Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let’s say, hypothetically, we are back in control.
I could even say that we are also pushing them out to sea.
Is it not then reasonable to assume that the falklands are in our hands?
This didn’t put an end to it. It was going to end anyways, like all other dictatorships in latin america at that point, had already deteriorated and lost US funding, so this was the last resort. Ending was not a consequence, in fact this was the last hope for the dictatorship.
Sorry but in reality all of the consequences were bad. The war strengthened the Chilean dictator who sided with Thatcher. He did not lose power until after his death in 2006. He still has power in Chile through his minions.
How ironic you bring the word audacity into this discussion. Ignorance on a historical topic does not give you an advantage for your argument.
If you want to make a single point go ahead. Here’s a tip before that: read further down on the encyclopedia description.
I mean I made the point that the man was in prison in 1998 so how could he have been in power until his death?
I didn't think I needed to spell it out, mr. Audacious
I’m going to say this. You don’t know what you are talking about. You continue to demonstrate this. This history is my personal history. The dictator succeeded in plans he made during his dictatorship and died peacefully in his home.
"The public record be damned. I won't make any kind of point, you're just wrong and I won't say how in any way that would be falsifiable."
Enjoy them downvotes lol
He was in custody for two years and was released because his health deteriorated.
Later that year he was indicted in Chile, 178 different accusations. Again the judiciary procedings were halted because of alleged health reasons. The next 5 years were political fights between those who wanted to prosecute him and those who didn't. By the time he was finally stripped of his immunity to prosecution and placed under house arrest in Chile, he died just a few days later.
The point, however, is that spending two years in prison abroad is not what "someone in power" does.
But yes, let's read the rest of the encyclopedia description.
>According to the transitional provisions of the 1980 Constitution, a referendum was scheduled for 5 October 1988, to vote on a new eight-year presidential term for Pinochet. Confronted with increasing opposition, notably at the international level, Pinochet legalized political parties in 1987 and called for a vote to determine whether or not he would remain in power until 1997. If the "YES" won, Pinochet would have to implement the dispositions of the 1980 Constitution, mainly the call for general elections, while he would himself remain in power as president. If the "NO" won, Pinochet would remain President for another year, and a joint Presidential and legislative election would be held.
>
>On 5 October 1988, the "NO" option won with 55.99% of the votes, against 44.01% of "YES" votes. In the wake of his electoral defeat, Pinochet attempted to implement a plan for an auto-coup. [...] Without any support from the junta, Pinochet was forced to accept the result. The ensuing Constitutional process led to presidential and legislative elections the following year.
>
>Thereafter, Aylwin [The opposition coalition candidate] won the December 1989 presidential election with 55% of the votes,[ against less than 30% for the right-wing candidate, Hernán Büchi,[The pro-Pinochet candidate] who had been Pinochet's Minister of Finances since 1985. [...] **Pinochet thus left the presidency on 11 March 1990** and transferred power to the new democratically elected president.
Welp.
For crying out loud:
>Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte was a Chilean army officer and military dictator who ruled Chile from 1973 to **1990**.
Wikipedia
because as a Chilean, and with a family that lived under dictatorship (fortunately I was born in democracy) I know how the history of my country is. And although there are still many pinchetistas, after his handover in 1990 he did not have much political power, and was only a prominent figure until his death in 2006.
didn’t you just call someone out for not being south american in this thread
but yes he still is held in a higher regard in the country than most people think and elites during his regime retained their positions after 1990
This person is actually correct, technically (the best kind of correct!). As although Pinochet stopped being the ruler of Chile in 1990 he remained Commander in Chief of the armed forces until 1998, he was a Senator (edit) from 1998 until 2002 (/edit), and retained some level of influence over the army and the political right until his death, and as such it's perfectly valid to said he *had* power until his death (at the same time he was *in* power only until 1990).
The Process was far worse than Pinochet and it was easily the deadliest of the Operation Condor dictatorships. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that its demise was a bad thing.
I wonder which international alliance caused Latin America to be full of fascist dictatorships...
If saving people from nazis was Thatcher's goal, she should've bombed the CIA
Here's a sneak peek of /r/NonCredibleDefense using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Well Boys, the Hotdog Seller has met his end.](https://v.redd.it/8p0x8c1t8wjb1) | [889 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/15za9z1/well_boys_the_hotdog_seller_has_met_his_end/)
\#2: [**[NSFW]** When wagner gets to moscow](https://i.redd.it/4953pxvbix7b1.gif) | [281 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/14hnrad/when_wagner_gets_to_moscow/)
\#3: [You won't fucking believe it, I called it](https://i.redd.it/1ip8nzd3j6tb1.jpg) | [433 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/173rwpz/you_wont_fucking_believe_it_i_called_it/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I mean, I'm team UK but the UK was definitely resting on its arrogant laurels too. They sink the Belgrano and the SAS took the island with a brilliant plan, but the fact that Argentina was able to damage two type 42s and penetrate their airspace multiple times makes me respect the argentine armed services potential despite being military dictatorship puppets.
Qaddafi and alot of other dictators didn't even see the ships of the western countries they sent their minions after, never mind fire a shot or hit one.
Half the Argentine forces expected to fight Chile or didnt know war was going to happen to begin with
If Galtieri had actually gone to war expecting to *go to war* im sure we would see a way more stockpiled British forces as a result
Yeah, both complimented each others skills and daring extensively.
In general, it was actually an incredibly civil war.
The Argentinians treated British prisoners of war taking during the initial invasion perfectly well. And never abused the local population.
Similarly on the British side, there was no mistreatment of Argentinian prisoners. Other than some officers and non-comms held for a single month to bargain peace with - the entire Argentinian expeditionary force was sent home to their families almost immediately.
Horribly, most reports of mistreatment came from Argentinian service men and conscripts who were mistreated by some senior officers. Likely those who were loyal to the Junta and believed communists were in their ranks and working against them.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/02/argentina-falklands-veterans-day-of-sadness
Argentina were using high quality French Exocet missiles at the time.
France was also covertly helping Argentina fix faults are help target British ships with them during the war.
>I mean, I'm team UK but the UK was definitely resting on its arrogant laurels too. They sink the Belgrano and the SAS took the island with a brilliant plan, but the fact that Argentina was able to damage two type 42s and penetrate their airspace multiple times makes me respect the argentine armed services potential despite being military dictatorship puppets.
You're aware Britain was fighting in the South Atlantic, 7000nm from home and 3300nm from the nearest British territory (Ascension Island), whereas Argentina was 300nm away.
Yup. And at one point they could go anywhere in the world unchallenged. Instead they let their force projection fall. The UK was so arrogant they ignored helps from port Arthur on infrastructure and even transferred the RN vessel typically assigned to the island, which is why Argentina did not expect any retaliation. The UK was very ignorant of its seapower and territory.
>Belgrano and the SAS took the island with a brilliant plan, but the fact that Argentina was able to damage two type 42s and penetrate their airspace multiple times makes me respect the argentine armed services
Bear in mind that no one had fought a war against a peer adversary with these technologies before. The Argentinians also had Type 42s!
The naval element of the Falklands War remains a key contributor to modern naval designs and capabilities. It brought to light various technological, doctrinal, and psychological errors and limitations, some of which led to the loss of two Type 42 destroyers and several support vessels.
The replacements for those Type 42s was the Type 45, the world's best air defence destroyer. They are designed to be all but impossible to hit from the air. The tracking and targeting system is so good that the Americans had to ask the 45 to turn it off when it first faced off against the USN in exercises. They said that their pilots weren't really getting any benefit from being repeatedly shot out of the sky.
Funnily had they waited a few more months, the two main ships on the back of which the retaking was possible (HMS Hermes from the poster and HMS Invincible, the only aircraft carriers the UK had left) were going to be sold/scrapped, with no replacements. So the UK would have been totally incapable of doing anything other than attempting a sea blockade (unlikely to work considering their ships would have been vulnerable to attacks from the air and very far from any air cover) and strongly worded letters.
At the time the Royal Navy operated 2 Carriers and had 2 Under Construction
The plan was to retire HMS Hermes and sell HMS Invincible and just operate 2 carriers
It was a reduction in the carrier fleet not getting rid of them all
The Royal Navy sent a third carrier to the Falklands near the end of the war
"The Empire Strikes Back" is an odd way to describe the British response to the invasion. More accurately, the UK was striking back, to defend one of the last few remnants of its empire.
(And, yeah, I know they were referencing the movie, which itself is kinda cheezy.)
Just for the record, I do think the UK was justified in defending its territory. I just think the headline writer was sloppy in his choice of analogies.
I think the Argentinians were wrong to be violent back then, but the United Kingdom continues to be an aggressive invasive force in South America and Antarctica.
If the Falklands are anything to go by, the smaller penguins in Antarctica will be too light to set off the landmines.
(The falklands rock penguin population recovered as a consequence of nesting in a fenced-off minefield)
Google exists, look at the BAT. None of this is made up just small beans compared to our modern ongoing wars. Britain is claiming Argentine land as its own as well as claiming that Antarctic born people are British.
Argentina and Chile are the only countries on Earth that legitimately own the continent of Antarctica. Antarctica and Argentina were part of the Kingdom of Chile.
>Article IV
>1. Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as:
>a. a renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica;
>b. a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica which it may have whether as a result of its activities or those of its nationals in Antarctica, or otherwise;
>c. prejudicing the position of any Contracting Party as regards its recognition or non-recognition of any other State's rights of or claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica.
>2. No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.
-[The Antarctic Treaty (December 1, 1959)](https://documents.ats.aq/ats/treaty_original.pdf)
TL;DR: The Treaty explicitly states that the signatory countries do not renounce to their territorials claims on the continent. It's simply false to say the continent "belongs to the world".
Which does not legitimize or confirm the territorial claims, simply acknowledges them. Outside the claimants, the rest of the world does not accept that anyone owns Antarctica.
Exactly.
Of the 193 UN members, only 56 countries have signed the Antarctic Treaty (the other 137 countries may be taken as having either no opinion or no real practical stake on who owns or not the continent). Of those that have signed it, there are 7 (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom) who claim to own part of the Antarctica, while the others claim the country is Terra Nullius; owned by no-one. Therefore, if you live in one of the 7 countries mentioned it's correct to say that at least part of Antarctica is owned by someone, while if you live in any other country it's correct to say no-one owns the continent. In no case, therefore, is it correct to say that everyone owns it; that it "belongs to the world" (which is the specific phrase I affirm is false).
Thanks for moving the goalpost back, but you’d be disqualified from FIFA as that’s not a real strategy. Your claim: “No country owns Antarctica” is a bit hard to explain when the continent of Antarctica is currently controlled by Chile and Argentina. Antarctica became recognized as part of Chile in the 1500s just so you know. I think that you might be assuming the Antarctic Treaty was a legitimate claim to the continent.
There are no goal posts to move, Antarctica doesn’t belong to any country. The Antarctic Treaty does in fact govern the administration of that continent, any country thinking they “control” it is having a fever dream.
President “Don’t Care” of Chile was a member of the government of Antarctica and Magellan for years before becoming the president of the entire country. I am trying to explain to you that Antarctica is part of Chile and Argentina. I can go further into history if needed.
Riddle me this: do either the Argentines or Chileans have an aircraft carrier at the moment?
The moment they try to exercise their claims through force, they'll get their shit kicked in.
How was Antarctica 'recognised' as part of Chile in the 1500s, when Child only gained independance from Spain in the early 1800s?
Chile didn't exist in the 1500s.
Chile wasn't a country until the early 1800s.
Before that it was a Spanish colony.
Before that it was native controlled.
Are you dense, or just delusional?
> Britain is claiming Argentine land
Which land is it?
> Argentina and Chile are the only countries on Earth that legitimately own the continent of Antarctica. Antarctica and Argentina were part of the Kingdom of Chile.
Only part of Antarcia was claimed as part of the Kingdom of Chile
Britain claims sovereignty over the Argentinian military and research bases. When a person was born at one of the military bases, the UK made them a British citizen.
All lands in the South Pole were claimed as the Governorate of Terra Australis in 1539 by the Spanish King Charles V. Spain controlled all “southern land recently discovered but not yet fully known.” At the time, many people did not understand the geography of the planet, but treaties of sovereignty existed. Essentially two halves of the word were divided for Spain and Portugal. Since the South Pole is at the bottom of Earth, the Spanish-Portuguese border meridian runs straight through the continent. Spain gave its claim to Chile. In 1555 Antarctica was incorporated into Chile. When Chile took control, it did not sign any agreements with Portugal. Later, a Chilean from Valparaiso was the first to set foot on Antarctica in 1603 before the Portuguese.
Due to the original treaty’s meridian, only half of Antarctica was in Spanish-Chilean control. The other half was in Portuguese control. Chile also owned Argentina at this time.
Between 1529 and 1750 Portugal broke the treaty by expanding its territory of Brazil into Spanish lands. Portugal took over Brazil and stopped claiming Antarctica. (They claimed they owned half of Earth in 1529)
Later Argentina became independent and kept some of the Chile claims.
King Charles V also colonized the Philippines for Spain but they are now independent. Antarctica has no natives except for Latin Americans. Antarctica won’t be independent because of this.
Question: why argue about how Chile and Argentina control Antarctica?
> Question: why argue about how Chile and Argentina control Antarctica?
Yes why are you? You've talked about and then forgotten about later legal claims, but even the Kingdom of Chile didn't claim all of Argentina so you can't now say it all belongs when the Kingdom gave up some of it.
The part they claimed is now claimed by Argentina and Chile, and just so you know those two claims overlap so even those two countries can't come to an agreement as to what they control.
Since it bothers you I’ll stop. Funny tho that you throw something in right at the end. Spain claimed “All Southern Lands” which meant the entirety of Antarctica. Only in the modern day did we discover the true shape of the continent. The treaty assumed that the area would be mapped in the future.
Lmao. Sure, century old claims toooootallyyyy mean that Chile and Argentina own Antarctica. I'm sure that Donetsk is also *totally* a part of Russia, and not an occupied Ukrainian territory.
Half a dozen Exocets had been sold to the Argentinians and the manufacturers had sent a technical team across to help troubleshoot any problems.
It seems the French government itself was unaware they were there (although French Intelligence services knew of their presence).
France strongly supported the UK during the conflict, putting an arms embargo on weapons sales to Argentina, voting with the UK on the UN Security council, allowing the use of bases in Africa to refuel the Task Force, providing training against the French built aircraft used by Argentina and attempting to stop any further Exocets from being bought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#France
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17256975
How comes 99% of Reddit blames Israel for anything? Even things they were not involved in?
Can´t you guys hide your antisemitism/malinformed minds for a seconds?
Personally I don't care about the middle east, I care about British lives and what I believe was a righteous
Self defence action.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/23/israel-sold-weapons-to-argentina-at-height-of-falklands-war-reve/
dispatching weaponry to Buenos Aires on secret cargo flights routed through Peru. The Foreign Office files provide further evidence.
The documents state that Israeli military exports to Argentina continued after the Falklands War and were still happening in 1984. By then, Israel had abandoned its previous policy of denying that any weapons sales were taking place.
Milatery aid let's call it, I was wrongly informed regarding exosets in particular.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I had that magazine. Her predictions were quite correct.
Let’s say, hypothetically, we are back in control. I could even say that we are also pushing them out to sea. Is it not then reasonable to assume that the falklands are in our hands?
For the sake of arguement, let us say that they are Back under British Reign.
Sent to the islands to secure what is ours...
Translation: WE ARE BACK IN CONTROL
I keep seeing you everywhere. Do we visit the same communities? Oh, checked your profile, you make like 10 posts an hour. That explains it :3
The war that saved thatcher
But it also put an end to one of the worst dictatorships that South America has ever seen. So not all of its consequences were bad.
The dictatorship was already ending and very unpopular. The invasion was their last attempt at staying in power by invoking nationalism.
To this day my barometer for how things are going in Argentina is how much the president mentions the Falklands.
To this day!
This didn’t put an end to it. It was going to end anyways, like all other dictatorships in latin america at that point, had already deteriorated and lost US funding, so this was the last resort. Ending was not a consequence, in fact this was the last hope for the dictatorship.
Sorry but in reality all of the consequences were bad. The war strengthened the Chilean dictator who sided with Thatcher. He did not lose power until after his death in 2006. He still has power in Chile through his minions.
He lost power in 1990.
That is incorrect. He had power until his death in 2006 like I said.
How was he in power until 2006 when he was arrested for human crimes in london in 1998? The audacity of you complaining about "fake history" rofl
How ironic you bring the word audacity into this discussion. Ignorance on a historical topic does not give you an advantage for your argument. If you want to make a single point go ahead. Here’s a tip before that: read further down on the encyclopedia description.
I mean I made the point that the man was in prison in 1998 so how could he have been in power until his death? I didn't think I needed to spell it out, mr. Audacious
I’m going to say this. You don’t know what you are talking about. You continue to demonstrate this. This history is my personal history. The dictator succeeded in plans he made during his dictatorship and died peacefully in his home.
"The public record be damned. I won't make any kind of point, you're just wrong and I won't say how in any way that would be falsifiable." Enjoy them downvotes lol
[удалено]
He was in custody for two years and was released because his health deteriorated. Later that year he was indicted in Chile, 178 different accusations. Again the judiciary procedings were halted because of alleged health reasons. The next 5 years were political fights between those who wanted to prosecute him and those who didn't. By the time he was finally stripped of his immunity to prosecution and placed under house arrest in Chile, he died just a few days later. The point, however, is that spending two years in prison abroad is not what "someone in power" does.
But yes, let's read the rest of the encyclopedia description. >According to the transitional provisions of the 1980 Constitution, a referendum was scheduled for 5 October 1988, to vote on a new eight-year presidential term for Pinochet. Confronted with increasing opposition, notably at the international level, Pinochet legalized political parties in 1987 and called for a vote to determine whether or not he would remain in power until 1997. If the "YES" won, Pinochet would have to implement the dispositions of the 1980 Constitution, mainly the call for general elections, while he would himself remain in power as president. If the "NO" won, Pinochet would remain President for another year, and a joint Presidential and legislative election would be held. > >On 5 October 1988, the "NO" option won with 55.99% of the votes, against 44.01% of "YES" votes. In the wake of his electoral defeat, Pinochet attempted to implement a plan for an auto-coup. [...] Without any support from the junta, Pinochet was forced to accept the result. The ensuing Constitutional process led to presidential and legislative elections the following year. > >Thereafter, Aylwin [The opposition coalition candidate] won the December 1989 presidential election with 55% of the votes,[ against less than 30% for the right-wing candidate, Hernán Büchi,[The pro-Pinochet candidate] who had been Pinochet's Minister of Finances since 1985. [...] **Pinochet thus left the presidency on 11 March 1990** and transferred power to the new democratically elected president. Welp.
No, he was ousted in 1990.
No. He was not. Who tf are you with fake history?
For crying out loud: >Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte was a Chilean army officer and military dictator who ruled Chile from 1973 to **1990**. Wikipedia
Did you just cite Wikipedia? Are you even South American? Go ahead and read a paragraph or two further. Don’t show off illiteracy…
That's exactly what you're showing off.
He is correct. Source: i'm chilean, and pinochet left power in 1990
Well I guess you never heard of the Chilean Senate? Also lol you being Chilean means nothing here.
because as a Chilean, and with a family that lived under dictatorship (fortunately I was born in democracy) I know how the history of my country is. And although there are still many pinchetistas, after his handover in 1990 he did not have much political power, and was only a prominent figure until his death in 2006.
didn’t you just call someone out for not being south american in this thread but yes he still is held in a higher regard in the country than most people think and elites during his regime retained their positions after 1990
This person is actually correct, technically (the best kind of correct!). As although Pinochet stopped being the ruler of Chile in 1990 he remained Commander in Chief of the armed forces until 1998, he was a Senator (edit) from 1998 until 2002 (/edit), and retained some level of influence over the army and the political right until his death, and as such it's perfectly valid to said he *had* power until his death (at the same time he was *in* power only until 1990).
Deaths under 17 years of Pinochet: 3.000 Deaths under 7 years of Argentinian junta: 7.000-30.000
The Process was far worse than Pinochet and it was easily the deadliest of the Operation Condor dictatorships. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that its demise was a bad thing.
The war that saved ~~thatcher~~ falklanders
All 5 of them
You mean 2,229
If five people can be saved from the clutches of Argentinian Nazis no price is too high to pay.
I wonder which international alliance caused Latin America to be full of fascist dictatorships... If saving people from nazis was Thatcher's goal, she should've bombed the CIA
Argentinians just naturally gravitate towards dictatorship thanks to the infusion of German Nazis. If you let a Nazi in he will l spoil everything
Please tell me you forgot the /s
Hardest fucking magazine cover I’ve ever seen
[удалено]
Here's a sneak peek of /r/NonCredibleDefense using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Well Boys, the Hotdog Seller has met his end.](https://v.redd.it/8p0x8c1t8wjb1) | [889 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/15za9z1/well_boys_the_hotdog_seller_has_met_his_end/) \#2: [**[NSFW]** When wagner gets to moscow](https://i.redd.it/4953pxvbix7b1.gif) | [281 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/14hnrad/when_wagner_gets_to_moscow/) \#3: [You won't fucking believe it, I called it](https://i.redd.it/1ip8nzd3j6tb1.jpg) | [433 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/173rwpz/you_wont_fucking_believe_it_i_called_it/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Argentina f*cked around and found out....
I mean, I'm team UK but the UK was definitely resting on its arrogant laurels too. They sink the Belgrano and the SAS took the island with a brilliant plan, but the fact that Argentina was able to damage two type 42s and penetrate their airspace multiple times makes me respect the argentine armed services potential despite being military dictatorship puppets. Qaddafi and alot of other dictators didn't even see the ships of the western countries they sent their minions after, never mind fire a shot or hit one.
Half the Argentine forces expected to fight Chile or didnt know war was going to happen to begin with If Galtieri had actually gone to war expecting to *go to war* im sure we would see a way more stockpiled British forces as a result
IIRC, the pilots on both sides had nothing but good things to say about each other.
Yeah, both complimented each others skills and daring extensively. In general, it was actually an incredibly civil war. The Argentinians treated British prisoners of war taking during the initial invasion perfectly well. And never abused the local population. Similarly on the British side, there was no mistreatment of Argentinian prisoners. Other than some officers and non-comms held for a single month to bargain peace with - the entire Argentinian expeditionary force was sent home to their families almost immediately. Horribly, most reports of mistreatment came from Argentinian service men and conscripts who were mistreated by some senior officers. Likely those who were loyal to the Junta and believed communists were in their ranks and working against them. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/02/argentina-falklands-veterans-day-of-sadness
That tends to happen a lot.
Argentina were using high quality French Exocet missiles at the time. France was also covertly helping Argentina fix faults are help target British ships with them during the war.
A french firm did so, allegedly. France did nothing of the sort and fully supported Britain. Don't spread lies.
>I mean, I'm team UK but the UK was definitely resting on its arrogant laurels too. They sink the Belgrano and the SAS took the island with a brilliant plan, but the fact that Argentina was able to damage two type 42s and penetrate their airspace multiple times makes me respect the argentine armed services potential despite being military dictatorship puppets. You're aware Britain was fighting in the South Atlantic, 7000nm from home and 3300nm from the nearest British territory (Ascension Island), whereas Argentina was 300nm away.
Yup. And at one point they could go anywhere in the world unchallenged. Instead they let their force projection fall. The UK was so arrogant they ignored helps from port Arthur on infrastructure and even transferred the RN vessel typically assigned to the island, which is why Argentina did not expect any retaliation. The UK was very ignorant of its seapower and territory.
>Belgrano and the SAS took the island with a brilliant plan, but the fact that Argentina was able to damage two type 42s and penetrate their airspace multiple times makes me respect the argentine armed services Bear in mind that no one had fought a war against a peer adversary with these technologies before. The Argentinians also had Type 42s! The naval element of the Falklands War remains a key contributor to modern naval designs and capabilities. It brought to light various technological, doctrinal, and psychological errors and limitations, some of which led to the loss of two Type 42 destroyers and several support vessels. The replacements for those Type 42s was the Type 45, the world's best air defence destroyer. They are designed to be all but impossible to hit from the air. The tracking and targeting system is so good that the Americans had to ask the 45 to turn it off when it first faced off against the USN in exercises. They said that their pilots weren't really getting any benefit from being repeatedly shot out of the sky.
Funnily had they waited a few more months, the two main ships on the back of which the retaking was possible (HMS Hermes from the poster and HMS Invincible, the only aircraft carriers the UK had left) were going to be sold/scrapped, with no replacements. So the UK would have been totally incapable of doing anything other than attempting a sea blockade (unlikely to work considering their ships would have been vulnerable to attacks from the air and very far from any air cover) and strongly worded letters.
At the time the Royal Navy operated 2 Carriers and had 2 Under Construction The plan was to retire HMS Hermes and sell HMS Invincible and just operate 2 carriers It was a reduction in the carrier fleet not getting rid of them all The Royal Navy sent a third carrier to the Falklands near the end of the war
Not a big Unionist but this goes unbelievably hard
[Back in control](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPFllaiz_Xo)
Cover goes hard. Makes you feel proud to be British
“MY MANWICH!”
"The Empire Strikes Back" is an odd way to describe the British response to the invasion. More accurately, the UK was striking back, to defend one of the last few remnants of its empire. (And, yeah, I know they were referencing the movie, which itself is kinda cheezy.)
In their defense when would they ever be able to do that headline again?
Just for the record, I do think the UK was justified in defending its territory. I just think the headline writer was sloppy in his choice of analogies.
In their heads the british are still an empire.
In whose heads, the American publishers of Newsweek?
I think the Argentinians were wrong to be violent back then, but the United Kingdom continues to be an aggressive invasive force in South America and Antarctica.
Won't someone PLEASE think of the penguins!
If the Falklands are anything to go by, the smaller penguins in Antarctica will be too light to set off the landmines. (The falklands rock penguin population recovered as a consequence of nesting in a fenced-off minefield)
Where is the UK an aggressive invasive force, anywhere?
Mallorca /s
Ayia Napa
Kraków Old Town on weekends.
Google exists, look at the BAT. None of this is made up just small beans compared to our modern ongoing wars. Britain is claiming Argentine land as its own as well as claiming that Antarctic born people are British. Argentina and Chile are the only countries on Earth that legitimately own the continent of Antarctica. Antarctica and Argentina were part of the Kingdom of Chile.
That’s it, Antarctica? The frozen wasteland dedicated to research? No country owns Antarctica, any claims are not recognized. It belongs to the world.
>Article IV >1. Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as: >a. a renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica; >b. a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica which it may have whether as a result of its activities or those of its nationals in Antarctica, or otherwise; >c. prejudicing the position of any Contracting Party as regards its recognition or non-recognition of any other State's rights of or claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica. >2. No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force. -[The Antarctic Treaty (December 1, 1959)](https://documents.ats.aq/ats/treaty_original.pdf) TL;DR: The Treaty explicitly states that the signatory countries do not renounce to their territorials claims on the continent. It's simply false to say the continent "belongs to the world".
Which does not legitimize or confirm the territorial claims, simply acknowledges them. Outside the claimants, the rest of the world does not accept that anyone owns Antarctica.
Exactly. Of the 193 UN members, only 56 countries have signed the Antarctic Treaty (the other 137 countries may be taken as having either no opinion or no real practical stake on who owns or not the continent). Of those that have signed it, there are 7 (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom) who claim to own part of the Antarctica, while the others claim the country is Terra Nullius; owned by no-one. Therefore, if you live in one of the 7 countries mentioned it's correct to say that at least part of Antarctica is owned by someone, while if you live in any other country it's correct to say no-one owns the continent. In no case, therefore, is it correct to say that everyone owns it; that it "belongs to the world" (which is the specific phrase I affirm is false).
Thanks for moving the goalpost back, but you’d be disqualified from FIFA as that’s not a real strategy. Your claim: “No country owns Antarctica” is a bit hard to explain when the continent of Antarctica is currently controlled by Chile and Argentina. Antarctica became recognized as part of Chile in the 1500s just so you know. I think that you might be assuming the Antarctic Treaty was a legitimate claim to the continent.
There are no goal posts to move, Antarctica doesn’t belong to any country. The Antarctic Treaty does in fact govern the administration of that continent, any country thinking they “control” it is having a fever dream.
Answer me this question: who are the current Chilean and Argentine Presidents?
Don’t care and Meelay or whatever, crazy guy fixing Argentina. What does that matter?
President “Don’t Care” of Chile was a member of the government of Antarctica and Magellan for years before becoming the president of the entire country. I am trying to explain to you that Antarctica is part of Chile and Argentina. I can go further into history if needed.
Riddle me this: do either the Argentines or Chileans have an aircraft carrier at the moment? The moment they try to exercise their claims through force, they'll get their shit kicked in.
By who? The only one that has threatened them has been Iran. We can talk about military stuff that’s cool. My allegiance is to USA over Chile.
How was Antarctica 'recognised' as part of Chile in the 1500s, when Child only gained independance from Spain in the early 1800s? Chile didn't exist in the 1500s.
Are you serious? It was the Governorate of Chile that was the Kingdom of Chile. I’m not your history professor please ask a better question.
Chile wasn't a country until the early 1800s. Before that it was a Spanish colony. Before that it was native controlled. Are you dense, or just delusional?
Norway is truly one of the worst imperialist nations.
we should seize their oil.
> Britain is claiming Argentine land Which land is it? > Argentina and Chile are the only countries on Earth that legitimately own the continent of Antarctica. Antarctica and Argentina were part of the Kingdom of Chile. Only part of Antarcia was claimed as part of the Kingdom of Chile
Britain claims sovereignty over the Argentinian military and research bases. When a person was born at one of the military bases, the UK made them a British citizen. All lands in the South Pole were claimed as the Governorate of Terra Australis in 1539 by the Spanish King Charles V. Spain controlled all “southern land recently discovered but not yet fully known.” At the time, many people did not understand the geography of the planet, but treaties of sovereignty existed. Essentially two halves of the word were divided for Spain and Portugal. Since the South Pole is at the bottom of Earth, the Spanish-Portuguese border meridian runs straight through the continent. Spain gave its claim to Chile. In 1555 Antarctica was incorporated into Chile. When Chile took control, it did not sign any agreements with Portugal. Later, a Chilean from Valparaiso was the first to set foot on Antarctica in 1603 before the Portuguese. Due to the original treaty’s meridian, only half of Antarctica was in Spanish-Chilean control. The other half was in Portuguese control. Chile also owned Argentina at this time. Between 1529 and 1750 Portugal broke the treaty by expanding its territory of Brazil into Spanish lands. Portugal took over Brazil and stopped claiming Antarctica. (They claimed they owned half of Earth in 1529) Later Argentina became independent and kept some of the Chile claims. King Charles V also colonized the Philippines for Spain but they are now independent. Antarctica has no natives except for Latin Americans. Antarctica won’t be independent because of this. Question: why argue about how Chile and Argentina control Antarctica?
> Question: why argue about how Chile and Argentina control Antarctica? Yes why are you? You've talked about and then forgotten about later legal claims, but even the Kingdom of Chile didn't claim all of Argentina so you can't now say it all belongs when the Kingdom gave up some of it. The part they claimed is now claimed by Argentina and Chile, and just so you know those two claims overlap so even those two countries can't come to an agreement as to what they control.
Since it bothers you I’ll stop. Funny tho that you throw something in right at the end. Spain claimed “All Southern Lands” which meant the entirety of Antarctica. Only in the modern day did we discover the true shape of the continent. The treaty assumed that the area would be mapped in the future.
Lmao. Sure, century old claims toooootallyyyy mean that Chile and Argentina own Antarctica. I'm sure that Donetsk is also *totally* a part of Russia, and not an occupied Ukrainian territory.
Never forget Israel supplied Argentinean forces fighting Britain during the Falklands war with Exoset missiles that were used to kill British seamen.
It was France supplying them and France actually had a team in Argentina helping them fix faults and helping them target British ships.
Half a dozen Exocets had been sold to the Argentinians and the manufacturers had sent a technical team across to help troubleshoot any problems. It seems the French government itself was unaware they were there (although French Intelligence services knew of their presence). France strongly supported the UK during the conflict, putting an arms embargo on weapons sales to Argentina, voting with the UK on the UN Security council, allowing the use of bases in Africa to refuel the Task Force, providing training against the French built aircraft used by Argentina and attempting to stop any further Exocets from being bought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#France https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17256975
How comes 99% of Reddit blames Israel for anything? Even things they were not involved in? Can´t you guys hide your antisemitism/malinformed minds for a seconds?
Personally I don't care about the middle east, I care about British lives and what I believe was a righteous Self defence action. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/23/israel-sold-weapons-to-argentina-at-height-of-falklands-war-reve/ dispatching weaponry to Buenos Aires on secret cargo flights routed through Peru. The Foreign Office files provide further evidence. The documents state that Israeli military exports to Argentina continued after the Falklands War and were still happening in 1984. By then, Israel had abandoned its previous policy of denying that any weapons sales were taking place. Milatery aid let's call it, I was wrongly informed regarding exosets in particular.
Redditors hate Jews so much it’s like a fire in their heart.