TCIB said:Balti said:TCIB said:Go on, explain where i am clueless Balti and i shall hold my hands up and admit i fail as hard as you.
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.''
Furry muff. I repeat. Where is the parallel between India and the FI? What do they have in common exactly?
Who said there was a parallel between the countries or our occupation of both ? Would you like to quote where i made such a reference please.
I think you will find i made no such reference and your talking complete bollocks.
Just on your last point, they are both current or fomer protectorates of the crown who are a large distance from the motherland :)
Gelsons Dad said:BlueRob01 said:SWP's back said: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".
A case of pure nonsense more like!
It's more than 300 miles from the coast of Argentina to the Falklands. By your logic Cuba belongs to Mexico/USA/Venezuela!
Corsica belongs to Italy
Greenland belongs to Canada
Japan belongs to China
I could go on but I hope you might get the point by now.
BlueRob01 said:Gelsons Dad said:BlueRob01 said: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".
A case of pure nonsense more like!
It's more than 300 miles from the coast of Argentina to the Falklands. By your logic Cuba belongs to Mexico/USA/Venezuela!
Corsica belongs to Italy
Greenland belongs to Canada
Japan belongs to China
I could go on but I hope you might get the point by now.
I get the point - and all it's so obvious flaws and lack of relevance or realistic similiarities.
Ok, if the Falklands can and wants to stand on it's own two feet, as a nation state then even better.
Balti said:TCIB said:Balti said: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.''
Furry muff. I repeat. Where is the parallel between India and the FI? What do they have in common exactly?
Who said there was a parallel between the countries or our occupation of both ? Would you like to quote where i made such a reference please.
I think you will find i made no such reference and your talking complete bollocks.
Just on your last point, they are both current or fomer protectorates of the crown who are a large distance from the motherland :)
Nice try. But you are talking complete bollox innit.
You said''One point of reference is India, the massive majority accepted British rule''
India was not a protectorate as the Falklands is.
Otherwise you make complete sense probables.
PS What is 'the motherland'? Is this Manchester?
Balti said:[youtube][/youtube]BlueRob01 said:Gelsons Dad said:A case of pure nonsense more like!
It's more than 300 miles from the coast of Argentina to the Falklands. By your logic Cuba belongs to Mexico/USA/Venezuela!
Corsica belongs to Italy
Greenland belongs to Canada
Japan belongs to China
I could go on but I hope you might get the point by now.
I get the point - and all it's so obvious flaws and lack of relevance or realistic similiarities.
Ok, if the Falklands can and wants to stand on it's own two feet, as a nation state then even better.
That's fine as long as every other nation also gives up their dependencies
hmmmm
And the Argies give back ''Argentina'' to the natives they robbed their land from
As if
Anyway back to Slade
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLsw668PVyY[/youtube]
TCIB said:Balti said:TCIB said:Who said there was a parallel between the countries or our occupation of both ? Would you like to quote where i made such a reference please.
I think you will find i made no such reference and your talking complete bollocks.
Just on your last point, they are both current or fomer protectorates of the crown who are a large distance from the motherland :)
Nice try. But you are talking complete bollox innit.
You said''One point of reference is India, the massive majority accepted British rule''
India was not a protectorate as the Falklands is.
Otherwise you make complete sense probables.
PS What is 'the motherland'? Is this Manchester?
One point of reference to what, how about you quote the whole sentence ? was it a reference to the islands or to a comment not related directly to the islands. ?.
I think it is quite apparent i am replying to the other posters comment about "Only the winners accept it" refering to forced occupancy of a land.
Which i then went to give an example of ergo India.
Since you are the only one that finds this concept to hard to grasp i hear "The Hungry Catapilar" is rather enthraling, stay away from sharp objects also.
"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."
This was my full response to the comment by the other poster, nowhere here does my reply hint, allude, or imply any similarities between India and the Falkland Islands.
Lucky Toma said:Morrissey gives great HEAD. Always has. Always will. Doesnt mean I have to agree with him for me to still love the fella.
BlueRob01 said:Balti said:[youtube][/youtube]BlueRob01 said:I get the point - and all it's so obvious flaws and lack of relevance or realistic similiarities.
Ok, if the Falklands can and wants to stand on it's own two feet, as a nation state then even better.
That's fine as long as every other nation also gives up their dependencies
hmmmm
And the Argies give back ''Argentina'' to the natives they robbed their land from
As if
Anyway back to Slade
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLsw668PVyY[/youtube]
Ha. I think we should just agree to disagree shall we. Rich tapestry of life and views and all that.
What a subject for a Friday night before a game....I prefer Slade right now though like you I think.
It's match day now. Come On!