Morrissey - The Falkland Islands belong to Argentina

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

I thought I had made my feelings on partition clear, but that does not seem to have filtered through for some reason.

What would your solution be to Northern Ireland and The Falklands? Based on your previous posts I bet they both end in Guerilla war and mass bloodshed.

Sorry, you did make your point clear.... was too busy typing the reply to read properly!
My solution? Well the current way has ended up in war and bloodshed and I guess any solution will never please anyone.
Maybe this is one for ''Ask Glen''?

I wouldn't ask glen on this one if I were you - his Loyalist tendencies are pretty robust IIRC.

That did make me laugh out very loud!

 

[rushts]

Morriseys a boring ****

Wrong! He's a boring OLD ****

Wrong! He's a boring OLD RAG ****.

 

[Balti]

Morriseys a boring ****

Wrong! He's a boring OLD ****

Wrong! He's a boring OLD RAG ****.

see, now we're talking....

 

[SWP's back]

Doesn't make it right though surely? In the Falklands or anywhere.

Well it does though as it has been the accepted way since civilized society formed and before that.

It may offend some peoples ideals and sensibilities but thats just tough luck really.

You have seen pacific salmon swimming back up the river to lay eggs right ?. Now at the top of all the waterfalls, you see the biggest bear in the best spot.
Why ?, because he fought for it and he wanted it more.
It is the same principle really, our people wanted it more.

It's only accepted by those that win..
Not sure those that are taken over (and usually killed), in whatever guise it is undertaken would agree with the principle.
As for wanting it more, I would suggest that economic and military strength may have had something to do with it.
As does the political expedience of the most vile woman in recent history.

Ah so that's it. It's a Thatcher thing. Got'cha.

(see what I did there?)

By the way, do you read the thread? Indigenous people's? No (unlike in Argentina where the Spanish killed them all). Geographically close?? Again no as the London/Portugal - buenos aires/Falklands proves. Was Argentina in control of them? No, it didn't exist.

So it's simply to be contrary to something Thatcher did. Great stuff.

 

[doots]

Morriseys a boring ****

Wrong! He's a boring OLD ****

Wrong! He's a boring OLD RAG ****.

Who licks ass.


thats not a question by the way.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Well it does though as it has been the accepted way since civilized society formed and before that.

It may offend some peoples ideals and sensibilities but thats just tough luck really.

You have seen pacific salmon swimming back up the river to lay eggs right ?. Now at the top of all the waterfalls, you see the biggest bear in the best spot.
Why ?, because he fought for it and he wanted it more.
It is the same principle really, our people wanted it more.

It's only accepted by those that win..
Not sure those that are taken over (and usually killed), in whatever guise it is undertaken would agree with the principle.
As for wanting it more, I would suggest that economic and military strength may have had something to do with it.
As does the political expedience of the most vile woman in recent history.

Ah so that's it. It's a Thatcher thing. Got'cha.

(see what I did there?)

By the way, do you read the thread? Indigenous people's? No (unlike in Argentina where the Spanish killed them all). Geographically close?? Again no as the London/Portugal - buenos aires/Falklands proves. Was Argentina in control of them? No, it didn't exist.

So it's simply to be contrary to something Thatcher did. Great stuff.

Did you read the thread? I made the comment about indigenous people but was referring to Ireland.

 

[TCIB]

Doesn't make it right though surely? In the Falklands or anywhere.

Well it does though as it has been the accepted way since civilized society formed and before that.

It may offend some peoples ideals and sensibilities but thats just tough luck really.

You have seen pacific salmon swimming back up the river to lay eggs right ?. Now at the top of all the waterfalls, you see the biggest bear in the best spot.
Why ?, because he fought for it and he wanted it more.
It is the same principle really, our people wanted it more.

It's only accepted by those that win..
Not sure those that are taken over (and usually killed), in whatever guise it is undertaken would agree with the principle.
As for wanting it more, I would suggest that economic and military strength may have had something to do with it.
As does the political expedience of the most vile woman in recent history.

Argentina had a similar military budget to us, and weaponry. In some areas they had better weapons and equiptment.

Refer to other posts here regarding invading/occupying the islands. You will find a large swathe of your arguement is left invalid regarding invading etc.

This is due to us simply defending what has been our land for a long time, hence the action taken was defence and nothing to do with invading etc.

It is not accepted only buy those who win at all.
One point of reference is India, the massive majority accepted British rule, why ?. Well a long story short is others like the Germans had tried it on in India and failed.
This is because they tried to regiment all areas of peoples lives. We had no policy to try and affect religious and or other personal values. We were interested in the land only.

Edit:: Bring back Maggie.

 

[Balti]

Well it does though as it has been the accepted way since civilized society formed and before that.

It may offend some peoples ideals and sensibilities but thats just tough luck really.

You have seen pacific salmon swimming back up the river to lay eggs right ?. Now at the top of all the waterfalls, you see the biggest bear in the best spot.
Why ?, because he fought for it and he wanted it more.
It is the same principle really, our people wanted it more.

It's only accepted by those that win..
Not sure those that are taken over (and usually killed), in whatever guise it is undertaken would agree with the principle.
As for wanting it more, I would suggest that economic and military strength may have had something to do with it.
As does the political expedience of the most vile woman in recent history.

Ah so that's it. It's a Thatcher thing. Got'cha.

(see what I did there?)

By the way, do you read the thread? Indigenous people's? No (unlike in Argentina where the Spanish killed them all). Geographically close?? Again no as the London/Portugal - buenos aires/Falklands proves. Was Argentina in control of them? No, it didn't exist.

So it's simply to be contrary to something Thatcher did. Great stuff.

Apparently the Falkland Islanders didn't want to be freed from Argentinian imperial aggression????!!!

fpmsl

 

[jimharri]

Morriseys a boring ****

Wrong! He's a boring OLD ****

Wrong! He's a boring OLD RAG ****.

Kindred spirits. Oh, joy of joys!

 

[SWP's back]

It's only accepted by those that win..
Not sure those that are taken over (and usually killed), in whatever guise it is undertaken would agree with the principle.
As for wanting it more, I would suggest that economic and military strength may have had something to do with it.
As does the political expedience of the most vile woman in recent history.

Ah so that's it. It's a Thatcher thing. Got'cha.

(see what I did there?)

By the way, do you read the thread? Indigenous people's? No (unlike in Argentina where the Spanish killed them all). Geographically close?? Again no as the London/Portugal - buenos aires/Falklands proves. Was Argentina in control of them? No, it didn't exist.

So it's simply to be contrary to something Thatcher did. Great stuff.

Did you read the thread? I made the comment about indigenous people but was referring to Ireland.

It had been referred to elsewhere by him also and others re The Falklands.

The point stands. Why should it had been Argentinas when there were no indigenous peoples?