BF2S Forums The Dead Pool

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I don't have strong republican feelings. I don't care one way or another about the queen.

I do think that as much as people shouldn't be made to feel bad about mourning her, the people celebrating her passing shouldn't be shamed either.

There's a contradiction that the Queen Stans need to fix. It is unclothe to toast to the death of a person. Was the queen a symbol and figurehead of a nation or simply an individual? If she is in fact a symbol of a nation, the groups celebrating the passing of their enemy's symbol are perfectly justified. Our country celebrated the killing of OBL, as much a symbol to those people as the queen is to the British.
...
She isn't my symbol nor do I hold funky feelings about the British. Have your national mourning. Let the Irish, Argentines, and a dozen other groups enjoy their time too.

the irish have legitimate grievances, even though they all pre-date and decision the queen ever made (and she and her family paid for it in blood).

the argentines are just silly. the falklands really was all on them. a tinpot dictatorship with a failing economy tried to drum up public support for a doomed military escapade. the malvinas islands had never been settled by the argentinian people. it was populated entirely by british sheep farmers and small-holders. no democratic referendum or vote expressed a wish for them to join with argentina.

argentina have only themselves to blame for torpedoing their economy and sinking their nation. it was one of the biggest economies in the world in the initial era of the New World. they fumbled it all by themselves, economically and militarily.

a corrupt dictatorship made up of spanish colonialists complaining about … big bad english colonialism? sad!

return guam and hawaii.

i have no problem with someone being republican or anti-monarchist. but make it make sense. you can’t side with an argentinian military dictatorship composed of a spanish/latterly european colonial class out of ‘principle’. that doesn’t make any sense.

an inept military regime tried to make a grab for land that was never theirs based on a spurious pretext (claims over the islands being on the continental shelf; but in maritime and international law there was very little precedent for claiming land based on continental shelves, it was rather based on distance from shoreline). even with fancy french missiles they couldn’t hold their ill-gotten gains. their forces were poorly supplied and demoralised. a lot of poor natives sent there with antique gear by the colonial elite to die for them. sad!

argentina was also the biggest safe haven for fleeing nazis. lol. posing a dictatorship full of european settlers with dubious backgrounds against the supposed evil of the queen is a hard fail.

Last edited by uziq (2022-09-09 22:53:21)

outranged? the royal navy had just about one of the longest supply lines possible, lol. imagine trying to take a defended position across the entire atlantic ocean.

i’m not calling it a staggering military victory or anything. i’m saying that their claim was politically and legally suspect.

and criticising the queen, who had nothing to do with the choice to fight the war, in favour of a hardline right-wing military dictatorship, is funny as hell. there was only one autocratic regime killing and torturing people in that conflict.

Last edited by uziq (2022-09-10 00:08:45)

“thatcher’s war”? this is historical abuse lmao. they invaded a sovereign nation’s territory without any warning. mostly to shore up their own abysmal domestic politics and a crumbling dictatorship.

the argentinian settler-colonial elite had no legitimate claim to the malvinas. but okay it’s ‘thatcher’s war’ and not ‘galtieri’s wasteful and murdersome debacle’.

the repressive and brutal regime collapsed soon after anyway and argentina finally enjoyed democracy. so i guess you can thank the queen for something.

Last edited by uziq (2022-09-10 01:14:20)

it gave maggie a boost in her ratings, of course: wars tend to do that, in the short-term at least.

but nobody asked for a tinpot dictatorship across the atlantic to invade one of our islands, full of british people, and try to raise their flag there.

again, there was no precedent in international law for argentina to claim the islands merely because it was on their continental shelf. that's a highly novel interpretation of sovereignity laws; it wasn't until the latter half of the 20th century that large nations like india even began claiming fishing and mineral rights to areas based on their 'continental shelf'.

if the argentines (by which i mean a settler colonial elite from europe, transplants all) were somehow 'entitled' to claim an island based on proximity alone, an island furthermore with regards to which they never had any history of settlement, you might want to call someone at the Pentagon and inform them that china are entitled to everything that they say they're entitled to in the south china seas.

putin had a more historically tractable claim to crimea than the argentines ever had to the falklands ffs.

Last edited by uziq (2022-09-10 04:58:27)

uziq wrote:

i'm not here thinking aristocrats are genuinely cut from better cloth or anything. i am not in awe of them.

but your characterisation is very two-dimensional. lots of aristocratic families got where they were through service and duty. military or civic or otherwise. they had a sense of 'noblesse oblige', as i mentioned above. it's a slightly different dynamic to the rich plutocrats who are looting the country nowadays.

in my ideal society egalitarianism would be the norm, of course. but you're tilting at windmills as if it's the peerage who are responsible for britain's problems. on the contrary, the house of lords has exercised a brake many times on the worst aspects of populism in the last few years. they tried to act in britain's best interests back when a bunch of 'robber barons' and city boys, farage et al, tried to drive us off a cliff by whipping up a populist frenzy.

I'm talking more about the vulgarian MPs who think they're a cut above because a minor Earl once listened and nodded to them at a garden party and they got their kids into the same school as his.

"Grandma has no time for 2 minute silence for the Queen at supermarket"
https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout … e_for_the/

In Uzique's U.K., this lady would be put up in the stockade. ThE qUeEn WaS oUr SyMbOl

Dilbert_X wrote:

Thatcher was warned the Argentines were gearing up for a war and did nothing to deter them.
Maybe she wanted a war.

yeah and maybe freemasons run the world and the jews still have the ark of the covenant.

considering it was the french who were arming them, i’m not sure what you expected the UK govt to do. just give up it’s territory based on no legal pretext? sounds good to me.

as i said, putin in crimea is more justified than a fucking repressive italian dictator in the falklands.

haven’t you relied upon expensive naval contracts for your entire income and ‘yuuuuge gains’? talk about biting the hand that feeds. you should be happy for any reason for shipbuilding, you little conflict and fossil fuel profiteer.

Last edited by uziq (2022-09-10 21:18:46)

the argies fucked around and found out, i don't know how this falls at the blame of the queen or the big bad british empire.

No? It was about 20% of one job.

this is just hilarious. a few months ago you were posting pictures of nuclear submarines and bragging about it, as if you were the master designer of the whole fucking thing. now it was 'just 20% of one job'. ok lmao. what a cretin.

Last edited by uziq (2022-09-10 23:59:39)

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

i'm not here thinking aristocrats are genuinely cut from better cloth or anything. i am not in awe of them.

but your characterisation is very two-dimensional. lots of aristocratic families got where they were through service and duty. military or civic or otherwise. they had a sense of 'noblesse oblige', as i mentioned above. it's a slightly different dynamic to the rich plutocrats who are looting the country nowadays.

in my ideal society egalitarianism would be the norm, of course. but you're tilting at windmills as if it's the peerage who are responsible for britain's problems. on the contrary, the house of lords has exercised a brake many times on the worst aspects of populism in the last few years. they tried to act in britain's best interests back when a bunch of 'robber barons' and city boys, farage et al, tried to drive us off a cliff by whipping up a populist frenzy.

I'm talking more about the vulgarian MPs who think they're a cut above because a minor Earl once listened and nodded to them at a garden party and they got their kids into the same school as his.

when does this ever happen? what is a 'minor' earl? a viscount perhaps?

the people who 'give the nod' to MPs nowadays are media barons and rich donors, not people from the backpages of burke's peerage.

you honestly tilt at windmills. the aristocracy is a spent force. clubland and gentleman's networks are for eccentrics and queers. power doesn't operate there.

ffs this years long dick measuring contest, there would be nothing on bf2s but mac shitposting without it.