Argentina presses Falklands claim

[almaty 19]

wow...I can't even comment at the moment I am so pissed at some views on this thread........

sister welch cake..allot of this is in zest..........it is friday..and everyone is a bit frisky

[Nikki71 0]

The English presence there is a reminder of European colonialism. I'm all for any country doing whatever is necessary to send all the Brits in the Falklands back to Britain.

Don't be so petty minded and "grow up" it's there home for goodness sake, just because some greedy people want to hijak the island, it's all political nonsense.

According to your argument should all Americans of of British ancestry go back to the UK?????? and the same as all the Canadians and Australians????? maybe you should look back thru your family history and find out where you are from and we will send you paking too, now see how ridiculous that sounds

I immigrated to the Falklands Islands back in 87 and gave birth to my son over there.

And what I learned about peoples feelings about the Falklands War was that the people living there at the time of the war wanted nothing to do with Argentina. These people comprised of British, Chilean, Argentinean, Australian and New Zealand.

I knew some of these people personally and they told stories of how terrible they were treated by the Argentinean Soldiers.

If all the people that have lived there for the last few hundred years are happy and wish to remain with there ties to this country that should be the end of the matter.

[Ban Hammer 13,443]

The English presence there is a reminder of European colonialism. I'm all for any country doing whatever is necessary to send all the Brits in the Falklands back to Britain.

The Falklands are nothing when compared to the French Guyana

Why doesnt someone invade?

i agree afterall, it is FRENCH Guyana, what type of fight are they going to put up?

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Daniel

:energetic:

[Ban Hammer 13,443]

wow...I can't even comment at the moment I am so pissed at some views on this thread........

agreed. i wonder how many read "don't cry for me sergeant major"

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

actually now that i think of it... they should have a football (futbol) match! winner takes the island!

:dance:

Daniel

:energetic:

[Dr_LHA 3]

actually now that i think of it... they should have a football (futbol) match! winner takes the island!

No way! We'd never win that one.

[Ban Hammer 13,443]

actually now that i think of it... they should have a football (futbol) match! winner takes the island!

No way! We'd never win that one.

depends - just put the british soccer hooligans on the field

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

actually now that i think of it... they should have a football (futbol) match! winner takes the island!

No way! We'd never win that one.

depends - just put the british soccer hooligans on the field

needs to be held at neutral site. suggestions?

Daniel

:energetic:

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Don't be so petty minded and "grow up" it's there home for goodness sake, just because some greedy people want to hijak the island, it's all political nonsense.

It doesn't matter if it's home. Their presence is a remnant of colonialism.

Think of it this way - what if the US had freed all black slaves except one? And what if that single black family was still enslaved and lots of useless white folk were dependent on that familys toils to survive. Would you oppose freeing that family because too many peoples lives would be disrupted by doing so?

Fact: European colonialism is a moral issue. Not a political one. Just like slavery was a moral issue. If we're going to claim to be free of it, let's go all the way.

[Dan+Nikki 0]

Think of it this way - what if the US had freed all black slaves except one? And what if that single black family was still enslaved and lots of useless white folk were dependent on that familys toils to survive. Would you oppose freeing that family because too many peoples lives would be disrupted by doing so?

Well if thats your argument we best start moving out of the USA, because we need to give it back to the Native Americans as soon as possible !

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I basically heard that Maggie started that war to boost her sagging popularity--by withdrawing a supply ship going to Port Stanley, and provoking Argentines to attack. If so, she achieved her aim (re-election to PM due to victory).

[almaty 19]

I basically heard that Maggie started that war to boost her sagging popularity--by withdrawing a supply ship going to Port Stanley, and provoking Argentines to attack. If so, she achieved her aim (re-election to PM due to victory).

war at first, always boost the approval rating...just don't let it drag out..reagan was the best at that

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I basically heard that Maggie started that war to boost her sagging popularity--by withdrawing a supply ship going to Port Stanley, and provoking Argentines to attack. If so, she achieved her aim (re-election to PM due to victory).

war at first, always boost the approval rating...just don't let it drag out..reagan was the best at that

True for elected leaders who start and win.

For unelected leaders, the only issue is they can be overthrown, though some fail to realise it:

• Ayub Khan was the classic example. He started 1965 War with India (known as "Operation Grand-slam" alternately as "Operation Gibraltar") to divert attention from his repression of Bugti and Marri. When these failed (no effective territorial change, and larger materiel and personnel losses to Pakistan compared to UNPREPARED India), his popularity tanked. He stayed in power another four years by using the purge-and-jail tactic of Stalin and Mao, but could not do so with the over 120 million of 1969 Unified Pakistan (ironically, he was the only president of that country to actually unify it, even with greatly disparate wings--everyone wanted his head on a pike)--and was overthrown by a much less competent general he had made chief of staff (Yahya Khan).
  
• Yahya Khan started TWO wars--one against an angry group of his own country's citizens (the bulk of then "East" Pakistan, through "Operation Searchlight") and another against India (by forcing refugees into Indian territory, and shelling it)--and lost both badly. He was quickly arrested and imprisoned by Bhutto (the army never forgave Bhutto that--as a civilian being able to overthrow a military ruler, but that's not even in the glister here).
  
• Saddam Hussein in 1991 (invasion of Kuwait, so he started war with West, and lost)--like Ayub, managed to stay in power by some Mao-like shenanigans
  

[Dr_LHA 3]

I basically heard that Maggie started that war to boost her sagging popularity--by withdrawing a supply ship going to Port Stanley, and provoking Argentines to attack. If so, she achieved her aim (re-election to PM due to victory).

Yes and on the flip side, the Argentines attacked to draw attention from the terrible social problems that the military junta at the time were causing. The good thing to come out of that war was that a year later that corrupt "government" collapsed. It was political on both sides.