Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

30 years since Falklands War

streathamites tiffin gets rudely interrupted by johnny foreigner

carry-on-up-the-khyber-poster.jpg
 
CR: I'm the one with firsthand, direct knowledge of the 'Johnny foreigners' in question, not you!
Now, about those points you failed to answer.....
 
their quite odd in a sort of Royston Vasey manner.
apart from the Falkland islands defence force just about every farmer has quite a large cache of weapons the Argentinians thoughtfully left behind some only dropped once.
So I don't think Argentina will be taking over any time soon
 
Except however obvious it may be to you, it clearly isn't to most others here, and you simply haven't made your case here - not at all. So all we're left with is a sort of mega-simplistic anti-imperialism-by-numbers; Wolfie Smith come to roost on U75
Equally, the holes that have been blown in your argument concerning the historical and geographical weakness of the argentinian case, the situation as pertained in '82 (basically, you'd have abandoned them to a murderous military tyranny), and the basic rights of falklanders - you just haven't answered those points, beyond the tired 'inbred anglophiles' sneer - as if that made their lives of less value than yours.

You should know by now that Casually Red doesn't do the Falkland Islands debate very well at all.

I haven't read the whole thread but can almost guarantee that Red has been banging on about the proximity of the islands to the Argentine coast. That's all he had last time too. This, despite Argentina not having been formed at the time of first British settlement, and Argentina itself being the product of murderous imperialism which he claims he so despises!
 
You should know by now that Casually Red doesn't do the Falkland Islands debate very well at all.

I haven't read the whole thread but can almost guarantee that Red has been banging on about the proximity of the islands to the Argentine coast. That's all he had last time too. This, despite Argentina not having been formed at the time of first British settlement, and Argentina itself being the product of murderous imperialism which he claims he so despises!
Oh come on his argument is based upon the "enemy of my enemy cant be bad (even if they are a right wing, colonial society)" concept
 
Geographically, Ireland belongs to Britain.

Geographically, Britain belongs to France.

You were saying?
Ireland did belong to Britain before independence in 1920s. And much of northern France was part of England in days of Joan of Arc
 
Your post has nothing to do with anything I said in mine, I was replying to mr blob.
My first response is:
I have been drinking vodka with Russian squaddies all night
my second is
I was attempting to connect your response with the subject of the thread

I rest my case!
 
I have family from there (My gran lived there and my dad was brought up there. I believe I have extended family there still). When the war broke out my dad went to the army place and tried to join up. He was told he was too old and too fat :D
 
My first response is:
I have been drinking vodka with Russian squaddies all night
my second is
I was attempting to connect your response with the subject of the thread

I rest my case!
If that is the sum total of your case, then then charges will have to be dismissed. :)
 
I'm amazed that this till has such a big draw, leading to so many comments! as I see it there are a number of issues;

1. They are presently ours, at the cost of many lives, both ours and Argentine, so they can sod off.
2. They don't have a president claim to the islands, no matter how close they are to the Argentine mainland.
3. The Stills still want to remain British.
4. If we drop them in the shit where do we stand when we want to represent Commonwealth citizens in other conflicts.
As pointed out on another thread there are two other major reasons - the belief in oil fields (since confirmed) and access to the Antarctic.

It doesn't matter if folk believe that proximity to the Argentine mainland is important, proximity to Antarctic is the trump card.
 
I'm amazed that this till has such a big draw, leading to so many comments! as I see it there are a number of issues;

1. They are presently ours, at the cost of many lives, both ours and Argentine, so they can sod off.
2. They don't have a president claim to the islands, no matter how close they are to the Argentine mainland.
3. The Stills still want to remain British.
4. If we drop them in the shit where do we stand when we want to represent Commonwealth citizens in other conflicts.
As pointed out on another thread there are two other major reasons - the belief in oil fields (since confirmed) and access to the Antarctic.

It doesn't matter if folk believe that proximity to the Argentine mainland is important, proximity to Antarctic is the trump card.

That about sums it up.

The islands are several hundred miles away from Argentina's coast - it isn't like they can even see them.

300 miles is well outside of anyone's claimed "coastal waters".

It seems to me to be in the UK's interest to keep the islands for the foreseeable future.

Giles..
 
I'll throw in a South Georgia here. To all the defenders of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, how do you explain South Georgia?
 
I'd consider it to be in the Southern Ocean but given nobody agrees about which bits are which and what they should be called it's moot.
 
Back
Top Bottom