Guest Bilo Posted 2 April 2012 Posted 2 April 2012 Would you like some cheese and crackers to go with that whine, Bilo? Oh come on L444ry, you aren't fooled by that dinosaur are you? He's a carpetbagger and apologist for any butcher who happens to have an anti-American stance. A man who has recently claimed to be a Muslim but was binned off by both of his wives for making 'friendships' with any women who so much as said hello to him on the campaign trail. A man who defeated his Labour opponent in 2005 by turning a blind eye to his supporters stirring up pre-existing racial tensions. A man who supports the Iranian and Syrian regimes as they butcher their own people in their thousands. More ugly still on the Iranian front; he accused a man executed for having gay sex of being a paedophile and decried Peter Tatchell, a man who commands respect for his record of fighting for human rights around the world, of being a warmonger and Islamophobe for pointing out he was actually wrong. I think his Soviet heroes would have called him a useful idiot. I'm perfectly happy to remove the word 'useful' from that description.
l444ry Posted 2 April 2012 Posted 2 April 2012 Oh come on L444ry, you aren't fooled by that dinosaur are you? He's a carpetbagger and apologist for any butcher who happens to have an anti-American stance. A man who has recently claimed to be a Muslim but was binned off by both of his wives for making 'friendships' with any women who so much as said hello to him on the campaign trail. A man who defeated his Labour opponent in 2005 by turning a blind eye to his supporters stirring up pre-existing racial tensions. A man who supports the Iranian and Syrian regimes as they butcher their own people in their thousands. More ugly still on the Iranian front; he accused a man executed for having gay sex of being a paedophile and decried Peter Tatchell, a man who commands respect for his record of fighting for human rights around the world, of being a warmonger and Islamophobe for pointing out he was actually wrong. I think his Soviet heroes would have called him a useful idiot. I'm perfectly happy to remove the word 'useful' from that description. Don't know what all that above has to do with the dispute but, back on topic, as Thatcher was trying to negotiate our sovereignty away before the Falklands War started there seems to be a bit of revisionist history rearing its head here.
Webbo Posted 2 April 2012 Posted 2 April 2012 Thatcher was trying to negotiate our sovereignty away before the Falklands War started there seems to be a bit of revisionist history rearing its head here. That's true, if Argentina hadn't have invaded they would own the Falklands by now. Which makes a mockery of the claim on here (not by yourself admittedly) that we are hanging on to the islands for oil.
cambridgefox Posted 2 April 2012 Posted 2 April 2012 Would you like some cheese and crackers to go with that whine, Bilo? As long as its a BLUE cheese
sphericalfox Posted 2 April 2012 Posted 2 April 2012 That's true, if Argentina hadn't have invaded they would own the Falklands by now. Which makes a mockery of the claim on here (not by yourself admittedly) that we are hanging on to the islands for oil. We not hanging onto the islands for oil? You might want to speak to the people of the Falklands then, they might have different opinions to you about that. The islands themselves hold no real value, it's the oil and gas fields off the east and northeast of the islands that have the Argentineans all in a kerfuffle. I wonder whether Cameron will pretend to negotiate before increasing the troops? Argentina won't invade. They'll just wait until the military increases to reason their total provocation. The stand-off will continue until someone makes the first move. Whoever has the most to gain methinks. Serious drilling searches have been going on since 1998, as its been known than in that area of oceania there has been potential reserves since the early 80's.
Daggers Posted 2 April 2012 Author Posted 2 April 2012 Serious drilling searches have been going on since 1998 The rubber drill bits they were using pre'98 for the comedy searches were nothing more than a big joke.
Webbo Posted 2 April 2012 Posted 2 April 2012 We not hanging onto the islands for oil? You might want to speak to the people of the Falklands then, they might have different opinions to you about that. The islands themselves hold no real value, it's the oil and gas fields off the east and northeast of the islands that have the Argentineans all in a kerfuffle. I wonder whether Cameron will pretend to negotiate before increasing the troops? Argentina won't invade. They'll just wait until the military increases to reason their total provocation. The stand-off will continue until someone makes the first move. Whoever has the most to gain methinks. Serious drilling searches have been going on since 1998, as its been known than in that area of oceania there has been potential reserves since the early 80's. Why would we have been negotiating a 25 year lease back of the islands to Argentina if all we were interested in was oil. They were our islands then as now, we could have just told Argentina to **** off. We were ready to give them away because they cost too much to keep.
Jon the Hat Posted 2 April 2012 Posted 2 April 2012 Well oil is worth fighting for too. Everyone's a winner! Now where did we put that aircraft carrier??
The Doctor Posted 2 April 2012 Posted 2 April 2012 Same here.. I will not give that nothing, any of my time. I wish he was a nothing, rather than a slimy little weasel who changes sides like a WWII era Italian simply to pander for votes.
Rincewind Posted 2 April 2012 Posted 2 April 2012 Used chip oil is a good fuel so best to invade Harold Ramsbottom.
BlueSi13 Posted 2 April 2012 Posted 2 April 2012 Considering the islands have been in British hands longer than Argentina has been an actual country, i think its fair to say that Argentina's "claim" is a rather desperate one. A little rich also considering that Argentina itself was born out of an old Spanish colony that wiped out its entire native population upon its conquering. But as their claim is based almost solely on geography (also a little strange considering that they also claim South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands which lie over 2000miles away from the Argentinian mainland), consider the Faroe Islands, which are closer to the UK than the Falklands are to Argentina yet they are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. The Faroe Islands have never been British, and the people living on those islands have no wish to become part of the United Kingdom....so should we choose to totally ignore that and demand that the islands be "returned" to us? Or maybe invade when the Islanders inform us of their right to decide their own future? No. No i don't think so. Also somebody mentioned that the Islands cost a fortune to upkeep. That simply isn't true as the Islands economy is easily large enough to sustain itself. The only things the UK pays for is the cost of defence which wouldn't be at all necessary if the Argentineans left them the **** alone.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 3 April 2012 Posted 3 April 2012 I've heard rumour that France is now claiming ownership to the small island a few miles off Calais.
purpleronnie Posted 3 April 2012 Posted 3 April 2012 I've heard rumour that France is now claiming ownership to the small island a few miles off Calais. vive la france
Jon the Hat Posted 3 April 2012 Posted 3 April 2012 I've heard rumour that France is now claiming ownership to the small island a few miles off Calais. We probably have as much claim on Calais as Argentina has on the Falklands. We ruled it for 200 years! A lot closer too!
Guest Basildon Fox Posted 3 April 2012 Posted 3 April 2012 The current situation is most definitely to do with oil. A chap I work with invested 40k in one of the oil companies 20 years ago. They are currently trying to find how much oil is underneath the sea at this very moment. The area has already been divvied up into fields. They are expecting to find a vast amount and if they do he expects to make 800k from his investment. The only thing that could scupper his investment is if the Islands were given back to the Argies and they decided to lay claim to all of its minerals. A massive legal battle may then ensue.
Houdini Logic Posted 3 April 2012 Posted 3 April 2012 Anyone else think this could horribly blow up in our face in 30/40/50 years time when the shift of power in the world moves?
Captain... Posted 3 April 2012 Posted 3 April 2012 Anyone else think this could horribly blow up in our face in 30/40/50 years time when the shift of power in the world moves? I think it could only blow up in our faces if we act all billy big bollox about it, at the moment there is no military threat from Argentina, they have fvck all in the way of a military to threaten us, they were talking about it on the radio yesterday, they have not upgraded any part of their naval or air force since the last Falklands, and have decommisioned a number of ships since then, they are weaker now than they were then, and we have a much stronger military deployment on the Falklands, so there is no threat of force. What the Argentinian premier wants is to open discussion about the Falklands and it's ownership, if we just dimiss it out of hand then we come across as arrogant twats, and they have already shown they can exercise their political muscle in South America. All we need is for Cameron to agree to talks, not to concede anything, especially not ownership, but to agree to talks, if it is about oil they could make it very difficult for us to drill for oil their by cutting off trade routes from the South American peninsula, or they could make it very easy for us by supplying labour and raw materials on favourable terms of course. Unfortunately I have no confidence in this government to be able to realise that or understand, and with the shadow of Thatcher looming over them they cannot be seen to be weak over what was her legacy.
Jon the Hat Posted 3 April 2012 Posted 3 April 2012 I think it could only blow up in our faces if we act all billy big bollox about it, at the moment there is no military threat from Argentina, they have fvck all in the way of a military to threaten us, they were talking about it on the radio yesterday, they have not upgraded any part of their naval or air force since the last Falklands, and have decommisioned a number of ships since then, they are weaker now than they were then, and we have a much stronger military deployment on the Falklands, so there is no threat of force. What the Argentinian premier wants is to open discussion about the Falklands and it's ownership, if we just dimiss it out of hand then we come across as arrogant twats, and they have already shown they can exercise their political muscle in South America. All we need is for Cameron to agree to talks, not to concede anything, especially not ownership, but to agree to talks, if it is about oil they could make it very difficult for us to drill for oil their by cutting off trade routes from the South American peninsula, or they could make it very easy for us by supplying labour and raw materials on favourable terms of course. Unfortunately I have no confidence in this government to be able to realise that or understand, and with the shadow of Thatcher looming over them they cannot be seen to be weak over what was her legacy. I'm not going to get into a political debate, but to suggest the government don't have a understanding of what is really going on, the long game, and the tactics required to get the best result, but you / people on a forum / the media do is a little bit foolish. I have no doubt at all the to develop the oil fields successfully some sort of compromise will be required with Argentina, but to concede anything on Sovereignty at the point would be completely nuts.
Captain... Posted 3 April 2012 Posted 3 April 2012 I'm not going to get into a political debate, but to suggest the government don't have a understanding of what is really going on, the long game, and the tactics required to get the best result, but you / people on a forum / the media do is a little bit foolish. I have no doubt at all the to develop the oil fields successfully some sort of compromise will be required with Argentina, but to concede anything on Sovereignty at the point would be completely nuts. I am not saying I know better, I am just saying I have no confidence in this government, everything they touch seems to get worse, and they seem to want to be seen to be taking a hard line on this, when a bit of diplomacy and compromise could be beneficial for all. And I agree we do not concede anything on sovreignty of the Island, but maybe on the area around the Island, these are offshore oilfields.
z-layrex Posted 3 April 2012 Posted 3 April 2012 Argentinians seem to be a very childish nation of people.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 3 April 2012 Posted 3 April 2012 The whole Argentina argument of "they're closer to us" is stupid. The Faroe Islands are closer to us than Denmark, but you don't see us complaining about it despite these islands being a valuable source of dead baby seals.
Finnegan Posted 3 April 2012 Posted 3 April 2012 Argentinians seem to be a very childish nation of people. Facepalm.jpeg
Daggers Posted 3 April 2012 Author Posted 3 April 2012 We probably have as much claim on Calais as Argentina has on the Falklands. We ruled it for 200 years! A lot closer too! I am massively in favour of reclaiming all of our bit of France. It's the less racist bit, it contains lots of grateful liberated French, French maids are as sexy as, Calvados, some of the best cheeses and booze is way cheaper. This policy would balance out all the crap ones the current government has been tripping up over.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.