Discussion in 'world politics, current affairs and news' started by likesfish, May 3, 2012.
He made a point regarding the Falklands, you replied taking the discussion well beyond the Falklands, trying to make totally pointless comparisons.
It is possible to support the British government's stand regarding the Falklands without supporting what the government has done over the years in respect of other totally unrelated situations.
It always happens. For the uninformed the Brit's nicked the Falklands off Argentina, turfed them out and set up camp. When they realise that this was not the case and their argument's fucked, the standard response is "but they did it elsewhere!"
It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, is it?
My default position is that neither Argentina nor Britain has direct claims over the Falklands, because of their distance from any land mass.
Therefore, it is down to the people that live there to decide.
Well, it does appear to be for a few idiots, but generally no.
He made a point about rejecting argentinas "imperialism",as justification for the malvinas conflict,he got called on it ?He still hasn't managed to reply in a coherent relevant way.For people who seem determined to impose their narrative,you don't have many arguements beyond jingoistic nationalist bollocks,and when youse get called on it the wriggling etc starts.I'm waitin for fucknuts to jump in with some hybrid racist shite involving argies arabs and paddies
And my default position is?
No I didn't, stop lying. I simply outlined the hypocrisy of those who like you, rail against British imperialism, but support the Argentine imperialism in relation to the Falklands.
The only wriggling going on here is your attempt derail the debate.
You refuse to use the correct name of Falklands, the name used by the people that actually live there & use, therefore your default position seems to be against those those people.
The default position of a total twat TBH.
You don't have one. You're ranting.
Boys,boys, is this really the best youse can do.No arguement but your british righteousness,supposition,lies,wriggling.I expected better from the military cheerleaders on here,instead it's a bit like talking to the physical manifestation of a tabloid newspaper
No, you're trying the create that. But no one's biting!
Surely for that to be true i must "simply" be ranting.If you think this is ranting,i pity your fragile sensibilities...
There's tons of argument on this and many other threads about it. I'm waiting for someone to effectively refute it, but I doubt it'll be you.
Are you on drugs or just pissed?
I am no military cheerleader, nor do I believe Spymaster is.
Tell us one thing, do you believe that people should have self-determination?
Never had to create anything for the bigoted wee shite before,have you withdrawn him from operational duties on account of him being a liability then...
Now you're just being bizarre.
This crossed my mind!
It's crossed my mind over the course of this thread,but i'll wait till later i think...
You seem to be just posting random words.
Why not try formulating an actual position on the subject and arguing that?
This was the post that you decided you couldn't answer...Surprisingly you've not asked my position on this till now,you've just assumed...
There's a more typical British solution; sell the Falkalnds to the US for a military base and then terrify and expel the population.
More info here:
That post insofar as it's relevant, was dealt with several times.
I haven't asked because I'm not particularly interested in your views on British imperialism. If you wanted to proffer something on the Falklands I'd take a look.
And learn to spell "argument". Your spelling and punctuation is hurting my eyes.
That post was never answered once.You and your wee tag team pal decided that trying to undermine the questioner was easier,lies and wriggling my friend,feel free to answer it now though.Spelin', pah, meenin's ware iits at...
As far as it was relevent to the Falklands, it was.
The first statement was this:
I really don't know how I can be much clearer for you.
And this has WTF to do with the Falklands?
Are you going to answer the question in post 196?
Circular, convoluted, statements.Now what about comparing argentinian "imperialism" alongside british imperialism,as seems to be a focus of your argument(happy?).If all imperialism is to be rejected, as you say,how does this square with the idea of supporting one against the other.Moreover if we're going to use a sliding scale of imperial nastiness in order to decide which to support,how do the two measure up alongside each other?Also i'm curious to know why you don't think the malvinas are part of british imperial history,seems a bit convenient
Separate names with a comma.