Falklands row: Cameron vows to defend Islanders

[arista]

What makes me Sick of that Bitch Argie
is she has no concern of those living /working on that island
they have Rights.


[The news came as Buenos Aries told the Prime Minister should return the islands to Argentina 180 years to the day since they were “forcibly stripped” from the south American country.]


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9778153/Falklands-row-Cameron-vows-to-defend-Islanders.html


Link For Kizzy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/03/david-cameron-falkland-islands-argentina

[Livia]

The day that the Falkland Islanders wish to be Argentinian instead of British is the day we should hand the Islands over.

[arista]

The day that the Falkland Islanders wish to be Argentinian instead of British is the day we should hand the Islands over.


Yes its that simple.

[Kizzy]

Wonder if we should have tried that with Hong Kong?...

[Sticks]

Why should a bunch of squatters dictate government policy?

How much is Fortress Malvenas costing us?

How many school places and operations could that pay for

Time to give it back and save money in this time of austerity. As for the squatters, give them notice to quit like you give notice to quit to any other people illegally occupying someone else's property

[arista]

Why should a bunch of squatters dictate government policy?

How much is Fortress Malvenas costing us?

How many school places and operations could that pay for

Time to give it back and save money in this time of austerity. As for the squatters, give them notice to quit like you give notice to quit to any other people illegally occupying someone else's property

Never happen
to many Died in that War
no PM would waste it all.

That land was bought.
They own it.

[arista]

Wonder if we should have tried that with Hong Kong?...

No Hong Kong had a legal lease
that run out.

So thats nothing like our Falklands

[Jesus.]

The problem here, is that they have recently discovered massive energy reserves. That's why we won't let go, and they are demanding them back.

In my opinion we have no business being there, and should give them back. I'm sure a deal could be struck to allow the current islanders to remain there, and remain as ex-pats.

[arista]

The problem here, is that they have recently discovered massive energy reserves. That's why we won't let go, and they are demanding them back.

In my opinion we have no business being there, and should give them back. I'm sure a deal could be struck to allow the current islanders to remain there, and remain as ex-pats.


They want nothing to do with those Dirty Argies

[Jesus.]

They want nothing to do with those Dirty Argies

Tough.

[Sticks]

They are nothing but illegal squatters - evict them without a penny piece in compo

Return Las Malvinas to the rightful owners

Make big savings which can be used for the NHS

[arista]

Tough.


Yes But they Invaded
our Falklands Islands.

Now her nation is Bankrupt
she will be voted out
the stupid bitch

[arista]

They are nothing but illegal squatters - evict them without a penny piece in compo

Return Las Malvinas to the rightful owners

Make big savings which can be used for the NHS


You are missing the Point
The Falkland Islanders do not want Argies in control.
The owners before us were French.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands


So it will stay British forever.

[Jesus.]

Yes But they Invaded
our Falklands Islands.

Now her nation is Bankrupt
she will be voted out
the stupid bitch

Please explain how islands 8000 miles away from the UK, could ever be "ours". They won't be bankrupt if they get access to the energy around the Falklands.

Why is she a stupid bitch? She's doing what she thinks is best for her country.

[arista]

Please explain how islands 8000 miles away from the UK, could ever be "ours". They won't be bankrupt if they get access to the energy around the Falklands.

Why is she a stupid bitch? She's doing what she thinks is best for her country.


Yes but her own nation needs sorting before she
wastes their money on this.


As for our Energy Deals
we have set up a USA Company to drill
and every Islander gets a share.

[Omah]

Why should a bunch of squatters dictate government policy?

How much is Fortress Malvenas costing us?

How many school places and operations could that pay for

Time to give it back and save money in this time of austerity. As for the squatters, give them notice to quit like you give notice to quit to any other people illegally occupying someone else's property

The problem here, is that they have recently discovered massive energy reserves. That's why we won't let go, and they are demanding them back.

In my opinion we have no business being there, and should give them back. I'm sure a deal could be struck to allow the current islanders to remain there, and remain as ex-pats.

They are nothing but illegal squatters - evict them without a penny piece in compo

Return Las Malvinas to the rightful owners

Make big savings which can be used for the NHS

While we're on the subject of squatters :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Argentina#Ethnic_groups

The vast majority of the population of Argentina are the descendants of immigrants. The indigenous population is little over 1% of the total population.

Most Argentines are descended from colonial-era settlers and of the 19th and 20th century immigrants from Europe. An estimated 8% of the population is Mestizo, and a further 4% of Argentines are of Arab or Asian heritage. In the last national census, based on self-identification, 600,000 Argentines (1.6% of the population) declared to be Amerindians. Most of the 6.2 million European immigrants arriving between 1850 and 1950, regardless of origin, settled in several regions of the country. Due to this large-scale European immigration, Argentina's population more than doubled and consecuently increased the national population. Argentina was second only to the United States in the number of European immigrants received.

Immigrant population in Argentina (1869–1991)

The majority of these European immigrants came from Italy, Spain, Germany, Wales, Poland, Croatia, Russia, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Norway and several other regions. Italian population in Argentina arrived mainly from the northern Italian regions varying between Piedmont, Veneto and Lombardy, later from Campania and Calabria; Many Argentines have the gentilic of an Italian city, place, street or occupation of the immigrant as last name, many of them were not necessarily born Italians, but once they did the roles of immigration in Italy the name usually changed. Spanish immigrants were mainly Galicians and Basques. Millions of immigrants also came from France (notably Béarn and the Northern Basque Country), Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Finland, Russia and the United Kingdom. The Welsh settlement in Patagonia, known as Y Wladfa, began in 1865; mainly along the coast of Chubut Province. In addition to the main colony in Chubut, a smaller colony was set up in Santa Fe and another group settled at Coronel Suárez, southern Buenos Aires Province. Of the 50,000 Patagonians of Welsh descent, about 5,000 are Welsh speakers. The community is centered around the cities of Gaiman, Trelew and Trevelin.


:idc:

[Jesus.]

While we're on the subject of squatters :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Argentina#Ethnic_groups



:idc:

Not sure why you've quoted me in this post.

Every person in any part of the world other than East Africa, is descended from immigrants.

What's your point?

[thesheriff443]

to even mention giving back the falklands would be political suicide!,
we went to war for that place and we would go again!.

[Omah]

Not sure why you've quoted me in this post.

Every person in any part of the world other than East Africa, is descended from immigrants.

What's your point?

You seem to have a dislike of squatters - well, Argentina's full of 'em, so none of them have any right either to the country they poured into let alone another territory - they immigrated in their millions to plunder the natural resources and have got no intention of letting them go back to the indigenous population and remaining as ex-pats ..... :idc:

[Jesus.]

You seem to have a dislike of squatters - well, Argentina's full of 'em, so none of them have any right either to the country they poured into let alone another territory - they immigrated in their millions to plunder the natural resources and have got no intention of letting them go back to the indigenous population and remaining as ex-pats ..... :idc:

I have absolutely no dislike of squatters whatsoever. Re-read the thread and you'll see that.

[Omah]

I have absolutely no dislike of squatters whatsoever. Re-read the thread and you'll see that.

"In my opinion we have no business being there"

Why's that then?

:conf:

[thesheriff443]

"In my opinion we have no business being there"

Why's that then?

:conf:

you could say that about any country in the world that we are fighting in or have done in the past.

[Omah]

you could say that about any country in the world that we are fighting in or have done in the past.

I'm not saying it, I'm querying it ..... ;)

[Jesus.]

"In my opinion we have no business being there"

Why's that then?

:conf:

Because it's 8000 miles away from the UK, and shouldn't be anything to do with us. We no longer have an empire, and we shouldn't have colonies.

[thesheriff443]

I'm not saying it, I'm querying it ..... ;)

ok,lets not fight about it!:joker:

[thesheriff443]

Because it's 8000 miles away from the UK, and shouldn't be anything to do with us. We no longer have an empire, and we shouldn't have colonies.

germany wanted to own the world and that was less than 60 odd years ago!

[Jesus.]

germany wanted to own the world and that was less than 60 odd years ago!

So?

[thesheriff443]

So?

so,
from the start of time nation's have invaded its neighbur,s to take over and claim their land for their own.

[Omah]

Because it's 8000 miles away from the UK, and shouldn't be anything to do with us. We no longer have an empire, and we shouldn't have colonies.

The Falklands Islands is one of 14 British Overseas Territories, not a colony ..... :nono:

As for "we should give them back", who to?

The Amerinindians, the Dutch, the French, the Spanish or the Johnny come-lately "Argentinians" ..... :puzzled:

[Jesus.]

so,
from the start of time nation's have invaded its neighbur,s to take over and claim their land for their own.

But that's not really how we work these days. We started to dismantle our empire after the 2nd war.

[Jesus.]

The Falklands Islands is one of 14 British Overseas Territories, not a colony ..... :nono:

As for "we should give them back", who to?

The Amerinindians, the Dutch, the French, the Spanish or the Johnny come-lately "Argentinians" ..... :puzzled:

You really are missing the point spectacularly. They don't belong to a country 8000 miles away.

[Omah]

You really are missing the point spectacularly. They don't belong to a country 8000 miles away.

You are missing the point - they don't "belong" to the UK because the residents have voted to remain under the jurisdiction of the UK, while retaining a large degree of self-government ..... :idc:

[Omah]

so,
from the start of time nation's have invaded its neighbur,s to take over and claim their land for their own.

But that's not really how we work these days.

Who's "we" ?

The "Argentinians" certainly did that in living memory and I'm sure that Iraq invaded Kuwait not long ago ..... :conf:

A brief look at Wiki displays :

2008 invasion of Gaza by Israel
2008 invasion of Georgia by Russia
2008 invasion of Anjouan by the African Union
2006 invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia
2006 invasion of Lebanon by Israel
2003 invasion of Iraq by United States-led coalition
2001 invasion of Afghanistan by United States-led coalition

[arista]

But that's not really how we work these days. We started to dismantle our empire after the 2nd war.


Yes But the Falklands
and our new Energy Deals
are Special.


Argie is Bankrupt
she does this to avoid the real problem she has.

[InOne]

If the Argies try anything we'll blow them to hell, right arista?

[arista]

If the Argies try anything we'll blow them to hell, right arista?


Bloody Right

[Omah]

Yes But the Falklands
and our new Energy Deals
are Special.


Argie is Bankrupt
she does this to avoid the real problem she has.

Yeah, just like before .....

[Livia]

You really are missing the point spectacularly. They don't belong to a country 8000 miles away.

I rather think that is for them to decide.

[Omah]

Bloody Right

Yeah, send in the Ghurkas ..... :thumbs:

[Jesus.]

Who's "we" ?

The "Argentinians" certainly did that in living memory and I'm sure that Iraq invaded Kuwait not long ago ..... :conf:

A brief look at Wiki displays :

2008 invasion of Gaza by Israel
2008 invasion of Georgia by Russia
2008 invasion of Anjouan by the African Union
2006 invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia
2006 invasion of Lebanon by Israel
2003 invasion of Iraq by United States-led coalition
2001 invasion of Afghanistan by United States-led coalition

I'm sure you're trying to make a point here, but I don't see it. We are a former empire, and as such we have to show a little more humility.

[Jesus.]

I rather think that is for them to decide.

The days where sticking our flag in the ground meant control, are long gone. That part of the world has nothing to do with us. We need to find a workable solution for the current islanders, but there is no good reason why that land could ever be ours.

[Omah]

I'm sure you're trying to make a point here, but I don't see it. We are a former empire, and as such we have to show a little more humility.

BIB - :conf:

What's "humility" got to do with the wishes of the residents of the Falklands Islands (known to the Dutch, who first sighted them in 1600, as the Sebald Islands, a name they bore on Dutch maps into the 19th century) ?

:conf:

[Livia]

The days where sticking our flag in the ground meant control, are long gone. That part of the world has nothing to do with us. We need to find a workable solution for the current islanders, but there is no good reason why that land could ever be ours.

It's nothing to do with sticking our flag into a piece of land, it's about what the inhabitants of that place want. If they want to be Argentinian, then the argument would be over. But they don't. The Channel Islands are closer to France. It's not all about proximity.

[Scarlett.]

I honestly wouldnt care if the Falklands wanted to be independant, but they don't. Hell, even if they were, they'd suddenly become very vunerable without a whole Navy backing them up.

[Sticks]

How much does this cost the UK tax payer?

We are enduring cuts in public spending closing libraries, hospitals and schools.

How many hospital operations could be paid for by the cost it takes to support Fortress Las Malvenas (It's proper name!!!)

According to UN conventions in the 1960's we were to give up the islands as they part of out dated colonialism.

[Omah]

The days where sticking our flag in the ground meant control, are long gone. That part of the world has nothing to do with us. We need to find a workable solution for the current islanders, but there is no good reason why that land could ever be ours.

Well, the same applies to the late-coming immigrants of Argentina, who all came from Europe, 1000's of miles away, to plunder the country - the Spanish planted their flag in the 16th century .....

Later, the Conquest of the Desert was a military campaign in the 1870s with the intent to establish Argentine dominance over Patagonia, which was inhabited by indigenous peoples. Under General Roca, the so-called Conquest of the Desert extended Argentine power into Patagonia. European settlers turned the conquered lands into a breadbasket which made Argentina an agricultural superpower in the early 20th century. The Conquest is commemorated on the 100 peso bill in Argentina .....

So the Agentianians should give Patagonian land back to the indigenous peoples ..... :idc:

[Sticks]

We need to find a workable solution for the current islanders, but there is no good reason why that land could ever be ours.

There is one

Evict the squatters

Hand Las Malvenas back to Argentina the rightful owners and fulfil our UN obligations dating back to the 1960's

Then we could save a lot of money which could be put back into the NHS

[Omah]

It's nothing to do with sticking our flag into a piece of land, it's about what the inhabitants of that place want. If they want to be Argentinian, then the argument would be over. But they don't. The Channel Islands are closer to France. It's not all about proximity.

BIB - Good point ..... ;)

[Scarlett.]

How much does this cost the UK tax payer?

We are enduring cuts in public spending closing libraries, hospitals and schools.

How many hospital operations could be paid for by the cost it takes to support Fortress Las Malvenas (It's proper name!!!)

According to UN conventions in the 1960's we were to give up the islands as they part of out dated colonialism.

None of that seems to take the islanders wishes into consideration, the majority of the islands wants to stay as a United Kingdom overseas territory, I think what the islanders want is more important than what some outdated suits from the UN want. The islanders are British citizens, they want to be British citzens, refusing them the right to be what they want to be would be unjust.

You can't just throw away responsibilities because they're costing you too much.

[Omah]

There is one

Evict the squatters

Hand Las Malvenas back to Argentina the rightful owners and fulfil our UN obligations dating back to the 1960's

Then we could save a lot of money which could be put back into the NHS

Hand Argentina back to the Amerindians first ..... evict the Spanish squatters and their descendants .....

[Jesus.]

Well, the same applies to the late-coming immigrants of Argentina, who all came from Europe, 1000's of miles away, to plunder the country - the Spanish planted their flag in the 16th century .....

Later, the Conquest of the Desert was a military campaign in the 1870s with the intent to establish Argentine dominance over Patagonia, which was inhabited by indigenous peoples. Under General Roca, the so-called Conquest of the Desert extended Argentine power into Patagonia. European settlers turned the conquered lands into a breadbasket which made Argentina an agricultural superpower in the early 20th century. The Conquest is commemorated on the 100 peso bill in Argentina .....

So the Agentianians should give Patagonian land back to the indigenous peoples ..... :idc:

Cutting and pasting from Wiki doesn't make your argument.

[Jesus.]

It's nothing to do with sticking our flag into a piece of land, it's about what the inhabitants of that place want. If they want to be Argentinian, then the argument would be over. But they don't. The Channel Islands are closer to France. It's not all about proximity.

But if Argentina had colonised Jersey for example, we Brits would sit back and accept that?

[arista]

Hand Argentina back to the Amerindians first ..... evict the Spanish squatters and their descendants .....


Clever point

[Sticks]

According to this link (http://theragingtory.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/can-fortress-falklands-be-defence-on.html) on estimate is that

it costs £400,000,000 per year to maintain the garrison, of one Infantry company, a Typhoon Flight and supporting staff,

And between the war around Las Malvenas and early February last year the cost of defending the islands was £12,000,000,000

How many hospital operations
How many school places
How many police officers
How many doctors
How many nurses

All to protect a bunch of people who do not generate a quarter of the cost of defending their squat.

Good money after bad!

[Jesus.]

According to this link (http://theragingtory.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/can-fortress-falklands-be-defence-on.html) on estimate is that



And between the war around Las Malvenas and early February last year the cost of defending the islands was £12,000,000,000

How many hospital operations
How many school places
How many police officers
How many doctors
How many nurses

All to protect a bunch of people who do not generate a quarter of the cost of defending their squat.

Good money after bad!

There is no need to reduce these people to squatters.

[Livia]

But if Argentina had colonised Jersey for example, we Brits would sit back and accept that?

To use a famous quote from the Spartans... "If".

We're going to have to disagree on this one. Or duke it out in the car park...

[thesheriff443]

just to let you lot know i own a few planets in the universe.
get off my planet!:joker:

[Sticks]

There is no need to reduce these people to squatters.

What do you call people occupying someone else's property?

[arista]

What do you call people occupying someone else's property?


Its Not Their Property

[Jesus.]

To use a famous quote from the Spartans... "If".

We're going to have to disagree on this one. Or duke it out in the car park...

Euphemism?

[Omah]

Cutting and pasting from Wiki doesn't make your argument.

Maybe not, but it introduces a few salient facts ..... :idc:

[Omah]

According to UN conventions in the 1960's we were to give up the islands as they part of out dated colonialism.

Should the US give up Hawaii "as they part of out dated colonialism" ?

or Guam?

:conf:

[arista]

Should the US give up Hawaii "as they part of out dated colonialism" ?

or Guam?

:conf:

Clever Point again.

[Jesus.]

Should the US give up Hawaii "as they part of out dated colonialism" ?

or Guam?

:conf:

There are procedures in place that allow states the opportunity to secede. It's not straightforward, but there is a path at least.

[Omah]

There are procedures in place that allow states the opportunity to secede. It's not straightforward, but there is a path at least.

"You really are missing the point spectacularly."

Guam is listed as one of sixteen Non-Self-Governing Territories* by the Special Committee on Decolonization of the United Nations. The island's capital is Hagåtña (formerly Agaña). Guam is the largest and southernmost of the Mariana Islands.

The Chamorros, Guam's indigenous people, first populated the island approximately 4,000 years ago. The island has a long history of European colonialism, beginning with its discovery by Ferdinand Magellan during a Spanish expedition on March 6, 1521. The first colony was established in 1668 by Spain with the arrival of settlers including Padre San Vitores, a Catholic missionary. For more than two centuries Guam was an important stopover for the Spanish Manila Galleons that crossed the Pacific annually. The island was controlled by Spain until 1898, when it was surrendered to the United States during the Spanish-American War and later formally ceded as part of the Treaty of Paris.

* The United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories is a list of countries that, according to the United Nations, are colonized. The list was initially prepared in 1946 pursuant to Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter, and has been updated by the General Assembly on recommendation of the Special Committee on Decolonization and its predecessors.

in 1960, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV), promulgating the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples", which declared that all remaining non-self-governing territories and trust territories were entitled to self-determination and independence.

Guam is on the UN anti-colonial list, as are the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, so why doesn't the US give up "colonial" Guam?

Surely Guam doesn't "belong to a country" 6000 "miles away" and Hawaii doesn't "belong to a country" 3000 "miles away".

[Omah]

There are procedures in place that allow states the opportunity to secede.

But no US state or NSG territorial possession wants to, right ..... ;)

Well, the UK's BOT doesn't want to "secede, either ..... :nono:

[Jesus.]

"You really are missing the point spectacularly."



*

Guam is on the UN anti-colonial list, as are the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, so why doesn't the US give up "colonial" Guam?

Surely Guam doesn't "belong to a country" 6000 "miles away" and Hawaii doesn't "belong to a country" 3000 "miles away".

But no US state or NSG territorial possession wants to, right ..... ;)

Well, the UK's BOT doesn't want to "secede, either ..... :nono:

If you had an opinion of your own, then fair enough, but I've got no desire to read wiki pasting all night.

I'm no fan of the US at all, and they have troops in far too many countries. However, I don't know the intricacies of the Guam situation, and like I said, I can't be arsed to read wiki all night.

What I do know about though, is the Falklands situation. It's not our land and we should remove our sovereignty.

[Omah]

If you had an opinion of your own, then fair enough, but I've got no desire to read wiki pasting all night.

I'm no fan of the US at all, and they have troops in far too many countries. However, I don't know the intricacies of the Guam situation, and like I said, I can't be arsed to read wiki all night.

What I do know about though, is the Falklands situation. It's not our land and we should remove our sovereignty.

If you can't face facts ..... :shrug:

[Nedusa]

The Falkland Islands will remain British until a majority of Falkland islanders vote for a change of constitution. Also as lives were lost in 1982 defending these islands do not expect them to be handed over anytime soon.

Also since big business ( oil, gas and mineral reserves) is now involved even less reason to think sovereignty will be handed over in our lifetime.

The current Argentinian govt are in a mess and see the Malvinas as a political distraction, they know there is no realistic possibility of any change of sovereignty for at least a generation or longer.

This is just Political grandstanding which is doomed to fail like all the other failed attempts...!!!

[Jesus.]

If you can't face facts ..... :shrug:

I have faced facts. I said I don't know enough about the Guam situation to compare it to us.

If it's the same situation, then I agree that it should be given back. There is no inconsistency with my opinion.

[Omah]

I have faced facts. I said I don't know enough about the Guam situation to compare it to us.

If it's the same situation, then I agree that it should be given back. There is no inconsistency with my opinion.

What about Hawaii, Samoa and and Midway?

Then there's French Louisiana, 1/3 of the current US, 828,000 square miles of land originally "owned" by the Spanish, but "bought" by the US from Napoleon Bonaparte for 3 cents an acre ..... :idc:

[Kizzy]

Anyone who thinks that what happened in 1982 in the Falklands was a matter of principal and nothing to do with natural resources is deluded.

[Livia]

Anyone who thinks this isn't a diversion tactic by the floundering Argentine government is also deluded. Much like the floundering Junta in 1982. I also think that, for the soldiers sho fought there, it was very much a matter of principle.

[Omah]

Anyone who thinks that what happened in 1982 in the Falklands was a matter of principal and nothing to do with natural resources is deluded.

Anyone who thinks this isn't a diversion tactic by the floundering Argentine government is also deluded. Much like the floundering Junta in 1982. I also think that, for the soldiers sho fought there, it was very much a matter of principle.

I think it's a mixture of both points of view plus other factors, including Thatcher using the conflict to popularise herself ..... :yuk:

[Livia]

How could Margaret Thatcher have done things any other way? She didn't sit in Number Ten and direct the fighting like a chess game, you know. It could easily have gone tits up...

[Kizzy]

I think it's a mixture of both points of view plus other factors, including Thatcher using the conflict to popularise herself ..... :yuk:

She was a power mad witch, she sank the belgrano without so much as a thought. We all saw that flounder before taking 100's of innocent souls.
What makes anyone think she cared one iota for our soldiers, the public or the country for that matter?
She had on her side the spirit of the British, she used Murdocks rags to her advantage with bold headlines everyday in the media. Cameron could only dream of having that much social control.

[thesheriff443]

How could Margaret Thatcher have done things any other way? She didn't sit in Number Ten and direct the fighting like a chess game, you know. It could easily have gone tits up...

livia said tit's:joker:

[thesheriff443]

thatcher had more ball's than all the prime minister's only churchill was on her level,

[Omah]

How could Margaret Thatcher have done things any other way? She didn't sit in Number Ten and direct the fighting like a chess game, you know. It could easily have gone tits up...

Without the untried Harriers it would have done - nobody knew if they would survive the trip South let alone fly when they got there ..... :idc:

[Kizzy]

thatcher had more ball's than all the prime minister's only churchill was on her level,

He was as mad as a box of frogs too...

[Sticks]

But thanks to him we are not having to speak in German

[Kizzy]

But thanks to him we are not having to speak in German

No we speak American...
http://cloudcorinne.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/mcdonalds.jpg

[Omah]

But thanks to him we are not having to speak in German

Ich spreche fließend Deutsch ..... :idc:

[Nedusa]

Interesting last few posts, so what I am thinking now is that the UK was going to be irrevocably changed regardless of the outcome of WW2. Either part of a German speaking greater European empire or in hock to the yanks for the next fifty years, told what to do and when to do it . Told who to fight against and who to support. Flooded with fast food and a fast food culture.

Hmmm.... Interesting choice !!!

[Jesus.]

But thanks to him we are not having to speak in German

If you'd put any leader in place, we'd have won eventually. The speeches may not have been as inspiring, and it may have played out differently, but the minute Hitler turned on Russia, there was only ever going to be one outcome.

America and Russia were the keys to us winning that war, not Churchills speeches, and I mean that respectfully. He gets extra respect for being on the nose bag continually.

[Omah]

If you'd put any leader in place, we'd have won eventually.

Name one .....

[Nedusa]

I wonder what our economy (GDP) and our National Debt would be now if we had not won the war ?

[Jesus.]

Name one .....

You really are bizarre. I give reasons to back up my point, and you want a specific name of someone who currently has no standing in history?

Churchill didn't fight the Germans on his own, and those young men in trenches were not fighting to stay alive because Churchill had said they would be fighting the enemy on the beaches.

If Hitler doesn't attack Russia, and America doesn't enter the war, we'd have been ****ed.

Churchill was the right figurehead at that time, but I don't accept he was largely responsible.

[Omah]

You really are bizarre. I give reasons to back up my point, and you want a specific name of someone who currently has no standing in history?

You made an unsubstantiated assertion ..... surely you can back it up with a suggestion from the existing political leaders of the time, apart from Neville Chamberlain, of course ..... :idc:

[Jesus.]

You made an unsubstantiated assertion ..... surely you can back it up with a suggestion from the existing political leaders of the time, apart from Neville Chamberlain, of course ..... :idc:

The whole point here, is that no one knows. I gave my opinion, and I gave reasons for external factors that had more of an impact on the war than Churchill.

If you disagree with my hypothesis, then it's up to you to give reasons why you think I'm wrong. I already declared that the leader wasn't as important as is being made out, so offering another name misses my point entirely.

You have no desire to debate anything, and instead like to hide in the margins. Pasting **** from wiki, and having no real opinion of your own.

[Omah]

The whole point here, is that no one knows. I gave my opinion, and I gave reasons for external factors that had more of an impact on the war than Churchill.

If you disagree with my hypothesis, then it's up to you to give reasons why you think I'm wrong. I already declared that the leader wasn't as important as is being made out, so offering another name misses my point entirely.

You have no desire to debate anything, and instead like to hide in the margins. Pasting **** from wiki, and having no real opinion of your own.

IMO, your "opinions" appear to be based on a complete lack of knowledge of the events in question ..... :shrug:

[Jesus.]

IMO, your "opinions" appear to be based on a complete lack of knowledge of the events in question ..... :shrug:

Try explaining in detail for once, rather than single line replies that don't mean anything.

If you think Churchill was the deciding factor, then say why you think that.

I'm asking for your opinion, and your opinion seems to solely be that I'm wrong.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say someone else is wrong. I want your own personal explanation as to why you think that.

I don't want another dismissive smilie. I want your views and opinions.

[Omah]

Try explaining in detail for once, rather than single line replies that don't mean anything.

If you think Churchill was the deciding factor, then say why you think that.

I'm asking for yo YOUR assertionur opinion, and your opinion seems to solely be that I'm wrong.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say someone else is wrong. I want your own personal explanation as to why you think that.

I don't want another dismissive smilie. I want your views and opinions.

I asked YOU for elaboration of YOUR assertion - I didn't say you were wrong ..... :nono:

YOU'RE the one with the "opinion" (allegedly) ..... :rolleyes:

[Jesus.]

I asked YOU for elaboration of YOUR assertion - I didn't say you were wrong ..... :nono:

YOU'RE the one with the "opinion" (allegedly) ..... :rolleyes:

No you didn't. You asked me for a name after I posited that the name was unimportant in the first place.

I elaborated by giving the invasion of Russia, and the entrance of America into the war, as far more significant that Churchill as the PM.

There you go again, you're trying to hide in tiny details, and use smilies as your discussion tool.

You're not very good at this, are you? Debate is generally a 2-way street, and as yet, you've offered nothing to counter my opinions (that doesn't need to be quote-marked).

I'll make this clear, change Hitler and Churchill around. Churchill attacks Russia, and the US enter the war. The allies still win.

I can't have made my opinion any clearer, so either address it and explain why you disagree, or don't bother replying with smilies.

[Omah]

No you didn't. You asked me for a name after I posited that the name was unimportant in the first place.

I elaborated by giving the invasion of Russia, and the entrance of America into the war, as far more significant that Churchill as the PM.

There you go again, you're trying to hide in tiny details, and use smilies as your discussion tool.

You're not very good at this, are you? Debate is generally a 2-way street, and as yet, you've offered nothing to counter my opinions (that doesn't need to be quote-marked).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/studentlife/revisionandskills/skills/debating_skills.shtml

So what is a debate?

A debate involves a discussion of the pros and cons of an issue. Debating successfully is all about using argument and persuasion to convince other people that your views are right.

Steps to debating perfection (ext)

Research: Research the subject, so that you have facts to back up your views. It helps to validate your answer so it becomes more than just your opinion.

In the heat of a debate it's easy to lose your cool

Don't get personal: In the heat of a debate it's easy to lose your cool and attack the other person for having a different opinion to you. But remember they're entitled to that opinion and just because they don't think the same as you it's not a bad thing.

Stay Focused: Stick to the subject being debated and don't stray into other areas. It sounds obvious but it's easy to do once you start debating.

:pipe:

I am now going to follow my own advice and stick to the subject being debated - Falklands row: Cameron vows to defend Islanders

:idc:

[Jesus.]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/studentlife/revisionandskills/skills/debating_skills.shtml



:pipe:

I am now going to follow my own advice and stick to the subject being debated - Falklands row: Cameron vows to defend Islanders

:idc:

You really are a tiresome bore, with a stunning lack of self awareness. Avoiding the issues over and over again, but pasting blocks of text. Don't confuse me calling out your bull****, as losing my cool.

I gave you one final chance to address my posts and you've swerved out of it in typical Omah-style.

[Sticks]

kQFKtI6gn9Y

[Marc]

Can we stick to the topic in question please? the Falklands row.

[Omah]

You really are a tiresome bore, with a stunning lack of self awareness. Avoiding the issues over and over again, but pasting blocks of text. Don't confuse me calling out your bull****, as losing my cool.

I gave you one final chance to address my posts and you've swerved out of it in typical Omah-style.

Can we stick to the topic in question please? the Falklands row.

.

[Omah]

http://news.sky.com/story/1033203/argentinians-burn-sun-in-row-over-falklands

A group of the islanders, called Falklands United, responded on Friday to a letter by Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner published in The Guardian and Independent in which she called for the UK to give up the Falklands.

They wrote: "Our home is a British Overseas Territory, not a colony as you seemingly wish to convince people.

"We have never been prouder of our association with the United Kingdom and our unique relationship.

"Any decision to change that would be OUR and not YOUR choice.

The Sun took out a full page advert in Argentina issuing a "hands off"

"In 1982 we didn't have a voice. In 2013 we do. We are OUR own people and we have a right to OUR own democracy and to where OUR sovereignty lies."

I won't argue with that ..... :pipe:

[Omah]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257428/Argentina-accused-intimidating-British-cruise-liners-near-Falklands.html#ixzz2H6V42mKU

The British government accused Argentina of ‘intiimidating’ British cruise liners near the Falkland Islands, it emerged yesterday.

Six such incidents, where protestors or industrial action by militant unions have disrupted cruise liners bound for the Falklands, have occurred in the past two months.

Foreign office minister Hugo Swire blamed militants from Argentina for the threats, and condemned their actions saying they should allow passenger liners to travel safely to the islands.

It is understood that last month, the British Government ‘formally summoned’ the Argentine Ambassador Alicia Castro to protest against the incidents involving thousands of passengers since mid-November.

A fresh wave of fresh protests by Argentine nationalists was launched yesterday at two cruise liners docked in Buenos Aires after visits to islands, known in Spanish as Las Malvinas.

Protesters accused the Star Princess and the Seabourn Sojourn of stopping at provinces across the region, including the Falkland Islands and Tierra del Fuego, in violation of a provincial law.

The controversial ‘Gaucho Rivero’ law which is active in five provinces, prohibits British ships involved in the ‘exploitation of natural resources’ around the Falklands from docking.

If the Argies want an argy-bargy ..... :pipe:

[Omah]

Anyone who thinks that what happened in 1982 in the Falklands was a matter of principal and nothing to do with natural resources is deluded.

Anyone who thinks this isn't a diversion tactic by the floundering Argentine government is also deluded. Much like the floundering Junta in 1982. I also think that, for the soldiers sho fought there, it was very much a matter of principle.

I think it's a mixture of both points of view plus other factors, including Thatcher using the conflict to popularise herself ..... :yuk:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254755/US-accidentally-helped-start-Falklands-war-encouraging-Argentinians-invade-island-admits-ex-CIA-chief.html#ixzz2H6WFTEyp

The Americans admitted they may have inadvertently encouraged the Argentinians to invade the Falkland Islands, it emerged last night.

The former head of the CIA privately confessed that Argentina may wrongly have believed its support for US covert operations in Central America would mean Washington's 'acquiescence' for the 1982 invasion.

In fact, despite friction between London and Washington, the Pentagon provided vital behind-the-scenes support for the British military to retake the islands.

But newly declassified files reveal fears at the heart of US intelligence that a misunderstanding over US foreign policy could have led Buenos Aires to believe an invasion would not upset Washington.

Just over a month after the Argentinian surrender in June 1982, Sir Nicholas Henderson – then about to retire as UK ambassador in Washington – recalled conversations with CIA director William Casey in a 'valedictory telegram' to his Foreign Office bosses in London.

Sir Nicholas wrote: 'It is relevant that Mr William Casey, the head of the CIA, who was closely concerned in Cabinet discussion on this subject, has implied to us privately that he thinks the Argentinians may well have been led up the wrong path.

'They may have believed that their support for the US in covert operations in Central America was more important to the US than in fact it was, and could be expected to earn them American acquiescence in forward policy elsewhere.'

"might", "may", "could" = "did"

:hmph:

[Omah]

Anyone who thinks this isn't a diversion tactic by the floundering Argentine government is also deluded. Much like the floundering Junta in 1982.

Yeah, you're right :

http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21569040-weakened-president-falls-out-fellow-peronists-enemy-within

TWICE in the past quarter-century mobs of looters have helped to drive Argentine presidents from office. So it looked ominous when thousands of people attacked supermarkets and shops in several cities on December 21st and 22nd. The police restored order, but only after two people died and scores were arrested.

The looting followed months of sporadic protests against the government of President Cristina Fernández. Labour unions, long a bulwark of her Peronist movement, complain that inflation, unofficially running at 26% in the 12 months to November, is devouring wages. Transport, banks and hospitals have suffered strikes. The middle class is angry about crime and exchange controls. Ms Fernández’s approval rating stands at 39%, down from 69% a year ago, according to Poliarquía, a pollster.

:idc:

[arista]

"Ms Fernández’s approval rating stands at 39%, down from 69% a year ago, according to Poliarquía, a pollster. "

Yes she spends to much time on our Falklands
while her own nation is a a mess.

[Omah]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/voters-call-on-david-cameron-to-stop-1521379

David Cameron is facing demands to stop giving taxpayers’ cash going to Argentina as it plots to claw back the Falklands.

The UK has handed Argentina £225million as part of international loans in the past 20 years, The Sunday People reports.

It’s our share of cash given by the World Bank through its aid subsidiaries.

Now the Prime Minister is facing an angry backlash from voters who want him to block any more money.

They are demanding he joins US President Barack Obama in voting against new handouts.

America said Argentina should not get more money until it did a better job of repaying loans dating back 20 years.

A petition organised by the Taxpayers Alliance pressure group has gone on Downing Street’s website.

If it gets 100,000 signatures the PM will be forced into a Commons debate.

Why successive governments keep on handing out money to countries which are not necessarily our "best friends" is anathema to me ..... :mad:

[Omah]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4728564/Argentina-president-hires-VIP-jet-from-Britain.html#ixzz2HAOPzQCZ

ARGIE leader Cristina Kirchner is hiring a jet from a British firm after she was forced to ground her own luxury plane in a debt row.

She will splash out £622,000 on a Bombardier Global Express jet from charter company Chapman Freeborn for her tour of Asia.

The news is a massive embarrassment for the president — who regularly rants against British sovereignty of the Falklands and whose government has called for a boycott of British business.

It comes days after The Sun responded to her latest attack by printing a letter in a Buenos Aires paper, warning Argentina: “Hands off.”

Officially, Mrs Kirchner has been forced to find alternative transport after her £40million Boeing 757, codenamed Tango 1, was grounded for “technical reasons”.

The £30million Bombardier can seat 13 and has a stateroom with a bed, satellite wi-fi and even staff to serve drinks.

But sources revealed the real reason for the switch was fears that her own jet could be confiscated.

In October, Argentina’s ship ARA Libertad was seized in Ghana when US-based NML Capital — which claims it was owed £1billion — got a court order banning it from leaving port.

Argentina fears Tango 1 will suffer the same fate from any of a number of creditors if it touches down on foreign soil.

The move by Mrs Kirchner — slammed last year for using Tango 1 to take son Maximo to hospital with a sore knee — has caused fury among air charter companies in her own country who are banned from taking customers to the Falklands.

WITH vast wealth and extravagant tastes, Cristina Kirchner is nicknamed “the Queen” in Argentina.

One of Latin America’s richest leaders, she boasts a family fortune of £11.5million, a five-star hotel and many other assets. The average Argentinian earns £6,000 a year.Mrs Kirchner, 59, is said to have blown £70,000 on 20 pairs of Christian Louboutin shoes during an official trip to Paris in 2011.

And last October she was accused of spending £1million doing up one floor of her office. Much of her family’s property was acquired during Argentina’s military dictatorship from 1976 to 1983.

Mrs Kirchner worked as a lawyer at the time and has been accused of making a fortune as banks evicted thousands who could not pay mortgages. She has been mocked in the Argentine press and dubbed “Bimbo” and “Botox Evita”.

Who'd have thought that a South American "dictator" was corrupt ..... :rolleyes:

[Shaun]

the most bafflingly unsubstantiated 'issue' I have ever seen so much time and debate devoted to... they want to be British, they don't want to be Argentinean. They are British. Literally the only claim I can see Argentina having is "it's closer to us than the UK", in which case I eagerly await Argentina's claim to Chile, Australia and Kiribati.

[Kizzy]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4728564/Argentina-president-hires-VIP-jet-from-Britain.html#ixzz2HAOPzQCZ



Who'd have thought that a South American "dictator" was corrupt ..... :rolleyes:

Who would have ever thought that Thatcher the dictator would align herself with Pinochet...and yet..
The sun, aka mad murdocks rag trying to muster the masses again?
Surely the public wouln't fall for the same trick?...

[Omah]

Who would have ever thought that Thatcher the dictator would align herself with Pinochet...and yet..
The sun, aka mad murdocks rag trying to muster the masses again?
Surely the public wouln't fall for the same trick?...

Why the Sun decided to publish an open (and inflammatory) letter in Argentina is another mystery to me ..... :conf:

[Kizzy]

Why the Sun decided to publish an open (and inflammatory) letter in Argentina is another mystery to me ..... :conf:

It is unbelievable! How/why they were allowed to get away with it is beyond me...
We have a delicate situation here, to be handled by those elected to represent us or experts in international relations used to delicate negotiations.
Why then is our gutter press issuing these bizarre and ridiculous demands via the media?
Whoever is responsible for that incitement should be held accountable for any repercussions.

[Omah]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-britain-would-fight-another-war-with-argentina-to-keep-the-falkland-islands-8439971.html

David Cameron has warned that he is ready to fight another war with Argentina to prevent that country seizing the Falkland Islands.

He told BBC 1's Andrew Marr Show: "I get regular reports on this entire issue because I want to know that our defences are strong, our resolve is extremely strong."

Asked if Britain would fight to keep the islands, he replied: "Of course we would and we have strong defences in place on the Falkland islands, that is absolutely key, that we have fast jets stationed there, we have troops stationed on the Falklands."

The sabre-rattling starts ..... :idc:

[Sticks]

How much does that cost the UK tax payer?

What could we do with that money if re returned Las Malvenas?

[Nedusa]

Realistically the only way Argentina is ever going to get the Falkland Islands back is by using force. But as Britain keeps one of its Trident Submarines in the South Atlantic well within range of Argentina, and as each Trident Nuclear Submarine carries up to 8 - W88 100KT Thermonuclear Warheads (all independently targetable) ,I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon.....do you ???