Israel supplied arms to Argentina during Falklands war

reply to post by gravitational


Thats a little harsh seeing as Britain helped establish the state of Israel.

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour

en.wikipedia.org...
www.thenagain.info...

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Yes, they did help... but they also did much damage... Gravitational gave a couple of examples... they also gave controlling bases to the Arabs when they left in 1948, they trained and armed the Jordanian legion, which at the time was the best military force in the arab world... etc etc..

The Argentinians made fundamental mistakes such as not extending the runway at Stanley to allow a continuous supply of fresh aircraft to be used around the clock. They instead could only do bombing runs every few hours while the Harrier was able to be used 24/7 in the first 2 weeks. The Argentinian airforce lost about 75 strike aircraft.

The Harrier itself may have been slow in terms of the Argentinians Air forces Mirages and Skyhawks but the harrier could easily outmanoeuvre the faster Mirages and Skyhawks.

Argentina's Army was always based on the privileged Officer class and the poorer conscripts this split was seen many times when British units captured Argentine units with only NCO's in command.

Finally Brigadier General Menendez was a complete idiot when it came to the defence of the islands. Even President Galtieri knew this.

The list does go on and on basically the Argentine military were just not up to it.

The reality was Argentina failed to use its Submarines, Aircraft carrier to there fullest also the fact hey failed to supply there ground troops properly was not the best.

Originally posted by Count Chocula
reply to post by Man1fesT

 

German is spoken by 500,000 Argentinians.

It would have been ironic if they made you learn that too, seeing how the USA prevented that very thing happening in two other wars.

[/quote

By the time the Americans entered 'the great war' (nothing really 'great' about it) the German's were exhausted anyway, as for the second round, The American's were upset that the German army was not paying top price for the Ford trucks being produced in the plant just outside Paris, strange how it never got bombed.

Originally posted by Count Chocula
reply to post by douggie60

 

Wrong. A well kept secret is that the United States threatened Argentina with a full scale military intervention if they didn't allow the Brits to "win" back the Falklands. Up to that point Argentina was kicking the brits butts all over the place, sinking ships, etc. If it wasn't for USA bailing you Brits out once again, the UK would probably be speaking Argentinian right now.

You got a source for that BS?

Originally posted by douggie60
Yeah good on you Isreal. And I read along time back that the US used their spy satellites to give information to the Argentinians, about BRITISH ship positions.?? Makes you wonder Huh!!!.

You have that backwards. The US used it's satellites to inform our British cousins of the Argentinian forces disposition. Not only that we also provided the Brits the then new and improved [For the Period] AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles.
SOURCE

During the Falklands war in 1982, 100 AIM-9L missiles were supplied to the RAF and RNavy, since none of the European-produced Lima models had actually reached British forces. Used by RN Sea Hariers and RAF Harriers (deployed on board RN ships), the missiles scored 17 known kills and 2 assists against Argentinian aircraft.

But please go ahead with your regurgitation of over the TOP anti-US BS.

Guys what's with the hate?

If you disagree with something then fine, but some of these posts are verging on blind racism and some aren't even substantial.

Provide links if you're gonna throw wild and dangerous accusations too.

Peace

perhaps, if we had lost the war, that 8itch, Thatcher would have lost the election and wouldn't have been able to do so much damage to our country...

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yes the US did aid the UK with intelligence etc during the conflict but it was quite reluctant to do so and would much preferred to stay completely neutral.
Their hand was forced when Thatcher threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons on Argentinian home soil.

Our staunch allies Canada, Australia and New Zealand offered immediate assisitance.
Their friendship is highlly regarded and will never be forgotten.

It's hardly surprising that Israel would have conspired with UK enemies, we have never been on the greatest of terms.

And we expect nothing less of The French who we have essentially been at odds with for about a thousand years!

Contrary to what some may believe I think the US will always eventually side with the UK; there are strong ties that bind.
And despite the annoying habit of some Americans believing all the Holywood myths and massive exaggerations about the US and their Armed Forces in WWII etc, I for one am grateful for the role the US and it's servicemen comtinue to play in world events.

Oh, and as for the suggestion that Argentina was beating the UK, don't be so stupid!
We travelled 8000miles in open view with ill equipped, but highly trained and motivated servicemen, and still beat them swiftly and convincingly.

Originally posted by Count Chocula Wrong. A well kept secret is that the United States threatened Argentina with a full scale military intervention if they didn't allow the Brits to "win" back the Falklands. Up to that point Argentina was kicking the brits butts all over the place, sinking ships, etc. If it wasn't for USA bailing you Brits out once again, the UK would probably be speaking Argentinian right now.

Are you a Yank by any chance?

It may have escaped your notice cousin that we Brits can manage very well on our own, unlike you Coke swilling, gum chewing, red necks.

Not only were the Israelis providing the Argies with small arms and ammo and anything else they [Argies] could get their grubby little mitts on, but France was supplying Exocet anti-ship missiles and you Yanks were supplying next generation night vision equipment to Argie snipers.

Your red-necks even sent a couple of dozen terrorists to fight alongside their friends in the Argie Marines. What a pity they did not stand and fight like the Argie conscripts did instead of running away when faced with British bayonets and L2 grenades. Just ask the Green Eyed Boys what happened when they caught a couple at Goose Green.

Of course you can scoff at that but, as with every other war you Yanks have started, you always ask we Brits to help you out. After all, even you Yanks know quality when you see it!

Originally posted by SprocketUK
perhaps, if we had lost the war, that 8itch, Thatcher would have lost the election and wouldn't have been able to do so much damage to our country...

Alas that was the downside to it.
(Well, that and all the death's!)

Thatcher was in deep trouble before The Falklands and all opinion polls had her trailing and were predicting a Labour victory.

We are still suffering from the consequences of her government and it's policies.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Yes the US did aid the UK with intelligence etc during the conflict but it was quite reluctant to do so and would much preferred to stay completely neutral. Their hand was forced when Thatcher threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons on Argentinian home soil.

Do you have a source for this "Nuke" angle? Also Reagan had a political balancing act to do with the Democrats regarding the Monroe Doctrine. But in the end supporting another NATO Allie trumped the Doctrine in that case.

Our staunch allies Canada, Australia and New Zealand offered immediate assisitance.
Their friendship is highlly regarded and will never be forgotten.

Setting all opinions aside...
YET, It was the US which provided the intel and weapons systems.

And we expect nothing less of The French who we have essentially been at odds with for about a thousand years!

No love loss there

Contrary to what some may believe I think the US will always eventually side with the UK; there are strong ties that bind.

No arguments there.

Oh, and as for the suggestion that Argentina was beating the UK, don't be so stupid!
We travelled 8000miles in open view with ill equipped, but highly trained and motivated servicemen, and still beat them swiftly and convincingly.

I hope you're not directing this at me?
Although the US provided Intel and weapons I'm sure the Brits were more than capable of handling Argentina on their own. It's just nice to have a Real Allie on your six providing Real support not just "offering assistance."

Remember, those two were as thick as thieves

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0016f4613564.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by bigyin

Interviews conducted by the author of the book, the Argentine journalist Hernan Dobry, reveal that Begin saw the deals as a form of revenge for the hanging of a personal friend, Dov Gruner, by the British Mandatory Authorities in Palestine in 1947

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Okay. So this makes Israel accountable for itself, no-one else. They are a sovereign country and makes decisions based on it's needs. Not Britains, not Americas' but to Israel itself.
So I guess shame shame for Israel doing something that we didn't agree with. Good thing that ALL OTHER countries follow all the rules and obey us.

Ooh, another were better than the Brits session eh?

What is with people?? Why must the Post degenerate into a Brit bashing session? There is no point to it at all, No way would the British people be speaking German or Argie now even if the Germans had managed to get into Britain that is the most stupid thing ever dreamed up and anyone that believes that needs a reality check!

Also, IF (a very big if) the the Nazi's had invaded and taken over where do you think would of been next?? With the V2 rocket in their posession and the Jet engine , they would of been looking at the trans Atlantic option! America had no response to this weapon nor did they have the know how! Von Braun was a Nazi Worker was he not??

Maybe ze US of ze A, vould now meanz ZE united Sates Of Ze Adolf, and you would be talking ze Germanian too,

As for Israel Personally i would rather have them nutters on side than against them, So they supplied arms to the Argies, Well they were on the losing side were'nt they ???? Poor decision then...

Im not sure about the nuke side of the falklands conflict, the nearest i think we may of got to that was lobbing microwave ovens at them (were they available in 1982)..

I feel nowadays if the argies invade again we would struggle to defend the islands as cutbacks and lack of a carrier has rendered the UK less potent a force, a few Typhoons and a garrison will not be enough for a full blown assault .... Guess we need our cousins from over the pond and around the planet after all ...

Regards

Git

I was under the impression that it was Britain that paved the way for the creation of Israel in the first place.

But I must be foolish to assume that would mean they would be indebted to us in any way or even warrent any amount of loyalty in times of crises.

There are some people who would back up those who had helped to found their country, as far as I know all the British Commonwelath Countries who were once part of the British Empire but long since been given back their sovereignty do still side with Britain when asked to do so.

reply to post by bigyin


Actually, while the Balfour declaration was given by the Brits, it was mostly because it was them controlling this area, so the Jews had to deal with them...

Actually, the Brits and French are mostly responsible (in my view) to many of the problems of the middle-east today, they "created" countries out of no-where (Jordan, Syria, Saudi-Arabia etc...)

While the Brits gave the initial start for the Jewish country, the posed more obstacles:

1) They severely limited the number of Jews allowed to come to Israel (what was called the "White Book").
2) They prohibited the building of new settlements (which led the Jews to do what was called "Wall and Tower" settlements - according to Mandate law, a settlement wasn't recognized as one unless it had a wall and a tower, so they built one during a single night)
3) They actively prevented Jews from defending themselves against Arab attacks, by: confiscating weapons and other means.
4) When they left Israel, after the Mandate expired (in May 1948), they handed the Arabs controlling land, with what was known as "Taggart fortresses" (in essence fortified police stations), taking those back from the Arabs cost a lot of lives...
5) They trained and financed the Jordan Legion, which was the best military force in the are at that time, and fought against Israel in 1948 in the eastern front... that is why Israel never managed to get Jerusalem (i.e. the old city and the holy places) during the war... The legion had control of a place called Latroun en-route to Jerusalem, and Israel failed to take it, despite several attacks, and paid dearly for those attempts (Arik Sharon was severely wounded in one of those attacks...)

So, as you see, while they started the roots, they didn't really help... and their behavior towards Israel over the years haven't been kind either... and also, do the Brits sell weapons to countries that are enemies of Israel? Saudi Arabia? any other country?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Do you have a source for this "Nuke" angle? Also Reagan had a political balancing act to do with the Democrats regarding the Monroe Doctrine. But in the end supporting another NATO Allie trumped the Doctrine in that case.

www.guardian.co.uk...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obviously Reagan was aware of the threat and wanted to avoid any nuclear deployment, it may sound strange but he had a bit more restraint than Thatcher and seemed more aware of the possible wider implications.
Thatcher was very much a tunnel visioned type of politician and seemed to be obsessed with proving she had bigger balls than her male counterparts.

I hope you're not directing this at me?

You should know me better than that,

But by no means trying to belittle the mutual aid the UK and USA have offered each other over the years the continued, and unconditional, support Canada, Australia and New Zealand have given the UK also deserves recognition and the British people should never forget it.

I honestly believe that the ties that bind all our countries are strong and true and we should be proud of it!


ETA.

Good to see you about Git

So, one extremist right-wing government was arming another extremist right-wing government that was fighting a "war" with a third extremist right-wing government?

The two at war got to flex all that jingo and patriotism to bend their own people to their demands, while the third made a quick buck to aid its nearly-genocidal campaign against das Libanesischen untermench?

Color me surprised.

reply to post by ender_shadow


I see, so because Britain did not allow every Jew on the planet to go straight to Israel, arm them all, shift the existing Arabs out of the road, and give Jews anything they wanted, we're the bad guys.

Just sounds pathetic typical whining if you ask me.