buctootim Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 Can we just all agree, whether supporters, former supporters(ahem), and anyone else, that Corbyn and his cronies are possibly the worst leadership of any of the main parties ever, and they have less chance of actually being in government as I have of ****ging Kylie Minogue? Reckon that just about covers it. The man is a f*cking clown. He's a loose cannon with no idea of tactics and strategy. He wont get elected - but I like the fact he raises difficult issues and questions the lazy consensus we've had for 30 years. If Labour had a leader with more nous but some of the same spirit I'd be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 Can we just all agree, whether supporters, former supporters(ahem), and anyone else, that Corbyn and his cronies are possibly the worst leadership of any of the main parties ever, and they have less chance of actually being in government as I have of ****ging Kylie Minogue? Reckon that just about covers it. The man is a f*cking clown. Nail. Hit. Head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 That part I agree with. There were wider implications about the credibility of Britain's determination to defend itself - but it was an unnecessary and avoidable war created by sending Argentina mixed messages. How many of Britains wars since Korea (and maybe not even that) have been worthwhile? Sierra Leone yes, but Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? former Yugoslavia? A long list of death and destruction for little gain imo. War is a failure of diplomacy but unfortunately some people don't or won't listen and it becomes the ultimate sanction. In order for diplomacy to work there has to be a credible threat involved somewhere. It goes back over the centuries: Si vis pacem para bellum. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 So is there an acceptable number of casualties for a campaign - or do you kill whatever it takes? what do you think? gives us a number or a percentage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 27 January, 2016 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2016 904 people died and 2,432 people were wounded so that the c2,000 population of the Falklands could decide which flag they lived under. What is the correct balance of deaths to rights? The above question is quite absurd. I don't know about you but I'm not in the business of selling our peoples rights whatever the cost may be. I might also add that the responsibly for the casualties incurred in that war lays principally I think with the foreign military dictatorship that started it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 904 people died and 2,432 people were wounded so that the c2,000 population of the Falklands could decide which flag they lived under. What is the correct balance of deaths to rights? Embarrassed for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 (edited) The above question is quite absurd. I don't know about you but I'm not in the business of selling our peoples rights whatever the cost may be So effectively "I will write a blank cheque drawn on other peoples bank accounts to defend our rights". High principles indeed - as long of course you ignore the equal rights of soldiers to not have their lives wasted on pointless conflicts. Just so we are clear - one death and one life changing injury for every Falklands residents right to not have have two passports under joint sovereignty instead of one is acceptable. Goodo. Edited 27 January, 2016 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 Embarrassed for you Probably best to post up cogent thoughts rather than the absence of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 So effectively "I will write a blank cheque drawn on other peoples bank accounts to defend our rights". High principles indeed - as long of course you ignore the equal rights of soldiers to not have their lives wasted on pointless conflicts. Just so we are clear - one death and one life changing injury for every Falklands residents right to have have two passports under joint sovereignty instead of one is acceptable. Goodo. That is grossly over-simplistic and you know it. You also have to consider the long-term deterrent effects of such actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 904 people died and 2,432 people were wounded so that the c2,000 population of the Falklands could decide which flag they lived under. What is the correct balance of deaths to rights? I would happily sacrifice 100,000 British troops to protect just one resident of Rockall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 I would happily sacrifice 100,000 British troops to protect just one resident of Rockall. There arent any . You do seem to struggle with simple concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 I thought our nuclear deterrent was an infallible tool in preventing countries from attacking our territories. Clearly billlions well spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 There arent any . You do seem to struggle with simple concepts. Fair enough. 200,000 troops but that's my final offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 27 January, 2016 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2016 So effectively "I will write a blank cheque drawn on other peoples bank accounts to defend our rights". High principles indeed - as long of course you ignore the equal rights of soldiers to not have their lives wasted on pointless conflicts. Just so we are clear - one death and one life changing injury for every Falklands residents right to not have have two passports under joint sovereignty instead of one is acceptable. Goodo. For a start please bother to address the point about where responsibility for the casualties lies. Then you can try to comprehend that many British people would not find it all ''acceptable'' that their government should allow a foreign power to ride roughshod over international law, invade territory that is legally under UK control, and then not respond to such a outrageous provocation. As for members of our (all volunteer) UK armed forces objecting to being instructed to eject a foreign army of occupation from our territory ... well I can only presume that you clearly have never met many of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 Can we just all agree, whether Labour supporters, former Labour supporters(ahem), and anyone else, that Corbyn and his cronies are possibly the worst leadership of any of the main parties ever, and they have less chance of actually being in government as I have of ****ging Kylie Minogue? Reckon that just about covers it. The man is a f*cking clown. You have a better than 8 to 1 chance of boning Kylie? Fairplay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 That is grossly over-simplistic and you know it. You also have to consider the long-term deterrent effects of such actions. There is a wider security implication - I accept that. My point is really that successive governments have been too gung ho at sending troops for ill thought out missions, often as a result of poor foreign policy or our meddling overseas in the first place. The result is less security, not more. The Iranian Revolution came about s a direct result of MI5 helping to overthrow a democratic government and install the hated Shah. Iraq left 800,000 dead in war over fictional WMD and which the UN had declared illegal. Libya, now a fertile ground for IS. The Falklands - The UN voted for negotiations Argentina offered joint sovereignty and the UK offered full transfer of sovereignty and a 100 year leaseback a la Hong Kong. It was the withdrawal of that offer which largely triggered war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 I thought our nuclear deterrent was an infallible tool in preventing countries from attacking our territories. Clearly billlions well spent. No, that is to stop us all getting nuked in our beds. So far it seems to be working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 For a start please bother to address the point about where responsibility for the casualties lies. Then you can try to comprehend that many British people would not find it all ''acceptable'' that their government should allow a foreign power to ride roughshod over international law, invade territory that is legally under UK control, and then not respond to such a outrageous provocation. As for members of our (all volunteer) UK armed forces objecting to being instructed to eject a foreign army of occupation from our territory ... well I can only presume that you clearly have never met many of them. Tim does struggle with simple concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 Fair enough. 200,000 troops but that's my final offer. We could expand it like the Chinese and the Spratlys - then build a refugee holding centre so we can be seen to be taking our fair share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 For a start please bother to address the point about where responsibility for the casualties lies. . Dunno, which do you think is more important? The 1967 offer by the UK to transfer sovereignty to Argentina as part of decolonisation, the 1980 offer to transfer sovereignty and lease back, or the 1981 decision to strip Falkland Islanders of their citizenship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 27 January, 2016 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2016 Dunno, which do you think is more important? The 1967 offer by the UK to transfer sovereignty to Argentina as part of decolonisation, the 1980 offer to transfer sovereignty and lease back, or the 1981 decision to strip Falkland Islanders of their citizenship? Whether you want to admit it or not, responsibility for that war clearly lays with the military dictatorship that initiated the conflict. The Foreign Office may have harboured various schemes at one time or another, but when did any British Prime Minister - let alone parliament - approve any transfer of Falklands sovereignty to Argentina against the wishes of the local population? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 For a start please bother to address the point about where responsibility for the casualties lies. Then you can try to comprehend that many British people would not find it all ''acceptable'' that their government should allow a foreign power to ride roughshod over international law, invade territory that is legally under UK control, and then not respond to such a outrageous provocation. As for members of our (all volunteer) UK armed forces objecting to being instructed to eject a foreign army of occupation from our territory ... well I can only presume that you clearly have never met many of them. But the Falklands are ours because of our colonial exploits which Involved invading other countries, killing and enslaving their people ect. Yeah it was ages ago but that is our history, and the people of Argentina are as aware of that as anyone else. The Falkland Islanders may be technically British but yo me they are Falklanders first, South Americans second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 27 January, 2016 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2016 But the Falklands are ours because of our colonial exploits which Involved invading other countries, killing and enslaving their people ect. Yeah it was ages ago but that is our history, and the people of Argentina are as aware of that as anyone else. The Falkland Islanders may be technically British but yo me they are Falklanders first, South Americans second. If you understood the first thing about the Falklands and its history then you'd know that no pitched battles were fought, and no natives suppressed, in order to establish British sovereignty over those islands. Before 1982 the only significant military action ever to take place there was when a Royal Navy force destroyed a German naval squadron that was attempting to attack Port Stanley during WWI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 I thought our nuclear deterrent was an infallible tool in preventing countries from attacking our territories. Clearly billlions well spent. nuclear deterrent has nothing to do with that, regarding Argentina anyway unless you think we should lower the trigger point of when they should be used? the Successor programme will go ahead, no matter what Jezza comes out with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 If you understood the first thing about the Falklands and its history then you'd know that no pitched battles were fought, and no natives suppressed, in order to establish British sovereignty over those islands. Before 1982 the only significant military action ever to take place there was when a Royal Navy force destroyed a German naval squadron that was attempting to attack Port Stanley during WWI. I knew that, I was talking about what we got up to when forming our empire. Anyway, as pointed out earlier, there are uninhabited islands of the coast of the UK, doesn't make them any less British. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 nuclear deterrent has nothing to do with that, regarding Argentina anyway unless you think we should lower the trigger point of when they should be used? the Successor programme will go ahead, no matter what Jezza comes out with No point having them if they cant ever be used surely? What if Argentina invaded the IOW and started slaughtering civilians, shouldn't we threaten to use a tactical nuke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 You have a better than 8 to 1 chance of boning Kylie? Fairplay! 8-1 in a two horse race means I really do have more chance of ****ging Kylie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 No point having them if they cant ever be used surely? What if Argentina invaded the IOW and started slaughtering civilians, shouldn't we threaten to use a tactical nuke? they will not/never be used to threaten Argentina. what is a tactical Nuke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 No point having them if they cant ever be used surely? What if Argentina invaded the IOW and started slaughtering civilians, shouldn't we threaten to use a tactical nuke? You'd probably say fair enough want to talk it through. Cos war is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 For a start please bother to address the point about where responsibility for the casualties lies. Then you can try to comprehend that many Iraqi people would not find it all ''acceptable'' that their government should allow a foreign power to ride roughshod over international law, invade territory that is legally under Iraqi control, and then not respond to such a outrageous provocation. Quite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 Probably best to post up cogent thoughts rather than the absence of them. Sorry no access to Wikipedia to pump out stats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 You'd probably say fair enough want to talk it through. Cos war is bad. War is good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 27 January, 2016 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2016 Quite. Trite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 Amongst all this good old Falkland banter did anyone point out how Corbyn wasn't sharp enough to seize on 'bunch of migrants' comment today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 War is good? A necessity at times. Especially if the Argies are hacking the poor old IOW lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 You'd probably say fair enough want to talk it through. Cos war is bad. I'd nuke the whole site from orbit. It'd be the only way to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 I'd nuke the whole site from orbit. It'd be the only way to be sure. Show 'em we are not t be messed with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 Sorry no access to Wikipedia to pump out stats Doesn't have to be wikipedia, other sources are available. The important thing is to read, even if it inhibits your wish to knee jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 Doesn't have to be wikipedia, other sources are available. The important thing is to read, even if it inhibits your wish to knee jerk. I am not overly interested but quoting stats is a bit silly on such things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 I am not overly interested but quoting stats is a bit silly on such things Imperfect maybe, but not silly. People respond to stats. Anything which knocks people out of blind allegiance mode and makes them think about our foreign policy and the reality of war is worth doing imo. If you know better metrics post them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 But the Falklands are ours because of our colonial exploits which Involved invading other countries, killing and enslaving their people ect. Yeah it was ages ago but that is our history, and the people of Argentina are as aware of that as anyone else. The Falkland Islanders may be technically British but yo me they are Falklanders first, South Americans second. Er... Wasn't Argentina colonised by the killing and enslaving of people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 28 January, 2016 Share Posted 28 January, 2016 (edited) That part I agree with. There were wider implications about the credibility of Britain's determination to defend itself - but it was an unnecessary and avoidable war created by sending Argentina mixed messages. How many of Britains wars since Korea (and maybe not even that) have been worthwhile? Sierra Leone yes, but Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? former Yugoslavia? A long list of death and destruction for little gain imo. If you can not see the difference between a war fought to protect British interests or British Allies, with a war fought following an invasion of our territory, then you really shouldn't be posting on this thread . Whether Iraq or Kosovo is worth a single soldiers life is debatable , chucking the Argies out is not . You can not roll over and let foreign powers take our territory by force and if that unfortunately leads to people losing their lives , that price has to be paid.What message would the giving up on Falkland Islanders have sent to the rest of the world Edited 28 January, 2016 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 28 January, 2016 Share Posted 28 January, 2016 War is good? Were we wrong to oppose nazi Germany?? if Corbyn were pm back then, we'd all be living under the nazi jack boot, whilst jIzza would be telling us how he stuck to his principles (in German) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 January, 2016 Share Posted 28 January, 2016 'You know you're in trouble when....' ...even Neil Kinnock thinks you're unelectable... http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/01/neil-kinnock-jeremy-corbyn-may-have-resign-or-face-leadership-challenge-if Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 28 January, 2016 Share Posted 28 January, 2016 I knew that, I was talking about what we got up to when forming our empire. Anyway, as pointed out earlier, there are uninhabited islands of the coast of the UK, doesn't make them any less British. Yes lets give the channel islands to the French. Le Tissier has got a 'Le' in it lets give him to them as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 28 January, 2016 Share Posted 28 January, 2016 Were we wrong to oppose nazi Germany?? if Corbyn were pm back then, we'd all be living under the nazi jack boot, whilst jIzza would be telling us how he stuck to his principles (in German) And let's not forget, johnneh, Corbyn hates Jews too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 28 January, 2016 Share Posted 28 January, 2016 Were we wrong to oppose nazi Germany?? if Corbyn were pm back then, we'd all be living under the nazi jack boot, whilst jIzza would be telling us how he stuck to his principles (in German) Boll*cks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 28 January, 2016 Share Posted 28 January, 2016 If there's no such thing as society there's certainly no such thing as "our" territories, or empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 28 January, 2016 Share Posted 28 January, 2016 (edited) What message would the giving up on Falkland Islanders have sent to the rest of the world That the nub of it though. Britain had given up on the Falklands and were prepared to give them away -and everybody knew it. We offered Argentina full sovereignty, shared sovereignty and full sovreignty and leaseback. The governments were agreed but the islanders refused to counteneance it. When the Government stripped the Falklanders of their UK citizenship in 1981 the Argies took it as a sign we wouldnt respond if they invaded. It was our vacillation / **** poor diplomacy / weakness/ determination to save cash which caused the war every bit as much as Galtieri. Once they had invaded we had to respond but if the government had imposed transfer and 100 year leaseback on the islands then no-one would have experienced any change to their lives and no-one would have died. Edited 28 January, 2016 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScepticalStan Posted 28 January, 2016 Share Posted 28 January, 2016 Great comment below the line on the Guardian from a chap in Sunderland that I thought I'd share with this thread. "As I posted elsewhere, my Dad is working class. Left school at 14, was a mechanic all of his working life (most of which was in a nationalised industry) and was a staunch trades unionist. Labour would assume he was left wing. He doesn't agree with immigration though as he thinks it stops unemployed people here getting jobs. He doesn't like "scroungers" like the guy and his son who go to the same social club as him, have been on disability benefits for years and have nothing wrong with them. He doesn't agree with the EU. He says he voted for the EEC because it was about trade but says his Dad went to sea and fought a war so that we could run our own country. He thinks prison is the best place for criminals. He was far from delighted when some Chavs smashed his car wing mirror. It turns out they had a competition in the early hours of the morning running down different sides of the street seeing who could smash as many wing mirrors as possible. After doing this four consecutive Saturdays the police caught them. My Dad and no doubt all of the other folks whose cars were damaged, thinks they should have gone to prison rather than what actually happened which is that they got fined (a fine they probably won't pay). He doesn't believe in foreign aid when can't afford to run the NHS and he has to wait a fortnight to see his GP. You can call my Dad a bigot if you like. You can tell him that evidence suggests he's wrong about many things. Politicians can condescendingly talk down to him about what working people really should think having never actually been one themselves or lived in their communities. But he forms his opinions, like most people, from what he sees with his own eyes rather than from what someone tells him. He is in one of those Northern constituencies where UKIP came second.He used to vote Labour until 2005 when he stopped voting because he thinks they have absolutely no understanding of the lives and issues faced by working people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now