The Falklands Conflict

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

Post Reply
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 10303
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:14 pm
Location: UK

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by Dixie »

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Well you also have this little thing about the Malvinas are 13,000 kilometers from Britian too but still self proclaimed ¨theirs¨ by 2,000 sheep herders.

I wonder what British attitudes will be if we go up to the Sheffield Islands, drop a couple thousand Gouchos with some cows on one and claim it, then we offer a trade? [:D]

They could try dropping troops at the Sheffield Islands, but there's no such place within the UK....
The point is easy to see...it's a geographic absurdidty. Before the war I'm guessing 90% of the British populace didn`t know where the Malvinas were much less ¨theirs¨ Maybe they still don´t. I did see a documentary and at first news of the war most of them thought the Malvinas were an island off Scottland! [&:]

During the war there was a song on the radio that summed it up by Raul Porchetto about a British soldier saying...

¨Estoy en este lugar, tan lejos de casa, que ni el nombre recuerdo...¨-I´m in this place very far from my home and can´t even remember the places name.

Yes, the islands are far from Britain, but the UK has never at any point given up their territorial claim to the area and invading the Falklands would have been the same as invading the Isle of Wight, they are both British territories under international law.
But JudgeDredd says this thread is about the conflict itself not the islands soverignty so... It's been said here how the Junta timed the event because the domestic population wanted democracy and it was a ¨wag the dog¨ thing. I agree with that.

But my British mates have not mentioned Mrs.Thatchers own little wag the dog war crime of sinking the Belgrano outside of the publicly stated and agreed upon exclusion zones to get a quick victory, bring up the low war support at home and help her own political future.[;)]

The sinking of the Belgrano was not a war crime, the Captain of the ship stated so himself.
"We were heading towards the mainland but not going to the mainland; we were going to a position to await further orders" (Belgrano's Captain)

There had also been an announcement on the 23rd April that the exclusion zone was not the limit of British action. Passed to the Argentine government vis the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires:
In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly
edit-Hi Larry, I've never heard anyone saying the British soldiers mistreated them as a prisoner. I've never heard a British person saying they were mistreated by Argentine soldier.

About the islanders, 3 were killed during the war by British friendly fire accidents. So it was very clean except for the Belgrano sinking. Who knows, maybe one day even they too will recognize the Malvinas as a ¨wrong¨ from their colonial past and return them. If they do as a bonus they should give Northern Ireland back to the Irish too. [;)]

Again, I have not heard from any prisoners from either side claiming mistreatment.

Honestly I cannot see the Falkland Islanders themselves, and by extension the UK government, deciding they want to be part of Argentina.

There were no war crimes as such from either side, no killing of prisoners or civilians, no use of chemical weapons etc.
[center]Image

Bigger boys stole my sig
Culiacan Mexico
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Bad Windsheim Germany

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by Culiacan Mexico »

ORIGINAL: Ike99
By sinking the Belgrano outside of the exclusion zone one of the rules was broken and that constitutes a war crime.
Britain sinks a warship during war and that is a war crime?

Interesting. Please present the legal statute. Course and verse.
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
Culiacan Mexico
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Bad Windsheim Germany

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by Culiacan Mexico »

ORIGINAL: Ike99

This is why there was a last second attempt by the British commander to have the British exclusion zone made larger prior to sinking Belgrano outside the exclusion zone. He did not want to be comitting a crime. If he felt he was doing nothing wrong he would have simply sunk her no questions asked. But it was a violation and that's why he hesitated.

A violation of 'Rules of Engagement' (ROE) not international law.
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
User avatar
Tomus
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:43 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by Tomus »

The exclusion zone is about the most misunderstood part of the whole conflict. It was only established to give neutral shipping an idea that they could be targetted by the Royal navy if they strayed within the zone. It had absolutely nothing to do with the engagement of enemy vessels. The Argentinians understood this perfectly at the time. The only guarantee the British gave Argentina was that they would not attack Argentinian vessels in their own territorial waters.

I really have no idea why people still go on about the exclusion zone as though it was ever set up or designed to demark the hostilities. The Belgrano was part of a pincer movement undertaken by the Argentinian Navy to attack the British task force and was sunk accordingly. Even the Captain of the Belgrano himself expected to be sunk and deemed it a fully legitimate act of war.


User avatar
Hertston
Posts: 3317
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:45 pm
Location: Cornwall, UK

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by Hertston »

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Who knows, maybe one day even they too will recognize the Malvinas as a ¨wrong¨ from their colonial past and return them. If they do as a bonus they should give Northern Ireland back to the Irish too. [;)]

It's all about people, not real estate. There is nothing the British would have liked better than to do just that from 1969 onwards.... the reason they couldn't was exactly the same one there was a 'Northern' Ireland in the first place, the majority of people actually living there wanted it to remain British. Any attempt to just declare the North part of the Republic would have resulted in a blood-bath that would have made the 'troubles' look like a snowball fight. Fortunately, there is no similar conflict between peoples living in the Falklands so the situation is rather more clear cut. There is no significant Argentine population.
But my British mates have not mentioned Mrs.Thatchers own little wag the dog war crime of sinking the Belgrano outside of the publicly stated and agreed upon exclusion zones to get a quick victory, bring up the low war support at home and help her own political future.

Whatever the reasons for the Belgrano sinking wasn't those. It achieved nothing towards a 'quick victory'. There was no 'low war support'; and those who didn't support it were hardly likely to have their opinion changed by the sinking of the Belgrano! Quite the contrary. Thatcher's political career was certainly enhanced by winning the Falklands War, but in those terms the Belgrano was not significant. BTW, the exclusion zone was not "agreed", it was declared unilaterally by the British government.

The "war crime" suggestion is a revisionist fantasy. In hindsight the sinking of the Belgrano was probably unnecessary, and hence very sad in view of the loss of life, but it was no "war crime"
In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.
British government statement , 23 April 1982.

"After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano".
Rear-Admiral Jorge Allara

Q.E.D.



Culiacan Mexico
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Bad Windsheim Germany

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by Culiacan Mexico »

ORIGINAL: Tomus

The exclusion zone is about the most misunderstood part of the whole conflict. It was only established to give neutral shipping an idea that they could be targetted by the Royal navy if they strayed within the zone. It had absolutely nothing to do with the engagement of enemy vessels...
Really, it doesn't seem have been that way to me. It seems to me that ROE for enemy warships inside the zone was for them to be attacked, those outside 'could be attacked'.


"On April 26, 1982, the Belgrano left Ushuaia with her two escorting destroyers, the Piedra Buena (D-29) and the Hipolto Bouchard (D-26, both also ex-USN vessels). Four days later the Belgrano group was detected patrolling the Burdwood Bank, south of the islands, by the nuclear attack submarine HMS Conqueror. British Commander Chris Wreford-Brown was in a quandary: while the vessels represented the most powerful naval surface force the Argentine Navy could muster, and was clearly a threat to British forces, it was also 20 miles outside the 200-mile exclusion zone surrounding the islands, and thus not a 'target of opportunity.' The submarine reported the contact and waited for instructions while stalking the Argentine force for the next 36 hours. After consultation at cabinet level,and with the commander of the British Task Force, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher agreed that the group was a threat, and ordered the submarine to attack."

http://www.bobhenneman.info/belgrano.htm
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by JudgeDredd »

I'm not sure it can be said that the sinking of the Belgrano achieved nothing. From what I recall, didn't that particular action persuade the Argentines to dock the Vienti Cinco de Mayo carrier? She was out and about then, on the scout as it were.

See the raid on Pebble Island, the bombing of Stanley Airfield by the vulcan bomber, the sinking of the Belgrano...these actions have often been touted as achieving nothing significant. In actual fact, they forced the pride of the Argentinian airforce to operate from the mainland.

The attack on Pebble Island sent the message that the UK already had forces there and they were willing and able to fight.

The Vulcan bombing of Stanley sent the message that we had the ability to do so and that distance wasn't an issue (although it was!)

The sinking of the Belgrano sent the message that we had a deadly secret under the water...and they couldn't find them...and we could pick off ships at will.

The fact that the Argentine air force was forced to operate from the mainland left them very little time for dogfighting. Also, the Task Force carriers could operate to the East of East Falkland with relative impunity.
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by JudgeDredd »

And on a side note for any South American people here...

The Argentinian pilots showed absolute courage under fire.

The British press incorrectly informed the British public that the armed forces facing the British were ill supplied, ill equiped and low morale conscripts. The truth of the matter was they were brave enough to fight for their country.

Yes they did surrender in large quantities, but they were fighting the cream of the British Army. There were some hard core units sent there. It was widely perceived in the UK that the conflict would amount to nothing...that there would be no fighting. In fact, the British had to fight very hard.

As always, to all who served in both sides, my respect for those who took part goes without saying.
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by Terminus »

Of course... But the people on those islands are, and have chosen to be, a part of the UK. Too bad for the Argentinians, who aren't exactly 2 miles away either.

And the sinking of the Belgrano was not a war crime in any way. That's just revisionist garbage; there was a war on, and the Argentinians themselves had started it. Sow the wind, reap the storm.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
Gen Alexandra
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:59 pm

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by Gen Alexandra »

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

And on a side note for any South American people here...

The Argentinian pilots showed absolute courage under fire.

The British press incorrectly informed the British public that the armed forces facing the British were ill supplied, ill equiped and low morale conscripts. The truth of the matter was they were brave enough to fight for their country.

Yes they did surrender in large quantities, but they were fighting the cream of the British Army. There were some hard core units sent there. It was widely perceived in the UK that the conflict would amount to nothing...that there would be no fighting. In fact, the British had to fight very hard.

As always, to all who served in both sides, my respect for those who took part goes without saying.

Sorry JD but the "HARD CORE" Argentinian Units where not deployed to the Falkland Islands, the best units where deployed along the Chilean Border and around the runway at Santa Fe.

Argentina expected Chile to take advantage of the situation and perhaps make gains in the beagle channel.

All roads lead to GLORY
7th Somersets
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 1:20 pm

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by 7th Somersets »

I understood JDs comments to relate to the British forces sent there. The British forces deployed were definitely hard core.

My understanding of the Argentine forces was that they were mainly conscrpits with their backbone regular force kept in Port Stanley and never committed to fight.
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by JudgeDredd »

I know the hard core units were kept to protect the Chilean border.

The point I was making was the general British propaganda at the time which was "As soon as we show up, they'll scarper". That just didn't happen. They did surrender and in large numbers, but they just didn't roll over and have their tummy tickled.

The fight to Goose Green I recall (I read a book specifically about that battle) was a very hard fought affair. Sure they surrendered in big numbers again...but they were facing the cream of the British Army and they still made it a real slog up that little strip of land.
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by JudgeDredd »

There were some hard core units sent there.
And 7th Somersets is correct, when I said this I meant the British forces. The main blocking forces of the Argentinians were indeed conscripts, but they still fought and fought hard. It went hand to hand in all the battles.
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

I know the hard core units were kept to protect the Chilean border.

The point I was making was the general British propaganda at the time which was "As soon as we show up, they'll scarper". That just didn't happen. They did surrender and in large numbers, but they just didn't roll over and have their tummy tickled.

The fight to Goose Green I recall (I read a book specifically about that battle) was a very hard fought affair. Sure they surrendered in big numbers again...but they were facing the cream of the British Army and they still made it a real slog up that little strip of land.

Mt. Tumbledown was another bad one.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by Ike99 »

Of course... But the people on those islands are, and have chosen to be, a part of the UK. Too bad for the Argentinians, who aren't exactly 2 miles away either.

I myself find it amazing how 2,000 kelpers trick the British people into paying millions of pounds for their own personal island in defense year after year by throwing a few kisses to the queen and ought loyalty to Britain.[&:]

Of course the kelpers say they want to be part of the UK...they have a very sweet situation. An entire island to themselves with Britain paying for it.[&o]

In 150 years or so it has a population, more or less of 2,000 and British people are allowed to go live there whenever they want. Seems obvious, in truth, British could care less.

The Islanders will not let Argentines go there, I bet you can guess why. It's pure speculation on my part but I`m guessing they would have 40,000 plus people living on them if they did and not 2,000 inbred sheep herders.

So saying "the people on those islands are, and have chosen to be, a part of the UK" is not a truly valid point at closer examination.[:-] Of course if you want to be fair you could allow a natural population exchange between Britian, Argentina and Island for a time. Then take a legitimate vote on the issue of self
determination and not a farse of self determination.[:'(]

Once the memory of 1982 fades, the veterans pass away and emotions are gone Britian will eventualy give back the Malvinas. As I said before it's a geographic absudity, it's terribly expensive for them, the people of Britian don`t really want them anyways so what's the point? Before the war Britain almost turned them over several times anyway. That's how ¨soverign¨ [8|]they are to the British.

In Argentina they are on all the maps as Argentine, Argentina is constantly reaffirming its claim to its territory. Even the weathermen give the weather for the Malvinas every morning showing them on the map as Argentine.

It will go the same as the rest of the colonial relics. If I was British when that happened it wouldn`t bother me. I know I could care less if an Island off Scotland ws turned over to the British with 2,000 Argentine farmers on it and half stayed under British rule and the other half came and made their farms in pampas.
Britain sinks a warship during war and that is a war crime? Interesting. Please present the legal statute. Course and verse.

The sinking violated the Hague convention of 1907 on the conduct of war. Why else would Mrs.Thatcher consult lawyers before making trips abroad after that?[;)]



Image
Attachments
PROMO_MALVINAS_HOY.jpg
PROMO_MALVINAS_HOY.jpg (17.49 KiB) Viewed 249 times
¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by JudgeDredd »

Ike99

It's my topic and I sepcifically asked for you to get back on course....I know you've been "enticed" off topic, but that's enough.

For this statement
The Islanders will not let Argentines go there, I bet you can guess why. It's pure speculation on my part but I`m guessing they would have 40,000 plus people living on them if they did and not 2,000 inbred sheep herders.
as well as your very specific dig at current forces actions with this statement
That´s funny. Looks to me like you boys got a little
more than you can handle right now in Iraq mate.
you're the first person to earn my ignore button. Congratulations. You can continue to post on this topic, albeit off topic, but I'm not listening to you now.
Even ravinhood hasn't earned that accolade

Alba gu' brath
Gen Alexandra
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:59 pm

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by Gen Alexandra »

Ike99

If you think the Falklands War was about 2000 Kelphers wanting to remain under Britsh Govermental control you are very much mistaken. The Falklands War has more to do with the territorial influence over certain sections of Antartica and the expect minerla wealth of that region.

As for the Belgrano sinking, well if you consider that a War Crime, then the the Argentinian Ai Force are as gulity with their indicriminant bombing and subsequent sinking of Merchant Vessels like Atlantic Conveyor!. If Hector Bonzo himself regards the attack as legitimate and under International Law the bearing of a enemy ship during conflict has no bearing on the threat assumed, then that is good enough for me - Was it right in this PC world of today, that is another question, but legal I have no doubt it was.

THe Argentininan Solidiers where not cowards and have a brave and courageous past, the principal of defending the islands was sound with some sound tactical decisions made. The British Force where very stretched, supplys very low, no heavy lift capabilty and very little motorized equipment available, meant long hard slogs and hand to hand combat, something the Para's/Marines have long been trained for.

If the British had not taken Mt Kent and bombarded the defensive positions around Stanley, almost down to their last shells, then the Argentinians would have been victourious, the fact is the Argentinians surrenedered one day to soon - Thank God.
All roads lead to GLORY
User avatar
GreyFox
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:22 pm
Location: Ireland

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by GreyFox »

If the British had not taken Mt Kent and bombarded the defensive positions around Stanley, almost down to their last shells, then the Argentinians would have been victourious, the fact is the Argentinians surrenedered one day to soon - Thank God.

More accurately it was a week or two too soon. That 'one more day' stuff is hyperbole.
The sinking violated the Hague convention of 1907 on the conduct of war. Why else would Mrs.Thatcher consult lawyers before making trips abroad after that?[;)]

The Hague Convention forbids sinking enemy warships? Where does it say that? Even your own government said the sinking was perfectly legitimate.

Besides i don't buy that "the ship was heading away from the Falklands" rubbish - a ship can easily change course on a moment's notice and would have been within the 'exclusion zone' (such a piece of PC garbage I have never seen before) within an hour or two.
I myself find it amazing how 2,000 kelpers trick the British people into paying millions of pounds for their own personal island in defense year after year by throwing a few kisses to the queen and ought loyalty to Britain.[&:]

Of course the kelpers say they want to be part of the UK...they have a very sweet situation. An entire island to themselves with Britain paying for it.[&o]

Right. So they're not actually people and don't deserve a say in their fates?
Before the war Britain almost turned them over several times anyway. That's how ¨soverign¨ they are to the British.

Napoleon "almost" won at Waterloo. The Germans "almost" beat the Soviets in WW2. Carthage "almost" won the Second Punic War. What's the point? So what if the british "almost" gave up the Falklands - the fact is THEY DIDN'T.
In Argentina they are on all the maps as Argentine, Argentina is constantly reaffirming its claim to its territory. Even the weathermen give the weather for the Malvinas every morning showing them on the map as Argentine.

So what if Argentina has weather reports on the Falklands, ireland shows weather reports parts of Europe, does that mean we own the continent?

Israel isn't on the maps in Syria and several other nations, yet it does undeniably exist. China says it owns Taiwan, yet Taiwan is undeniably independent.

By your reasoning Iraq was fully correct to invade and conquer Kuwait in 1991, simply because there were more Iraqis who wanted to conquer Kuwait than there were Kuwaitis.
Brute force solves everything. If you ever find it doesn't, you're not using enough - Anon
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 10303
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:14 pm
Location: UK

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by Dixie »

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I myself find it amazing how 2,000 kelpers trick the British people into paying millions of pounds for their own personal island in defense year after year by throwing a few kisses to the queen and ought loyalty to Britain.[&:]

Of course the kelpers say they want to be part of the UK...they have a very sweet situation. An entire island to themselves with Britain paying for it.[&o]

In 150 years or so it has a population, more or less of 2,000 and British people are allowed to go live there whenever they want. Seems obvious, in truth, British could care less.

The Islanders will not let Argentines go there, I bet you can guess why. It's pure speculation on my part but I`m guessing they would have 40,000 plus people living on them if they did and not 2,000 inbred sheep herders.

So saying "the people on those islands are, and have chosen to be, a part of the UK" is not a truly valid point at closer examination.[:-] Of course if you want to be fair you could allow a natural population exchange between Britian, Argentina and Island for a time. Then take a legitimate vote on the issue of self
determination and not a farse of self determination.[:'(]

Once the memory of 1982 fades, the veterans pass away and emotions are gone Britian will eventualy give back the Malvinas. As I said before it's a geographic absudity, it's terribly expensive for them, the people of Britian don`t really want them anyways so what's the point? Before the war Britain almost turned them over several times anyway. That's how ¨soverign¨ [8|]they are to the British.

In Argentina they are on all the maps as Argentine, Argentina is constantly reaffirming its claim to its territory. Even the weathermen give the weather for the Malvinas every morning showing them on the map as Argentine.

It will go the same as the rest of the colonial relics. If I was British when that happened it wouldn`t bother me. I know I could care less if an Island off Scotland ws turned over to the British with 2,000 Argentine farmers on it and half stayed under British rule and the other half came and made their farms in pampas.

The sinking violated the Hague convention of 1907 on the conduct of war. Why else would Mrs.Thatcher consult lawyers before making trips abroad after that?[;)]

Islanders will not let Argentines go there, I bet you can guess why. It's pure speculation on my part but I`m guessing they would have 40,000 plus people living on them if they did and not 2,000 inbred sheep herders.

The weatherman says the islands are Argentinian, he must be right [8|] That has to be the best reason I have ever heard for the Argentine claim..... Britain has never given up her claim on the islands and I doubt we ever will.

What difference does it make to you how much we pay to support the Falklands? What difference does it make to you how many people here know where they are? The islanders know where they are, the British government knows where they are. How many people in Argentina know where Esquel is? A good chunk of US citizens could probably not find Washington DC on a map, does that mean they should give it to someone else?

If I lived on the islands I wouldn't want to let Argetinians onto the island, 3,000 'inbred' islanders shouldn't have to put up with 40,000 inbred chimps like yourself. [:-]


Image

EDIT: I realise that not all Argentine people are inbred chimps. Just a few of them are... No offense was intended towards the general population of the country. [:)]
Attachments
untitled.jpg
untitled.jpg (92.45 KiB) Viewed 245 times
[center]Image

Bigger boys stole my sig
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: The Falklands Conflict

Post by Terminus »

Wonder why this guys is blinking so much? Maybe he knows he can't be taken seriously?
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”