W%%%%rs

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
mikraswan said:
Do I have to explain basics of international politics for you? You heard of NATO and UN? I know those weren't part of the game before WWII, but even then there were treaties to be honoured.
And obviously you can, and should, invade countries even if they aren't a threat to you nation: Yugoslavia, Rwanda (oops), Libya and Syria are recent examples where actions could have been taken on that account.

Iraq, Vietnam and, maybe, Afghanistan are examples where I believe there wasn't any reason to interfere... But it's my personal political point of view, it's not to derail the OP...
Click to expand...

.....and we have a pretty special treaty with the Falklands.

Your argument is unraveling. Now you are saying that we should have intervened in Syria and Libya, yet absolutely not in Afghanistan and Iraq? Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

NATO treatys eh? So when do you think we should start the 3rd world war with Russia?
 
I also wonder whether the rumour about reserves of oil in Falkland waters might have stirred the Argie's recent "interest". As for the geographical argument, it's a total nonsense. I suppose if we accepted that, we should all agree to the USA occupying Cuba etc etc etc.

Gibraltar is yet another example. The Spanish want it back but no way will they themselves consider relinquishing their exclave cities of Ceuta and Melilla in Morocco. Talk about hypocrisy!!
 
DaiswanHuwsmate said:
Kick war mongers like our politicians out is my motto and perhaps we can get this county up and running again instead of any war going on in the world we must join in....The amount of Money this country spends on other peoples wars and the lives needlessly lost is astronomical and not worth it.
Click to expand...

Quite agree Dai, but its how they are told to rule and keep power. There is no loyalty, patriotism, or even nation to these puppets, they just do as instructed. They'd burn us too if it was strategically pertinant to suplimenting the power of their masters.
 
Monty Fisto said:
.....and we have a pretty special treaty with the Falklands.

Your argument is unraveling. Now you are saying that we should have intervened in Syria and Libya, yet absolutely not in Afghanistan and Iraq? Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

NATO treatys eh? So when do you think we should start the 3rd world war with Russia?
Click to expand...
I love a good political debate, but I suppose it's better over a pint or two.

NATO did intervene in Libya (as you know), and I'm certain an early intervention in Syria would have stopped the bloodshed we're witnessing now.

It's common knowledge that the second intervention in Iraq was a showpiece. Finally I seriously doubt that the invasion of Afghanistan changed anything at all. Clean drinking water in the third world, which could have been obtained for the price of that specific war, would have changed more, and probably have had a more peacekeeping effect. But again this is my subjective opinion.

I do believe NATO in certain aspects have a peacekeeping function.

WWIII with the Russians? Have you been eating cockles left out in the sun?
 
As Britain has an open door policy to migrants, then the answer is for a few thousand Argentinians to migrate to The Falklands - and then hold a further vote on Independence/becoming part of Argentina.

Would this be allowed to happen? No.

Why not? Because of huge natural reserves and access to the riches in The South Pole area. Our rulers don't give two tosses about the inhabitants of the Falklands. Its all about dollars.
 
PGFWhite said:
As Britain has an open door policy to migrants, then the answer is for a few thousand Argentinians to migrate to The Falklands - and then hold a further vote on Independence/becoming part of Argentina.

Would this be allowed to happen? No.

Why not? Because of huge natural reserves and access to the riches in The South Pole area. Our rulers don't give two tosses about the inhabitants of the Falklands. Its all about dollars.
Click to expand...

Are the natural resources a fact?
 
ValleyGraduate12 said:
Project, Denmark outperformed the UK in the recent international PISA tests.
Click to expand...

And in the real world circumstances the marker for strength of an education system, the UK is projected to be biggest European economic power in 2030 by taking over Germany. Plenty of university scholars are critical of PISA, especially when different questions in these tests are omitted from country to country. If you give students just the simpler algebra in one country then you cannot say they have better system because their students scored a higher percentile.

Economic output is the real indicator, we annihilate Denmark when it comes to that and we are accelerating away from the rest in Europe whilst rapidly catching up with France.
 
mikraswan said:
I love a good political debate, but I suppose it's better over a pint or two.

NATO did intervene in Libya (as you know), and I'm certain an early intervention in Syria would have stopped the bloodshed we're witnessing now.

It's common knowledge that the second intervention in Iraq was a showpiece. Finally I seriously doubt that the invasion of Afghanistan changed anything at all. Clean drinking water in the third world, which could have been obtained for the price of that specific war, would have changed more, and probably have had a more peacekeeping effect. But again this is my subjective opinion.

I do believe NATO in certain aspects have a peacekeeping function.

WWIII with the Russians? Have you been eating cockles left out in the sun?
Click to expand...



Before you said we should have started WW2 immediately after Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia. Well Russia have invaded parts of the Ukraine, so when do you think we should declare war?

I bet you were against an "'early intervention" in Syria at the time. If we'd have gone into Syria it would have ended exactly the same as Iraq - be that good or bad. In fact it is the anti Iraq/Afghanistan war objectors that are directly responsible for us not going into Syria, and I guess you're one Mikra.
 
DaiswanHuwsmate said:
Keep your eyes on china.....<ok>
Click to expand...

China doesn't give a toss about the Falklands, Denmark, the UK or NATO.
We should start worrying about ecchelon and the NEW should this debate continue...

I'm a declared fan of Snowden. Consider him a hero, the western world are cowards for not giving him a citizenship, and for not protesting clearer against Washington for that one!
 
mikraswan said:
China doesn't give a toss about the Falklands, Denmark, the UK or NATO.
We should start worrying about ecchelon and the NEW should this debate continue...

I'm a declared fan of Snowden. Consider him a hero, the western world are cowards for not giving him a citizenship, and for not protesting clearer against Washington for that one!
Click to expand...

Every Welshman is. Have you seen it?
 
PGFWhite said:
As Britain has an open door policy to migrants, then the answer is for a few thousand Argentinians to migrate to The Falklands - and then hold a further vote on Independence/becoming part of Argentina.

Would this be allowed to happen? No.

Why not? Because of huge natural reserves and access to the riches in The South Pole area. Our rulers don't give two tosses about the inhabitants of the Falklands. Its all about dollars.
Click to expand...

I dont know how true this is but found this on a web site it says we actually share the resources with Argentina in an agreement reached in 1995.

One of the first acts of Carlos Menem, on becoming president of Argentina in 1989, is to open peace negotiations with Britain. They make little immediate progress, but hostilities are formally concluded by 1995.


A treaty in 1995 also tackles another important issue which has been a subtext in the conflict. Geological surveys suggest that there may be extensive oil reserves in the Falklands region. This, as much as national pride, is a reason for claiming possession.

Although no progress is made on the matter of sovereignty, a compromise on oil is reached in 1995. Britain and Argentina agree to share, in proportions varying in different regions, any wealth deriving from the anticipated oil fields. The British share is to be used to defray the cost of the war and the garrison. Licences are issued in 1996. Exploratory drilling begins in 1998.


Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ac51#ixzz344bCBS5P
 
Underestimate china at your peril as they are getting stronger and stronger and there are many countries who are keeping a sharp eye on them....
 
mikraswan said:
Are you serious? I think that Chamberlain should have gone to war against the Nazis either after the Crystal night, after the invasion of Czechoslovakia or, at latest when USSR signed a "peace treaty" with the third Reich.
Instead he came home with a worthless paper guaranteeing "peace in our time". Now that is ignorance, at best.
Ofcourse there are situations where you need to go to war. What I'm saying is that Falklands aren't. That war was, as I said a showpiece for the British public to ge focus away from internal matters. Brilliant trick by Thatcher, I'll give her that!
Click to expand...

Disagree Mikra. A new argument is now more considering towards Chamberlain. When the Munich agreement was signed in 1938, because of years of disarmament, Britain was in no position to go to war at that point in time, and it can now be argued that by signing this agreement, it gave Britain and France a further 13 months to significantly increase it's military personnel and weapons etc thus putting Britain in a position to declare war in September 39.
 
Monty Fisto said:
[/B]


Before you said we should have started WW2 immediately after Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia. Well Russia have invaded parts of the Ukraine, so when do you think we should declare war?

I bet you were against an "'early intervention" in Syria at the time. If we'd have gone into Syria it would have ended exactly the same as Iraq - be that good or bad. In fact it is the anti Iraq/Afghanistan war objectors that are directly responsible for us not going into Syria, and I guess you're one Mikra.
Click to expand...
Well, you're wrong in your assumptions. You list you bet. I was for intervention in Syria all the way. With or without the Russian acceptance in the security council.

Concerning the Ukraine situation it goes far longer back than WWII.
Ridiculous as it seems, it's NOT proven that Putin is behind the "spontaneous" riots, and furthermore Ukraine isn't a member of any alliance, fx the NATO you thrashed, and therefore it's there for the taking. As is Georgia, Tibet, Nicaragua, Taiwan, Mozambique... Do you want me to go on?
 
ValleyGraduate12 said:
Disagree Mikra. A new argument is now more considering towards Chamberlain. When the Munich agreement was signed in 1938, because of years of disarmament, Britain was in no position to go to war at that point in time, and it can now be argued that by signing this agreement, it gave Britain and France a further 13 months to significantly increase it's military personnel and weapons etc thus putting Britain in a position to declare war in September 39.
Click to expand...
My point exactly: how could they ignore Germanys rearmament that had been going on since Hitlers coup de etat. There are strong parallels to the Ukraine conflict in that aspect: Russia is the only major country, except from China, that has consistently increased their military budget over the past decade...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back