Controversial Argentine Olympic Advert

[dbgtz]

If you couldn't work where it's filmed, it was the Falklands. Not only do they essentially say the Falklands are Argentine, but there's also a part training on a WW1 or WW2 memorial which is just unnecessary.

[Kieran]

Erm did you not read the last message? In hommage to fallen war veterans. Also the fact they filmed it showing the Union Jack and other UK items such as the phonebox is a giveaway they aren't saying they own it -.-

[Chippiewill]

Union Jack and other UK items such as the phonebox is a giveaway they aren't saying they own it -.-

Yeah the fact they said Argentine soil is the giveaway that they're saying they own it.

[dbgtz]

Erm did you not read the last message? In hommage to fallen war veterans. Also the fact they filmed it showing the Union Jack and other UK items such as the phonebox is a giveaway they aren't saying they own it -.-

"To compete on English soil, we train on Argentine soil". Inevitably the things shown will be British so that it is known to be the islands (and the fact the islands are British). If it was paying any form of tribute, they'd give up the idea that the islands are there so their children don't try to take them. They must also be really ashamed of the soldiers considering it was filmed in secret in the early morning.

[jasey]

I believe the British need to get the stick out of their bum regarding so many things political. For example: Argentina, the European Community and their continuing decline as a great power. I am not taking sides on any of these issues but I find the British right to be insufferably arrogant regarding anything that involves their opinion. Then again, I find more similarity between the British right and the American right than I do between the British right and, perhaps, the French right. There is more poise elsewhere in Europe. I am so glad the United Kingdom is an island nation!

[GommeInc]

What a stupid advert. What Argentina have done with this advert is: Go over to the Falklands, metaphorically urinate on the ground and then stick their heads in the ground they have nicely dampened when questioned about their actions. This has shamed them (assuming they had any dignity left), especially when they show a sensitive monument being trampled upon and used in their propaganda film. But that's typical of them, fighting to preserve democracy and freedom is something they disagree with, considering they played virtually no part in either of the World Wars and do not want to give the Falkland Islanders a say on who should Govern and indeed reign over them.

I still think the world should aim all nukes at Bueno Aires and rid the world of such a whingey little child of a nation, one who wanted freedom from Spain to create their own democracy but couldn't care less of all the other countries who believe in democratic values.

I am not taking sides on any of these issues but I find the British right to be insufferably arrogant regarding anything that involves their opinion.

Technically it's considered fact that the British colonised the Falklands. Even if it didn't, previous to the Falklands War they couldn't give a damn about who owned the islands. It was their military leadership that wanted to direct internal troubles to something controversial like war, and given the way they seem to act as a nation, war and generally being angry seems to be a 'thing' for them.

Also, I'd always back the country that doesn't use propaganda to brain wash their citizens and lie through their media. I still cannot get over the fact the Argentines sunk a British ship that was decommissioned many years before the war At least we were honest about the Belgrano, which we shouldn't of sunk and is the biggest British mistake during the war. But obviously saying such things directs away from what is important - Argentina invading in the first place.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I believe the British need to get the stick out of their bum regarding so many things political. For example: Argentina, the European Community and their continuing decline as a great power. I am not taking sides on any of these issues but I find the British right to be insufferably arrogant regarding anything that involves their opinion. Then again, I find more similarity between the British right and the American right than I do between the British right and, perhaps, the French right. There is more poise elsewhere in Europe. I am so glad the United Kingdom is an island nation!

Is this a post made in jest? so you argue, as to prevent our decline, that we [the United Kingdom] submerge ourselves into the European Union to be ruled by unelected foreign officials? would you like to explain to me how exactly this prevents or reverses our 'continuing decline'? or is it actually that our 'continued decline' is partly a result of being ruled by foreign officials with no understanding of our customs or traditions since the 1970s?

Secondly a question regarding our 'continued decline' and the Falkland Islands. Do you believe our 'continued decline' would be somehow halted by us giving away our own property and people to a second rate nation? (Argentina). Would you like to explain the logic to me in how such a humiliating act would somehow enhance our power on the world stage?

PS. How's that 'European Community' Euro working out in France for ya?

PS again. Don't throw stones when in a glass house. And yet you speak to us of insufferable arrogance - incredible.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Also, I'd always back the country that doesn't use propaganda to brain wash their citizens and lie through their media. I still cannot get over the fact the Argentines sunk a British ship that was decommissioned many years before the war At least we were honest about the Belgrano, which we shouldn't of sunk and is the biggest British mistake during the war. But obviously saying such things directs away from what is important - Argentina invading in the first place.

The sinking of the Belgrano a mistake? are you entirely sure about that statement? the Prime Minister was involved in a just war, and when faced with an enemy ship close by to British naval ships she made the call to correctly sink the enemy ship just as they would have done so (and as one of their Generals admitted was part and parcel of the war). The truth is that even had it been apparently moving away from the exclusion zone, it posed a future threat to British lives and any decent or thinking Prime Minister would have made the same call.

Don't just take it from me..

From the Argentinian point of view;

"It was absolutely not a war crime,’ said the Belgrano’s captain, Hector Bonzo, in an interview two years before his death in 2009.

‘It was an act of war, lamentably legal.’

Meanwhile, the Argentine admiral Enrique Molina Pico later admitted the location of the Belgrano outside the Exclusion Zone ‘did not mean it was withdrawn from the war’.

‘The integrated naval force had been deployed to carry out an attack on the British fleet in a co-ordinated operation with other naval groups,’ he wrote.

‘The heading away from the enemy fleet was only momentary, as the commander saw fit to wait for a more convenient time (to attack).

'The Belgrano and the other ships were a threat and a danger to the British.’

These admissions tally with the signals intercepts revealed by Major Thorp, which show that the Argentinian vessels had been ordered to engage in a pincer attack.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1thcx6B9V
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aZdAyHVjzQ

Thatcher herself correctly stated "I think it could only be in Britain that a British Prime Minister could be asked why she took action to protect our ships against an enemy ship that was a danger to our shipping."

[GommeInc]

The sinking of the Belgrano a mistake? are you entirely sure about that statement? the Prime Minister was involved in a just war, and when faced with an enemy ship close by to British naval ships she made the call to correctly sink the enemy ship just as they would have done so (and as one of their Generals admitted was part and parcel of the war). The truth is that even had it been apparently moving away from the exclusion zone, it posed a future threat to British lives and any decent or thinking Prime Minister would have made the same call.

From what I read it was in retreat at the time of impact and outside the boundaries we set up. But that's from quickly walking passed while the news was on and reading the odd article, so I could be wrong It was a strangely disproportionate amount of Argentine people killed, but if they're going to randomly invade they probably should of thought of what the consequences were going to be before committing themselves.

[-:Undertaker:-]

From what I read it was in retreat at the time of impact and outside the boundaries we set up. But that's from quickly walking passed while the news was on and reading the odd article, so I could be wrong It was a strangely disproportionate amount of Argentine people killed, but if they're going to randomly invade they probably should of thought of what the consequences were going to be before committing themselves.

It was outside the boundaries but that is known as a naval technique called 'zig-zagging' - every naval ship does it, both in and out of combat (which, as you can see above, the Belgrano was in combat at the time). It is done as to avoid detection by the enemy and/or to confuse them.

Everybody (including the Argentinians themselves, see above) except those on the anti-British left know it was the right course of action.