Indeed. But I believe that Falklands belong to the UK. Why? The UK had taken it before, Argentina wanted it back so they invaded it and lost.Vilham wrote:
Well his comment was a pretty stupid one tbh.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Never engage in personal attacks. Ever.Vilham wrote:
Well seeing as the Falklands are part of the UK yes you bloody moron.
Please, no flaming.
What about the Sheffield?SuperMike wrote:
The Argies would do well to remember "THE BELGRANO" & back off or else !
'Cept it's actually the 3rd largest after Russia. We have more carriers (2, the Ark Royal and Invincible) but they have more of everything else.usmarine2007 wrote:
Have to agree with that reasoning.Vilham wrote:
One thing to say... 2nd largest navy in the world vs near none existent navy = getting your ass handed to you.
And the Brits would do well to remember the sinking of "The Sheffield" two days after. And these boys did it with 2 Dassault Super Etendars, French. I think this war was very wrong but don't forget most of our soldiers were kids.SuperMike wrote:
The Argies would do well to remember "THE BELGRANO" & back off or else !
The difference is called the people there CHOOSE to be part of the UK. End of!sergeriver wrote:
There are some Brits here claiming the Falklands/Malvinas/Bs Islands are theirs. For me it's fine. But those are the same who are constantly attacking US for invading countries 15k miles aways from home. When you took the Islands in 1833 they were 200 miles aways from our coast. How come Bush is a wacko, but the Islands belong to UK? At least I don't have two speeches.
We don't want the Islands, you stole them 170 years ago, they belong to you, but don't criticize Bush for doing what you did during your whole history.
Back in 1833 there were no people in the Islands. That's when you stole them. Now they belong to you, the people living there are all Brits, and I think it's Ok. But don't defend the British colonialism.Vilham wrote:
The difference is called the people there CHOOSE to be part of the UK. End of!sergeriver wrote:
There are some Brits here claiming the Falklands/Malvinas/Bs Islands are theirs. For me it's fine. But those are the same who are constantly attacking US for invading countries 15k miles aways from home. When you took the Islands in 1833 they were 200 miles aways from our coast. How come Bush is a wacko, but the Islands belong to UK? At least I don't have two speeches.
We don't want the Islands, you stole them 170 years ago, they belong to you, but don't criticize Bush for doing what you did during your whole history.
Last edited by EVieira (2007-02-23 07:41:19)
As you say, back when we colonised the islands, there were no people living there so this is hardly a comparable example to what the US (and its allies) is doing now, ousting legitimate governments and putting in more politically acceptable ones.sergeriver wrote:
Back in 1833 there were no people in the Islands. That's when you stole them. Now they belong to you, the people living there are all Brits, and I think it's Ok. But don't defend the British colonialism.Vilham wrote:
The difference is called the people there CHOOSE to be part of the UK. End of!sergeriver wrote:
There are some Brits here claiming the Falklands/Malvinas/Bs Islands are theirs. For me it's fine. But those are the same who are constantly attacking US for invading countries 15k miles aways from home. When you took the Islands in 1833 they were 200 miles aways from our coast. How come Bush is a wacko, but the Islands belong to UK? At least I don't have two speeches.
We don't want the Islands, you stole them 170 years ago, they belong to you, but don't criticize Bush for doing what you did during your whole history.
If, as Serge says, there were no inhabitants on the islands, how is it a ruthless action or atrocity? I know we have a chequered past and done some very bad things - we don't have very far to look for many of them (Ireland) - but I don't see this as being one of them. If you could enlighten me as to how this was bad, go ahead.Evieira wrote:
The Falklands/Malvines is but a small example of a very long list of ruthless actions and atrocites commited by the united kingdom when it was a world power.
There are alot of places in the world that don't have people, doesn't mean anyone can just take it for themselves. Why don't you try to invade some of the uninhabited islands around Hawaii? And as I've said, its a small example of he bad things. Enlightened now?aardfrith wrote:
If, as Serge says, there were no inhabitants on the islands, how is it a ruthless action or atrocity? I know we have a chequered past and done some very bad things - we don't have very far to look for many of them (Ireland) - but I don't see this as being one of them. If you could enlighten me as to how this was bad, go ahead.Evieira wrote:
The Falklands/Malvines is but a small example of a very long list of ruthless actions and atrocites commited by the united kingdom when it was a world power.
So the Spanish/Portuguese taking S.America from the natives isn't worse? Please.. get real for a second. At least the Falklands were not populated, the same cant be said for Brazil.EVieira wrote:
There are alot of places in the world that don't have people, doesn't mean anyone can just take it for themselves. Why don't you try to invade some of the uninhabited islands around Hawaii? And as I've said, its a small example of he bad things. Enlightened now?aardfrith wrote:
If, as Serge says, there were no inhabitants on the islands, how is it a ruthless action or atrocity? I know we have a chequered past and done some very bad things - we don't have very far to look for many of them (Ireland) - but I don't see this as being one of them. If you could enlighten me as to how this was bad, go ahead.Evieira wrote:
The Falklands/Malvines is but a small example of a very long list of ruthless actions and atrocites commited by the united kingdom when it was a world power.
I thought you were more moderate. You always attack the US foreign policy, yet you defend the Falklands being British only coz people there are Brits. Of course they are Brits, you took the Islands back in 1833 when they were empty, but they still were 15k miles away from UK.Vilham wrote:
So the Spanish/Portuguese taking S.America from the natives isn't worse? Please.. get real for a second. At least the Falklands were not populated, the same cant be said for Brazil.EVieira wrote:
There are alot of places in the world that don't have people, doesn't mean anyone can just take it for themselves. Why don't you try to invade some of the uninhabited islands around Hawaii? And as I've said, its a small example of he bad things. Enlightened now?aardfrith wrote:
If, as Serge says, there were no inhabitants on the islands, how is it a ruthless action or atrocity? I know we have a chequered past and done some very bad things - we don't have very far to look for many of them (Ireland) - but I don't see this as being one of them. If you could enlighten me as to how this was bad, go ahead.
Last edited by Vilham (2007-02-23 08:21:50)
Yet you argued the people in the islands wanted to belong to a richer country, a bit deprecatory comment. If you read what I posted I said "Keep them". I don't want those BS islands. There's nothing of interest there. And I don't think any Argentinian wants them back. We could make a football match for them. I don't think you'd accept that.Vilham wrote:
I love the way people always moan about the past. Especially when it was things done 10 generations ago. If you blame the current people for actions of people they have never met or are in no way similar you are a very shallow person imo.
I blame America for doing things NOW it is the people i can see and talk to that are causing it not some person who died 200 years ago.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-02-23 08:28:22)
Then what the hell are you complaining about! You dont want the islands, the people dont want to be part of Argentina. SO WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?sergeriver wrote:
Yet you argued the people in the islands wanted to belong to a richer country, a bit deprecatory comment. If you read what I posted I said "Keep them". I don't want those BS islands. There's nothing of interest there. And I don't think any Argentinian wants them back. We could make a football match for them. I don't think you'd accept that.Vilham wrote:
I love the way people always moan about the past. Especially when it was things done 10 generations ago. If you blame the current people for actions of people they have never met or are in no way similar you are a very shallow person imo.
I blame America for doing things NOW it is the people i can see and talk to that are causing it not some person who died 200 years ago.
You are the one getting hyped up and personal. We are discussing history here, and history is always in the past. The fact is that the UK has a a bloody, rotten past with lots of wrong doings and the falklands is one bit of it.Vilham wrote:
I love the way people always moan about the past. Especially when it was things done 10 generations ago. If you blame the current people for actions of people they have never met or are in no way similar you are a very shallow person imo.
I blame America for doing things NOW it is the people i can see and talk to that are causing it not some person who died 200 years ago.
It's a different era. 1833 was in the midst of the real age of empires. All the big European countries were at it and there was nothing to say that it was wrong, now we have international laws that prevent colonialism, but you can't very well criticise the British just for being better at it than everybody else.sergeriver wrote:
I thought you were more moderate. You always attack the US foreign policy, yet you defend the Falklands being British only coz people there are Brits. Of course they are Brits, you took the Islands back in 1833 when they were empty, but they still were 15k miles away from UK.Vilham wrote:
So the Spanish/Portuguese taking S.America from the natives isn't worse? Please.. get real for a second. At least the Falklands were not populated, the same cant be said for Brazil.EVieira wrote:
There are alot of places in the world that don't have people, doesn't mean anyone can just take it for themselves. Why don't you try to invade some of the uninhabited islands around Hawaii? And as I've said, its a small example of he bad things. Enlightened now?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-02-23 08:37:53)
Easy Tiger. I just didn't like your comment about a poor country. Get your facts right, before saying we are poor. Yes, we don't take care of our poor people, that's true. But Argentina is far from being poor.Vilham wrote:
Then what the hell are you complaining about! You dont want the islands, the people dont want to be part of Argentina. SO WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?sergeriver wrote:
Yet you argued the people in the islands wanted to belong to a richer country, a bit deprecatory comment. If you read what I posted I said "Keep them". I don't want those BS islands. There's nothing of interest there. And I don't think any Argentinian wants them back. We could make a football match for them. I don't think you'd accept that.Vilham wrote:
I love the way people always moan about the past. Especially when it was things done 10 generations ago. If you blame the current people for actions of people they have never met or are in no way similar you are a very shallow person imo.
I blame America for doing things NOW it is the people i can see and talk to that are causing it not some person who died 200 years ago.
Simple FACT. You are not as rich as the UK. Why would the Falklands choose to change to a poorer country? They wouldn't End of!sergeriver wrote:
Easy Tiger. I just didn't like your comment about a poor country. Get your facts right, before saying we are poor. Yes, we don't take care of our poor people, that's true. But Argentina is far from being poor.Vilham wrote:
Then what the hell are you complaining about! You dont want the islands, the people dont want to be part of Argentina. SO WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?sergeriver wrote:
Yet you argued the people in the islands wanted to belong to a richer country, a bit deprecatory comment. If you read what I posted I said "Keep them". I don't want those BS islands. There's nothing of interest there. And I don't think any Argentinian wants them back. We could make a football match for them. I don't think you'd accept that.
Sorry i guess i should take the blame for something someone i don't know about did 200 years ago. In that case I suggest you stop being a hypocrite.EVieira wrote:
You are the one getting hyped up and personal. We are discussing history here, and history is always in the past. The fact is that the UK has a a bloody, rotten past with lots of wrong doings and the falklands is one bit of it.Vilham wrote:
I love the way people always moan about the past. Especially when it was things done 10 generations ago. If you blame the current people for actions of people they have never met or are in no way similar you are a very shallow person imo.
I blame America for doing things NOW it is the people i can see and talk to that are causing it not some person who died 200 years ago.
You have centuries out there, and we are less than 200 years old. Besides, being 20th in the list is not that bad. You are richer, but not in resources. We have plenty of resources. Who is richer? Name another country with the amount of resources Argentina has, except US.Vilham wrote:
Simple FACT. You are not as rich as the UK. Why would the Falklands choose to change to a poorer country? They wouldn't End of!sergeriver wrote:
Easy Tiger. I just didn't like your comment about a poor country. Get your facts right, before saying we are poor. Yes, we don't take care of our poor people, that's true. But Argentina is far from being poor.Vilham wrote:
Then what the hell are you complaining about! You dont want the islands, the people dont want to be part of Argentina. SO WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
French - shitty surrender monkey traitors !sergeriver wrote:
And the Brits would do well to remember the sinking of "The Sheffield" two days after. And these boys did it with 2 Dassault Super Etendars, French. I think this war was very wrong but don't forget most of our soldiers were kids.SuperMike wrote:
The Argies would do well to remember "THE BELGRANO" & back off or else !
Last edited by SuperMike (2007-02-23 08:42:31)
The hell I can't! Taking islands from other countries has been ilegal for a long time...Bertster7 wrote:
It's a different era. 1833 was in the midst of the real age of empires. All the big European countries were at it and there was nothing to say that it was wrong, now we have international laws that prevent colonialism, but you can't very well criticise the British just for being better at it than everybody else.sergeriver wrote:
I thought you were more moderate. You always attack the US foreign policy, yet you defend the Falklands being British only coz people there are Brits. Of course they are Brits, you took the Islands back in 1833 when they were empty, but they still were 15k miles away from UK.Vilham wrote:
So the Spanish/Portuguese taking S.America from the natives isn't worse? Please.. get real for a second. At least the Falklands were not populated, the same cant be said for Brazil.
Or is it? Have you heard of Nigerian oil? Its in this months National Geographic. The government and tribal chiefs are bribed with cars and luxury furniture so the oil can be extracted and sent to Europe by companies like Total and Shell. The people of Nigeria are among the poorest in the world, thanks to the colonialism tactics still used today. Except that it is now done by big corps, rather then governments.Bertster7 wrote:
Imperial rule was a bad idea in general and has caused all sorts of long lasting problems, but it is totally incomparable to any contemporary events.
Last edited by EVieira (2007-02-23 08:43:54)
Well actually it hasnt been illegal for a long time at all. Most international law was enforced after the end of WWII. And your second point is what? We already know that there are people that will do anything for money.EVieira wrote:
The hell I can't! Taking islands from other countries has been ilegal for a long time...Bertster7 wrote:
It's a different era. 1833 was in the midst of the real age of empires. All the big European countries were at it and there was nothing to say that it was wrong, now we have international laws that prevent colonialism, but you can't very well criticise the British just for being better at it than everybody else.sergeriver wrote:
I thought you were more moderate. You always attack the US foreign policy, yet you defend the Falklands being British only coz people there are Brits. Of course they are Brits, you took the Islands back in 1833 when they were empty, but they still were 15k miles away from UK.Or is it? Have you heard of Nigerian oil? Its in this months National Geographic. The government and tribal chiefs are bribed with cars and luxury furniture so the oil can be extracted and sent to Europe by countries like Total and Shell. The people of Nigeria are among the poorest in the world, thanks to the colonialism tactics still used today. Excpet that it is now done by big corps, rather then goverments.Bertster7 wrote:
Imperial rule was a bad idea in general and has caused all sorts of long lasting problems, but it is totally incomparable to any contemporary events.
Brazil. But who wants that piece of rock anyway? It even has englishmen on them...sergeriver wrote:
You have centuries out there, and we are less than 200 years old. Besides, being 20th in the list is not that bad. You are richer, but not in resources. We have plenty of resources. Who is richer? Name another country with the amount of resources Argentina has, except US.Vilham wrote:
Simple FACT. You are not as rich as the UK. Why would the Falklands choose to change to a poorer country? They wouldn't End of!sergeriver wrote:
Easy Tiger. I just didn't like your comment about a poor country. Get your facts right, before saying we are poor. Yes, we don't take care of our poor people, that's true. But Argentina is far from being poor.
God - please bring back those great days !EVieira wrote:
The Falklands/Malvines is but a small example of a very long list of ruthless actions and atrocites commited by the united kingdom when it was a world power. They had the nerve to actually deny Indians to make salt, FFS... They also ran the worlds largest drug cartel, opium at the time. Very lucrative business, and helped keep the Chinese in check.