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.
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.
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
-
a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an assumptive attitude that virility, courage, strength, and entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity.
-
a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate: The military campaign was an exercise in national machismo.
Defending fascist military dictators Chevan?
This topic was started with no much ambitions but has become definately interesting. 
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 [SIZE=5]1833,[/SIZE] 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…
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.
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.[/quote](My bold)
Now you really ARE being stupid !
Have I claimed that you were a clone of Erwin Schätzer ?
I removed the post because I did not believe it would add constructively to the debate, and feared that it would inflame a bout of machismo and peacocking. The pickup and protraction of the deleted post has merely confirmed my assumption to be correct.
Your rather loose definition of comparison aside, threatening to use moderator’s control when losing a debate with someone was indeed a tactic that the young lad used on a number of occassions.
[quote="“Panzerknacker”"]
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.[/quote]
No sonny, I wasn’t explaining any word to you, I was pointing out the dictionary definition of the word I used, which differs from your own personal slant on it.
Furthermore your use of the selective quote is disingenous, you were given the source of the reference and now attempt to make it appear as if I had made that point.
If you reall do wish to engage in calm informed debate, then perhaps you should leave the posturing by the door and refrain from flexing your virtual muscles by threatening to use your powers as a moderator.
Panzerkancker, showing a picture of a heavy, armoured vehicle and claiming no one would want to hit it is stupid. Note, I have used that word again.
Regardless of how large or heavy it is, it does not change the fact.
The Argies attempted to force the Islanders over to the other side of the road, the Islanders fought it…
By playing chicken with the Argentine vehicles. Sh1t bust.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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 ?
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.
-
Panzer, Cuts and 1000 yd stare have all contributed immensly to this site.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
this section is closed for now, and will likely be delete in the near future.