|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Mar 2, 2010 10:15:04 GMT -3
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Mar 2, 2010 11:12:42 GMT -3
Yes, a funny little piece. Do missiles really have 'secret codes' that deactivate them? This is all rather 007 James Bond. I can understand an abort code transmitted by the launch platform soon after launch but a code you can give out that makes them useless? I'm sceptical but wouldn't dismiss it entirely. Atlantic Conveyor was struck by an Exocet after Sheffield was sunk so the codes didn't seem to work that well. And that's if we ignore the Glamorgan attack. Also, this comes from a psychoanalyst selling a book long after Mitterand is dead. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article592059.ece |
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Mar 2, 2010 20:19:18 GMT -3
Hola Otto,
Long time!
I am afraid I have to agree with Hutch. Miterrand gave the British an entire squadron of Mirage III's before they sailed to the islands. That's the reason the Mirages were ineffective against the Task Force. They knew how to deal with that threat thanks to Miterrand. (By the way, Brasil also had Mirage in it's air force.)
We have no chance to winning an armed conflict if we depend from the US or Europe for weapons.
We need to develop our own. Argentina has very good reasons for supporting Embraer.
Un abrazo,
Gabriel
|
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Mar 3, 2010 2:14:16 GMT -3
But you know Gabriel... I couldn't be prouder of the alternative ways we found. Like calculating the altitude they should fly to evade radards, and undersandting how the french exocet worked (yes I've been watching documentaries). We have brains, and creativity which is especially fueled by the lack of technology.
You tend to get lazy when machines do all the calculations for you. That's the card I would play if there was another conflict -God Forbid-
Our problems are always related to money. The rest we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Mar 3, 2010 22:48:17 GMT -3
You are right. But that has nothing to do with the subject. Miterrand was an ally of Thatcher and after the war ended the French tried to look good with God and the Devil by inventing a story about Miterrand's brother being totally against helping the British. I don't buy it, and in any case the French government did exactly the oppossite. They flatly refused to sell any spare parts to Argentina, even when they had a contract to deliver material previously purchased and openly provided intel to Thatcher. By the way, both Italy and Spain also joined the embargo against Argentina. Spain even provided information about Argentinean Navy personnel in Spanish territory trying to buy weapons with cash.
I don't know how old you are, but I was in my early twenties at the time and vividly remember the known facts.
One more piece of trivia; two South American countries abstained from voting on the declaration regarding Argentina's right to the islands in the OAS: Chile and Colombia. To this day (almost thirty years later), they are still the closest allies to the empire. Coincidence?
This stupid story about nuclear weapons is a scare tactic. Don't you think the timing of this story is peculiar?
In any case, why would France care if the blood thirsty Imperial garbage uses a nuclear weapon against us? Suppose a country uses nuclear weapons against another country that is signatory of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, who had the capacity to develop nuclear weapons but chose to honor the treaty and not do it. What do you think that will happen next? The treaty would automatically disappear and every country in their right mind would seek nuclear weapons. The French would be selling them by the truck load. So why would this be a threat to Miterrand?
Chavez is right. Too bad we are not listening to him enough.
Gabriel
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Mar 4, 2010 11:05:07 GMT -3
"...the blood thirsty Imperial garbage..."
Does this refer to Thatcher of the United Kingdom?
The Administrators and Moderators of this forum will no longer tolerate disparaging remarks of any country or country’s history. For example, “the Fascist Dictators in Argentina” of almost 30 years ago, the “Murdering Brits” for establishing “Concentration Camps” in South Africa,” or the “Thieving Kelpers” who stole the Malvinas. Every country has its checkered past.
These kind of disparaging remarks have led nowhere except eliciting retaliatory comments about the other country exacerbating everyone involved in the discussion forum. Ours is a forum to bring people together and not to pull them apart. Historical discussions are encouraged without the name-calling and disparaging remarks that impugn a country and its history, culture, heritage and people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Mar 4, 2010 23:13:52 GMT -3
1. The dictators in Argentina were Fascists.
2. The Kelpers did not steal the Malvinas, the British Empire did.
3. The concentration camps are a British invention from the Boer war.
None of these FACTS will insult me. Please feel free to use them whenever you want.
I have lots of remarks with many four letter words for just about any country, including Argentina.
Countries do not unite people, they separate them (divide and conquer).
Too bad we are not united in breaking the barriers that separate us. Instead we support our masters.
If rape, exploitation and murder are your understanding of culture and heritage I will continue to insult them. You are welcome to call me whatever you want.
By the way, I was referring to Thatcher.
Gabriel
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Mar 4, 2010 23:44:54 GMT -3
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Mar 5, 2010 5:56:56 GMT -3
Not my rules Gabriel, the rules of this board.
Concentration camps were actually being used before the Boer War - by the USA against their native population in the 1830's and in Cuba and the Philippines by the USA and Spain at the end of the 1800's. The term probably comes from the 'reconcentration camps' set up by Spain in Cuba.
|
|
