Ukip And The Bnp

[cheesemonster2005]

...sent young soldiers to their death for no other reason other than her self-glorification.

 

That alone I think is pretty evil

 

Just interested, don't know much about the workings of her cabinet when she began the Falklands conflict. Why do you say it was for her own self-gratification?

 

You think she was evil or what she did was evil? I don't think she purposefully nasty, rather completely unconcerned and genuinely thought she was doing what was good for country. She is still a complete bitch though

 

She was deeply unpopular during her first term until the convenient Malvinas conflict came about. Most Britons couldn't point to the islands on a world map and if they could then they thought Argentina was invading the Isle of Man. She used the conflict for political gain and it worked. Certainly I can see the British viewpoint but equally I can also see as valid claims from Argentina and even France if they were to persue a claim. Just because over the years you've filled up a small island with your own people doesn't make it your island just in the same way that filling Kosovo with Albanians over the past 100 years doesn't make it any less an integral part of Serbia.

 

I think that Thatcher was pure evil but with respect to the Falkands conflict she was a bit less evil - she could have used the full forces of the British army but instead the conflict was milder and less intensive. As for her attitudes to unions, the European Union, privatization, lack of care for society, family and communities, homosexual attitudes and distribution of wealth then she is 100% evil and in the same league as Pinochet (a good friend of hers), Reagan, the Argentine military regime but maybe a little better than the likes of Mussolini.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Certainly I can see the British viewpoint but equally I can also see as valid claims from Argentina and even France if they were to persue a claim. Just because over the years you've filled up a small island with your own people doesn't make it your island just in the same way that filling Kosovo with Albanians over the past 100 years doesn't make it any less an integral part of Serbia.

 

I don't really accept any viewpoint on ownership, control, etc. However, the fact the Island are close to Argentina and have a historical connection based on some supposed transference from Spain, does not really carry weight with me. What seems more important is that there are people on the Island who ALL wish to be ruled by Britain and they have been there for a long time. Whether Britain's right to own the Island's is valid or not from the basis of international law, the people on the Falklands should be in control of who their rulers are if anyone has to determine it.

 

 

I think that Thatcher was pure evil but with respect to the Falkands conflict she was a bit less evil - she could have used the full forces of the British army but instead the conflict was milder and less intensive.

 

Where do you come this idea, never heard of this. My understanding was that there wasn't an Army ready for an deployment. In any case, it doesn't really strike me as sensible to send a large Army force anyway. It was more crucial to gain control of the Islands and leave it to the Argentinians to make the next move. Not wait until a large force is built-up in Britain and then send that in with the Navy - the Argentinians would have already consolidated on their hold over the Falklands.

 

As for her attitudes to unions, the European Union, privatization, lack of care for society, family and communities, homosexual attitudes and distribution of wealth then she is 100% evil and in the same league as Pinochet (a good friend of hers), Reagan, the Argentine military regime but maybe a little better than the likes of Mussolini.

 

Same league as Pinochet? the Argentinian military junta, etc? Really? You do know what they did?

[The Voice of Reason]

No, they wouldn't execute anyone, but allowing the Falklands to be held by the Argenitinian military Britain would be seen internationally as weak.

 

And it isn't even realistic to ask people to leave their homes.

 

Yes far better to let young soldiers lose their lives for a non-cause, rather than being seen as weak. Negotiation which we were invited to engage in (but refused) would have been a better option.

 

Who was asking anyone to leave their home?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Yes far better to let young soldiers lose their lives for a non-cause, rather than being seen as weak. Negotiation which we were invited to engage in (but refused) would have been a better option.

 

But then we shouldn't encourage people to join the forces where their life are routinely scrubbed out and wasted.

 

But why should the UK have negotiated? It may be seen to be a non-cause. And you probably know my politics to know that I do not agree with conflicts between nation states over territory or resource control etc. But from a 'conventional' perspective, the UK could hardly have dealt with the invasion in another way.

 

Who was asking anyone to leave their home?

 

I was just referring to what you mentioned about encouraging the Islanders to move from the Falklands to Britain.

[The Voice of Reason]

Yes far better to let young soldiers lose their lives for a non-cause, rather than being seen as weak. Negotiation which we were invited to engage in (but refused) would have been a better option.

 

But then we shouldn't encourage people to join the forces where their life are routinely scrubbed out and wasted.

 

But why should the UK have negotiated? It may be seen to be a non-cause. And you probably know my politics to know that I do not agree with conflicts between nation states over territory or resource control etc. But from a 'conventional' perspective, the UK could hardly have dealt with the invasion in another way.

 

Who was asking anyone to leave their home?

 

I was just referring to what you mentioned about encouraging the Islanders to move from the Falklands to Britain.

 

If these Islanders want to be "British" then let us facilitate a move to Britain for them from God knows how many thousand miles away.

 

Got to be cheaper than the ongoing costs of providing defence for them and all the other associated costs. It's not like they contribute anything to the British economy.

[Evil Goblin]

So, VoR - freedom has a price does it? British nationals can be dumped the minute your pocket is in danger? What a cretin you are!

 

I also suggest that you read up on modern history, especially that relating to the South Atlantic/The Argentine in 1980-82. Then, perhaps, you wouldn't spout such garbage.

[bluemonday]

Regarding the Falklands, the natural resources in the surrounding waters might be an issue in the future.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If these Islanders want to be "British" then let us facilitate a move to Britain for them from God knows how many thousand miles away.

 

Got to be cheaper than the ongoing costs of providing defence for them and all the other associated costs. It's not like they contribute anything to the British economy.

 

I am trying to answer this on 'your' terms, in that you don't have my politics. It would be quite impossible to 'facilitate' such a move. They see themselves as British but also see the Falklands as their home. It doesn't really make a difference how far they are from Britain. If they are happy their being government by a particular group and object to being government by another one, then shouldn't that be more important than territorial claims?

 

Following from your thinking, would you have said that Northern Ireland should have been 'dumped' by the British after the 1940s when its industry vastly declined? Eire would not have been ready to absorb the North.

 

It is a waste of money given the Argentinians are highly unlikely to attempt such a thing again given their current relationship with Britain and the quality of their government. If the Argies really wanted to invade again by making a very concerted effort, the forces in the Falklands couldn't put up much of a fight. They are largely there as a marker of British territory.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Regarding the Falklands, the natural resources in the surrounding waters might be an issue in the future.

 

And not just there. The Argentinian and Chilean governments desperately want to make to parts of Antarctica come under the area of possible future control. They have done numerous ridiculous things, such as arranging for couples to marry over there in order to make a legitimate (legal) claim to areas of that continent. Of course, they can't really access the resources YET given the treaty that exists to prevent exploitation of this continent. Nevertheless, these nations are eager to try and make as many claims as they can just in that situation changes.l

 

If the Argentinians had control of the Falklands it would increase the longitudinally decided basis for new claims to the Continent, i.e. the section of Antarctica for which they could reasonably argue is theirs would be much greater. Of course, this area increases even more if South Georgia were to come under their control.

[The Voice of Reason]

So, VoR - freedom has a price does it? British nationals can be dumped the minute your pocket is in danger? What a cretin you are!

 

I also suggest that you read up on modern history, especially that relating to the South Atlantic/The Argentine in 1980-82. Then, perhaps, you wouldn't spout such garbage.

 

 

Yes freedom does have a price, but that is not financial.

 

It's not a case of "dumping" the Falkland Islanders. As I said bring them to Britain if they want to be British We have demonstrably shown that we have been prepared to sacrifice our young men for the sake of their "Britishness". How many more would you be prepared to sacrifice on shaky principles?

 

Personal insults do not add credibility to your argument.

[cheesemonster2005]

Certainly I can see the British viewpoint but equally I can also see as valid claims from Argentina and even France if they were to persue a claim. Just because over the years you've filled up a small island with your own people doesn't make it your island just in the same way that filling Kosovo with Albanians over the past 100 years doesn't make it any less an integral part of Serbia.

 

I don't really accept any viewpoint on ownership, control, etc. However, the fact the Island are close to Argentina and have a historical connection based on some supposed transference from Spain, does not really carry weight with me. What seems more important is that there are people on the Island who ALL wish to be ruled by Britain and they have been there for a long time. Whether Britain's right to own the Island's is valid or not from the basis of international law, the people on the Falklands should be in control of who their rulers are if anyone has to determine it.

 

I don't really believe in self-determination. It leads (and will lead) to far more problems. How do you determine what size a place must be before it can determine its own destiny - 1 million people, 100,000 or would it be OK for Jurby to decide its own fait? Plus self-determination means that the majority have enormous power whereas the minority are helpless and this is one reason why no country exercises real democracy because it would lead to chaos. The USA wouldn't ever allow a state to leave the Union (it fought a war deciding just that) yet they had no problems interfering in the affairs of Kosovo, Serbia and encouraging the Albanian population to seek independence.

 

Of course British people want to be ruled by Britain. Argentina's main argument all along has been that those British people shouldn't have settled there in the first place.

 

Ultimately the only thing which can decide these types of issues are all-out war or talking and I know which one is better for humanity.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I don't really believe in self-determination. It leads (and will lead) to far more problems. How do you determine what size a place must be before it can determine its own destiny - 1 million people, 100,000 or would it be OK for Jurby to decide its own fait?

 

You mean you don't agree that it is a good thing? Well...I tend to agree in terms of national or territorial related self-determination based on majorities it does cause massive problems and is no fair way of doing things. Just look at the mess in Northern Ireland.

 

Plus self-determination means that the majority have enormous power whereas the minority are helpless and this is one reason why no country exercises real democracy because it would lead to chaos.

 

What's real democracy?

 

The USA wouldn't ever allow a state to leave the Union (it fought a war deciding just that) yet they had no problems interfering in the affairs of Kosovo, Serbia and encouraging the Albanian population to seek independence.

 

And this is all what it boils down to. Most of it is all down to State and corporate control of resources. The Argentinian government doesn't want the Island's because they are pretty or because they are simply near Argentina. It is comes down to control of resources. And the same for Britain. Britain already made clear its claims under the EEZ, but it has been disputed. Northern Ireland, I think, is a different case but if the Falklanders were fewer in number and there were no benefits to Britain having control of the Island's I doubt Britain would give a damn what goes on there. The British government of recent has deported entire populations of people simply for the sake of making sure that Britain and the US retain control in particular regions of the world. If the Falklands were of little value, I doubt the UK would have the same concern for the Islands.

[cheesemonster2005]

I'm not so sure. The stories of oil in the area of the Falklands are quite recent yet the argument over the islands has lasted centuries. I think for Argentina it's considered some kind of manifest destiny just like it was in the USA when they raced to expand from east to west. Given how unpopulated the vast majority of Argentina is (around 60% of the population live in the area near Buenos Aires leaving the other 40%, about 15 million, occupying an area the size of western Europe. Argentina also have claims over parts of Antarctica (as do many countries) and those areas are often treated as an integral part of the country (appearing on state maps, weather reports "freezing today in Argentinian Antarctica...").

 

By real democracy I meant every decision being decided by the people which would be pretty much impossible and would create lots of problems considering the number of people involved and the fact that most people are not capable of making simple decisions.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I'm not so sure. The stories of oil in the area of the Falklands are quite recent yet the argument over the islands has lasted centuries. I think for Argentina it's considered some kind of manifest destiny just like it was in the USA when they raced to expand from east to west. Given how unpopulated the vast majority of Argentina is (around 60% of the population live in the area near Buenos Aires leaving the other 40%, about 15 million, occupying an area the size of western Europe. Argentina also have claims over parts of Antarctica (as do many countries) and those areas are often treated as an integral part of the country (appearing on state maps, weather reports "freezing today in Argentinian Antarctica...").

 

Yeah, I do agree with what you

 

 

By real democracy I meant every decision being decided by the people which would be pretty much impossible and would create lots of problems considering the number of people involved and the fact that most people are not capable of making simple decisions.

 

How patronising. Not capable of making simple decisions? Most people are so non-politicised in terms of the current political system that they have switched their brains off to even considering the possibility of making the decisions for themselves. Quite a different thing to say they are not capable.

[cheesemonster2005]

Yes what I wrote does seem patronising. I think what I meant (the wine is affecting what I write!) was that some decisions by politicians are complicated for them (that's why they have advisers to advice on all the technical financial, technological, etc. bullshit). Decisions about use of stem cells isn't just a simple yes or no debate but one involving a knowledge (or advisers with the knowledge) of all aspects of the subject. Expecting each individual person in a country to do the same would be difficult. Of course other decisions are not so complex (i.e. 'shall we build a new bus stop in x town') yet so many people would be disinterested in such a debate that they may waste their vote, not bother voting, etc. Need more wine.