argie
-
Posts
787 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by argie
-
-
Imperial Grunt,
you have a misquotation in your signature.
Don't worry, lot of people thinks it is true that Orwell wrote that.
-
Imperial Grunt,
you have a misquotation in your signature.
Don't worry, lot of people thinks it is true that Orwell wrote that.
-
Imperial Grunt,
you have a misquotation in your signature.
Don't worry, lot of people thinks it is true that Orwell wrote that.
-
Llamas are for moral purposes only.
The two buggies with Saggers are a Lobo and a Puma, experimental vehicles under Peruvian Army evaluation.
The two MB Unimogs with SA missiles and AD guns, are Peruvian.
-
Why will USA want to invade Perú?
-
Oh, you have been missing the best of me thenOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:Heh... I see Ariel has not lost any of his fire
Good to see you back here (as opposed to the GF).Steve
(Edit: I've just said "testicles" there).
[ March 28, 2007, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Ariel ]
-
zmoney, sadly, you seems deluded.
If, as you says, the Muslim majority accepts what some whackos do, you should look at what makes them to accept it. Hint: it isn't related to religion, as it wasn't related to religion what, opposing to your suppositions, makes some Christians not only accept, but encourage other Christians to do.
Like the Church in Chile and Spain going full in support of Pinochet and Franco: they gave mass and pardon to people who had just tortured to dead, not communists, but other Christians too.
Power, zmoney, is behind a lot of things. People who is disenfranchised from their own power is easy to manipulate in most cases, but it can be done with or without religion.
-
Have you read my post?
I can provide plenty of examples on tortures and executions in the name of Christianity in LatAm alone in the last century.
Many against people as Christian as nuns and priests. And we have some priests so high ranked as bishops incarcerated facing charges of human rights abuses.
There isn't a matter of hate or fear. Is just what happens with messianic fundamentalists in all dogmas, being them religious or not.
For that is that is unfair to judge a religion for what some people do in its name.
-
Then, you should read a bit on South of Rio Bravo XX century history.Originally posted by zmoney:I personally have never seen a militant Christian cut off another militant Christians head because he wasn't the same exact kind of militant Christian. On the other hand I have seen plenty of militant islamics cut off the heads of other militant islamics because they weren't the same kind of musilem.
-
Which is great, as far as they don't need to do strafing runs
-
Are you doing strafing runs with F-15Es in Afghanistan?
OMG! Those should be the most costly (in cost/efectiveness) CAS operations in history!
-
Ah! There was a long time I didn't enter this Forum. What a refreshing experience!
-
Which moon? You do realize that the Jupiter moon grogs will be all over you for this lack of specific detail?Originally posted by Salkin:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rleete:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by oneirogen:
...ON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON!!!
Great news, we can only hope for an early release. </font>
-
I agree with Kitty also.
For the record, I don't think was 'unfair' to sink the Belgrano, nor I think that the retaking by Argentina was the right thing to do at the moment (of course, this after more than 20 years. At the time, we all were supporting the action as mindlessly as any mass of people in such situation). But the sinking had a far more reaching political aspect than just military. And was done outside of the exclusion zone determined by UK, something that required an specific authorization from London.
-
Absolutely. But the equation the Junta did almost worked, if not by the decision to sink the Belgrano.Originally posted by Sirocco:Argentina itself made the issue much more unresolvable than it might have been by its actions.
think it not in military but geopolitical terms: the UN saw (and sees) the territory as a territory in dispute, not UK properly and the Junta was doing favors to the US State Department in Central America.
The plan was never to fight for the islands, but to reach a convenient settlement for all the parties. Just happened that UK government at the time did the same calculus than the Junta: retaking the islands will help us to keep power in a time of struggle. Thus, the total withdrawn position. If the agreement put forward by the UN sponsored by USA would have been approved by the Junta, then UK would have been in a very bad position to continue the 'needed' retaking. The sinking was the 'point of no return' for war: the Junta was forced to keep the islands or to absolutely lose the little face they have internally, which was the reason for what they started the whole thing, and started it earlier than their own plans stated.
-
Well, the territory was in dispute, thus, diplomatically, an UN arrangement can have been done, and almost was. One of the proposed solutions was a shared government between UK, Argentina and the USA.Originally posted by Sirocco:Anything else would have rewarded aggression. And War was inevitable once the first Argentinian set foot on the island. There was simply no mediation for the UN to do. Argentina chose the path to war, with the obvious consequences.
In fact, the Junta's plan didn't expected to have to deal with UK. The plan was to retake the islands and make an arrangement with the support of the US State Department and the UN. And that arrangement was almost closed the same night the Belgrano was torpedoed outside the exclusion zone. Then the ball to accept a settlement could have been on UK court. Of course, that action forced the hand of the Junta to not accept.
May have been by sheer chance, but, with all due respect, I doubt it.
-
That is a fact imposed by the UK government, right? Haig was trying an UN agreement that could have had the Junta approval. From there, whatever the UK government wanted - total withdrawal or whatever - would have been against UN resolutions on an already considered by UN a disputed territory.Originally posted by Sirocco:The fact remains that only unconditional withdrawal by Argentine forces could have averted war, and that was highly unlikely.
After Belgrano sinking, the Junta just dismissed the Peace Plan.
Those torpedoes sunk the ship and the last peace chance altogether.
Don't get me wrong, for me, a Junta's victory could have been worse in the short time, but that was just the sequence of happenings.
-
All true. But the fact remains that was engaged outside the exclusion zone, that the SSN tracking it would have been very unlucky to lose his track (is a sub designed to track another SSNs, which have a lot less signature and a lot more sustained speed than the pre WWII cruiser), that the political timing was perfect and that the order comes directly from London.Originally posted by Sirocco:The Belgrano was skirting the edge of the exclusion zone. It was sunk because the submarine tracking it wasn't confident that it could maintain contact. At any point it could have changed course and engaged the Task Force. And for what purpose was it there, other than to do just that? If it had stayed in port it would have been perfectly safe.
Wars are not only fight in the military arena, you know. Haig was trying desperately to keep his useful allies in the Central America dirty affairs, and Thatcher wanted the war eagerly for her own political reasons.
-
Malvinas. Except for the blurry Gral. Belgrano cruiser episode, a gentlemen's war. </font>Originally posted by Determinant:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ariel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Berlichtingen:
There has never been a 'clean' war
-
Forget limiting it to the 20th century. Any war period. There has never been a 'clean' war </font>Originally posted by Berlichtingen:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mace:
i) Was Vietnam anymore terrible a war than any of the others of the 20th century?
-
Agree. What could be fun is to play an Iranian Logistic Simulator: trying to make USA stuff work, from small arms to F14s, without spare parts or technical assistance.Originally posted by V- Die Hand die Verletzt:The Iraq-Iran war was not very interesting at the tactical level as well, unless you consider defending against the Persian human child-wave attacks to be interesting.
-
Oh, no! Canada managed to fall out from America! Must be that Commonwealth thing...Originally posted by Kitty:Dorosh is Canadian. Why would he be embarrassed by a post aimed at Americans?
Kitty
-
SPOILER
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I had a Regular Tank Hunter team sitting 4 turns with 2 men and 2 PzFausts at 10m of immobilized M10, in command of the Coy HQ in Line of defense scenario, not suppressed, nor under fire, and Rested. They didn't shot, despite having used all the available grenades and grenade bundles in far more challenging shots up to 35m away and in movement.
Later both the HQ and the TH were captured.
-
What kind of mail software you have?
In Outlook, you only have to select it and use the Save As... command to convert it into text. No need to copy and paste.
Good to see you back here (as opposed to the GF).
About US small arms
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
The internet can't be wrong, right? </font>