Poll: The Falklands
- Thread starter Typhusoid
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nope, sorry.Ken Korda said:
Poland was attacked 1st day of school, September 1st.
France was attacked in May, next year.
There is no excuse for 9 months of idleness other than being scared of the Germans. The Nazis were NOT fighting on two fronts at once, that would've been too risky and stupid - fighting with 2 or more enemies at the same time? Out of free will?
Oh, this be funny:
WROONG. Poland was attacked first. France was attacked 9 months later. If anything, Poland's resistance for over a month despite major losses from WWI made sure Hitler has a smaller army when the allies arrive. But they didn't arrive and he could gain an even bigger army. Way to go.
edit: Messed up the code. Whatever.
The people of the Falklands have made it clear, several times, that they prefer to be governed by the UK.
Who gives a shit? *He* didn't do anything to any Nazis or Soviets. *His* contribution was typing that shit there.Unknower said:
Either that, or I can ***** to all the Italian forum members for Julius Caesar invading us and stealing all our Ox.
On the Falklands:
It may be a bastion of an imperial era full of sheep farmers, but there's no reason whatsoever to respect Argentine claims on the island. The Argentines last had any sort of real ownership more than 20 years before they established a constitution and about the same time as they established independence. "Ooh, there are resources there, it's been 150 years but what the hell, let's ATTACK A BRITISH TERRITORY!" Hell with that, it's 300 miles from their damn coast. If proximity's all it took the rest of South America would belong to them too. Referendums are a nice idea too, but would need some type of protection/trade rider with GB to keep the Argentines from entering full-blown asshat mode again.
On the Poland issue: claiming neglect in the case of Hitler's movements into Poland is just silly: it was on the other side of Europe and only questionably in range of supply lines and bombers for the most part. Reinforce the beleaguered forces in Greece to enter from the south? No way. Invading from France would mean pouring forces through the Maginot line, which at the time they thought was a stupid thing to abandon. I'll admit the pooch was screwed at Yalta, though.
It may be a bastion of an imperial era full of sheep farmers, but there's no reason whatsoever to respect Argentine claims on the island. The Argentines last had any sort of real ownership more than 20 years before they established a constitution and about the same time as they established independence. "Ooh, there are resources there, it's been 150 years but what the hell, let's ATTACK A BRITISH TERRITORY!" Hell with that, it's 300 miles from their damn coast. If proximity's all it took the rest of South America would belong to them too. Referendums are a nice idea too, but would need some type of protection/trade rider with GB to keep the Argentines from entering full-blown asshat mode again.
On the Poland issue: claiming neglect in the case of Hitler's movements into Poland is just silly: it was on the other side of Europe and only questionably in range of supply lines and bombers for the most part. Reinforce the beleaguered forces in Greece to enter from the south? No way. Invading from France would mean pouring forces through the Maginot line, which at the time they thought was a stupid thing to abandon. I'll admit the pooch was screwed at Yalta, though.
I hate to argue with you but it is popular belief that it was the conflict in falklands that ended a lot of the strikes and helped end the recession. I pay into this belief. The British people were fed up with the decisions of the tories and had lost faith in their Identity, something that has always been important to us.Ken Korda said:
Lets not forget John Major came in next (I think, I am at work and cant be bothered to double check) so you cannot say they ruined anything! As a matter of fact to even think this has anything to do with the current economic conditions you are not thinking straight at all. This was down PRIMARILY to the mortgage and loan markets over selling risky loans, pure and simple. The rest followed it down like a house of cards.
The Falklands was good for the UK, it took pressure off the Gov't and made the people see more than picket lines. Lets not forget that whole era; car manufacturing had ceased to exist because employees only wanted to picket. We ran out of coal and couldn't beat the compititions steel prices (last time I checked there was nothing Thatcher could do about this) and this lead to ship yards and industrial manufacting going to Europe, the US and Japan.
You are making a very simple theory try to stick to a huge complex peice of history. Guess what, everything up there is a gross simplification of what actually happened, yet it is much closer than what you proposed 8).
People like to simplify things.... or I should like to say Americans do. If it isn't in a Cliff notes form it is too complex for us mere mortals to comprehend. The world is not as flat as Friedman likes to tell us, or did, I think he too changed his mind!
I'm sorry, this has nothing to do with thetopic at hand. History, I am sorry to say, is written by the winners not losers. If you wish to rage against the Allied nations of WWII, please take it somewhere else.Abedeus said:
Lets see.
1690 England discovers Falklands
England inhabits Falklands
Argentina wants Falklands, is sore that they didn't notice the useful island 300 miles from their coast
England continues to inhabit Falklands for several centuries
Argentina has change of management, management unpopular, tries to gain favour by invading Falkland Islands
England not impressed
Scene missing
1600 Argentinians dead or wounded, 11'300+ prisoner, Falkands still English
Argentina has change of management
England continues to inhabit Falklands
There is nothing to discuss, the Agentinians didn't discover the island, didn't populate it and (most importantly) the Islanders consider themselves British (actually, they are British), speak English and have the Prime Minister as their leader. By the logic Argentina uses France should be staking a claim on Guernsey.
1690 England discovers Falklands
England inhabits Falklands
Argentina wants Falklands, is sore that they didn't notice the useful island 300 miles from their coast
England continues to inhabit Falklands for several centuries
Argentina has change of management, management unpopular, tries to gain favour by invading Falkland Islands
England not impressed
Scene missing
1600 Argentinians dead or wounded, 11'300+ prisoner, Falkands still English
Argentina has change of management
England continues to inhabit Falklands
There is nothing to discuss, the Agentinians didn't discover the island, didn't populate it and (most importantly) the Islanders consider themselves British (actually, they are British), speak English and have the Prime Minister as their leader. By the logic Argentina uses France should be staking a claim on Guernsey.
Not going argue that. I am just saying if they wish to be anything else, or jsut to keep the international community placated, allow a Referandum.fix-the-spade said:
Really? I thought that it was the joining to the ERM in the first place was what made everything go crazy? Something labour and lib-dems wouldn't shut up about until we joined, and Thatcher was then kicked out by her Tory colleagues for doing this anyway. Makes sense since the ERM meant we had no control of our own currency, so we couldn't stabilise against the massive structural changes of the country thus screwing it all up...Ken Korda said:
If recent events haven't swayed public opinion that Labour (Or new labour, the 'fiscally responsible' version) are as bad/worse, then something is up. Maybe we need some hyper-inflation and a revolution or some crap like that.
Anyway! Back on topic, I think the fawklands people should have a choice between British, Argentinian and independent. At the same time however, we should remind them independence means no help from Britain should Argentina attempt an invasion...
I remember a while ago in Gibraltar they had a referendum about going under Spanish rule. Of the population of about 28,000 only ~200 voted to become Spanish again. I swear, our colonies are more patriotic than we are!
Well, the Argentine argument is 'the people of the island aren't native, and therefore don't have a right to self-determination'. Too which I'm given to wonder how much of the Argentine gene pool is native and how much is from Spanish colonials.Typhusoid said:
As for the materials around the island, I doubt the UK government is going to use them any time so as they would have already set up a mining operation if that was the case.
Regardless, the Argentines seem to think this is the early 1900's and we (the UK) are some big bad evil colonial power, stealing land from natives and renting it back to them. They seem to ignore the fact that if the Falkland islanders wanted to join the Argentine government, all they'd have to do would be to ask the UK government to transfer power. If anything, it'd reduce the cost and stretch of the Army for us as we'd not have to garrison the island any more to stop an another Argentine occupation.
I'm British, btw, so yeah, probably have a bias.
It would be pointless to do it, Falklanders repeatedly state their desire remain a British territory. The only people who persistently ignore this are the Argentinians.doctorwhofan said:
It seems to be a bizarre trait of Argentinian politics to make Las Malvinas Argentinian, even though their's no Argentinian population (except the war grave) on the island.
They're a self governing territory, with the exception of a couple of things (like not being allowed the death penalty, having to recognise the Queen as Monarch etc) the Falklands is free to do as it likes.Danzaivar said:
Simple, we have a cat fight between Queen Elizabeth II and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, whoever wins gets sovereign.