PDA

View Full Version : Claim and counterclaim.



Firefly
01-26-2006, 05:31 AM
Please post all your debates on who should own the Islands in this topic.

1000ydstare
01-26-2006, 05:45 AM
Britain does.

You can tell by the big Union Flag that flies above them, and the wreckage of equipment and dreams left by the Argintinians in '82.

Man of Stoat
01-26-2006, 06:05 AM
It really is the call of the islanders, who have three main options (not including insanely complicated "leaseback" arrangements):

1: status quo
2: full independence
3: become part of Argentina

Now, what would happen if they chose options 2 or 3?

2: the only thing that would really change, as far as I can tell from my knowledge of their political arrangements, is that they would lose their defence grant, and thus the British military presence and much of the FIDF funding. In this case, I believe that Argentina would invade them faster than a very fast thing.

3: assuming that Argentina would impose itself in the a similar way politically as it did martially during its short occupation, they would lose their official language, their culture, be forced to drive on the wrong side of the road, etc.

Given the way Argentina acted towards the population in 1982, they well and truly burned their boats with regard to cordial relations with the islanders. Whilst trying to portray themselves in Argentina as an army of "liberators", having liberated the alledgedly predominantly Hispanic, Spanish-speaking population from the British yoke, they acted very much like an oppressive army of occupation toward the almost exclusively Anglo-Saxon islanders, which indeed they were.

SS Tiger
01-26-2006, 11:15 AM
The islanders regard them selfs as British so that in my opinion makes them British.

Gregory
12-05-2006, 08:15 AM
... who should own the Islands in this topic.
The Kelpers under the UN protectorate.

The Kelpers who feel neither British nor Argentinian. The Kelpers, nice people giving during the Faklands War first aid for the wounded soldiers of both fighting sides.

:cool:

Panzerknacker
03-22-2007, 09:22 PM
: assuming that Argentina would impose itself in the a similar way politically as it did martially during its short occupation, they would lose their official language, their culture, be forced to drive on the wrong side of the road, etc.


The order to drive by the right had an very practical purpose, that the military vehicles did not colide head on with a civilian Rover. Pretty logic.



Whilst trying to portray themselves in Argentina as an army of "liberators", having liberated the alledgedly predominantly Hispanic, Spanish-speaking population from the British yoke, they acted very much like an oppressive army of occupation toward the almost exclusively Anglo-Saxon islanders, which indeed they were.

Yes sure, and this is a pic of a concentration camp. About some 50 islanders a day were burned in here. :roll:


http://spanish.people.com.cn/mediafile/200504/27/F2005042718325600000.jpg

1000ydstare
03-23-2007, 12:30 AM
The order to drive by the right had an very practical purpose, that the military vehicles did not colide head on with a civilian Rover. Pretty logic.

Or the military could have driven on the left hand side, and respected the existing Island rules on driving....

Whilst practical, it was a silly law to enact. It would have been equally practical, and more locally sensitive to have the invaders (which you were, that is how you were seen) obey local laws. And speak English, and instead of handing out orders left, right and centre, ask politely.

Kicking in doors and shouting may have worked for the Junta during their own problems back on the mainland, but the Islanders were used to a little more refinement. Every Englishments home is his castle remember.


Yes sure, and this is a pic of a concentration camp. About some 50 islanders a day were burned in here

Don't be stupid. For a long time I have respected you on this site. You were far more level headed, even when at odds with some one, than others of your nation. Don't let yourself down.

Many of the soldiers, who landed on the islands, were shocked by their greeting. They actually expected to be met as heros by a population and culture that was similar to their own. That they were shunned by the English speaking Islanders (with their own culture, it is not strictly even British) perplexed them.

Their lock down of the Islands did little to endear them to the Islanders.

Sorry, but that is the fact of it.

Chevan
03-23-2007, 01:51 AM
Don't be stupid. For a long time I have respected you on this site. You were far more level headed, even when at odds with some one, than others of your nation. Don't let yourself down.

.
He He ;)
Why he must be the a stupid if he simply try to explain us the point of Argentinians.

1000ydstare
03-23-2007, 05:15 AM
Because, Chevan, the full conversation would go like this....

Man_of_Stoat wrote

Whilst trying to portray themselves in Argentina as an army of "liberators", having liberated the alledgedly predominantly Hispanic, Spanish-speaking population from the British yoke, they acted very much like an oppressive army of occupation toward the almost exclusively Anglo-Saxon islanders, which indeed they were.

Panzerknacker wrote

Yes sure, and this is a pic of a concentration camp. About some 50 islanders a day were burned in here.

http://spanish.people.com.cn/mediafile/200504/27/F2005042718325600000.jpg


I wrote

Don't be stupid. For a long time I have respected you on this site. You were far more level headed, even when at odds with some one, than others of your nation. Don't let yourself down.

Many of the soldiers, who landed on the islands, were shocked by their greeting. They actually expected to be met as heros by a population and culture that was similar to their own. That they were shunned by the English speaking Islanders (with their own culture, it is not strictly even British) perplexed them.

Their lock down of the Islands did little to endear them to the Islanders.

I appreciate the Argentines may have a different view on it, but this is the simple truth. Panzerknackers retort wrt death camps is flippant and foolish.

They invaded the islands, using force. They stripped radios and other private property from the locals (yes, I know this happens in many invasions), they forced rules on to the islands, such as driving on the wrong side of the road. They declared the new langauge to be Spanish, few islanders spoke this language, few Argentines invaders spoke English. The Islanders were subject to curfews and liable to be shot on sight if out after these times.

Many of the conscripts resorted to stealling from the locals, mainly food (esp sheep) to feed themselves, due to the logistics on the islands being a cluster fcuk.

I could go on. The local radio station was forceably entered and switched off, this is vital to outlying communities on the islands who may not see people for days, likewise the radio comms were turned off. Had a person needed medical assistance, the Port Stanley radio was off.

Both in the run up, during and after, Argentina proclaimed the islanders WANTED them their, wanted to be freed from UK and they had liberated them in as peaceful means as possible. And everyone was happy, apart from the Brits.

This was not the case. The islanders didn't want the Argies their anymore than they wanted the Brits their. They are quite independant. THey only have the Brits there now under sufference as protection against Argentine agrresion. And they certainly didn't want to be ordered about by the Argentines.

The invasion, was basically a big gamble that went wrong. The Argentines would probably have got further had they stood back. But hey.

They still stand to gain more by backing off, and supporting the Islands quest for oil etc. than to force themselves on to the islands in any way.

I respect panzerknackers views, and welcome the argentine perspective but the above is an example of idiocy.

Note that I haven't similarly treated Panzerknackers comments about the practicallities of forceing the islanders over to teh wrong side of hte road.

From the Argentine view this was sensible, no collisions, and the more Argentine drivers of large vehicles to train to drive on the left hand side, than Islanders to get used to driving on the wrong side.

But from the Islanders point of view it was an intrusion. Hence they played chicken with the Argentines. and didn't riled against it.

The Argentines could have adopted their way of driving on the grounds it was THEIR home, not the Argentines regardless of who owned the territory. This would have shown respect.

Chevan
03-23-2007, 07:39 AM
Because, Chevan, the full conversation would go like this....
I have already read the full conversation ydstare;)


I appreciate the Argentines may have a different view on it, but this is the simple truth. Panzerknackers retort wrt death camps is flippant and foolish.

This is a simple irony which nevertheless was painfully for you.
But i think the Man_of_Stoat might knew about possible sarcasm reaction of any argentinias to the portray about "angry Argentinias inviders" and "poor" the Britain who was the victim of agression. This is look like propoganda (Sorry , just my irony. ;)

Cheers.

1000ydstare
03-23-2007, 08:21 AM
Not at all.

It was only painful to read, not painful to me.

As for the poor Britain. Not really, we had lowered our defences, and underestimated the Junta. Hardly poor Britain.

The Argies weren't angry when they invaded. The conscripts, at least, believed they were doing something good. That the Islanders thought otherwise, well they always were. You don't land a substantial aggresive amphibious force on any Island and expect a warm welcome.

And it was not irony. Get a grip, man.

Panzerknacker
03-23-2007, 08:31 AM
First to all my post was directed to M.O.S well know by his corrosive way of posting, who unfortunately (or fortunately ,opinions may vary in here) did not participate much lastly.

The "problem" is simple the Argentine military saw the islands as part of his territory that just hapen to be in foreing hands, why should change in their way of driving ?



Don't be stupid

Really ? Who was more stupid, who claim that the woman pictures were hurting him?, who was the guy who post a picture of a plastic toy and said this was the new Argentine aircraft carrier?

In any case I apreciated that you did not use that kind of words refering to me any more or I will be forced to take some actions.

Chevan
03-23-2007, 08:37 AM
Not at all.

It was only painful to read, not painful to me.

As for the poor Britain. Not really, we had lowered our defences, and underestimated the Junta. Hardly poor Britain.

The Argies weren't angry when they invaded. The conscripts, at least, believed they were doing something good. That the Islanders thought otherwise, well they always were. You don't land a substantial aggresive amphibious force on any Island and expect a warm welcome.

And it was not irony. Get a grip, man.
Yea it was not irony but sarcasm , so better ;)
But will it "not painful" to you to read about British participation on the different agression of whole states ( not just some islands).
I don't think so.
So why do you think this is will not be paintful to wrote about Agrentinian junta agression in Falklands in the forum where the argentinians are ;)

Cheers.

1000ydstare
03-23-2007, 01:49 PM
The "problem" is simple the Argentine military saw the islands as part of his territory that just hapen to be in foreing hands, why should change in their way of driving ?


Because the locals drove on the left side of the road. It is sensitive to them, esp when you have just invaded them, and want to be friendly.

I have never posted a picture of a toy and said it was an aircraft carrier. If you can prove otherwise please do so. I have shown pictures of girls and dolls depicting Argentine soldiers and sailors.

My point about the pictures of women, some of which I have viewed and appreciated, was to prevent the site from becoming some sort of adolescent porn supplier.

If I feel you act stupid I will tell you so. Don't make pointless threats.

Chevan, I don't find talking about history painful, not even when it affects me personally. It is history, and I try to remove myself from it.

If the Falklands invasion were painful to me, then I would be positivly high about the conclusion wouldn't I.... ie the Argentines being booted off again.

Panzerknacker
03-23-2007, 05:07 PM
I have never posted a picture of a toy and said it was an aircraft carrier.


You have, in the argentine Military topic.


My point about the pictures of women, some of which I have viewed and appreciated, was to prevent the site from becoming some sort of adolescent porn supplier.


No worry , no going to happen.


If I feel you act stupid I will tell you so. Don't make pointless threats.


Is no treath, any other "dont be stupid" and you get some infraction points, The english migh not be as extend language as the spanish but I think there is better ways to explain your point without insulting anybody.

1000ydstare
03-24-2007, 08:27 AM
I don't see the word stupid as an insult, it is descriptive, if you do, not a problem I will use other words just as or more descriptive :D

I don't believe I have posted a picture of a toy, but if I have, oh well. Find it and remove all doubt. I am not overly concerned.

This has nothing to do with the current topic, so why don't we get back on. You can take you and Chevans love in messages back to the PMs.

What do you think of forcing the Islanders to drive on the wrong side of the road? A practical or inflammatory measure? I agree with you it was practical, but how about how affected the invasion and how it affected both sides?

Cuts
03-24-2007, 12:11 PM
Edit.

Panzerknacker
03-24-2007, 12:46 PM
The plastic toy was put by 1000y in the page 16 of the Argentine Military topic. I erased that message already. You still can found a reference of me to that picture in the last post of the page 18.


Come on Panzer, please pack it in. That's exactly how Erwin_Schätzer started to get silly

Cuts: your comparative of me with that crazy, deviated, wacko, and completely annoying troll called Erwin is so insulting that it did not deserve further comments.


Please let's not let machismo nor bad translation (accidental or not,) get into this, things had been going so swimmingly on the forum.
In the post immediately previous to yours he only said that if he feels you act in such a manner he would say so. Let's keep these discussions on a calm level, eh ?

I already told you in the Argentine Military topic, I am not a priest of machismo ( wich is the teorical superiority of the men over the woman)
but I am a macho for sure. The macho is translation of male, but off course in Argentina means much more than that, some concepts would be uninteligible to a englishman so I will no try to explain those.

If the thing has going so swimmingly is because I and other moderators have strong hand with the spams, trolls, and the agresiveness between Members. Being a member myself I demand respect also.

If you want to keep the discussion in the calm level I suggest that you did not made comparison like the above anymore.

1000ydstare
03-24-2007, 01:26 PM
What do you think of forcing the Islanders to drive on the wrong side of the road? A practical or inflammatory measure? I agree with you it was practical, but how about how affected the invasion and how it affected both sides?

Panzerknacker
03-24-2007, 01:54 PM
And you think that is inflammatory?

Inflammatory would be a bunch of soldier burning houses and raping women.

Is practical , no much opinion about it, I guess that in some time in april there was more Argentine armor and trucks in Port Stanley/Puerto Argentino than civilian vehicles so it was not a thing to die for. That not make more friends between the Kelpers? ...too bad but was needed for the fluent military operations.


In 1833 the British did not come looking for friends.

Cuts
03-24-2007, 03:16 PM
The plastic toy was put by 1000y in the page 16 of the Argentine Military topic. I erased that message already. You still can found a reference of me to that picture in the last post of the page 18.



Come on Panzer, please pack it in. That's exactly how Erwin_Schätzer started to get silly

Cuts: your comparative of me with that crazy, deviated, wacko, and completely annoying troll called Erwin is so insulting that it did not deserve further comments.



Please let's not let machismo nor bad translation (accidental or not,) get into this, things had been going so swimmingly on the forum.
In the post immediately previous to yours he only said that if he feels you act in such a manner he would say so. Let's keep these discussions on a calm level, eh ?

I already told you in the Argentine Military topic, I am not a priest of machismo ( wich is the teorical superiority of the men over the woman)
but I am a macho for sure. The macho is translation of male, but off course in Argentina means much more than that, some concepts would be uninteligible to a englishman so I will no try to explain those.

If the thing has going so swimmingly is because I and other moderators have strong hand with the spams, trolls, and the agresiveness between Members. Being a member myself I demand respect also.

If you want to keep the discussion in the calm level I suggest that you did not made comparison like the above anymore.


As you have noted I deleted my post as being unhelpful before you posted the above.
You have not seen fit to do likewise, thereby proving my point.

1000ydstare
03-24-2007, 03:27 PM
Inflammatory would be a bunch of soldier burning houses and raping women.

Stop being silly, we are not talking about 1883, and most of the destruction was caused by the USS Lexington, rather than the British. If I remember rightly, the Argentines didn't put up a fight in 1883, and meekly let the British reclaim the Islands. The Argentines had only used it for a prison colony anyway. The destruction of their homes by USS Lexington, was caused by their impounding several American fishing boats.

Can you prove that British soldiers and sailors were responsible for rape and arson?


Occupation began in 1826 with the foundation of a settlement and a penal colony. The settlement was destroyed by United States warship in 1831 after the Argentinian governor of the islands Luis Vernet seized U.S. seal hunting ships during a dispute over fishing rights. They left behind escaped prisoners and pirates. In November 1832, Argentina sent another governor who was killed in a mutiny. In January 1833, British forces returned, took control, repatriated the remainder of the Argentine settlement, and began to repopulate the islands with British citizens.

Yes, I quite agree it was practical for the Islands to be forced over, but....

If they had instructed their own people to obey a trivial rule like that, it could have gone some way to smoothing the waters. As it was, many Islanders played chicken with teh Argentine vehicles.

Cuts
03-24-2007, 05:01 PM
Further to my last, and with reference to the somewhat odd comment that: "some concepts would be uninteligible to a englishman" [sic]
As the lingua franca of the board is English, I used the word 'machismo,' in that language, to wit:


ma·chis·mo [mah-cheez-moh, -chiz-, muh-]
–noun
1. a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an assumptive attitude that virility, courage, strength, and entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity.

2. a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate: The military campaign was an exercise in national machismo.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=machismo

Nickdfresh
03-24-2007, 06:41 PM
He He ;)
Why he must be the a stupid if he simply try to explain us the point of Argentinians.

Defending fascist military dictators Chevan?:)

Panzerknacker
03-24-2007, 07:06 PM
This topic was started with no much ambitions but has become definately interesting. :D

Let see.


As you have noted I deleted my post as being unhelpful before you posted the above.
You have not seen fit to do likewise, thereby proving my point

Yes sure I am a Erwin s clone. My dear Cuts, if you felt moved to delete your post was because you though something was wrong with it. I had to reply on this particulary because the toy question was repetitive and I felt somebody was calling me a liar. As you insist with your comparative ( wich I repeat is outrageous, offensive and completely unfair) the post remain as it go.


The military campaign was an exercise in national machismo

You are explain me the word machismo, and I was refering to the word Macho but...If you feel happy thinking in that way so be it, happines has became cheap in this days.:rolleyes:




Stop being silly, we are not talking about 1883, and most of the destruction was caused by the USS Lexington, rather than the British. If I remember rightly, the Argentines didn't put up a fight in 1883, and meekly let the British reclaim the Islands. The Argentines had only used it for a prison colony anyway. The destruction of their homes by USS Lexington, was caused by their impounding several American fishing boats.

Can you prove that British soldiers and sailors were responsible for rape and arson?


Again a calificative ? Not being silly at all, I never claim that the british soldier do something like that in 1833, just was given a extreme example of what could be"inflammatory"


If they had instructed their own people to obey a trivial rule like that, it could have gone some way to smoothing the waters. As it was, many Islanders played chicken with teh Argentine vehicles


So they did ? gee...I dont see many future to a land Rover after coliding head on with this...

http://www.blimdanet.com/antiguos/LVTP-7.jpg



Defending fascist military dictators Chevan?:)



Huh ?? I miss something in here. My knowledge could be poor but I think that the last fascist dictator were killed in 1945.

1000ydstare
03-25-2007, 01:11 AM
Again a calificative ? Not being silly at all, I never claim that the british soldier do something like that in 1833, just was given a extreme example of what could be"inflammatory"

No Panzerknacker you are talking drivvel. You know dam well that you posted that "extreme of what could be inflammatory" in a way that could be construed as a representation of British actions during 1833.

In truth, Argentina acted as the aggressor (towards the American Sealers) and was in turn dealt with by the Americans. The British merely moved in, whilst the Argentines fought amongst themselves, which included the destruction of what was left of their settlement at San Paulo and the murder of the lead Argentine.

Whether you like it or not, you are now a clone of Erwin. Unable to see any reason other than your own view. Ie the driving issue, (comparing the forcing of driving rules (not to mention langauge and currency) on to an Islander and saying "at least we didn't rape and burn them" is childish at best).

Prey tell, seeing as it is the 25th anniversary soon, is their some national fervour within your country? A few films to stir the blood perhaps?

1000ydstare
03-25-2007, 01:22 AM
From http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article19.html

Intersting reading on the Islanders perspective. Particlularly this...


'Nice Argies, Nasty Argies'

The Argentine who caused most fear was the "sinister and dangerous" head of military police intelligence, Major Patricio Dowling, who personified "the Argentine terror machine". He had detailed personal dossiers on Islanders and carried out arbitrary house searches and arrests. In one incident at Neil and Glenda Watson's Long Island Farm, Dowling pointed a weapon at their young daughter Lisa and repeatedly ordered her to stand up. Lisa repeatedly said no and continued sucking her thumb, until Dowling gave up.

Dowling was ordered home part way through the occupation by two "decent" senior Argentine officers. Comodoro Carlos Bloomer Reeve, described as "the acceptable face of Argentina", a man of "humanity and bravery" who did a great deal to protect Islanders from the excesses of their compatriots in what he regarded as a misguided adventure. He was amiable, always smiling, not politically driven, having previously lived with his family and made friends with Islanders in 1975/1976 when he ran the Argentine Air Force passenger service to the Falklands. His 1982 task was to organise an interim military administration, helped by naval Captain Barry Melbourne Hussey, "a man of humane principles" who worked to help Islanders.

Orders were that Islanders were to be regarded as Argentine citizens and treated well. In these two officers, Graham Bound writes, "Islanders had gained powerful friends who, though Argentines, proved that fundamental decency could survive when all other strands of civilised behaviour were unravelling."

How delighted the Islanders must have been to be treated as Argentine citizens with some physco "terror" policeman looking to book them a one way ticket out of the back of a hercules like so many other Argentine citizens.

1000ydstare
03-25-2007, 01:38 AM
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=291&id=364912002

Why the Argentines have had their goose.

In 1900 Argentina was one of the top 5 economies, now it is in ruins.


The Falklands’ strong economy and promising prospects mean that, much to the relief of the islanders, they no longer need to have anything to do with their crisis-stricken neighbour and would-be sovereign power, Argentina.

However, relations have improved slowly since the war: under a 1999 accord, Argentines can visit the Falklands. In return, among other concessions, Argentina agreed to co-operate more closely to avoid overfishing between the islands and the mainland.

Some islanders think that admitting Argentines was a step too far, although they are received politely. This correspondent witnessed an encounter in the bar of Stanley’s Upland Goose Hotel, between Don Bonner, a retired islander, and Sergio and Jorge Amadeo, brothers in their thirties from Buenos Aires.

"Why can’t we set aside the politics and concentrate on doing business?" the brothers, both accountants, suggested. Mr Bonner replied, smiling: "Well, that would be a lot easier if your government could stop claiming to own us." The chat ended with warm handshakes, with the Argentines saying "Nice to meet you," and Mr Bonner replying: "Hasta luego".

Later, Sergio Amadeo expressed admiration at how such a small community had built itself an efficient government and a strong economy, but he is sad at the way its prosperity has encouraged the people to turn their backs on Argentina. "Looks like they are on the road to independence," he said with a sigh.

Lets hope that they can be independent with out an aggressive would be owner constantly rattleing their sabre to the West.

1000ydstare
03-25-2007, 01:43 AM
Ha, found it at last. Areference to driving on the correct side of the road.


For two months, British citizens were forced to endure a military occupation by foreigners that were determined to humiliate them, but to force their culture unto them. Spanish was made the official language, and road signs, traffic lights and arrows attempted to force drivers onto the 'wrong' side of the road. They defiantly drove on the 'British' side.

1000ydstare
03-25-2007, 01:53 AM
And a few wikis (prefer not to use them but hey)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War#Life_under_the _occupation


Argentina introduced several unwelcome changes to the culture of the Falkland Islands, in spite of earlier assurances that the islanders' way of life and cultural identity would be maintained.

Argentina made Spanish the official language of the Islands and changed Port Stanley's name to Puerto Argentino. Traffic was commanded to drive on the right by painting arrows on the road indicating the direction of traffic and changing the location of street and traffic signs.

Justification was attempted for the latter act. Argentinian Captain Barry Melbourne Hussey, who was chosen for a position in the administration due to his knowledge and experience of English, claimed safety was a major concern with young conscripts driving large military vehicles.

My bold, you can see why the Argentines are not at the top of the Islanders christmas card list.

Interesting page on driving sides (Read the Afganistan page - drive on the Right but in RHD vehicles!!! Imported from Pakistan) Some interesting titbits, including the 6am change of sides in Iceland (left to right) and Okinawas change from (right to left).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_on_the_right


Many countries have temporarily or permanently changed their rule of the road as a result of foreign occupation. Recent examples include Austria, Czechoslovakia (details) and Hungary under German rule or military transit in the 1930s and '40s. The Channel Islands also changed to driving on the right under German occupation, but changed back after liberation in 1945. The Falkland Islands did the same under Argentine control during the 1982 Falklands War. (Although the Argentine government officially ordered the islanders to drive on the right, they often drove on the left to assert their defiance to occupation.) East Timor changed to driving on the left under Indonesian rule in 1976, and continues the practice as an independent state. The Japanese region of Okinawa changed from left to right under U.S. occupation; after the occupation ended, it changed back to driving on the left to match the rest of Japan.

Well, if it was good enough for the Nazis...

Panzerknacker
03-25-2007, 10:18 AM
If you think that mi quotes are selective, well just that my way of writing

I dont deny that my posture may seems to you arrogant and ironic, but you guys had to learn how to debate without insulting.

So to avoid any more of that the topic will remain closed until the british members get relaxed a bit.

Panzerknacker
03-26-2007, 08:19 PM
Topic reopened.

Some recomendations, let be more precise about you statements to do not repeat thing like this:

-"I never claim that the british soldier do something like that in , just was given a extreme example of what could be"inflammatory"

-"Have I claimed that you were a clone of Erwin Schätzer ?"


-"No sonny, I wasn't explaining any word to you"


So it seems that we had some comunications issues, let try to do not repeat those...Okay ?


Now we continue:

1000y wrote:


In 1900 Argentina was one of the top 5 economies, now it is in ruins.




Can you explain me what you mean with "ruins" and the relationship of that with this topic ?

And also:


Well, if it was good enough for the Nazis...

Are you telling that the Argentine Forces behave in some way like the nazis ?

Firefly
03-27-2007, 03:47 AM
Point one. This topic is for this discussion.


Please post all your debates on who should own the Islands in this topic.


Its not, repeat NOT about anything else.

Once upon a time this section of the Forum was closed for a reason. It seems like some guys have forgotten this.

There are a few things that we know here.

1. Panzer, Cuts and 1000 yd stare have all contributed immensly to this site.

2. If Panzer is accused of being Erwin, then 1000yd is acting like Bluffcove used to.

Please play nice guys and get back on topic, or even open a drive on the right thread. It is now the 25th anniversary of this conflict and we may have some more acticity in these threads because of this. So instead of squabling over minor points, lets post something constructive please.

Thanks.

Panzerknacker
03-27-2007, 09:34 AM
Actually was Cuts who was comparing me with Erwin.

I pretty much aware of that matters are off-topic, but I simple cannot let pass statement like those who claim my country is in ruins and the argentines soldiers behave like nazis, nodody would do that.

Note that all the off topic come from one source.

Gen. Sandworm
03-27-2007, 09:44 AM
As many know this whole section as caused problems in the past. It will not get out of hand again or the whole F&M war discussion will be closed indefinitely. You are warned.

1000ydstare
03-27-2007, 11:30 AM
Panzerknacker wrote


I pretty much aware of that matters are off-topic, but I simple cannot let pass statement like those who claim my country is in ruins and the argentines soldiers behave like nazis, nodody would do that.

Note that all the off topic come from one source.

The statements about your country being in ruins was about your ECONOMY not the general state of your country, especially in relation to its situation around the turn of the last century.

If I am wrong about your economy being in ruins, especially in comparrison to the early 1900s, please correct me..... WITH SOURCES.

The comment was wrt the Islanders and whether or not they would ever want to be part of your country or stay independent, regardless of British defence or otherwise.

I think you will find that my view on the Islands is quite simple. They are their own country and will determine their own future. Yet Britain or the UN should always defend them from aggresors who would remove the right of the Islanders to determine their own future.

I make NO apologies in pointing out, that the aggresors are the Argentines. Your country invaded in 1982, and nothing can change that.

The comment ref your economy was part of a article from the Scotsman newspaper from about 5 years ago, and was to form a intro to the quote straight after it, in which your own people (two visitors to the isles) lament how well the Islanders are doing and how little they need Argetina, unlike around the war.

It is worth pointing out that this newspaper is generaly left wing and quite sort of anti-England and thus government. So I doubt they had any notion of insulting your country by the statement, which is one of the reasons I used it. I felt this was a pertinent point, not a snipe. If you feel it was a snipe, well I can't help that.

Admittedly the Nazi comparison was a snipe. My apologies. It was in retaliation to some of the remarks you made, esp rape arson etc.

Note, in the same way you feel obligated to defend your country, I feel the same way about mine. This is why, for example, I will respond robustly to YOUR comments about mine.

Case in point. My claims that Argentina have broken various rules and bordered on war crimes in various threads have ALL been backed up by credible sources.

In particular the Hospital ship that not only turned its spotlights on a raiding party, but also fired upon them. The laying of mines without proper recording of loctions. The Royal Marines who difused their own booby traps on South Georgia....

In return, and on the same or similar subject, all you came up with was a trashy (as it is known to be in UK) book. Wanting a discussion, but with no evidence to back up your claims at all. In fact all you could was to claim I had missed the point.

In fact, when I brought up THREE possible incidents of British troops commiting such acts you didn't feel the need to discuss them. I also brought up a comparison of two KNOWN acts, one of your Marines who spearheaded the invasion and the attack on Government house (tempered by the events that preceded it) and of possible actions by British soldiers.

I enter all threads willing for discourse, if not always an open mind. It would also be good for you to remember I am actually a proffesional, serving British soldier of SNCO rank. I am, sadly, more than familiar with men in combat, under duress and how they act under these conditions.

Finally.

If you are likely to strop if a thread doesn't go your way, I suggest you stay out of that subject. I have the greatest respect for people on this forum who can prove or back up what they claim. If all you want is me to say "yeah, cool info" unlucky.

FW-190 Pilot
03-27-2007, 01:17 PM
this section is closed for now, and will likely be delete in the near future.