did, we did in Viet Nam. Sorry if I was not clear on that.

Metro man
9th Feb 2013, 06:58
A C-130H Hercules transport was modified with multiple bomb racks from an A-4 Skyhawk and carried 24 550 pound bombs on anti-shipping attacks.

Wings of the Malvinas: The Argentine Air War over the Falklands: Santiago Rivas: 9781902109220: Amazon.com: Books

Fareastdriver
9th Feb 2013, 10:13
Chucking them out of the back would have been just as accurate.

Utrinque Apparatus
9th Feb 2013, 15:31
Let's see now, Kirchner, Timerman, real old Spanish or Portuguese stock there. Sadly the influx of Nazis and Nazi money after WW2 shaped their politics and ruthlessness towards dissent.

Nestor and Christina Kirchner carved up the political scene until he pegged it in 2010 and the botox biddy took over. Their economic incompetence, nepotism and hypocrisy might yet lead to more young Argentinians dying needlessly. The Falklands were established as British long before Argentina was formed and their claim is indeed the colonial one...

The referendum should finally establish the rights of the Falkland Islanders as the UN must recognise the right of self determination ??

radeng
9th Feb 2013, 15:37
I wouldn't bet on it.

broadreach
9th Feb 2013, 23:40
Here's a link to an article in today's Clarin, Argentina's main independent newspaper. The internet version contains a link to a Clarin interview of FIG reps in London, Jan Cheek and Dick Sawle.

Según los kelpers, (http://www.clarin.com/politica/cuestion-Malvinas-resolvera-gobierno-argentino_0_862713832.html)

Pay attention to the contrast between the reasoned picturing of Ms Cheek and Mr Sawle in the clip with the images of Mr Timerman.

And please stop talking crap about dropping bombs unless all you're interested in is war.

500N
10th Feb 2013, 00:13
broadreach

It's that bitch of President who keeps going on about the Falklands,
not the British.

Maybe people don't want to go through it again but maybe
if it happens again they might just want to send an even
stronger message.

And of course not make the mistake like they did with
Saddam the first time and stop half way.

If your Pres stopped winding up the world's media, maybe
people wouldn't get all feisty about it.

broadreach
10th Feb 2013, 00:32
500N

Hey, read before you hip-shoot FCS. Perhaps you didn't get the subtlety. The "bitch" is not "my pres" and I am not Argentine; I have no sympathy for that country's present government. I do however have great sympathy for that country's people, despite how misguided they may have been in voting in that government. As they have been in the past.

Cacophonix
10th Feb 2013, 00:41
When the British went in and gave the Argies a good whacking I was fighting another war. I respect the British for their attitude.

These Argentinian arseholes need to remember the smell of blood.

Caco

bedsted
10th Feb 2013, 00:54
Sorry if this has already been mentioned in an earlier post but,

Why the ----ing hell are we giving £££ aid to the Argies?

Britain funds £450m aid to Argentina | The Sun |News|Politics (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4154362/Britain-funds-450m-aid-to-Argentina.html)

I’m sure that amount of cash could fund a few cruise missile enemas.

500N
10th Feb 2013, 01:09
broadreach

I think you will find that most people talking about bombs / missiles
were talking about doing it to the Pres herself and / or military targets
all of which are legitimate targets, not BN in general or the civvy population.


Re sympathy for the population, I think the same thing could
be said for the British - and even the UK Military. You rarely
see a bad word said about the people because it always seems
to be the FW's at the top. Also, you don't see a bad word said
about the Argie pilots from the war, even though they did a lot
of damage. Respect works both ways.

Re "your" Pres, sorry, my bad, I knew you were in Brazil,
although the second part still applies to your Gov't who
should keep out of it.

As Caco said "These Argentinian arseholes need to remember
the smell of blood." and I am sure he is talking about the Gov't
people who last time manage to avoid it all.

radeng
10th Feb 2013, 08:18
With people in the UK needing to go to food banks to feed their children, people dying in understaffed hospitals because they won't pay for staff, roads falling apart, libraries being closed because of lack of cash, people going blind because the drugs to stop them so doing cannot be funded and so on, I cannot see any reason for sending any foreign aid to anywhere.

500N
10th Feb 2013, 08:42
I agree.

Why are we giving money to them.

Especially if the US is complaining, then they must seriously be wondering
what they are doing if they have money in reserves but won't pay back loans.

Maybe someone will call it quits and bankrupt them.

Metro man
10th Feb 2013, 19:05
Why are we giving money to them.

In the modern world everything is interconnected, even during the second world war things got a bit complicated with people who had invested in German armament companies and suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of their products.

Fortunately the Swiss bankers were there to sort everything out and make sure the correct people received their dividends. Where would the Nazis have been without them ?:E

radeng
10th Feb 2013, 21:39
getting back to the thread title,

Giving all the Argentinian politicians the Spanish inquisitions' 'boiling holy water' enemas would sort things out.............nasty load of bas*ards, they were.

broadreach
10th Feb 2013, 22:51
500N

Thanks for your reply. No offense taken.

It's the armchair saber-rattling I have little patience for. As a military power Argentina has only gone downwards since the Falklands invasion. I remember reading an editorial around a year ago saying Argentina today hadn't the military strength to resist an invasion by Cameroun. I'm not a military man but if I believe a quarter of what I read in the Argentine press I'd say that editorial was not overstating much.

In short, they are in no condition to launch another invasion. So talk of missiles and war is just unthinking gung-hoism. The Argentine government is on its own self destruction course and - to my mind at least - it seems that every step it takes makes recovery by a hopefully more reasonable later government more difficult. Not just for the relationship with the Falklands but for those within Argentina and, with its neighbors and commercial/diplomatic partners, the IMF, the World Bank, the list goes on and on.

The nuance I referred to, perhaps too elliptically, in my hot response had to do with Argentine media response to Mr Timerman's comical London tour. The two main Argentine newspapers are Clarin and La Nacion, both of which the government has targeted for strangulation by any means possible. The latest being an order for supermarkets to freeze prices for sixty days and to stop advertising in newspapers. All informal, no decrees issued but "if you don't we'll find a way to close you down".

Clarin's and La Nacion's motives might well be suspect but it's interesting to see how their coverage of Mr Timerman's visit has been sympathetic toward the March Falklands referendum and interviews with Mr Hague, while ridiculing Timerman.

It's anybody's guess what's going to happen to Argentina in the next six or twelve months, but I wouldn't be surprised at a sudden resignation on medical grounds.

As for "my Pres", well... she would not have been my choice but that's another story altogether

broadreach
15th Feb 2013, 22:23
Two recent articles in MercoPress, a Uruguayan English language site run by someone familar with both sides of the issue.

February 1833: Parallel truths in parallel universes: can that be the only explanation? — MercoPress (http://en.mercopress.com/2013/02/15/february-1833-parallel-truths-in-parallel-universes-can-that-be-the-only-explanation)

Malvinas cause in another dead alley — MercoPress (http://en.mercopress.com/2013/02/14/malvinas-cause-in-another-dead-alley)

sitigeltfel
24th Feb 2013, 08:47
The natives have not been reading the script..........

When Cristina Kirchner’s name was mentioned at Friday’s first anniversary ceremonies for families of a fatal Buenos Aires train crash, there were whistles and boos.

Then, from the crowd gathered on the platforms of the capital’s rundown Station 11, where 51 people died in an accident blamed on railway underfunding, came the angry chants of ”daughter of a whore”.

Argentina despatch: the troubled reign of Queen Cristina of Argentina - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/9890078/Argentina-despatch-the-troubled-reign-of-Queen-Cristina-of-Argentina.html)

I think a lot of innocent blood may be spilled before she goes :(

500N
24th Feb 2013, 12:31
Reading that article is interesting.

"Most recently, cruise ship operators that included a stop in Port Stanley on their South Atlantic itineraries were told that they would not be allowed to make calls in Argentine ports. "

Economy in the bottom of the bucket yet because
of the Presidents Falklands agenda, she turns away
a huge source of income and foreign currency.

:ugh:

Most countries would bend over backwards to get
these ships to call into port.

broadreach
24th Feb 2013, 14:24
They have lost some of the cruise business, but there were still around 160 calls (at all ports) last month. A few months ago the port agency of one regular caller at BA was trashed by her sympathisers while police just stood on and watched.