Argentina opens up second front in Falklands Kerfuffle

[Rum]

Let 'em try again I say! I'm no Jingoist, but I'm going to be for two minutes here! Our soldiers were outnumbered over four to one and we wupped 'em!

That's dagos for yas!

/jingo off

[John_fi_Skye]

The war industry demands it.

Oh, that's true.

And there can be political benefits, too. In about 1981, when Thatcher was enormously unpopular in most of the country, I was sitting in the pub with a couple of pals, and one of them - with astounding prescience - said that the only way she'd win the next election would be if she arranged a war and won it, or if she arranged an assassination attempt and survived it. As history records, she did both, and won the next two elections.

You think Margaret Thatcher arranged the Falkland Islands War? If she did that, I'd vote for her too. A politician with that kind of brainpower and capabilities is someone you want in power. Just think of that -- she could orchestrate a foreign country's invasion of a small island group, and be assured of a rousing victory. No wonder she was popular. That's friggin' amazing! Almost too far out to be believed....

Some people seem to trust what politicians say. I find that amazing. I must be terribly cynical in my old age. But then, as a wise animal once said, "Donkeys live a long time."

[Cormac]

It's all a bit British Empire, though, eh? If fewer than 2,000 people on an island in the south Atlantic want to be British, they can come here (it's a drop in a bucket compared to those who come in normally as immigrants), and then we'll not spend millions and risk lives defending their Britishness at a distance of 9,000 miles.

Sure.

Why not send all those pesky Unionists in Northern Ireland back to lowland Scotland from whence they originally came, (along with all those unionists who are of native Irish descent). It would save no end of trouble.

Not sensible.

In fact, it is ethnic cleansing.

Nope. I was hearing a politician on the radio this morning (didn't catch the name, but it wasn't Nigel Farrage) arguing just what I have, much better than I did. One point he made was that a recent survey found out that only a third of the present inhabitants of the Falklands were born there - the rest are first-generation incomers, and the whole economy there is totally dependent on the UK. He was also arguing that Argentina could probably be persuaded to let the people who want to stay there keep their UK citizenship, while living in the Malvinas. There must be a better way than sending the gunboats in, and risking a lot of lives. And costing a lot of money.

Ah, sure most Unionists are descendents of planters sent over by the British government to.displace and dispossess the native Irish.

We'll let them stay and keep their British passports, or go "home" if they like.

Northern Ireland is completely dependent on the UK for its economic survival. The majority of working people there are paid by the state.

One should never ever accede to the demands of bullies. The costs afterwards will be far higher.

Argentina wants the Falklands the way a child wants what another child has. It has no legitimate claim whatsoever.

[Cormac]

It's all a bit British Empire, though, eh? If fewer than 2,000 people on an island in the south Atlantic want to be British, they can come here (it's a drop in a bucket compared to those who come in normally as immigrants), and then we'll not spend millions and risk lives defending their Britishness at a distance of 9,000 miles.

Sure.

Why not send all those pesky Unionists in Northern Ireland back to lowland Scotland from whence they originally came, (along with all those unionists who are of native Irish descent). It would save no end of trouble.

Not sensible.

In fact, it is ethnic cleansing.

Nope. I was hearing a politician on the radio this morning (didn't catch the name, but it wasn't Nigel Farrage) arguing just what I have, much better than I did. One point he made was that a recent survey found out that only a third of the present inhabitants of the Falklands were born there - the rest are first-generation incomers, and the whole economy there is totally dependent on the UK. He was also arguing that Argentina could probably be persuaded to let the people who want to stay there keep their UK citizenship, while living in the Malvinas. There must be a better way than sending the gunboats in, and risking a lot of lives. And costing a lot of money.

Some people seem to trust what politicians say. I find that amazing. I must be terribly cynical in my old age. But then, as a wise animal once said, "Donkeys live a long time."

What arcane game is this that you play?

Damn my eyes!

[John_fi_Skye]

It's all a bit British Empire, though, eh? If fewer than 2,000 people on an island in the south Atlantic want to be British, they can come here (it's a drop in a bucket compared to those who come in normally as immigrants), and then we'll not spend millions and risk lives defending their Britishness at a distance of 9,000 miles.

Sure.

Why not send all those pesky Unionists in Northern Ireland back to lowland Scotland from whence they originally came, (along with all those unionists who are of native Irish descent). It would save no end of trouble.

Not sensible.

In fact, it is ethnic cleansing.

Nope. I was hearing a politician on the radio this morning (didn't catch the name, but it wasn't Nigel Farrage) arguing just what I have, much better than I did. One point he made was that a recent survey found out that only a third of the present inhabitants of the Falklands were born there - the rest are first-generation incomers, and the whole economy there is totally dependent on the UK. He was also arguing that Argentina could probably be persuaded to let the people who want to stay there keep their UK citizenship, while living in the Malvinas. There must be a better way than sending the gunboats in, and risking a lot of lives. And costing a lot of money.

Ah, sure most Unionists are descendents of planters sent over by the British government to.displace and dispossess the native Irish.

We'll let them stay and keep their British passports, or go "home" if they like.

Northern Ireland is completely dependent on the UK for its economic survival. The majority of working people there are paid by the state.

One should never ever accede to the demands of bullies. The costs afterwards will be far higher.

Argentina wants the Falklands the way a child wants what another child has. It has no legitimate claim whatsoever.

"Descendents". That's the point.

[MrJonno]

Northern Ireland is completely dependent on the UK for its economic survival. The majority of working people there are paid by the state.

There are quite a few bits of England that are like that as well,

[John_fi_Skye]

We can start mobilising when Argentina lays claim to Tyneside. I can just see Rum as Captain Mainwaring.

[Svartalf]

It's all a bit British Empire, though, eh? If fewer than 2,000 people on an island in the south Atlantic want to be British, they can come here (it's a drop in a bucket compared to those who come in normally as immigrants), and then we'll not spend millions and risk lives defending their Britishness at a distance of 9,000 miles.

Sure.

Why not send all those pesky Unionists in Northern Ireland back to lowland Scotland from whence they originally came, (along with all those unionists who are of native Irish descent). It would save no end of trouble.

Not sensible.

In fact, it is ethnic cleansing.

Nope. I was hearing a politician on the radio this morning (didn't catch the name, but it wasn't Nigel Farrage) arguing just what I have, much better than I did. One point he made was that a recent survey found out that only a third of the present inhabitants of the Falklands were born there - the rest are first-generation incomers, and the whole economy there is totally dependent on the UK. He was also arguing that Argentina could probably be persuaded to let the people who want to stay there keep their UK citizenship, while living in the Malvinas. There must be a better way than sending the gunboats in, and risking a lot of lives. And costing a lot of money.

Ah, sure most Unionists are descendents of planters sent over by the British government to.displace and dispossess the native Irish.

We'll let them stay and keep their British passports, or go "home" if they like.

Northern Ireland is completely dependent on the UK for its economic survival. The majority of working people there are paid by the state.

One should never ever accede to the demands of bullies. The costs afterwards will be far higher.

Argentina wants the Falklands the way a child wants what another child has. It has no legitimate claim whatsoever.

"Descendents". That's the point.

and I am an angry man who punishes the sons for the sins of their father, Eire go Braugh!

[Jason]

Ireland can suck my cornhole. With tongue.

This thread is about the Argies, not the Micks.

[Svartalf]

Fuck all the brits with broomsticks wrapped in sandpaper, especially those that are invading Nouvelle France from Newfieland to the Pacific.

[John_fi_Skye]

Fuck all the brits with broomsticks wrapped in sandpaper, especially those that are invading Nouvelle France from Newfieland to the Pacific.

Was it my posts that made this fred degenerate so badly?

[Tyrannical]

I think if the UK wants to keep the Falklands, they should start an immigration movement to populate the isles more.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's all a bit British Empire, though, eh? If fewer than 2,000 people on an island in the south Atlantic want to be British, they can come here (it's a drop in a bucket compared to those who come in normally as immigrants), and then we'll not spend millions and risk lives defending their Britishness at a distance of 9,000 miles.

Sure.

Why not send all those pesky Unionists in Northern Ireland back to lowland Scotland from whence they originally came, (along with all those unionists who are of native Irish descent). It would save no end of trouble.

Not sensible.

In fact, it is ethnic cleansing.

Nope. I was hearing a politician on the radio this morning (didn't catch the name, but it wasn't Nigel Farrage) arguing just what I have, much better than I did. One point he made was that a recent survey found out that only a third of the present inhabitants of the Falklands were born there - the rest are first-generation incomers, and the whole economy there is totally dependent on the UK. He was also arguing that Argentina could probably be persuaded to let the people who want to stay there keep their UK citizenship, while living in the Malvinas. There must be a better way than sending the gunboats in, and risking a lot of lives. And costing a lot of money.

Is there no "right and wrong" here? Argentina never owned the Falkland Islands. Malvinas my ass. They can call them what they want, but those islands are fucking British. They are called "The Falkland Islands." Argentina making extortionate demands for the UK to hand over islands Argentina never owned is point of principle worth defending.

[Coito ergo sum]

The war industry demands it.

Oh, that's true.

And there can be political benefits, too. In about 1981, when Thatcher was enormously unpopular in most of the country, I was sitting in the pub with a couple of pals, and one of them - with astounding prescience - said that the only way she'd win the next election would be if she arranged a war and won it, or if she arranged an assassination attempt and survived it. As history records, she did both, and won the next two elections.

You think Margaret Thatcher arranged the Falkland Islands War? If she did that, I'd vote for her too. A politician with that kind of brainpower and capabilities is someone you want in power. Just think of that -- she could orchestrate a foreign country's invasion of a small island group, and be assured of a rousing victory. No wonder she was popular. That's friggin' amazing! Almost too far out to be believed....

Some people seem to trust what politicians say. I find that amazing. I must be terribly cynical in my old age. But then, as a wise animal once said, "Donkeys live a long time."

It is certainly possible to mistrust Margaret Thatcher and not accept, without evidence, that she arranged the Falkland Islands War on purpose.

Bush did 9/11, too, right?

[Cormac]

It's all a bit British Empire, though, eh? If fewer than 2,000 people on an island in the south Atlantic want to be British, they can come here (it's a drop in a bucket compared to those who come in normally as immigrants), and then we'll not spend millions and risk lives defending their Britishness at a distance of 9,000 miles.

Sure.

Why not send all those pesky Unionists in Northern Ireland back to lowland Scotland from whence they originally came, (along with all those unionists who are of native Irish descent). It would save no end of trouble.

Not sensible.

In fact, it is ethnic cleansing.

Nope. I was hearing a politician on the radio this morning (didn't catch the name, but it wasn't Nigel Farrage) arguing just what I have, much better than I did. One point he made was that a recent survey found out that only a third of the present inhabitants of the Falklands were born there - the rest are first-generation incomers, and the whole economy there is totally dependent on the UK. He was also arguing that Argentina could probably be persuaded to let the people who want to stay there keep their UK citizenship, while living in the Malvinas. There must be a better way than sending the gunboats in, and risking a lot of lives. And costing a lot of money.

Is there no "right and wrong" here? Argentina never owned the Falkland Islands. Malvinas my ass. They can call them what they want, but those islands are fucking British. They are called "The Falkland Islands." Argentina making extortionate demands for the UK to hand over islands Argentina never owned is point of principle worth defending.

Exactly.