well it at least gives us all something extra to celebrate , when they get knocked out i will raise a beer to the occupants on her majesties falkland islands.
Theres a big difference tho aint there . You forget that the Crimea was " given " to Ukraine in the 1950s , when it was all the soviet Union , it was a token gesture by Kruschev and at the time virtually irrelevant . Its only with the breakup of the USSR that it becomes a bit awkward . Imagine this scenario. The city of Chester is "given " to Wales , we are all part of the UK so its all just an honorary thing . 50 years later Wales becomes independant . Surprise surprise , the good people of Chester say " hang on , no offence but we are english , we dont wanna be owned by Wales " Wales " too bad , you were given to us 50 years ago and you are part of wales now " English govt " look , if they dont wanna be welsh we will not accept it and you cant make them " Its exactly the same with Crimea. Most Russians will say " they should never have been given to Ukraine .. this is just restoring the correct status of the Crimea " Its a bastard for the people who prefer to be associated with Ukraine and Europe , but they will have to deal with it. Either move to Ukraine proper , which i think will end up being split down the Dneipr , or move to another EU country .
My cousin was in this war aboard HMS Invincible. We lost a lot of ships during the conflict due to underestimating the Argentine air force & a lot of men died. The Royal Marines had a 60 mile yomp across marshland to do due to the loss of helicopters when ships went down.
Your cousin came back tho right ...? I was with 97th Battery Royal Artillery . an 8000 mile trip but not one of us thought it was " too " far .
I'm forgetting nothing, it was an one little comment, not a thorough analysis of the history of the Soviet Union. It does surprise me that on D-Day weekend you seem to be suggesting that taking countries by force is fair play. Perhaps it's as well that this country disagreed otherwise the last 70 years might have been quite different.
No one said it was fair play . you miss the point . If the Germans had been able to hold the territory they captured , then yes , the last 70 years would have been different . Thats just Geo politics and military fact . It doesnt matter if its " fair play " Its just fact. The stronger military power gets the Land . Holding a banner up at a football match will get nothing . Ukrainians holding banners up in Crimea will get nothing. If they are hoping to gain some influence in the UN , good luck . I dont think anyone with a thought process still thinks the UN is actually relevant and capable of anything. The UN cant even stop Assad dropping barrel bombs every day , what chance do Argentina think the UN have of getting the UK to leave the Falklands .
didnt we "retake " France by force . We didnt hold up a banner saying " France will always be France ..NOT Germany " WE had to TAKE it back by force. The Argentines will have to TAKE the Falklands if they want them . Thats the point im making . Very few countries have ever ceded territory without being made to.
".... didnt we "retake " France by force." No, we didn't ...... we helped to liberate France from an invader, not the same thing in any way. We didn't want France for our own purposes. "Very few countries have ever ceded territory without being made to." You're point's a poor one. I seem to remember Britain, Holland, France, Spain, Portugal etc giving away half the world in the form of their 'commonwealths'. Some by uprising but very little by military intervention or invasion.
Yes but those countries gave away POWER in those commonwealths because the KNEW they couldnt hold them militarily . If it were not the case im sure we would have held them all . retake /liberate ...its just semantics , the tanks and bullets are the common denominator in my arguement . No banners were seen on D Day , just death and destruction .
'Semantics' is a trendy word people use when they can't distinguish between things and wish to move away from a point .... .... if you can't distinguish between invasion & liberation then okey dokey I'm sure the people in the German occupied countries could tell you the difference and didn't think the two states were 'just semantics'.
look you keep missing my point . here it is in plain english . Land is earned in Blood not banners at football matches. The Argies are deluding themselves. and "trendy " ? My argument is about as far away from trendy as you can get . Just un-emotional. anyway , more importantly , lets take a look at that beer again . http://thegenuinebeerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/proper-job.html
Land isn't always earned in blood but I'll leave you to ignore that and glory in your opinion. Entire countries, throughout history, like Sicily, Corsica etc, and huge parts of the USA, France, etc have been sold like a used car. I doubt they're deluding themselves. No one, including them, is saying a banner will force the British to hand the Islands over. I've said myself that it has no place in football.
He did mate, thanks for asking. He lives near Manchester now, driving trains. Did his 22 years in the Navy. I did 12 with the Army but Bosnia seriously screwed my head up.
glory in my opinion ? Dont you glory in your opinion then ? Or dont you hold your opinions to have any value ? Sounds a bit liberal ...... If a man is not even sure of his own belief , he is not a man at all , he is nothing.
This subject is comes up each year, Some basic facts - not assumptions, theories or opinion. Some two years previous to the conflict, the tory government representative ( Nicholas Ridley) went to the Falklands to implore (if not beg) the Falklanders to align themselves with Argentina. He almost had tears of apoplexy when they voted NO and wanted to maintain links to the UK. Shown on Panorama at the time so can be verified. This attempt at washing our hands of the islands was food and drink to Argies, and the eventual 'invasion'. Mrs Thatcher (St. Margeret to some) at the time of the invasion was at an historic all time low in the polls, indeed the most disliked P.M. of the 20th.C She was no fool that lady, looking forward to an almost certain defeat at the next general election, then played her trump card - war and all the patriotism and jingoism that follows. As the diplomatic crisis deepened, the U.S. called an 11th hour meeting with the two countries in Washington to broker some form concilliation. HOWEVER the same night the order was given to sink the ms Belgrano, which was not in Falkland territorial water and as been shown later was in fact steaming in the opposite direction. Now we come to my piece of speculation - I believe this action destroyed the chance of diplomatic peace and in fact was the start of loss of life with no going back. I also believe if the International War Crimes Court was up and running Mrs.T would (and still should) be tried as a war criminal. Good and powerful diplomatic pressure from the world at large and the USA in paticular could have made Argentina see sense and withdraw. Thus many hundred of innocent young men and possibly women lost their lives because of power hungry politicians from both countries. But to my mind the main instigator was a very evil and maliscious women- who I fervently hope is roasting hell, with fires being stoked by the soldiers she sent to their deaths. ps the Falklanda are a dependency and thus are I believe 'third tier' citizens. With few if any British rights.
I have many opinions I value but I'm not stupid enough to believe I can't be wrong and I'll change them if I feel the need. I've shown that land isn't always taken with blood but you ignore the facts and keep ploughing on regardless. Half of the world has been ceded, sold or surrendered without bloodshed over history. Ignoring that to 'safeguard' your opinion in your choice ........ you may see that as a virtue, I don't. If a man is so sure of his own beliefs that he no longer listens , he is not a man at all , he is nothing.
well then ,thats a positive ........ re the Falklands specifically . The Argentines have shed a lot of blood in trying to , shall we say liberate or invade .. semantics . The British lost some more blood in ..err liberating or invading , you decide . Either way , this one will be solved or otherwise with more bloodshed. did i mention the beer ..... View attachment 31815 either way , i didnt come here for a barney . Im outta here . Adios !
