Poll: The Falklands

[The Infamous Scamola]

Don't forget that in 60-80s, while you were sitting on your butts in the UK or being hippies in the USA, hundreds of people died in Poland because they tried to change their lives for better. It was like WWII all over, except for 10 times longer.

So what you're saying is we should of risked a nuclear war with the Soviets that would of killed milions of people to save your sorry ass?
Ok, that's it, troll wins the argument.

 

[JWAN]

yea, let the superpower of the FI decide.

why do you want those islands anyway? You could just buy the land.

 

[JWAN]

Don't forget that in 60-80s, while you were sitting on your butts in the UK or being hippies in the USA, hundreds of people died in Poland because they tried to change their lives for better. It was like WWII all over, except for 10 times longer.

So what you're saying is we should of risked a nuclear war with the Soviets that would of killed milions of people to save your sorry ass?
Ok, that's it, troll wins the argument.

Exactly, that's my point. A war with Russia would have meant the destruction of your ENTIRE country, and you can take that to whatever idiot convinced you that an invasion would have worked.
Im not saying that I don't feel bad for what happened but a war would between the 2 superpowers with you caught in the middle would have killed you. ALL of you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You think we handed you guys over on a fucking plate? Read a history book. What could we have done? They had the military right there, in your borders, how do we go about another war immediately after WW2 while we had split our military to fight in Japan. Yea we could have done it but with all of the fighting that just went on plus the war we would have continued would have destroyed what was left of Poland. Read a fucking history book.

 

[Ken Korda]

Right, let's see if I am a bad enough dude...

Did you know that prior to the Falklands War, Margeret Thatcher actually reduced both the military spending and the actual defences in the Falklands?

The embarassingly right-wing British leadership then used the political captial they gained from the Falklands victory to advance their neo-liberal agenda, leading to mass privatisation and millions unemployed. The continuation of this economic policy eventually culminated with Britain being forced to devalue its currency and exit the ERM. This destroyed public perception of the Tories as having a competent economic policy.

Hence New Labour got elected and decided the best thing to do was to continue along the same policy route which inevitably led to the current recession. Now the Conservetives will get re-elected and the whole process will be exacerbated.

Sorry to wonder off-topic but it's interesting to link the event of the Falklands war to the current economic failure.

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.

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!

You suggest the Falkland Islands war ended strikes in Britain by restoring national pride? Is this correct? People were so full of love for their country that they stopped picketing and went back to work is this correct?

Why do you think these people were picketing in the first place? The neo-liberal reforms of Thatcherism had led to large-scale privatisation and consequent high unemployment.
The Conservatives continued this policy after the Falklands war but by the late 80's they had effectively 'broken' the unions through a number of legals measures which made it almost impossible for strikes to be held without the entire union going bankrupt.

Since the UK was a democracy the neo-liberal reforms were enacted much more slowly than in many other states so the currency devaluation which has taken place in every state which implemented these policies did not occur until the early 1990's once John Major was in charge and thus the UK was unable to remain in the ERM. Admittedly, the Conservatives did not create the spark which caused devaluation but they poured the petrol onto the economy.

Next, New Labour take over and continue to follow the same path by granting independence to the Bank of England and further deregulating the financial sector. Once the banking industries were allowed to function as they wished they immediately rushed towards short term, high profit sectors such as sub-prime mortgage lending and the rest is history.

Both the Conservatives and New Labour are equally guilty in this tale but the point is that the national pride generated by the Falklands victory allowed the Conservatives to be re-elected and to continues the neo-liberal reforms without more popular resistance than they experienced.

Pure forms of neo-liberalism have always required authoritarian governments because they are the only ones able to control the population when the suffering induced by these policies begins to strike. The Falklands War was the 'cover' the Conservatives needed to implement their own reforms.

I hope this was complicated enough for you.

 

[Abedeus]

Don't forget that in 60-80s, while you were sitting on your butts in the UK or being hippies in the USA, hundreds of people died in Poland because they tried to change their lives for better. It was like WWII all over, except for 10 times longer.

So what you're saying is we should of risked a nuclear war with the Soviets that would of killed milions of people to save your sorry ass?
Ok, that's it, troll wins the argument.

Then I guess you won the argument, congratulations.

Let's of course ignore every single country that was behind the Iron Curtain. Who cares about those on the south...

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Don't forget that in 60-80s, while you were sitting on your butts in the UK or being hippies in the USA, hundreds of people died in Poland because they tried to change their lives for better. It was like WWII all over, except for 10 times longer.

So what you're saying is we should of risked a nuclear war with the Soviets that would of killed milions of people to save your sorry ass?
Ok, that's it, troll wins the argument.

Then I guess you won the argument, congratulations.

Let's of course ignore every single country that was behind the Iron Curtain. Who cares about those on the south...

Oooh snappy comeback, you got me there.
Ok, seeing that you're the genius, explain to us all how America and Britain could of saved eastern Europe from communism without starting a nuclear war with Russia.

 

[Abedeus]

Don't forget that in 60-80s, while you were sitting on your butts in the UK or being hippies in the USA, hundreds of people died in Poland because they tried to change their lives for better. It was like WWII all over, except for 10 times longer.

So what you're saying is we should of risked a nuclear war with the Soviets that would of killed milions of people to save your sorry ass?
Ok, that's it, troll wins the argument.

Then I guess you won the argument, congratulations.

Let's of course ignore every single country that was behind the Iron Curtain. Who cares about those on the south...

Oooh snappy comeback, you got me there.
Ok, seeing that you're the genius, explain to us all how America and Britain could of saved eastern Europe from communism without starting a nuclear war with Russia.

The best cure is prevention.

They could've saved the Eastern Europe if they had stopped the Nazis from taking it in the first place.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Don't forget that in 60-80s, while you were sitting on your butts in the UK or being hippies in the USA, hundreds of people died in Poland because they tried to change their lives for better. It was like WWII all over, except for 10 times longer.

So what you're saying is we should of risked a nuclear war with the Soviets that would of killed milions of people to save your sorry ass?
Ok, that's it, troll wins the argument.

Then I guess you won the argument, congratulations.

Let's of course ignore every single country that was behind the Iron Curtain. Who cares about those on the south...

Oooh snappy comeback, you got me there.
Ok, seeing that you're the genius, explain to us all how America and Britain could of saved eastern Europe from communism without starting a nuclear war with Russia.

The best cure is prevention.

They could've saved the Eastern Europe if they had stopped the Nazis from taking it in the first place.

By doing that they would of had a war with both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

How would they have accomplished that anyway.They couldnt just fly their troops into Poland.
Even if they had done that Russia would have still claimed a sphere of influence and Great Britain and America were in no position to deny them that.

 

[Abedeus]

Don't forget that in 60-80s, while you were sitting on your butts in the UK or being hippies in the USA, hundreds of people died in Poland because they tried to change their lives for better. It was like WWII all over, except for 10 times longer.

So what you're saying is we should of risked a nuclear war with the Soviets that would of killed milions of people to save your sorry ass?
Ok, that's it, troll wins the argument.

Then I guess you won the argument, congratulations.

Let's of course ignore every single country that was behind the Iron Curtain. Who cares about those on the south...

Oooh snappy comeback, you got me there.
Ok, seeing that you're the genius, explain to us all how America and Britain could of saved eastern Europe from communism without starting a nuclear war with Russia.

The best cure is prevention.

They could've saved the Eastern Europe if they had stopped the Nazis from taking it in the first place.

By doing that they would of had a war with both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

How would they have accomplished that anyway.They couldnt just fly their troops into Poland.
Even if they had done that Russia would have still claimed a sphere of influence and Great Britain and America were in no position to deny them that.

I'm talking about the French (and maybe UK, they had it harder to get there) attacking Germany within a month of the war's start. So they would either have to fight on two fronts, which is tactically unwise, or would have to retreat to protect the capital, like the French had to in WWI.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Don't forget that in 60-80s, while you were sitting on your butts in the UK or being hippies in the USA, hundreds of people died in Poland because they tried to change their lives for better. It was like WWII all over, except for 10 times longer.

So what you're saying is we should of risked a nuclear war with the Soviets that would of killed milions of people to save your sorry ass?
Ok, that's it, troll wins the argument.

Then I guess you won the argument, congratulations.

Let's of course ignore every single country that was behind the Iron Curtain. Who cares about those on the south...

Oooh snappy comeback, you got me there.
Ok, seeing that you're the genius, explain to us all how America and Britain could of saved eastern Europe from communism without starting a nuclear war with Russia.

The best cure is prevention.

They could've saved the Eastern Europe if they had stopped the Nazis from taking it in the first place.

By doing that they would of had a war with both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

How would they have accomplished that anyway.They couldnt just fly their troops into Poland.
Even if they had done that Russia would have still claimed a sphere of influence and Great Britain and America were in no position to deny them that.

I'm talking about the French (and maybe UK, they had it harder to get there) attacking Germany within a month of the war's start. So they would either have to fight on two fronts, which is tactically unwise, or would have to retreat to protect the capital, like the French had to in WWI.

Whatever, I dont care anymore.

 

[freakonaleash]

is'nt the falklands a little island with about 3 or 4 sheep on it?

 

[Pandalisk]

Don't forget that in 60-80s, while you were sitting on your butts in the UK or being hippies in the USA, hundreds of people died in Poland because they tried to change their lives for better. It was like WWII all over, except for 10 times longer.

So what you're saying is we should of risked a nuclear war with the Soviets that would of killed milions of people to save your sorry ass?
Ok, that's it, troll wins the argument.

Then I guess you won the argument, congratulations.

Let's of course ignore every single country that was behind the Iron Curtain. Who cares about those on the south...

Oooh snappy comeback, you got me there.
Ok, seeing that you're the genius, explain to us all how America and Britain could of saved eastern Europe from communism without starting a nuclear war with Russia.

The best cure is prevention.

They could've saved the Eastern Europe if they had stopped the Nazis from taking it in the first place.

By doing that they would of had a war with both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

How would they have accomplished that anyway.They couldnt just fly their troops into Poland.
Even if they had done that Russia would have still claimed a sphere of influence and Great Britain and America were in no position to deny them that.

I'm talking about the French (and maybe UK, they had it harder to get there) attacking Germany within a month of the war's start. So they would either have to fight on two fronts, which is tactically unwise, or would have to retreat to protect the capital, like the French had to in WWI.

Dont worry ill pick up where Infamous left off, France and britain were in high economic trouble! they didn't have a strong enough army to punch all the way to berlin! are you mad?! countries dont just roll into another country like a wreaking ball, not without a superior force and finnancial backing which they had NONE!,they wouldn't of been able to cross rhineland!, and Russia had its eyes on you for years if germany didnt Russia would of, and by saying "Russia" and "Polands Good allies" In one sentance you sir lose any credibility you had on the damn subject, if you think about it everything up to now has fallen perfectly into place, polands part of the Eu its democratic, what do you have to ***** about now! you weren't even alive then! move on man, who gives a shit anymore?

and you do realise most of the east (Romania ect) supported germany? austria?, it was not GERMANY VS ALL in europe

europe wanted peace, but france and britain drew the line at poland they went agaisnt MASS PUBLIC OPINION to go to war. it wasn't their war! but they went into it! it wasn't irelands war but they went into it! (by sending troops and supplying information) by saying what your saying your spitting on the memories of those that died in that war, remember, they didn't have to go to polands aid, but they did

and also your claim of attacking germany within the month is impossible you cant just wake up one morning with a higly demilitarised army and say "right so were off to fuck germany" germany was the strongest power at the time in the west and central europe thier tanks unstopable i do not count russia since they were not players yet.

 

[Bretty]

Right, let's see if I am a bad enough dude...

Did you know that prior to the Falklands War, Margeret Thatcher actually reduced both the military spending and the actual defences in the Falklands?

The embarassingly right-wing British leadership then used the political captial they gained from the Falklands victory to advance their neo-liberal agenda, leading to mass privatisation and millions unemployed. The continuation of this economic policy eventually culminated with Britain being forced to devalue its currency and exit the ERM. This destroyed public perception of the Tories as having a competent economic policy.

Hence New Labour got elected and decided the best thing to do was to continue along the same policy route which inevitably led to the current recession. Now the Conservetives will get re-elected and the whole process will be exacerbated.

Sorry to wonder off-topic but it's interesting to link the event of the Falklands war to the current economic failure.

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.

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!

Since the UK was a democracy the neo-liberal reforms were enacted much more slowly than in many other states so the currency devaluation which has taken place in every state which implemented these policies did not occur until the early 1990's once John Major was in charge and thus the UK was unable to remain in the ERM. Admittedly, the Conservatives did not create the spark which caused devaluation but they poured the petrol onto the economy.

Next, New Labour take over and continue to follow the same path by granting independence to the Bank of England and further deregulating the financial sector. Once the banking industries were allowed to function as they wished they immediately rushed towards short term, high profit sectors such as sub-prime mortgage lending and the rest is history.

Both the Conservatives and New Labour are equally guilty in this tale but the point is that the national pride generated by the Falklands victory allowed the Conservatives to be re-elected and to continues the neo-liberal reforms without more popular resistance than they experienced.

Pure forms of neo-liberalism have always required authoritarian governments because they are the only ones able to control the population when the suffering induced by these policies begins to strike. The Falklands War was the 'cover' the Conservatives needed to implement their own reforms.

I hope this was complicated enough for you.

Did I say anywhere that they ended the strikes? You fail to even accept that the UK had been on borrowed time from the 60's... No coal, expensive steel and unionization making manufactured goods even more expensive drove trade from the UK. Tell me one bloody thing Thatcher had to do with this?

You seem to think that the Gov't sank the country into some sort of crapper? It was there already! Look at it now, nothing has changed. The Bank of England makes money when it does well, and if it doesn't make money it doesn't. You sound like another libratarian broken record going on about the central bank. Guess what, we need them... DO you want a politician in charge of your currency? Sort of asking Brown to help with a colonoscopy dont you think?

You seem to not want to debate as you glossed over my whole argument and picked out a few phrases. So well done and I guess you are going to talk about something 'neo' soon. I look forward to that rant.

 

[Bretty]

Unionization WAS good..... in 1912...

For an example of what it does no just look at Ford.. $70 an hour for a highschool dropout entry possition... full benefits AND RETIREMENT! And they wonder why their jobs are going over seas...

 

[Doug]

Don't forget that in 60-80s, while you were sitting on your butts in the UK or being hippies in the USA, hundreds of people died in Poland because they tried to change their lives for better. It was like WWII all over, except for 10 times longer.

So what you're saying is we should of risked a nuclear war with the Soviets that would of killed milions of people to save your sorry ass?
Ok, that's it, troll wins the argument.

Then I guess you won the argument, congratulations.

Let's of course ignore every single country that was behind the Iron Curtain. Who cares about those on the south...

Oooh snappy comeback, you got me there.
Ok, seeing that you're the genius, explain to us all how America and Britain could of saved eastern Europe from communism without starting a nuclear war with Russia.

The best cure is prevention.

They could've saved the Eastern Europe if they had stopped the Nazis from taking it in the first place.

Erm, hate to point this out, but Eastern Europe could have saved itself if we're getting technical about this. If they'd struck Hitler early, before 1939, he would have imploded fairly easily.

Or alternatively, we could simply say mistake and crap happened, lets not hi-jack this thread anymore with stuff not actually connected to the thread.

 

[Lothae]

/thread rehijack
I'll agree with the island referendum - people who live there should decide which country they want to live in.

 

[TerribleTerryTate]

Either UK keeps it, or let them decide. Simply handing it over to the Argentinians after what happened in my view, would be disgusting. However, if they themselves decide to be governed by them fair enough, that's their choice.

About the whole 'zomg the Allies are evil, they should've saved us' argument. I strongly recommend you get a grasp on history. Infact, couple that with a grasp of common sense.
No one doubts the incredible effort and sacrifice the Polish gave in WW2, but don't assume that gives you an excuse to shit on what the Allies did for you too. Many, many millions of people died, and it started trying to defend the Polish. It is truly terrible what happened in the aftermath of WW2, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but some things are uncontrollable. Jumping into Poland and helping would've resulted in the Apocolypse.
Full blown Nuclear War.

Arguing with people on this forum directly, is also completely pointless. The British people here, had nothing to do with the way you were treat. Nothing at all. Just like, you personally weren't a pilot in the Battle of Britain, or an infantryman repelling the Nazi/Soviet forces. As for people saying - different centuries can't be compared, but fifty years ago can...how so? Many of us were simply not alive fifty years ago, just as we weren't five hundred years ago. The world has changed hugely in fifty years, as it has in five hundred. Me being accused of being lazy, or cowardly for the actions of my countries government fifty years ago, is like me complaining how the Vikings or Romans conquered my homeland centuries ago.
Or me having a vendetta against the Zulus, for the raping the British received at Isandlwana.

It happened, it's history. I wasn't alive for either events, and as such I respect the sacrifice that the men and women gave hugely, but don't expect me to thank YOU, when you had nothing to do with it. Just as I wouldn't expect any Frenchmen or women, to thank me for saving them. It had nothing to do with me.

 

[tman_au]

Referendum would be the sensible choice.

 

[Doug]

/thread rehijack
I'll agree with the island referendum - people who live there should decide which country they want to live in.

Referendum would be the sensible choice.

Meh, the Argentine's wouldn't listen - they feel that because the islanders aren't 'native', they have no right to self-determination. Hence the invasion of the island.

An Argentine-inspired poll, conducted in 1994, revealed that 87% of them would be against any form of discussion with Argentina over sovereignty, under any circumstances.

Self-determination principles are not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population expelled by the British invasion of 1833.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands#cite_note-FCO-39