Argentina withdraws from Falklands agreement.
well I'm glad YOU said it 
The following 2 users liked this post by minigundiplomat:
99% of the people in Argentina think that the islands are Argentinean and that Britain occupies them unjustly.
99% of the people of Argentina consider that, even if Argentina can ally itself with China, Brazil, ancient aliens, etc., a future war over the islands (even if it can be easily won) is absolute madness.
I have not heard from any person, not even those fanatics, that any future arms purchases are related to any future war over the islands.
(* 99% should be read as "the vast majority")
99% of the people of Argentina consider that, even if Argentina can ally itself with China, Brazil, ancient aliens, etc., a future war over the islands (even if it can be easily won) is absolute madness.
I have not heard from any person, not even those fanatics, that any future arms purchases are related to any future war over the islands.
(* 99% should be read as "the vast majority")
The UK's defence spending is generally appropriate for a country of of our size, and much greater than most of our neighbours. Having rightly scrapped a range of obsolete cold war types, the RAF/RN now operate a fleet of modern and effective aircraft that are broadly suitable for today's needs and we continue to develop future capabilities. Those constantly calling for more and more never get round to saying how it would be paid for and what purpose it would serve. We are not at war, and our efforts within NATO are designed to prevent war in Europe, including our early and considerable support for Ukraine who are on the front line of preventing further Russian aggression. We are one of only two European countries who go to the enormous expense of deploying a nuclear deterrent. You can shove your contempt, [/quote]
-----------
V.M.
Rather than delete your post, I removed the bit where you took it over the line.
Let's play the ball and not the man. You can make your point without crossing that line.
(In my view your answered the charge well and clearly)
T28B
-----------
V.M.
Rather than delete your post, I removed the bit where you took it over the line.
Let's play the ball and not the man. You can make your point without crossing that line.
(In my view your answered the charge well and clearly)
T28B
The following users liked this post:
The UK's defence spending is generally appropriate for a country of of our size, and much greater than most of our neighbours. Having rightly scrapped a range of obsolete cold war types, the RAF/RN now operate a fleet of modern and effective aircraft that are broadly suitable for today's needs and we continue to develop future capabilities. Those constantly calling for more and more never get round to saying how it would be paid for and what purpose it would serve. We are not at war, and our efforts within NATO are designed to prevent war in Europe, including our early and considerable support for Ukraine who are on the front line of preventing further Russian aggression. We are one of only two European countries who go to the enormous expense of deploying a nuclear deterrent. You can shove your contempt,
Marcantilan, being a native of the country are you able to give a precis on why the majority of the population think the islands belong to Argentina? Many thanks in advance.
The history has been done to death - the islands were, many years ago, a wild west spot for whalers. Various countries sent (small) forces to try and sort it out - Spain, France, the UK & USA at least. Eventually the Brits took the place over. Argentina claims that the previous Spanish occupation gives them the better claim. The Brits say the locals are all British and want to stay British
That's it folks
That's it folks
"The UK's defence spending is generally appropriate for a country of of our size, and much greater than most of our neighbours"
true but it is NOT proportionate to the tasks which the Govt continually adds to the defence forces
We're a European country which is attempting to have many of the same capabilities (if not the numbers) of the USA - and its a stretch too far
true but it is NOT proportionate to the tasks which the Govt continually adds to the defence forces
We're a European country which is attempting to have many of the same capabilities (if not the numbers) of the USA - and its a stretch too far
The following users liked this post:
Well, Argentina is the eighth largest country in the world, with large unpopulated areas and, like everyone else in this part of the world, problems of unclear borders. It is also a member of the G20 and a regular participant in peace missions.
It is logical that it would want to maintain a minimally credible air force.
As for the problems of drug cartels and insurgency, they do not exist here. If they did exist, Argentina's armed forces are prohibited by law from intervening in internal security matters.
It is logical that it would want to maintain a minimally credible air force.
As for the problems of drug cartels and insurgency, they do not exist here. If they did exist, Argentina's armed forces are prohibited by law from intervening in internal security matters.
Back then the only military aviation in the area was some choppers and some light transport. The fast jets never came up to the active drug-smuggling border areas. Maybe things have changed. The narcos were using aircraft even back then.
Good radar coverage of those areas is probably more important than fast jets imho. Getting fast jets without the radar coverage seems a waste of resources. With good radar coverage less speedy jets might be adequate. Back then the border areas of interest to the narcos did not have good radar coverage at low level. Maybe things have changed.
I remeber teh then Govt in BA was more than embarrassed when they couldn't provide fast jet coverage for some international shindig - tho quite who they were protecting against was never certain.
Tabs please !
99% of the people in Argentina think that the islands are Argentinean and that Britain occupies them unjustly.
99% of the people of Argentina consider that, even if Argentina can ally itself with China, Brazil, ancient aliens, etc., a future war over the islands (even if it can be easily won) is absolute madness.
I have not heard from any person, not even those fanatics, that any future arms purchases are related to any future war over the islands.
(* 99% should be read as "the vast majority")
99% of the people of Argentina consider that, even if Argentina can ally itself with China, Brazil, ancient aliens, etc., a future war over the islands (even if it can be easily won) is absolute madness.
I have not heard from any person, not even those fanatics, that any future arms purchases are related to any future war over the islands.
(* 99% should be read as "the vast majority")
First of all, I am grateful that you share your point of view here. (My wife and I have Argentina on our "to do" list). The referendum held in the Falkland Islands a few years ago is to be respected in that it must be one of the most democratic, untainted and overwhelmingly decisive determinations of the will of a people. I would have hoped that a modern democratic country such as yours, would have the maturity to respect this.
Argentina (a former Spanish colony, let's not forget) has much to do in developing its' economy and infrastructure. If I was paying taxes to BA, I would be questioning the need for an increase in military spending. The UK has Russia next door and is dependent on the open seas for trade. The UK is also meeting the commitment to NATO. Where do you see the threat to Argentina ? Brazil, Chile, Easter Island, Belize or Peru perhaps ?
Perhaps you ought to ask what it will be used for. If you want some ceremonial flypasts then BAE Hawks trailing white and blue smoke would do the job rather well,
The following 3 users liked this post by B Fraser:
Actually Chile/Argentina is probably the most volatile border in South America - I know Chileans who were serving in the south in the early '80's and they fully expected to be at war at short notice.
The full border was, originally, often in dispute and believe it or not the "honest broker" was the Queen/King of GB.
Back in the 50's and 60's several UK survey companies mapped bits of the border - their maps were used to agree, delimit & demarcate, Senora A has a copy of one on silk - a genuinely DEFINITIVE MAP of several square kms up in the mountains. The Pope brokered the deal over the Beagle Channel - almost all of the border is agreed but there are still a few areas under discussion I think.
The Argentinean claim the the FI won't go away but if they would adopt the same attitude as they now have ot Chile it would be very advantageous to both parties IMHO. Like it or not Argentina is the FI's neighbour and they could do with decent relations. And Argentina could benefit greatly from things such as oil exploration and fishing and supplying food and veg to the FI
The full border was, originally, often in dispute and believe it or not the "honest broker" was the Queen/King of GB.
Back in the 50's and 60's several UK survey companies mapped bits of the border - their maps were used to agree, delimit & demarcate, Senora A has a copy of one on silk - a genuinely DEFINITIVE MAP of several square kms up in the mountains. The Pope brokered the deal over the Beagle Channel - almost all of the border is agreed but there are still a few areas under discussion I think.
The Argentinean claim the the FI won't go away but if they would adopt the same attitude as they now have ot Chile it would be very advantageous to both parties IMHO. Like it or not Argentina is the FI's neighbour and they could do with decent relations. And Argentina could benefit greatly from things such as oil exploration and fishing and supplying food and veg to the FI
Hello all,
Well, I have two issues that I am wondering about.
The first is what people in Argentina think about the islanders. I am not going to say my opinion, but the general one. The general idea (which was made clear in a couple of presidential speeches), is that what Argentina is trying to achieve is sovereignty over the islands, but without interfering in the way of life of the islanders, nor in their properties, etc.
This, following the Argentine Constitution which states (since 1994): "The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and insular areas, as they are an integral part of the national territory. The recovery of those territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life of their inhabitants, and in accordance with the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and inalienable objective of the Argentine people". I add that the Argentinean Constitution points to the peaceful claim over the islands.
It is also clear to me that the islanders do not want the Argentinians, nor do they want to be Argentinians. With the problems Argentina has, perhaps it is understandable (but then, they also miss out on being world football champions...). Anyway, I don't want to extend myself or try to convince anyone of anything. I just want to give a general opinion on the subject.
The second issue is related to military equipment and its use. As I said before, the National Defence Law and the Internal Security Law prevent the Armed Forces from being used in police tasks, except in extreme cases and only providing logistical support. The regulations governing both laws also state that the armed forces can only be used for defensive purposes and against aggression by nation states (i.e., what are known as "new threats" are outside the sphere of the armed forces).
However, Argentina has two federal forces, which, although they are security forces, have more firepower than the police (whether federal or provincial). These are the Gendarmería Nacional (which is deployed on the borders) and the Prefectura Naval (Guarda costa), which have, for example, FN MAG machine guns or .50 sniper rifles, etc. In the "hot" areas, for example the triple border (Paraguay-Argentina-Brazil), where it is believed that (mainly within Paraguay) narco groups or dormant terrorist cells operate, there is a large deployment of these forces. I would add that Argentina does not have, within its territory, drug cartels or active insurgency, problems that Mexico or Colombia have.
If an army patrol, for whatever reason, discovers traffickers or smugglers, it cannot arrest them or anything else, but only has to notify the federal forces. The same goes for aircraft: if a military plane intercepts a drug plane, it must limit itself to following it and reporting it.The only exception to the active presence of the armed forces on the northern border is on radar. For some years now, there have been several 3D radars (L-band, manufactured locally by INVAP) deployed in the north of the country. I think this is the only reasonable thing that has been done in the last 20 years in terms of defence, even the radars are excellent and some of them have been exported.
Anyway, I hope I have answered both issues.
Best!
Well, I have two issues that I am wondering about.
The first is what people in Argentina think about the islanders. I am not going to say my opinion, but the general one. The general idea (which was made clear in a couple of presidential speeches), is that what Argentina is trying to achieve is sovereignty over the islands, but without interfering in the way of life of the islanders, nor in their properties, etc.
This, following the Argentine Constitution which states (since 1994): "The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and insular areas, as they are an integral part of the national territory. The recovery of those territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life of their inhabitants, and in accordance with the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and inalienable objective of the Argentine people". I add that the Argentinean Constitution points to the peaceful claim over the islands.
It is also clear to me that the islanders do not want the Argentinians, nor do they want to be Argentinians. With the problems Argentina has, perhaps it is understandable (but then, they also miss out on being world football champions...). Anyway, I don't want to extend myself or try to convince anyone of anything. I just want to give a general opinion on the subject.
The second issue is related to military equipment and its use. As I said before, the National Defence Law and the Internal Security Law prevent the Armed Forces from being used in police tasks, except in extreme cases and only providing logistical support. The regulations governing both laws also state that the armed forces can only be used for defensive purposes and against aggression by nation states (i.e., what are known as "new threats" are outside the sphere of the armed forces).
However, Argentina has two federal forces, which, although they are security forces, have more firepower than the police (whether federal or provincial). These are the Gendarmería Nacional (which is deployed on the borders) and the Prefectura Naval (Guarda costa), which have, for example, FN MAG machine guns or .50 sniper rifles, etc. In the "hot" areas, for example the triple border (Paraguay-Argentina-Brazil), where it is believed that (mainly within Paraguay) narco groups or dormant terrorist cells operate, there is a large deployment of these forces. I would add that Argentina does not have, within its territory, drug cartels or active insurgency, problems that Mexico or Colombia have.
If an army patrol, for whatever reason, discovers traffickers or smugglers, it cannot arrest them or anything else, but only has to notify the federal forces. The same goes for aircraft: if a military plane intercepts a drug plane, it must limit itself to following it and reporting it.The only exception to the active presence of the armed forces on the northern border is on radar. For some years now, there have been several 3D radars (L-band, manufactured locally by INVAP) deployed in the north of the country. I think this is the only reasonable thing that has been done in the last 20 years in terms of defence, even the radars are excellent and some of them have been exported.
Anyway, I hope I have answered both issues.
Best!
Hello all,
Well, I have two issues that I am wondering about.
The first is what people in Argentina think about the islanders. I am not going to say my opinion, but the general one. The general idea (which was made clear in a couple of presidential speeches), is that what Argentina is trying to achieve is sovereignty over the islands, but without interfering in the way of life of the islanders, nor in their properties, etc.
This, following the Argentine Constitution which states (since 1994): "The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and insular areas, as they are an integral part of the national territory. The recovery of those territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life of their inhabitants, and in accordance with the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and inalienable objective of the Argentine people". I add that the Argentinean Constitution points to the peaceful claim over the islands.
It is also clear to me that the islanders do not want the Argentinians, nor do they want to be Argentinians. With the problems Argentina has, perhaps it is understandable (but then, they also miss out on being world football champions...). Anyway, I don't want to extend myself or try to convince anyone of anything. I just want to give a general opinion on the subject.
The second issue is related to military equipment and its use. As I said before, the National Defence Law and the Internal Security Law prevent the Armed Forces from being used in police tasks, except in extreme cases and only providing logistical support. The regulations governing both laws also state that the armed forces can only be used for defensive purposes and against aggression by nation states (i.e., what are known as "new threats" are outside the sphere of the armed forces).
However, Argentina has two federal forces, which, although they are security forces, have more firepower than the police (whether federal or provincial). These are the Gendarmería Nacional (which is deployed on the borders) and the Prefectura Naval (Guarda costa), which have, for example, FN MAG machine guns or .50 sniper rifles, etc. In the "hot" areas, for example the triple border (Paraguay-Argentina-Brazil), where it is believed that (mainly within Paraguay) narco groups or dormant terrorist cells operate, there is a large deployment of these forces. I would add that Argentina does not have, within its territory, drug cartels or active insurgency, problems that Mexico or Colombia have.
If an army patrol, for whatever reason, discovers traffickers or smugglers, it cannot arrest them or anything else, but only has to notify the federal forces. The same goes for aircraft: if a military plane intercepts a drug plane, it must limit itself to following it and reporting it.The only exception to the active presence of the armed forces on the northern border is on radar. For some years now, there have been several 3D radars (L-band, manufactured locally by INVAP) deployed in the north of the country. I think this is the only reasonable thing that has been done in the last 20 years in terms of defence, even the radars are excellent and some of them have been exported.
Anyway, I hope I have answered both issues.
Best!
Well, I have two issues that I am wondering about.
The first is what people in Argentina think about the islanders. I am not going to say my opinion, but the general one. The general idea (which was made clear in a couple of presidential speeches), is that what Argentina is trying to achieve is sovereignty over the islands, but without interfering in the way of life of the islanders, nor in their properties, etc.
This, following the Argentine Constitution which states (since 1994): "The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and insular areas, as they are an integral part of the national territory. The recovery of those territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life of their inhabitants, and in accordance with the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and inalienable objective of the Argentine people". I add that the Argentinean Constitution points to the peaceful claim over the islands.
It is also clear to me that the islanders do not want the Argentinians, nor do they want to be Argentinians. With the problems Argentina has, perhaps it is understandable (but then, they also miss out on being world football champions...). Anyway, I don't want to extend myself or try to convince anyone of anything. I just want to give a general opinion on the subject.
The second issue is related to military equipment and its use. As I said before, the National Defence Law and the Internal Security Law prevent the Armed Forces from being used in police tasks, except in extreme cases and only providing logistical support. The regulations governing both laws also state that the armed forces can only be used for defensive purposes and against aggression by nation states (i.e., what are known as "new threats" are outside the sphere of the armed forces).
However, Argentina has two federal forces, which, although they are security forces, have more firepower than the police (whether federal or provincial). These are the Gendarmería Nacional (which is deployed on the borders) and the Prefectura Naval (Guarda costa), which have, for example, FN MAG machine guns or .50 sniper rifles, etc. In the "hot" areas, for example the triple border (Paraguay-Argentina-Brazil), where it is believed that (mainly within Paraguay) narco groups or dormant terrorist cells operate, there is a large deployment of these forces. I would add that Argentina does not have, within its territory, drug cartels or active insurgency, problems that Mexico or Colombia have.
If an army patrol, for whatever reason, discovers traffickers or smugglers, it cannot arrest them or anything else, but only has to notify the federal forces. The same goes for aircraft: if a military plane intercepts a drug plane, it must limit itself to following it and reporting it.The only exception to the active presence of the armed forces on the northern border is on radar. For some years now, there have been several 3D radars (L-band, manufactured locally by INVAP) deployed in the north of the country. I think this is the only reasonable thing that has been done in the last 20 years in terms of defence, even the radars are excellent and some of them have been exported.
Anyway, I hope I have answered both issues.
Best!
'formerly rich and successful South American state run into the ground and now a backwards, inflation wracked basket case that needs a straw man in the South Atlantic to distract from decades of political incompetence'..
41 years after the war, the Argentinians continue to harass the islanders, interfering with flights between the islands and Brazil, and generally being a pain in the rump. All of this government energy would be much better served trying to control domestic inflation and an economy in the toilet.
We should have hunted down the Argentinian Generals 1982 and made them beg for mercy . It was a mistake not to make them pay in blood for their war crimes against our interests and the sufferings they inflicted against the normally nice Argentinian people .
Argentina prosecuted the vast majority of the military (including non-commissioned officers) who committed crimes against humanity during the last dictatorship (1976-83). The trials continue to this day.
Military responsibility for the 1982 defeat was also the subject of administrative and judicial proceedings, including convictions (which were not finalised by a presidential pardon in 1989).
In the 1982 war, in general, there were no war crimes.
Military responsibility for the 1982 defeat was also the subject of administrative and judicial proceedings, including convictions (which were not finalised by a presidential pardon in 1989).
In the 1982 war, in general, there were no war crimes.
Argentina prosecuted the vast majority of the military (including non-commissioned officers) who committed crimes against humanity during the last dictatorship (1976-83). The trials continue to this day.
Military responsibility for the 1982 defeat was also the subject of administrative and judicial proceedings, including convictions (which were not finalised by a presidential pardon in 1989).
In the 1982 war, in general, there were no war crimes.
Military responsibility for the 1982 defeat was also the subject of administrative and judicial proceedings, including convictions (which were not finalised by a presidential pardon in 1989).
In the 1982 war, in general, there were no war crimes.
However, Argentinian forces:
- Illegally occupied the Falkland Islands & South Georgia, against international law, and against the will of the local population.
- Restricted the liberty and freedom of movement of the local population, including imprisoning the population of Goose Green in a village hall for several weeks.
- Forced, under duress, the local population to refer to their own city and country under Spanish names.
- Indiscriminately scattered thousands of landmines across the islands, keeping no record, and restricting land use for 30+ years
- Occupied civilian dwellings, which were left damaged, and strewn with grafitti, booby traps and human faeces.
- Caused a war which cost the lives of three FI civilians, 255 British and 649 Argentinians, as well as hundred more with life threatening injuries.
The Falkland islands have no intrinsic value to Argentina other than as a distraction from the chaos and failure that litter its domestic politics. Once one of the worlds richest nations, it is now an international watchword for economic mismanagement and failure. If the Islanders raised the Argentinian flag tomorrow, BA would have absolutely no idea what to do with the place.