I am not a Machist…I am macho
:lol: :lol:
Let’s put this simply then.
Why does Argentina want an aircraft carrier?
Nope, on second thoughts, I can’t be bothered with this. It’s like talking to IRONCHILD sometimes.
No its not!
Why does any country need a carrier. Only the US has real carriers, then the French with a baby carrier.
I would say why does the UK need any, but that would be very off topic here.
Please discuss the Argentine military, and if you have no interest other than trying to wind up the Argentinians here, I will be polite and say, please dont…
that is what i was waiting for,danke
I dont quiet follow, Do you try to mean that the U.S and U.K are the only countries that really need a Carrier ?
BTW, I will not consider the Charles de Gaulle a baby carrier, not even the lesser Clemenceaus.
Please discuss the Argentine military, and if you have no interest other than trying to wind up the Argentinians here, I will be polite and say, please dont…
I dont know what is “Wind up”… :? .is good that you are polite, I am very polite also.
Now some of the nice things that are in existence in the other side of the Andes, this was bought selling salmon and copper…why we dont have any ? :evil:
Wind up means annoy, make fun off, joke about.
Wind-up significar joder a alguien,hacerlo calentar,insultarlo,eso es señor panzer 
Thank for the help SS tiger and Sturmtruppen.
Wind-up significar joder a alguien,hacerlo calentar,insultarlo,eso es señor panzer
Entonces vos en eso sos experto :D.
Please discuss the Argentine military, and if you have no interest other than trying to wind up the Argentinians here, I will be polite and say, please dont…
Dont remember “wind up” any member of this forum in any of my 170 post.
I do get “wind up” by comments like:
“Let him believe that his country is important enough to be invaded”
…or pictures like the toy ( wich was suposed to be the future argentine carrier) that put 1000yrdstare.
Bueno, es mi punto fuerte :D, pero en fin,si hubieran querido me baneaban! :lol: .
Because we have a government leaded by ex-guerrillas soldiers, who are agaisnt the improvement of the military forces in order to get revenge of the military goverment from 1976 to 1983. That’s why.
I thought you said that they were young idealists and not guerrilleros!, to be truly,the best time for the armed forces (When they were bigger), wasn’t during the junta?,remember 1978 and Chile-Argentina non football match.
Greetings
Erwin
Because we have a government leaded by ex-guerrillas soldiers, who are agaisnt the improvement of the military forces in order to get revenge of the military goverment from 1976 to 1983. That’s why
Not consistent but very true aniway, welcome to the club Eagle, I get kicked off the “Foro Saorbats” for saying exactly the same.
The guys that made the moderation in there are goverment suck… you know what.
glad to see that you finally changed sides mate eagle,enjoy the right! 
Putting national pride to one side, does Argentina need a carrier bourne strike capability. Carriers are fine if you have overseas commitments or military assets to support but as part of a coherent national defence force facing an aggressive neighbour it would be of very limited advantage.In the unlikely event of an invasion by a major power do you not think that a carrier group would be a primary target and would be taken out before boots hit the ground.
At present Argentina’s potential adversry’s share a land border so it makes more sense to make conventional land and air forces the priority to meet the percieved threat, in simple terms let your neighbours waste their money on expensive show pieces like carriers as long as you have the capability to take them out if and when neccesary, a decent MBT with air support to meet any border incursions and top end intelligence gathering to maximise your time to target.
Invincible class carriers
Length: 209 m
Beam: 36.1 m
Draught: 8.4 m
Displacement: 20,400
Crew: around 1000 including aircrew, can carry an extra 500 soldiers
Speed: 28 knots, 18 knots cruising
Range: 7000 nm at 18 knots
The Royal Navy currently has two.
Clemencau class carriers
Displacement: approx. 32,700 tons full load
Dimensions: 780.8 x 104 x 28.2 feet/238 x 31.7 x 8.6 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 869.5 x 168 x 28.2 feet/265 x 51.2 x 8.6 meters
Crew: approx. 1200 + air group
Aircraft: probably approx. 30
Here is a good comparison of our current and our future carriers with the Charles de Gaule for comparison.
In a discussion about any matter facts are brought into play.
So far we have heard no coherent argument supporting a need for an aircraft carrier.
What people mean by “why do you need a carrier” is what is the reason that you believe an aircraft carrier is required.
I don’t see a tremendous worry by expressed anybody with reference to the Argentine economy, perhaps some people should.
I do know that some members support human rights and this may have caused them to think of better ways to use the available capital.
I don’t believe I used the word ‘Machist’ - it is not covered in seventeen English dictionaries so is most unlikely to be found in my English vocabulary.
Perhaps you meant ‘machinist’ ?
I think SS Tiger appeared concerned about selective quoting, and had you extended the same courtesy to my post it would be obvious that a question was offered afterwards.
If you can show an actual military requirement for a carrier I would be more than happy to re-evaluate my statement, however until facts indicating the opposite may be the case then it remains a fact in itself.
I was unaware that we had a thread about the modern Chilean forces, had there been one I’m sure that considered respones to any debates would be posted there too.
Regards,
Cuts.
No its not!
In the true spirit of the panto season, “oh yes it is!”
It’s exactly like dealing with that buffoon precisely becuase Cuts and others provide a coherent proposition, backed by a series of facts, figures and references, and Erwin responds with abuse. I see that Dani has censored some of his wilder insults like a good moderator should, but where is the countervailing discussion of why Argentina would require an aircraft carrier, or anything bigger than a frigate?
Over on the ARRSE site, we are having a discussion as to whether parachuting is still a valid method of troop delivery on the modern battlefield. As you might expect, it’s engendering some heated feeling, but the discussion is kept going by fact and reasoned argument. Sadly that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
Why does any country need a carrier. Only the US has real carriers, then the French with a baby carrier.
I would say why does the UK need any, but that would be very off topic here.
A fair point. Why does the UK need an aircraft carrier, especially when we don’t have aircraft to use from it? With a history of expeditionary warfare and peacekeeping, there may be a requirement, but I doubt it myself. I think we are getting one for political reasons, and the justification for that is weak. Sadly, those who control the purse strings of UK Plc (defence div) are sometimes noted for their lack of forethought in such matters.
Please discuss the Argentine military, and if you have no interest other than trying to wind up the Argentinians here, I will be polite and say, please dont…
I made my post as I was become increasingly irritated by the pig headedness that Erwin displays whenever his opinion is challenged.
I visit this site mainly for the WW2 content. Most of my posts are WW2 related, and not just a series of smileys or nons sequiter.
However, I find my enjoyment of this somewhat tempered by the gibberish from some site members that they feel passes for reasoned debate.
I have often said about my hobbies, that if I cease to enjoy them then I will find something else to do. I am very close to ceasing to enjoy this site and if you don’t get a grip of the more foolish members, I shall toddle off and find some other use for my time.
Kind regards
Fluffy[/quote]
Fluffy
My post was not specifically aimed at you, yours just happened to be the one I was reading at the time.
Where you get annoyed at the ‘Buffoons’, which I fully understand, I also get annoyed at the posts deliberately designed to wind-up the Argentineans. Every time I visit here and see that the Argentine Military thread has been active I just know whats coming.
If anyone here doesnt like the Argentine debates, then why not just ignore them?
Anyway, I shall ponder on this subject with the Mods etc and get back to you.
Well, Charles de Gaulle is not precisely a Mini CRuiser
Erwin responds with abuse
fluffy,you are actually abusing at this topic.
I don’t believe I used the word ‘Machist’ - it is not covered in seventeen English dictionaries so is most unlikely to be found in my English vocabulary.
Perhaps you meant ‘machinist’ ?
ahh funny,a macho is a man,a machist is:
Machismo is a noun of Spanish origin, and refers to a prominently exhibited or excessive masculinity. The word machismo—and its derivatives machista and macho, “he who espouses machismo”—comes from the Spanish word macho, meaning “male” or “manly”. (The word macho literally translates as “male”, but is applied primarily to animals in this sense.) In Spanish macho can sometimes mean “courageous” or “valorous”, although machista rarely has such positive connotations.
As an attitude, machismo ranges from a personal sense of virility to a more extreme masculism. Most machistas believe in conservative gender role ideas. Generally speaking, machistas oppose a woman’s right to work, participate in sports, or pursue other traditionally male roles in society. Many machistas also believe it is their right as men to seek extramarital adventures, although women are to remain faithful. Machistas believe that women were created to stay home and be mothers and wives. Thus, most machistas believe firmly in the superiority of men over women.
Some acts of domestic violence against women have been committed by men who consider themselves superior to women, whereby the doctrine of machista such violence may often be called appropriate or justified.
The most common Spanish term for a woman with exaggerated feminine pride is feminista (as in “feminist”), although some Spanish speakers prefer the female equivalent of macho: hembra (“female” in Spanish), as in “Yo soy muy macho, pero tú eres muy hembra” (I am very macho, but you are very hembra). Today, both feminista and hembra are widely used in modern Spanish.
thank you for the text,WikiGod.
Again Firefly,thankyou very much for your work at here,i know i have been hostile to you but you are still trying to defend me and the guys of my team, muchas gracias 
.
No Sturmtruppen, I’m trying to Mod. You know, not take any sides! If this degenerates into yet another excuse for insults the thread will be locked.