Morrissey - The Falkland Islands belong to Argentina

[BlueRob01]

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.

I really do have to give up I guess. It's Friday night after all..
" interested in the land only"...
So that makes it ok how exactly?

 

[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.

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.

Fuck me India has absolutely nothing in common with the Falklands.

Britain did not invade the FI or use it in Empire like we obviously did in India

Stop fucking presuming and read some books or go there before spouting bollox

 

[rushts]

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

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

Who licks ass.


thats not a question by the way.

Mozzer (apparently)

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

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

Who licks ass.


thats not a question by the way.

Mozzer (apparently)

 

[doots]

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

Who licks ass.


thats not a question by the way.

Mozzer (apparently)

Cheers,i'll send him/her a pm.

 

[Balti]

oh oh

 

[BlueRob01]

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.

Sadly, that did make me really laugh.
Whilst I make no bones about hating Thatcher with a passion - and we are all entitled to our views of course (unless you are invaded by someone bigger and stronger).
To me it is still a case of pure geopgraphy. Simplistic perhaps maybe.
But all this stuff being spouted that I do not know my history and half a page of justification blah blah..Utter rubbish. History doesn't make a wrong thing right, nor does it exist as any kind of objective set of "facts".

 

[PinkFinal]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17232315" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17232315</a>

Galloway talking about some boycott threat.

 

[TCIB]

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.

Fuck me India has absolutely nothing in common with the Falklands.

Britain did not invade the FI or use it in Empire like we obviously did in India

Stop fucking presuming and read some books or go there before spouting bollox

Your either the dumbest nobber to be able to use a keyboard or you can't read.

I was not relating the occupation reasons or manors and or dynamics involved einstein but responding to one of his comments.

So next time you want to sound smart make sure you know what your typing. It helps you not look like a noob.

@BlueRob01, I am not suggesting if it is wrong or right bud, just that's how it goes.

 

[Balti]

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.

Fuck me India has absolutely nothing in common with the Falklands.

Britain did not invade the FI or use it in Empire like we obviously did in India

Stop fucking presuming and read some books or go there before spouting bollox

Your either the dumbest nobber to be able to use a keyboard or you can't read.

I was not relating the occupation reasons or manors and or dynamics involved einstein but responding to one of his comments.

So next time you want to sound smart make sure you know what your typing. It helps you not look like a noob.

@BlueRob01, I am not suggesting if it is wrong or right bud, just that's how it goes.

OK. Fuck you too you totally clueless dickhead. xxx