Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

The 'Argies'

G

Guderian

Guest
In Oz we copped a lot of garbage about courage and skill of Argentina in Falklands.

consider this

The first British assault was broken up by fire from Sub-Lieutenant Ernesto Peluffo's RI 12 platoon. Corporal Osvaldo Faustino Olmos, of RI 25 refused to leave his foxhole and continued firing at the British company as it moved forward. The Paras called on the Argentines to surrender. Corporal Olmos was later interviewed by the British newspaper "Daily Express" and credited with the killing of Lieutenant-Colonel Jones.
[oh the irony]

6nys2e.jpg


i neither condemn or condone.. i observe. [the war. the reasons are politics]

The 'Fuerza Aérea Sur' the southern air arm which by end of falklands was all of Fuerza Aérea.
Maxed out and mauled by wiley harrier pilots . never flinched. They like knights of old went in
on a wing and a prayer. and sometimes hit true.

the belgrano changed it all.

gudie
 
Last edited by a moderator:
La Nación published a reader's letter from Admiral Enrique Molina Pico (head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s) in 2005 in which Pico wrote that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, but was holding off for tactical reasons. Pico added that "To leave the exclusion zone was not to leave the combat zone to enter a protected area". Pico explicitly stated that the sinking was not a war crime, but a combat action.

Belgrano's captain, Héctor Bonzo, died on 22 April 2009, aged 76. He had spent his last years working for an association called Amigos del Crucero General Belgrano (Friends of the Cruiser General Belgrano) whose purpose was to help those affected by the sinking.Captain Bonzo also wrote his memories about the sinking in the book 1093 Tripulantes del Crucero ARA General Belgrano, published in 1992. In this book he wrote that it is "improper to accept that (...) the attack by HMS Conqueror was a betrayal".During an interview in 2003 he had stated that the General Belgrano was only temporarily sailing to the west at the time of the attack, and his orders were to attack any British ships which came within range of cruiser's armament.

In late 2011, Major David Thorp, a former British military intelligence officer who led the signals intercept team aboard HMS Intrepid, released the book The Silent Listener detailing the role of intelligence in the Falklands War. In the book he stated that despite the fact that the Belgrano was observed by the Conqueror sailing away from the Falklands at the time of the attack, it had actually been ordered to proceed to a rendezvous point within the Exclusion Zone. A report prepared by Thorp for Thatcher several months after the incident stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated; the report was not released because the Prime Minister did not want to compromise British signals intelligence capabilities.

In 2012 the President of Argentina Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner referred to the sinking of the Belgrano as a "war crime". During that year, the Argentine government was also reported to possibly be considering filing a lawsuit at the International Court of Justiceagainst the UK regarding the event.However, the Argentine Navy has historically held the view that the sinking was a legitimate act of war, a position that was asserted by the Argentine Navy before various courts in 1995, and as of July, 2013, no such lawsuit has been filed with the ICJ.

gudie

-----------------------------
The Conqueror was beyond the technology of Argentina. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Conqueror_(S48)
A nuke attack sub is not "playing fair"
the war itself was a test of wills.if argentina wanted malvinas it would have them
i hold war by reigns. in a gentleman's agreement.
the argies gave as good as they got on land and air .
they faced UK forces with spirit and bravery.
Hats off

What is truely interesting is why challenge UK at all.
Somewhere the idea was put on number #1 hotplate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The war was a policy of military government lifebuoy by the imminent decay of it (the labor organizations were asking for wage increases and democratic claims.) -

As strategy was organized recovery Falkland Islands with no real plan of what he was going to do to keep them in power in Argentina. -

After a fast and accurate stroke of the Argentine forces to the british garrison, recovery was secured but not the plans to protect it. -

By becoming aware the army who was really facing (potential third world), the Argentine government did not know whether to stay and wait or ask for a truce to negotiate something advantageous. -

Given the animosity that had been created by the victorious military propaganda and omnipotent, was could not make way back to the people and continued the dispute. -

The truth is that sooner or later they knew they would lose. - It was only a matter of waiting for the final outcome. -

And so it was. -
 
well said.
you know why i posted

to find truth. The war was a twofold.
to test military
and maintain power.
politics.

I could ask same of Australia in just posted 'long tan'
why we were even there?

politics

gudie
 
When the Sheffield was sunk the UK got mad.

not a good plan to think with ones testicles.. and maggie had 2
 
Sheer entertainment
continuing thread. research popped this.. awesome between knees cam


"Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
where do you live. Bendoverstan?

what a pathetic excuse from someone from germany.

brw i wear a 1935 original ist mint 5 mark coin around neck.
The one with riechstag on flipside. I had it coated in polymer so it never tarnishes.

your a novice... i am the patron.. boy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top