Please post all your debates on who should own the Islands in this topic.
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.
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.
The islanders regard them selfs as British so that in my opinion makes them British.
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.
: 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:
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.
He He 
Why he must be the a stupid if he simply try to explain us the point of Argentinians.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 
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?
Edit.
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.
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?
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.