Off Topic The QPR Not 606 Rolling Election Poll

The relevancy of the Falklands was that was Argentina and the UK's war alone which these 2 countries could and should have stopped. The ones since that the UK has gotten involved in would have happened whatever the UK had or had not done I think. Thatcher should have done all she could to stop the Argentina junta without use of but with the threat of military force, and with nil achievement of that probably could have negotiated an evacuation of the people on those islands. The islands themselves weren't worth the human cost of the war, even with oil and gas. Making that clear by pulling out before the killing started would have been the correct decision, and such a statement coming from her and a previous major power, may have reduced the magnitude of the conflicts that have followed.

Certainly Cameron with his wish to go to war in Syria stopped by in part Miliband, has shown he and clearly his party are ready to take us into new military conflict far more quickly than Labour. This is the way it has always been and is today.

 

Well the Argies had three weeks to leave the islands before the task force arrived, but decided not to and the rest is history.

And when you say evacuate the the people from the islands are you talking about the ones who lived there and exercised their right to self determination or the argentine troops, if it's the former you must be off your rocker.

 

I'm no match for your wit Swords. I'm off to throw a donkey off the bell tower.

 

The argument is regarding the territory though. The idea that you can hold territory on the other side of the World in perpetuity is madness. You could quite easily allow the tiny amount of people (the population of which apparently is less than Nether Wallop!) to remain as British citizens but cede the land over to the Argentinians at a set date like with Hong Kong. Or you could come to a joint sovereignty arrangement. (Neither or which is likely to happen now that oil has been struck)

Your argument regarding the '82 war is valid though. I'm not entirely with Ozzie on that one although I wouldn't have much sympathy for armies going to war to mantain colonial possessions from another era. It was a real throw back. I know your sentiments on such possessions regarding a certain Spanish Rock (although I would think you keep them to yourself given where you live) and its therefore no surprise you're on this thread banging the Tory drum these last few weeks (as is your right Sir.)
I wouldn't I have any sympathy for the US-backed junta in the Argentine either by the way. Rather the Argentinian and British soldiers who lost their lives as a result of that war.

BTW, what's wound you up tonight? You were in grand form earlier today debating with me on this thread!

 

Fair play Stan, top post!

 

Why am I a Tory??, because my views don't pander to the left?. I mentioned before on here that I had very little time for big businesses and people that avoid paying taxes through loopholes that are left in place long enough for the rich to exploit. Labour and Tory rich alike. As for Gibraltar well if anyone here in Madrid wishes to discuss my views then I am happy to do so even if they don't like what I have to say. At the end of the day Swords if you (we) feel you are going to offend someone every time you put your point of view across then you live in fear and silence. There are plenty of strong willed and politically minded people on here who have no qualms in posting their left leaning views. My views don't lean to the left normally but hey that's my politics and my points of view and I won't be bullied into changing them.
Must turn in now I have a Paella to cook tomorrow

 

Respect mate

 

Hooray, Question Time - Hague, Harman, Mad Nat Bennett, an SNP bloke and the previously anonymous deputy leader of the kippers. First question about the Med crisis, all humane comments, but nothing to please the Italians who have tried to deal with this heroically. 200,000 impoverished, terrified arrivals in 15 months.

.......my attention wandered pretty quickly, didn't really listen, though I noticed the kipper bloke got applause rather than boos. BBC must have changed it's policy on audience recruitment. Or perhaps Farage was just **** during the debate.

 

Top stuff!

 

I take it you disagreed with the Falklands war then?
What would your solution have been? Appeasement?

The position of the Falkland Islands and whether they should be British or not is a separate issue.
British territory ( I'll avoid the word 'sovereign' as it seems to vex you so much) was invaded and British forces captured.

The liberals on here make my blood boil!

 

Use whatever language you like Col. I think self determination is a much stronger principle to hang your hat on than sovereignty though. You can forcibly seize or trade territorial sovereignty, as the history of our country shows. I'm interested as to why the Falklands sovereignty and the self determination of the people there is so important to you, where at the same historical time the sovereignty of Hong Kong (and it's 5 million inhabitants who had voiced a clear desire for self determination) is not. Thatcher just gave that away, and her, her ministers and British diplomats, were disgustingly servile to the Chinese in the process. I was there, I saw senior members of the Hong Kong government (totally independent of the UK except for foreign policy and defence, probably why it was so economically successfully and why the people who lived there wanted the chance to govern themselves) in tears as they realised that the place was a gift in a trade deal with a regime which executed people for being mentally handicapped. Thatchers true status in the world was demonstrated by her great mate Reagan forgetting to tell her that he was going to invade Grenada, a British sovereign territory until 1974 which still had the Queen as head of state. "Sovereignty' is irrelevant compared to power. If China, or the USA, wanted the Falklands, they would have been given them. Might is, regrettably, right. It's the hypocrisy that winds me up. I'm as hypocritical as anyone, at least I'm self aware enough to be honest about it.

The Falklands War was absurd and avoidable if anyone concerned wanted to avoid it. It had one big plus, contributing to the end of the fascist regime in Argentina. Thatcher wasn't interested in that, judging by her using my country (yep it's mine just as much as it's your or hers, even though we may not agree on everything) to shelter Pinochet rather than send him home to face justice. I'm no pacifist. I'm also happy that British intervention in Iraq and Libya helped get rid of horrible dictators. It's the pathetic aftermath that's the problem, as in Afganistan, where getting rid of the truly vile Taliban was a decent objective.

If reading stuff that doesn't agree with your world view makes your blood boil, bad luck. For a man who's work/life balance etc seems so in tune, you do spend a lot of your time on here a bit cross! A lot of the stuff posted on this thread has been a real eye opener to me. We'll probably end up with a coalition (which I recall you were in favour of....not Labour/SNP of course), which will require discussion, compromise and 'adjustment' of set in stone principles. Can't see many posting on here who could work through that process - but in the real world they probably would, compromise is what we do. Inability to compromise, discuss, listen and move on is psychopathic.

One of the 'facts' I have written here is wrong. Like prize for anyone who spots it.

 

The incorrect 'fact' was the Hong Kong thing. The so-called 'New territories were leased from China under an agreement in 1898 on a 99 year lease which China did not renew, and so the handover was a legal requirement rather than a trade-deal sweetener.

From Wikipedia:

"After the devastating Cultural Revolution (1966–76), Deng Xiaoping, Chairman of the Communist Party of China, re-introduced in 1978 the Open Door policy, opening up China to foreign businesses. Trade in Hong Kong, then a booming port and financial city, also benefited when Shenzhen, a city to the immediate north, was designated as a Special Economic Zone by the Chinese government in 1980.

Facing the uncertain future of Hong Kong, Governor MacLehose raised the question in the late 1970s. The expiry of 1898's Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory (Second Convention of Peking) in 1997 created problems for business contracts, property leases and confidence among foreign investors. In 1983, the United Kingdom reclassifed Hong Kong as a British Dependent Territory (now British Overseas Territory) when reorganising global territories of the British Empire. Talks and negotiations began with China and concluded with the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Both countries agreed to transfer Hong Kong's sovereignty to the People's Republic of China on 1 July 1997, when Hong Kong would remain autonomous as a Special Administrative Region and be able to retain its free-market economy, British common law through the Basic Law, independent representation in international organisations (e.g. WTO and WHO), treaty arrangements and policy-making except foreign diplomacy and military defence. [57] It stipulated that Hong Kong would be governed as a special administrative region, retaining its laws and a high degree of autonomy for at least 50 years after the transfer. The Hong Kong Basic Law, which is based on English law, would serve as the constitutional document after the transfer. It was ratified in 1990"

 

Wrong. I.e wrong fact identified.

Err, I was there, I worked for the Hong Kong Government, I have an intimate knowledge of this stuff. Hong Kong Island and most of Kowloon were 'ceded' to Britain as a result of the Opium War - in perpetuity, no lease. Of course they were taken by threat of force to help British traders sell more opium to the Chinese - in fact the British Government at the time were really pissed off that the land had been taken, as they realised they would have to put an expensive garrison on the other side of the world. In the 1890's we leased another chunk of land with military threats which became the New Territories, lease due to end in 1997. The Chinese Communist Government did not recognise either of these treaties (which they called the 'unequal treaties') and maintained that Hong Kong was a part of China which they could take possession of any time they wanted to. In fact, the existence of the treaties was an inconvenience to both sides - China would have preferred Hong Kong to chug on creating cash some of which went to China and being a nice route for their spies to enter the west, while they could publically maintain their 'evil capitalists stole our land' position. Being anally retentive, the British thought 'oh, we'd better do something about those treaties which are running out' before realising that renegotiation was impossible, because the Chinese could not allow themselves to be seen to negotiate.

The Wiki stuff is a fair description of the results, though there is a lot of complexity around the status of different ethnic groups in Hong Kong (Sikhs and ghurkas in particular, who ended up potentially stateless) what the locals actually wanted which is interesting.

I'll bore you with an historical anomaly. A small part of Kowloon was missed out of the treaties, and retained Chinese 'sovereignty'. It became known as the Walled City. Because they did not recognise the treaties, the Communists refused to have anything to do with this place, which was totally lawless, as the Hong Kong police felt they had no jurisdiction there, a haven for triads etc etc. A few years after the Joint Declaration the Chinese unofficially turned a blind eye and the HK Government, after warning the residents, bulldozed it.

 

Strongly suspect the former. When a light's shone on them, they scuttle back behind the line!

 

Very interesting thread to read from a neutral point of view.

Swords is playing a blinder in stirring things up. It would be far less interesting without his participation.

 

Ed Miliband is to accuse David Cameron and other world leaders of failing to "stand by" Libya, contributing in part to the crisis in the Mediterranean.

The Labour leader, who backed UK military action in Libya in 2011, will criticise "failures in post-conflict planning" and say the current refugee situation should have been anticipated.

He will say the UK has lost "global influence" under the prime minister.

But senior Conservatives have reacted with anger to his comments.

The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said Labour were making clear that they were not blaming the prime minister for the recent deaths in the Mediterranean.

But Conservative minister Liz Truss said Mr Miliband appeared to be suggesting that David Cameron was directly responsible for those deaths, which was "absolutely offensive".

And Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said "political point-scoring" on the back of a "total human tragedy" was "pretty distasteful".

Mr Miliband voted in favour of air strikes against former Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi in 2011, which saw the UK join an UN-authorised coalition to stop the slaughter of Libyan civilians in Benghazi.

The intervention led to the collapse of the Gaddafi regime but the country has descended into chaos since then, with a civil war between different tribal militias and no single functioning government across the whole of the country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32441968

Personally, this is about as low as a person wanting to get elected can stoop. This is a human tragedy which is still unfolding, with thousands of victims, and for Milliband to point a finger of blame at Cameron as part of his election strategy is abhorrent.

 

Participation is the right term. Contribution certainly would be the wrong term.

 

Is the deliberate mistake that Reagan did tell Maggie about the invasion of Grenada.

As a precaution, all Northern TV studios were evacuated but normality resumed after the airing of the Cagney and Lacey pilot,which soothed tensions with the US sufficiently.

 

Such a shame people never voted for PR when they had a chance - then the Tories could split into a UKIP-like anti-EU right and pro-EU One Nation left, and the Labour party could split into a European-style Social Democrat wing and a old school Claude 4 Socialist party. We might see some grown up consensus politics then.

 

Despite our general disagreement on this whole thread, I completely agree with this.

I will also add that Labour trying to voting against intervention in Syria where the catastrophic nature of the war, plus the terrorism element would make it as justifiable as any invasion we have participated in and then saying we should have stayed longer in Libya (where we left civil war and the same terrorist sect have claimed almost a third of the country) is blatant hypocrisy.

To try to pin the deaths on Cameron as part of his electioneering is disgusting (the same sentiment would have still been valid several months ago but without the loathesome self-interest).

The possibility of me switching from Lib Dem to Labour have just evaporated (although there's still a chance of a spoilt ballot).