The Falklands
- Started
- Last post
- 66 Responses
- JerseyRaindog0
The SBS were in the Falklands first.
- 23kon0
Maggie was the shit.
She knew how to get stuff done.
SAS would've been in and out of Iran by now if she was running the ship....
moth
(Apr 2 07, 09:13)
------------i agree with moth bigtime
- jevad0
cheating argie bastard
- Meeklo0
and you are not even british..
- kelpie0
I look forward to watching Maggie Thatcher burn in hell, it'll make my stay so much sweeter.
- Bullitt0
The BBC is refusing to acknowledge this war even existed... fucking pathetic..
- rafalski0
Maggie was the shit.
She knew how to get stuff done.
SAS would've been in and out of Iran by now if she was running the ship....
moth
(Apr 2 07, 09:13)Is the Iran thing a booster for tories then?..
- Crouwel0
Pretty fucked up war if you ask me and not to joke about. hundreds of men killed for just a few stupid islands containing nothing more but a few peasants a few rabbits and a fox.
Really laughing matter, yes.
Goes to show how Thatcher was not much different then Bush, getting to war for political gain in times of economical difficulties.
Tits.
- Dancer0
jesus Crouwel you're right off the mark
- Crouwel0
i'm not. tell me otherwise.
(sorry got to go now but reply anyway, i'll respond later)
- Crouwel0
"Ultimately, the successful conclusion of the war gave a noticeable fillip to British patriotic feeling. Since the failure of the 1956 Suez campaign, the end of Empire and the economic decline of the 1970s which cumulated in the Winter of Discontent, Britain had been beset by uncertainty and anxiety about its international role, status and capability"
- Dancer0
Galtieri wasn't too popular at the time (can be read on your Wiki link) and he thought it would be a good idea to invade the "stupid islands" inhabiting alomost 3,000 British people. 3,000 people that didn't want to be Argentine. so your laughing matter is about peoples homes and way of life which in my eyes was quite important to Mrs Thatcher
I'm sure if your area was invaded by outsiders then you wouldn't be too happy. Britain had a responsibility to protect their land and people, political gain is irrelevant – helpful but irrelevant
But if that's how you see it then that's your opinion I suppose,
- madirish0
not to be curse, but what was also at stake there, was the mannor and authenticity by which the british 'took' the islands as their own, and the privledges they endured because of them.... and did not for other countries wishing to use them. ie- shipping stopover and disposal attributes allowing them to trade w/ friends more cost-effective than competition.... namely S.A. shipping companies.....funded by argentine banks.
but if that too is assumed here, they are all just opinions clearly.
- OBBTKN0
Maradona plays with your balls, brits!
- Dancer0
mad, I do not know the history and what the british did 150 years prior may well of been wrong – I suppose that is under dispute by all sides.
I merely think that invading a territory that has been at peace for a long time by 12,000 argentines is a bit off. To think it laughable and stupid is, in my eyes, way off the mark
- madirish0
right, i hear you Dancer. i agree that invading because you 'feel the time is right' or something is definitly wring. on any account.
i do think though, that the selective accountability to an arbitrary look back in history by those in power is all to common. in a situation like this, both sides could have worked through the situation w/o a single war-making device needed to be held. instead, the argentines did in fact choose to 'invade' and the british and Thatcher did choose to conciously forget their appropriation of the islands and took the stance of entitlement.
both were wrong. both at fault.
i do feel bad for those who suffer most and given least in the end, however; the residents of the islands and thier wonderful sheep.
- Nairn0
Even this typically righteous Guardian article entitled "Argentina's claim on the Falklands is still a good one" shows that Argentina doesn't really have a strong claim to 'las malvinas' at all, if you rad between the lines.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commen…
GO back just a couple of hundred years and the 'rights' of many countries over others would lead to a complete re-drawing of most nation states, so it's a futile platform for discussion.
My father spent two years helping to rebuild the Falklands, and I was brought up in Gibraltar, so I have a personal leaning towards the rights of the inhabitants in these two 'colonies' over those of ascendent powermongers (Argentina & Spain), so I'm disappointed by Crouwel's somewhat ignorant, idealistic opinion.
I'm also disappointed by Jevad's American-tinged flag-waving jingoism, but there you go.
- Crouwel0
oh come on Dancer. I know it was the Argentines starting it. But political gain by stirring up pattriotism was definitly a very serious reason for this. But we will have to wait till 2085 to be really sure.
It is a classical political instrument from thousands of years ago, still used today.
in times of crisis, create a common enemy, or scapegoat for that matter.
- kelpie0
yeas but Nairn, how funny would it be to watch Maggie Thatcher burn in hell? regardless of the Falklands, a conflict which has no bearing on my reasoning at all. That's the true issue of import here which I want you to answer