• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

"Don't blame the British people.We know the islands belong to you"

Do the Falklands belong to Britain?


  • Total voters
    42
All politicians are, not just those in the labour party.

Even John Major, who by common consensus is a thoroughly decent bloke and didn't deserve the awful rabble he had to work with in his cabinet, lectured the nation about going 'back to basics' when trying to suppress the fact he had been having an illicit affair.

People understand 'political' promises, it's part of the game. It's easier, though, to pick faults in those you don't like or agree with than those you do. And much more fun, mind.

I wouldn't say all necessarily, but it seems to me that those who are most hypocritical do quite often turn out to be Labour MPs! At least Conservative ones don't make any bones about sending their sprogs to private schools!
 
But then your perception will be guided, to a certain degree, by whatever party you vote in favour of.

It's human nature to see faults in everyone, whatever their creed. It's also instinctive, however, to highlight those faults in those you don't like or prefer, than those you do.

It's for those reasons I've always said Gadaffi was merely misunderstood but Mother Theresa was pure evil. Except in my case I just happen to be correct, too.
 
But then your perception will be guided, to a certain degree, by whatever party you vote in favour of.

It's human nature to see faults in everyone, whatever their creed. It's also instinctive, however, to highlight those faults in those you don't like or prefer, than those you do.

It's for those reasons I've always said Gadaffi was merely misunderstood but Mother Theresa was pure evil. Except in my case I just happen to be correct, too.

Are you Hitchens in disguise?
 
Sorry, I can't accept that.

From '83 to '87, Labour were for long spells vying with the SDP for 3rd place in the polls. It was only when Kinnock spoke out against champagne socialist Derek Hatton and his militant cronies in Liverpool, at the party conference in '85, that the party challeneged the conservatives in the polls.

Certainly, in the run-up to the election, after a hugely damaging by-election reverse in Greenwich, it was obvious Kinnock was in no position to defeat Thatcher. It was only a very polished election campaign headed by Bryan Gould that ensured they finished second. In no way was Kinnock in a vastly stronger position.

In '92, when he undeniably was, and despite the media hyperbole, the most Labour were actually hoping for, among party workers and activists at least in any case, was a hung parliament.

The reason for this was shadow chancellor John Smith's taxation proposals, especially on national insurance contributions, as well as the lack of statesmanship-like qualities from Kinnock.

People were angry with Major's government but, deep down, most knew this wouldn't be reflected at the ballot box. Better the devil you know and that.

In short, Kinnock was in no position to win in '87, and in '92, despite his own weaknesses, his own party ensured he went into battle, against an opponent on the ropes, with a tickling stick.

To be fair I don't think we are too much in disagreement, Kinnock didn't have an earthly against Thatcher in 1987, but as you say he did try and modernise the party by getting rid of Militant & Hatton and his associates.

The wheels did come off for him in 1992 after Smith published his "shadow" budget and of course his ill judged triumphalism at the Sheffield rally. But prior to this I'm pretty sure all the polls had Labour ahead, and certainly a lot of the exit polls predicted a narrow Labour victory. It wasn't until one of the early results came through, Basildon and seeing Amess's smug visage that it became clear that Major was going to win.
 
I've arrived late to this thread but I wonder whether regardless of who has the better legal claim to the Falklands, is the UK any longer in a position to defend the Islands? Should we even want to get in a position where we have to? Doesn't our stance give the impression to much of the world that we are still stuck in our colonial past?
I'm sure I read somewhere that Argentina offered to start negotiations on joint administration. It may well have been done expecting us to turn it down. Maybe we should call their bluff and offer them negotiations. Maybe I'm becoming a loony lefty in my old age but I can't see the point of shedding blood again over the Falklands.
 
We have to be very very careful with the Falklands.

Conflict with Argentina could be far costly than people think.

They may cancel Total Wipeout.
 
I see that poison tongued slut Kirchner has been knocking Britain again today, surely it's time that the would be 2nd termer Obama came out and gave his and America's full support to their closest ally over this ongoing dispute.
 
I see that poison tongued slut Kirchner has been knocking Britain again today, surely it's time that the would be 2nd termer Obama came out and gave his and America's full support to their closest ally over this ongoing dispute.

Like the US did last time ?

Dont expect them to get involved...
 
Not sure theres much we can do until they actually do something.

Invading Buenos Aries doesnt sound realistic.

I wonder how effective our military would be in the unlikely event they did actually do anything.
 
Not sure theres much we can do until they actually do something.

Invading Buenos Aries doesnt sound realistic.

I wonder how effective our military would be in the unlikely event they did actually do anything.

Our Navy would finish it before they set a foot on the Falklands, as the Lord of the Admiralty pointed out recently; their Airforce wouldn't get off the ground. Britain historically learns from its military mistakes/miscalculations and one couldn't imagine that a contingency plan hasn't been put in place over the last 30 years.

As for invading their Capital, not even sure why that's relevant. Britain only wants to protect its land and oil; not colonise some tin pot **** hole.
 
Our Navy would finish it before they set a foot on the Falklands, as the Lord of the Admiralty pointed out recently; their Airforce wouldn't get off the ground. Britain historically learns from its military mistakes/miscalculations and one couldn't imagine that a contingency plan hasn't been put in place over the last 30 years.

As for invading their Capital, not even sure why that's relevant. Britain only wants to protect its land and oil; not colonise some tin pot **** hole.

I wasnt serious about invading them but you are asking for us to take action, yet they havent done anything.

My understanding is that the islands are far better defended now than in 1982 so I assume they wouldnt actually get on the islands as you say, but other than that theres not much else to do.

As to stopping their airforce getting off the ground, they fly from Argentina, we are scrapping aircraft carriers. How would we achieve air supremacy with a navy and airforce thats needed in the middle east (well not the navy so much :) ) and also getting cut back ?

I know little about it to be honest, my uneducated guess is that the Islands would be too hard to take for them this time, but if they do invade it would be very costly to win them back. At the moment we lose a soldier in Afghanistan and it generates massive news, how would our morale and will to fight suffer 500 losses in the Falkands ? If there was any fighting we could easily lose the same amount of troops in a month that we lost in Afghanistan in a decade.

I wonder how much people actually care about the Islands anyway. My opinion is the Islanders want to be British so until they choose to leave or join Argentina we defend them. What if Argentina were to buy their property give them all a million quid and they agreed to leave ? Would we then care anything about them ?

Is it just an issues because we lost lives defending them before ?

Is it just about oil ?
 

ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top