RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

redcoat -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/22/2011 6:30:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: 2 May – The ARA Belgrano was sunk because she and her escorts posed a threat to the Task Force. Precisely. I think redcoat (whom I quoted above) put it very well. If there is anything to add, I suppose it would be something along the lines of "They deliberately started a war. Big Boy Rules apply." If there was anything to add I would say "They deliberately started a war. We played by the rules and won."

Schanilec -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/22/2011 6:32:59 PM)
Here, Here!

ilovestrategy -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/22/2011 11:27:09 PM)
It's simple. The Argentines took on the Brits and got spanked. And part of that spanking included losing that ship. Thats what a little boy gets when taking on one of the big boys.

AW1Steve -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 5:53:52 PM)
Post deleted upon request. Apparently it was offensive. [8\|]

witpqs -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 6:18:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Why is everyone so concerned about the Belgrano? And not Sheffield,Ardent,Arrow or Coventry? Or Atlantic Convey, Sir Tristam, Sir Galahad or the 7 or so ships damaged by the Argentinians? That's a little like the Japanese whinning about Leyte Gulf after Pearl Harbor? [:D] Exactly!

Nikademus -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 6:51:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Why is everyone so concerned about the Belgrano? And not Sheffield,Ardent,Arrow or Coventry? Or Atlantic Convey, Sir Tristam, Sir Galahad or the 7 or so ships damaged by the Argentinians? That's a little like the Japanese whinning about Leyte Gulf after Pearl Harbor? [:D] Exactly! It goes back to the comment made about a peculiarity of man. War is the ultimate means to an end, the most brutal and the most violent way to acomplish those means. And people always die. Yet we have a tendancy to try to dress it up almost as an honorable sport....with rules and conduct. (Geneva convention is a great example) Admitedly I have a big discomfort when thinking about this peculiarity. Admitedly I am 'warmed' by reading accounts of opponents who fight hard but when it's over the victor treats the loser with generosity and even geniality. It makes for great stuff. Then you read about wars where there's no illusion of civility. The Pacific war is the best example on this board naturally and so hard are the feelings and such are the racist undertones of that conflict that it impacts us to this day....here on this board via the comments of some. Don't believe me? Start a Japan vs US comparison thread on any topic.....planes...Wildcat vs Zero.....Surface proficiancy, and the #1 favorite of thread lockers.....attrocities. Hell we draw in people who don't even own this game who want in on that hatefest. Then there's the Russo-German conflict....the biggest most brutal no holds barred war man has ever seen. Neither side was under any delusions there. It was kill or be killed. In the modern age, we've gone back to the rules of war.....and try to make war as painless and bloodless as possible. Desert Storm to me remains the ultimate example.....i recall the jublilation and amusement both civilians and military spectators alike had as Gen Schwartzkopf narrated the saga of the "Luckiest Man in Iraq" as he drove his truck over a bridge just seconds before a Cruise missile demolished it. Even at that moment, after a nervous giggle of my own.....i felt that disquiet. If you make war painless and bloodless....then what's to stop future wars from happening? As far as the Belgrano is concerned....i think that it proves another tru-ism. Rules of war are great......as long as you are winning or at least moving forward. If the rules suddenly become "inconvenient"....then they tend to get bent....sometimes even broken. In the end the UK decided to eliminate what they saw as a clear threat. It isn't unreasonable to also think that maybe they were trying to send a message to Argentina as well. "This is not a game....and it's going to cost you more than a few missiles and/or aircraft" I try not to judge leader actions in most cases because there's an arrogance to doing so...as well as the poison of hindsight. It reminds me of a discussion i had at the pub yesterday about Obama. Without being political, the opinion forwarded to me was "He waffled". My response was....."Did he really waffle vs. campaign promises or is it the realization that a leader can't get things done in a democracy without making deals and compromises.....esp with the US system of government. I left it at that. I can't imagine what it must be like to be a political leader or a general.....but i can sound fancy on the Internet. [;)] [;)] [:D] Just me rambling this morning. Ultimate point for me is i try not to judge past leader actions too arrogantly. Its hard to make decisions when your on the hotseat and lives are potentially at stake. Thats a big difference between wargames and real life too!

ChickenOfTheSea -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 7:07:18 PM)
On the surface, this certainly seemed like one of the most pointless wars of all time. However, once challenged, the British had little choice but to respond the way they did. The most ominous sabre-rattling was a real threat of invasion of British Honduras (now Belize) with a threat of racially-based genocide against the population of Belize by the Guatemalan extremists that were then in power. With the sinking of the Belgrano and the Exocet strikes on the British fleet the seriousness of the whole situation really sank in. If the British had failed to respond, the eventual bloodshed probably would have been much worse and it was the beginning of the end for the truly awful military junta that ruled Argentina.

Nikademus -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 7:17:27 PM)
EDIT. Someone got offended I hear. So i'll delete this post as i'm in a rush and must dash. I will hold my opinions on the Faulkland's war origins to myself and the books i've collected on it. If it was about my other recent post. I call things like i see it.....sorry if that offended anyone, but i've been on this board for 10+ years and i've seen more than my share of flame threads to know root causes when i see em over and over and over again.

Dixie -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 7:28:16 PM)
Perhaps it's time to stop the discussion from going any further along this path? It's not going to end well for someone, or several someones and I quite like most of you.

AW1Steve -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 7:50:53 PM)
Post deleted upon request.

AW1Steve -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 8:28:31 PM)
With quite a bit of effort, I've deleted my posts from this thread. But I'd like the "Secret complainer" who apparently has neither the integrity or the guts to ask me himself , to know that I did so on behalf of a Forum regular who I hold in absolute and total respect. For him I did this, not the "secret complainer" whom I hold in absolute and total contempt![:@]

sprior -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 9:15:04 PM)
I knew I shouldn't have spent the day ignoring you lot. It always ends in tears.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 9:27:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve With quite a bit of effort, I've deleted my posts from this thread. But I'd like the "Secret complainer" who apparently has neither the integrity or the guts to ask me himself , to know that I did so on behalf of a Forum regular who I hold in absolute and total respect. For him I did this, not the "secret complainer" whom I hold in absolute and total contempt![:@] Look on the bright side, it doesn't reduce your post count. [;)]

Kitakami -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 9:31:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Perhaps it's time to stop the discussion from going any further along this path? It's not going to end well for someone, or several someones and I quite like most of you. Sigh... I saw it comming from the first few posts. That is why I humbly asked to have the thread locked (and no, I did not complain anonymously about the thread), and decided NOT to read again this thread until today). That particular conflict is too real, too recent, and it hurts too many too much (regardless of which side you are/were on) for the discussion to have gone anywhere but where it headed. Having said that, I will also say that I really respect many of those who have posted in this thread. Your insightful comments on game- and non game- related issues in other threads have educated me more that you will ever know. For that, you have my thanks, gentlemen. Now, shall we all move to other threads, please?

AW1Steve -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 10:01:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kitakami quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Perhaps it's time to stop the discussion from going any further along this path? It's not going to end well for someone, or several someones and I quite like most of you. Sigh... I saw it comming from the first few posts. That is why I humbly asked to have the thread locked (and no, I did not complain anonymously about the thread), and decided NOT to read again this thread until today). That particular conflict is too real, too recent, and it hurts too many too much (regardless of which side you are/were on) for the discussion to have gone anywhere but where it headed. Having said that, I will also say that I really respect many of those who have posted in this thread. Your insightful comments on game- and non game- related issues in other threads have educated me more that you will ever know. For that, you have my thanks, gentlemen. Now, shall we all move to other threads, please? With all due respect Kitakami, virtually EVERY war since WW2 fits into that catagory. It's the same old tired argument. Shall we close EVER single thread that divates ever so slightly from the game? Would you like to see The Thread closed? When does it end? Someone will ALWAYS be offended. Can we not rely on common sense and good manners to deal with this problem? We have moderators who monitor and maintain these threads and forums to prevent things from getting totally out of line. Trust them. And trust your fellow forum posters. Or I shall expect you to be right there righteously demanding that EVERY thread that ever so slightly diveates from the game. To do anything else would be hipocritical. [:(]

dr.hal -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 10:05:38 PM)
I agree with Dixie and Kitakami. This is a topic too close to some player's heart or psyche. I don't think anyone on this site is intending to be judgmental or cause harm, but it does happen. This thread should be closed. Hal

AW1Steve -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 10:10:38 PM)
Then I can expect you gentlemen to request that EVERY thread that departs from the game will be closed down? My problem is you gentlemen go down a VERY slippery slope. If you close this thread , what's to prevent a troll like person from objecting to every single thread that departs from the game, simply from crying "I'm offended!" and demanding it closed? Common sense and good manners? You've already debased that by calling for this thread to be locked. Consider where you go when you call for a thread that does not cross the line by being insulting , or leading to personal attacks. That makes every single thread fair game for censorship, and a major migrane for the Matrix staff. They've got enough on their plates!

ChickenOfTheSea -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 10:34:16 PM)
One of my female co-workers that grew up in Virginia said they didn't get any 20th century history in high school because it was "too controversial". In fact, native Virginians are still pretty sensitive about 19th century history, as well. I don't see why we can't discuss these things? On the other hand we do need to be considerate and respectful in our tone and choice of words.

Kitakami -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/23/2011 11:21:01 PM)
AW1Steve, Personal apology sent via PM. I am very sorry if I ruffled any feathers, truly.

ChickenOfTheSea -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/24/2011 2:14:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea One of my female co-workers that grew up in Virginia said they didn't get any 20th century history in high school because it was "too controversial". In fact, native Virginians are still pretty sensitive about 19th century history, as well. I don't see why we can't discuss these things? On the other hand we do need to be considerate and respectful in our tone and choice of words. I say this because the people who sacrifice their lives in these efforts and the families who lose loved ones were generally motivated by love of their country and not by the political motives we assign to the leaders in a post-hoc analysis.

jwilkerson -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/24/2011 3:34:43 AM)
if everyone who posted here had followed AW1Steve's lead (post deleted) I would not have needed to lock this thread.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.59375