Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Coming War With Argentina
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Alex
Feb 9, 2012, 1:14:34 PM2/9/12
to
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29169
Argentina Appeals To UN Over British Military Buildup In South Atlantic
by Global Research News
Global Research, February 9, 2012
On February 7 Argentine President Cristina Fernandez accused Britain of militarizing the South
Atlantic Ocean by deploying a cutting-edge warship and a nuclear-powered submarine off the coast of
the Falklands Islands, known to Argentina and the rest of Latin America as Las Malvinas.
She pledged to seek assistance at the United Nations to remove British military forces from the
region, warning that the heightened British military presence risks a potential clash between the
two countries.
London recently announced that it was dispatching the HMS Dauntless, a Type 45 destroyer, Britain's
newest and most advanced warship, to the Falklands as well as a Trafalgar class nuclear-powered
submarine equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish torpedoes. Another Type 45 destroyer,
HMS Daring, was recently deployed to the Persian Gulf where two U.S. aircraft carriers, USS Carl
Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln, and their strike groups are also deployed, with the USS Enterprise
carrier strike group to join them.
The British destroyer and submarine will reinforce Typhoon warplanes of the sort used against Libya
last year, an air base with radar, a patrol frigate and a garrison of 1,700 soldiers, the latter
almost the number of civilian inhabitants of the Falklands.
The deployment of Prince William on a military mission to the islands late last week further
antagonized Argentina, with President Fernandez describing the royal scion as being garbed in the
"uniform of a conquistador."
Rick Rozoff contributed to this report.
Global Research Articles by Global Research News
Argentina Appeals To UN Over British Military Buildup In South Atlantic
by Global Research News
Global Research, February 9, 2012
On February 7 Argentine President Cristina Fernandez accused Britain of militarizing the South
Atlantic Ocean by deploying a cutting-edge warship and a nuclear-powered submarine off the coast of
the Falklands Islands, known to Argentina and the rest of Latin America as Las Malvinas.
She pledged to seek assistance at the United Nations to remove British military forces from the
region, warning that the heightened British military presence risks a potential clash between the
two countries.
London recently announced that it was dispatching the HMS Dauntless, a Type 45 destroyer, Britain's
newest and most advanced warship, to the Falklands as well as a Trafalgar class nuclear-powered
submarine equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish torpedoes. Another Type 45 destroyer,
HMS Daring, was recently deployed to the Persian Gulf where two U.S. aircraft carriers, USS Carl
Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln, and their strike groups are also deployed, with the USS Enterprise
carrier strike group to join them.
The British destroyer and submarine will reinforce Typhoon warplanes of the sort used against Libya
last year, an air base with radar, a patrol frigate and a garrison of 1,700 soldiers, the latter
almost the number of civilian inhabitants of the Falklands.
The deployment of Prince William on a military mission to the islands late last week further
antagonized Argentina, with President Fernandez describing the royal scion as being garbed in the
"uniform of a conquistador."
Rick Rozoff contributed to this report.
Global Research Articles by Global Research News
Sofa - Spud
Feb 9, 2012, 1:24:00 PM2/9/12
to
GordonD
Feb 9, 2012, 2:33:08 PM2/9/12
to
"Alex" <avdeelen.R...@ziggo.nl> wrote in message
news:d1368$4f340d3a$546a7070$57...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29169
for the election...
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
news:d1368$4f340d3a$546a7070$57...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29169
>
> London recently announced that it was dispatching the HMS Dauntless, a
> Type 45 destroyer, Britain's
> newest and most advanced warship, to the Falklands as well as a Trafalgar
> class nuclear-powered
> submarine equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish torpedoes.
Looks like the Coalition is about to break up and Cameron is getting ready
> London recently announced that it was dispatching the HMS Dauntless, a
> Type 45 destroyer, Britain's
> newest and most advanced warship, to the Falklands as well as a Trafalgar
> class nuclear-powered
> submarine equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish torpedoes.
for the election...
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
Tired
Feb 9, 2012, 4:57:55 PM2/9/12
to
GordonD wrote:
:: "Alex" <avdeelen.R...@ziggo.nl> wrote in message
Maggie in 1983?
:: "Alex" <avdeelen.R...@ziggo.nl> wrote in message
:: news:d1368$4f340d3a$546a7070$57...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
::: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29169
:::
::: London recently announced that it was dispatching the HMS
::: Dauntless, a Type 45 destroyer, Britain's
::: newest and most advanced warship, to the Falklands as well as a
::: Trafalgar class nuclear-powered
::: submarine equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish
::: torpedoes.
::
:: Looks like the Coalition is about to break up and Cameron is getting
:: ready for the election...
:: --
I presume you are trying to imply that it was the Falklands that won it for
::: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29169
:::
::: London recently announced that it was dispatching the HMS
::: Dauntless, a Type 45 destroyer, Britain's
::: newest and most advanced warship, to the Falklands as well as a
::: Trafalgar class nuclear-powered
::: submarine equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish
::: torpedoes.
::
:: Looks like the Coalition is about to break up and Cameron is getting
:: ready for the election...
:: --
Maggie in 1983?
GordonD
Feb 9, 2012, 5:39:13 PM2/9/12
to
"Tired" <n...@no.com> wrote in message news:9pitr6...@mid.individual.net...
It didn't hurt her chances.
Tired
Feb 9, 2012, 5:45:24 PM2/9/12
to
GordonD wrote:
:: "Tired" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
I have always found it curious, how, when Churchill led us into victory
against the Germans to victory in World War 2, held a general election less
than eight weeks following VE day he went down to a landslide defeat. Yet
somehow the retaking of a small island off the coast of south america that
few had ever heard of helped Thatcher get elected in the general election
that took place over a year later.
Doesnt really add up, does it?
:: "Tired" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
against the Germans to victory in World War 2, held a general election less
than eight weeks following VE day he went down to a landslide defeat. Yet
somehow the retaking of a small island off the coast of south america that
few had ever heard of helped Thatcher get elected in the general election
that took place over a year later.
Doesnt really add up, does it?
The Other Mike
Feb 9, 2012, 6:06:31 PM2/9/12
to
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:14:34 +0100, "Alex"
<avdeelen.R...@ziggo.nl> wrote:
>Argentina Appeals
No it doesn't. Not in the slightest.
Last time it was 'oh no you've sunk my battleship' This time we
should take the high ground and make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on
Buenos Aries.
--
<avdeelen.R...@ziggo.nl> wrote:
>Argentina Appeals
No it doesn't. Not in the slightest.
Last time it was 'oh no you've sunk my battleship' This time we
should take the high ground and make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on
Buenos Aries.
--
Message has been deleted
JNugent
Feb 9, 2012, 7:31:46 PM2/9/12
to
On 09/02/2012 22:39, GordonD wrote:
> "Tired" <n...@no.com> wrote in message news:9pitr6...@mid.individual.net...
>> GordonD wrote:
>> :: "Alex" <avdeelen.R...@ziggo.nl> wrote in message
>> :: news:d1368$4f340d3a$546a7070$57...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
>> ::: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29169
>> :::
>> ::: London recently announced that it was dispatching the HMS
>> ::: Dauntless, a Type 45 destroyer, Britain's
>> ::: newest and most advanced warship, to the Falklands as well as a
>> ::: Trafalgar class nuclear-powered
>> ::: submarine equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish
>> ::: torpedoes.
>> ::
>> :: Looks like the Coalition is about to break up and Cameron is getting
>> :: ready for the election...
>> :: --
>>
>>
>> I presume you are trying to imply that it was the Falklands that won it for
>> Maggie in 1983?
>
> It didn't hurt her chances.
It needn't have helped, but incredibly, first Foot, and later Kinnock, were
> "Tired" <n...@no.com> wrote in message news:9pitr6...@mid.individual.net...
>> GordonD wrote:
>> :: "Alex" <avdeelen.R...@ziggo.nl> wrote in message
>> :: news:d1368$4f340d3a$546a7070$57...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
>> ::: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29169
>> :::
>> ::: London recently announced that it was dispatching the HMS
>> ::: Dauntless, a Type 45 destroyer, Britain's
>> ::: newest and most advanced warship, to the Falklands as well as a
>> ::: Trafalgar class nuclear-powered
>> ::: submarine equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish
>> ::: torpedoes.
>> ::
>> :: Looks like the Coalition is about to break up and Cameron is getting
>> :: ready for the election...
>> :: --
>>
>>
>> I presume you are trying to imply that it was the Falklands that won it for
>> Maggie in 1983?
>
> It didn't hurt her chances.
against the recovery of the Falklands.
They were obviously determined to lose the 1983 GE, and the only point on
which they differed was the optimum required size of the anti-Labour landslide.
JNugent
Feb 9, 2012, 7:32:24 PM2/9/12
to
JNugent
Feb 9, 2012, 7:33:54 PM2/9/12
to
On 10/02/2012 00:12, Froot Bat wrote:
> "Tired"<n...@no.com> wrote:
>> somehow the retaking of a small island off the coast of south america that
>> few had ever heard of helped Thatcher get elected in the general election
>> that took place over a year later.
>> Doesnt really add up, does it?
> Neither do the numbers in our bent electoral system, which is the real
> reason she 'won'.
Our electoral system is very far from "bent".
You seem to have forgotten already is that FPTP is the peoples' choice.
> "Tired"<n...@no.com> wrote:
>> somehow the retaking of a small island off the coast of south america that
>> few had ever heard of helped Thatcher get elected in the general election
>> that took place over a year later.
>> Doesnt really add up, does it?
> reason she 'won'.
Our electoral system is very far from "bent".
You seem to have forgotten already is that FPTP is the peoples' choice.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Truebrit
Feb 10, 2012, 1:28:37 AM2/10/12
to
>> "Tired" <n...@no.com> wrote:
>>somehow the retaking of a small island off the coast of south america that
>>few had ever heard of helped Thatcher get elected in the general election
>>that took place over a year later.
>>
>>Doesnt really add up, does it?
>
>>somehow the retaking of a small island off the coast of south america that
>>few had ever heard of helped Thatcher get elected in the general election
>>that took place over a year later.
>>
>>Doesnt really add up, does it?
>
>"Froot Bat" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Neither do the numbers in our bent electoral system, which is the real
> reason she 'won'.
>
Same bent system that saw the socialist sweep to power und T. Bliar?
> Neither do the numbers in our bent electoral system, which is the real
> reason she 'won'.
>
Truebrit.
Paul Hyett
Feb 10, 2012, 3:05:07 AM2/10/12
to
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 at 19:14:34, Alex <avdeelen.R...@ziggo.nl>
wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29169
>
>Argentina Appeals To UN Over British Military Buildup In South Atlantic
>by Global Research News
>Global Research, February 9, 2012
>
>On February 7 Argentine President Cristina Fernandez accused Britain of
>militarizing the South
>Atlantic Ocean by deploying a cutting-edge warship and a
>nuclear-powered submarine off the coast of
>the Falklands Islands, known to Argentina and the rest of Latin America
>as Las Malvinas.
>
>She pledged to seek assistance at the United Nations to remove British
>military forces from the
>region, warning that the heightened British military presence risks a
>potential clash between the
>two countries.
>
Is she for real - talk about sabre-rattling! 8)
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29169
>
>Argentina Appeals To UN Over British Military Buildup In South Atlantic
>by Global Research News
>Global Research, February 9, 2012
>
>On February 7 Argentine President Cristina Fernandez accused Britain of
>militarizing the South
>Atlantic Ocean by deploying a cutting-edge warship and a
>nuclear-powered submarine off the coast of
>the Falklands Islands, known to Argentina and the rest of Latin America
>as Las Malvinas.
>
>She pledged to seek assistance at the United Nations to remove British
>military forces from the
>region, warning that the heightened British military presence risks a
>potential clash between the
>two countries.
>
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
Norman Wells
Feb 10, 2012, 3:49:48 AM2/10/12
to
British people living there than the population of the Falkland Islands,
just as there were at the time of the Falklands conflict. So, your
suggestion may not be such a good idea.
AC
Feb 10, 2012, 6:03:21 AM2/10/12
to
Credible analysts reckon this is only the beginning of a long game. In
the end, they will get their islands back, but I don't think there will
be any actual war over it.
Main thing is to sort out a mutually acceptable oil deal. And lets face
it, that oil is more their than ours.
--
AC
AC
Feb 10, 2012, 6:04:26 AM2/10/12
to
--
AC
AC
Feb 10, 2012, 6:05:17 AM2/10/12
to
--
AC
AC
Feb 10, 2012, 6:10:52 AM2/10/12
to
--
AC
GordonD
Feb 10, 2012, 6:21:37 AM2/10/12
to
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:1X6Zq.10804$GN2....@newsfe25.ams2...
Some people *still* haven't forgotten about Maradona...
news:1X6Zq.10804$GN2....@newsfe25.ams2...
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
GordonD
Feb 10, 2012, 6:24:06 AM2/10/12
to
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:_P6Zq.10801$GN2....@newsfe25.ams2...
there's a throwaway line about Argentina and the UK being in dispute over
sovereignty of the Falklands - because neither country wants them!
The Other Mike
Feb 10, 2012, 7:45:48 AM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:49:48 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>The Other Mike wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:14:34 +0100, "Alex"
>> <avdeelen.R...@ziggo.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Argentina Appeals
>>
>> No it doesn't. Not in the slightest.
>>
>> Last time it was 'oh no you've sunk my battleship' This time we
>> should take the high ground and make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on
>> Buenos Aries.
>
>Disregarding the fact that it's Buenos Aires
Trident doesn't need a place name. All that matters are the lat and
long, post event the road signs won't be readable anyway. Maybe we
could change the spelling, or the word completely. Maybe call it
Tunbridge Sodbury, you know just like on their maps where the Falkland
Islands somehow appears as Islas Malvinas despite them occupying the
place for just one and a bit years in the last 200.
Maybe now, after Argentina has existed for a mere 200 years as an
independent country, we could make a claim on their mainland. Such a
claim probably has more legitimacy given that we sent an advanced
party of Welsh there many years ago. On second thoughts, let them
keep the place. It's full of greasy lazy spaniards, pampas grass
isn't like proper English grass, they make shit beer, their corned
beef is full of fat and their economy makes Greece look like China.
Nuking the place into oblivion would be like paying a visit to the
vets and putting that pit bull chihuahua cross down that keeps pissing
on your pure wool axminster and ripping the face of the neighbours
children. It's for the best but everyone wins. We could then let the
place revert back to nature, no farting cows, just lots of new growth
trees as far as the eye can see soaking up excess CO2. We solve the
Falklands Issue at the press of a button, and get an instant fix for
global warming meaning we can use that Falklands oil as it was
intended, to drive faster and have more fun. Everyone's a winner!
> there happen to be more
>British people living there than the population of the Falkland Islands,
>just as there were at the time of the Falklands conflict.
I have no sympathy for them. They know the danger. They know they are
a legitimate target. If they had any sense they'd move somewhere much
safer... like downtown Kabul.
--
wrote:
>The Other Mike wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:14:34 +0100, "Alex"
>> <avdeelen.R...@ziggo.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Argentina Appeals
>>
>> No it doesn't. Not in the slightest.
>>
>> Last time it was 'oh no you've sunk my battleship' This time we
>> should take the high ground and make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on
>> Buenos Aries.
>
>Disregarding the fact that it's Buenos Aires
long, post event the road signs won't be readable anyway. Maybe we
could change the spelling, or the word completely. Maybe call it
Tunbridge Sodbury, you know just like on their maps where the Falkland
Islands somehow appears as Islas Malvinas despite them occupying the
place for just one and a bit years in the last 200.
Maybe now, after Argentina has existed for a mere 200 years as an
independent country, we could make a claim on their mainland. Such a
claim probably has more legitimacy given that we sent an advanced
party of Welsh there many years ago. On second thoughts, let them
keep the place. It's full of greasy lazy spaniards, pampas grass
isn't like proper English grass, they make shit beer, their corned
beef is full of fat and their economy makes Greece look like China.
Nuking the place into oblivion would be like paying a visit to the
vets and putting that pit bull chihuahua cross down that keeps pissing
on your pure wool axminster and ripping the face of the neighbours
children. It's for the best but everyone wins. We could then let the
place revert back to nature, no farting cows, just lots of new growth
trees as far as the eye can see soaking up excess CO2. We solve the
Falklands Issue at the press of a button, and get an instant fix for
global warming meaning we can use that Falklands oil as it was
intended, to drive faster and have more fun. Everyone's a winner!
> there happen to be more
>British people living there than the population of the Falkland Islands,
>just as there were at the time of the Falklands conflict.
a legitimate target. If they had any sense they'd move somewhere much
safer... like downtown Kabul.
--
The Other Mike
Feb 10, 2012, 7:54:40 AM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:21:37 -0000, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>Some people *still* haven't forgotten about Maradona...
No we bloody well haven't
--
wrote:
>Some people *still* haven't forgotten about Maradona...
--
GordonD
Feb 10, 2012, 8:30:10 AM2/10/12
to
"The Other Mike" <rootpa...@somewhereorother.com> wrote in message
news:7s4aj79nn54funmnl...@4ax.com...
All of Scotland remembers him fondly!
news:7s4aj79nn54funmnl...@4ax.com...
Truebrit
Feb 10, 2012, 10:27:17 AM2/10/12
to
>>> "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>Some people *still* haven't forgotten about Maradona...
>>
>>The Other Mike" <rootpa...@somewhereorother.com> wrote: No we bloody
>>>Some people *still* haven't forgotten about Maradona...
>>
>>well haven't.
>
>"GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com> wrote: All of Scotland remembers him
>fondly!
> --
Only because they have failed to produce a decent footballer since Denis
Law.
Truebrit
GordonD
Feb 10, 2012, 11:55:56 AM2/10/12
to
"Truebrit" <true...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fsednfV5gaTRqqjS...@posted.toastnet...
Kenny Dalglish was the last decent one, IMO.
news:fsednfV5gaTRqqjS...@posted.toastnet...
Truebrit
Feb 10, 2012, 11:59:39 AM2/10/12
to
>about sabre-rattling! 8)
> --
Maybe she feels she has to prove she has as much in the balls department as
Maggie. ;-)
Truebrit.
RustyCrampon
Feb 10, 2012, 12:23:27 PM2/10/12
to
>
> Whats this shit to do with UK TV??
It will probably make compelling television. The riots last summer
looked great on my HD LCD TV.
> Whats this shit to do with UK TV??
It will probably make compelling television. The riots last summer
looked great on my HD LCD TV.
Cassandra
Feb 10, 2012, 1:23:05 PM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:59:39 -0500, "Truebrit" <true...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>>"Paul Hyett" <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote: Is she for real - talk
>>about sabre-rattling! 8)
>> --
>
>Maybe she feels she has to prove she has as much in the balls department as
>Maggie. ;-)
>
I must say is was very nice of Thatcher to risk her life back in
Whitehall while the armed forces were on holiday in the South
Atlantic
wrote:
>>
>>"Paul Hyett" <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote: Is she for real - talk
>>about sabre-rattling! 8)
>> --
>
>Maybe she feels she has to prove she has as much in the balls department as
>Maggie. ;-)
>
Whitehall while the armed forces were on holiday in the South
Atlantic
Tired
Feb 10, 2012, 4:15:51 PM2/10/12
to
Froot Bat wrote:
:: On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:33:54 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
:: wrote:
::
:: Sure it is. You either end up with a Prime Minister that most people
:: hate and voted against, like Thatcher, or you end up with a coalition
:: that nobody wanted or voted for.
:
Their is a lack of logic to your statement. The advantage of FPTP is a
strong constituecny link and it usually provides decisive government. PR in
all its forms weakens that link, some more than others, but provides a
parliament more proportional to the votes cast.
So, you claim that most people voted against Thatcher. Well it is true that
more people voted for parties other than the Conservatives, but that still
they were clear winners.
Thats a fair point to make, But, it doesnt chime with your second point. A
PR system is almost always by its nature going to return a distribution of
seats in Parliament that would require a coalition. Coalitions would be the
ordinary course of events.
Because of how the numbers worked agains the Conservatives at the 2010
election and they didnt get enough seats to form a majority government they
went into coalition.
They actually ended up doing what a PR system would have done, the coalition
represents about 58% of the votes cast.
Is a coalition created by a PR system a 'good thing', but once created by a
FPTP system a 'bad thing'?
No, the reality is you just dont like the Tories in Government and support
any system that makes such a thing unlikely.
:: On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:33:54 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
:: wrote:
::
::: On 10/02/2012 00:12, Froot Bat wrote:
:::
:::: "Tired"<n...@no.com> wrote:
:::
::::: somehow the retaking of a small island off the coast of south
::::: america that few had ever heard of helped Thatcher get elected in
::::: the general election that took place over a year later.
::::: Doesnt really add up, does it?
:::
:::: Neither do the numbers in our bent electoral system, which is the
:::: real reason she 'won'.
:::
::: Our electoral system is very far from "bent".
::
:::
:::: "Tired"<n...@no.com> wrote:
:::
::::: somehow the retaking of a small island off the coast of south
::::: america that few had ever heard of helped Thatcher get elected in
::::: the general election that took place over a year later.
::::: Doesnt really add up, does it?
:::
:::: Neither do the numbers in our bent electoral system, which is the
:::: real reason she 'won'.
:::
::: Our electoral system is very far from "bent".
:: Sure it is. You either end up with a Prime Minister that most people
:: hate and voted against, like Thatcher, or you end up with a coalition
:: that nobody wanted or voted for.
:
Their is a lack of logic to your statement. The advantage of FPTP is a
strong constituecny link and it usually provides decisive government. PR in
all its forms weakens that link, some more than others, but provides a
parliament more proportional to the votes cast.
So, you claim that most people voted against Thatcher. Well it is true that
more people voted for parties other than the Conservatives, but that still
they were clear winners.
Thats a fair point to make, But, it doesnt chime with your second point. A
PR system is almost always by its nature going to return a distribution of
seats in Parliament that would require a coalition. Coalitions would be the
ordinary course of events.
Because of how the numbers worked agains the Conservatives at the 2010
election and they didnt get enough seats to form a majority government they
went into coalition.
They actually ended up doing what a PR system would have done, the coalition
represents about 58% of the votes cast.
Is a coalition created by a PR system a 'good thing', but once created by a
FPTP system a 'bad thing'?
No, the reality is you just dont like the Tories in Government and support
any system that makes such a thing unlikely.
Tired
Feb 10, 2012, 4:16:49 PM2/10/12
to
JNugent wrote:
And very little to do with the Falklands (though it did chime in with a
sense of rebirth of a nation).
sense of rebirth of a nation).
Message has been deleted
Truebrit
Feb 10, 2012, 6:28:58 PM2/10/12
to
>>>"Paul Hyett" <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote: Is she for real - talk
>>>about sabre-rattling! 8)
>>> --
>>"Truebrit" <true...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>about sabre-rattling! 8)
>>> --
>>Maybe she feels she has to prove she has as much in the balls department
>>as
>>Maggie. ;-)
>
>>as
>>Maggie. ;-)
>
>"Cassandra" <shaun.jameson.nott...@ntlworld.comq> wrote:
> I must say is was very nice of Thatcher to risk her life back in
> Whitehall while the armed forces were on holiday in the South
> Atlantic
>
Are you really as stupid as you make yourself out to be? Or did you forget
> I must say is was very nice of Thatcher to risk her life back in
> Whitehall while the armed forces were on holiday in the South
> Atlantic
>
about how the IRA came very close to killing her?
Truebrit
JNugent
Feb 10, 2012, 7:30:09 PM2/10/12
to
But striking Argentina's Atlantic naval bases with conventional weapons
(fired from nuclear-powered submarines) after a new Falklands invasion (or
even during it) would be less dangerous for British forces and more likely to
dissuade Argentina from staying put in the Falklands.
JNugent
Feb 10, 2012, 7:30:30 PM2/10/12
to
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Dry Gulch Pete
Feb 10, 2012, 11:19:28 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 9, 6:14 pm, "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETH...@ziggo.nl> wrote:
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29169
>
> Argentina Appeals To UN Over British Military Buildup In South Atlantic
> by Global Research News
> Global Research, February 9, 2012
>
> On February 7 Argentine President Cristina Fernandez accused Britain of militarizing the South
> Atlantic Ocean by deploying a cutting-edge warship and a nuclear-powered submarine off the coast of
> the Falklands Islands, known to Argentina and the rest of Latin America as Las Malvinas.
>
> She pledged to seek assistance at the United Nations to remove British military forces from the
> region, warning that the heightened British military presence risks a potential clash between the
> two countries.
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29169
>
> Argentina Appeals To UN Over British Military Buildup In South Atlantic
> by Global Research News
> Global Research, February 9, 2012
>
> On February 7 Argentine President Cristina Fernandez accused Britain of militarizing the South
> Atlantic Ocean by deploying a cutting-edge warship and a nuclear-powered submarine off the coast of
> the Falklands Islands, known to Argentina and the rest of Latin America as Las Malvinas.
>
> She pledged to seek assistance at the United Nations to remove British military forces from the
> region, warning that the heightened British military presence risks a potential clash between the
> two countries.
>
> London recently announced that it was dispatching the HMS Dauntless, a Type 45 destroyer, Britain's
> newest and most advanced warship, to the Falklands as well as a Trafalgar class nuclear-powered
> newest and most advanced warship, to the Falklands as well as a Trafalgar class nuclear-powered
> submarine equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish torpedoes. Another Type 45 destroyer,
> HMS Daring, was recently deployed to the Persian Gulf where two U.S. aircraft carriers, USS Carl
> Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln, and their strike groups are also deployed, with the USS Enterprise
> carrier strike group to join them.
>
> The British destroyer and submarine will reinforce Typhoon warplanes of the sort used against Libya
> last year, an air base with radar, a patrol frigate and a garrison of 1,700 soldiers, the latter
> almost the number of civilian inhabitants of the Falklands.
>
> The deployment of Prince William on a military mission to the islands late last week further
> antagonized Argentina, with President Fernandez describing the royal scion as being garbed in the
> "uniform of a conquistador."
>
> Rick Rozoff contributed to this report.
>
> Global Research Articles by Global Research News
and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
> HMS Daring, was recently deployed to the Persian Gulf where two U.S. aircraft carriers, USS Carl
> Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln, and their strike groups are also deployed, with the USS Enterprise
> carrier strike group to join them.
>
> The British destroyer and submarine will reinforce Typhoon warplanes of the sort used against Libya
> last year, an air base with radar, a patrol frigate and a garrison of 1,700 soldiers, the latter
> almost the number of civilian inhabitants of the Falklands.
>
> The deployment of Prince William on a military mission to the islands late last week further
> antagonized Argentina, with President Fernandez describing the royal scion as being garbed in the
> "uniform of a conquistador."
>
> Rick Rozoff contributed to this report.
>
> Global Research Articles by Global Research News
agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
Argentina!
President Reagan said, IIRC, "Why anyone is interested in that rock in
the south Atlantic...!".
--
DGP
Col
Feb 11, 2012, 2:21:17 AM2/11/12
to
"Gordon Freeman" <Gor...@freeman.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9FF610...@127.0.0.1...
> "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> In one of Arthur C. Clarke's novels (I forget which one at the moment)
>> there's a throwaway line about Argentina and the UK being in dispute over
>> sovereignty of the Falklands - because neither country wants them!
>
> That's not far from the truth, Britain certainly didn't want them until
>
>> In one of Arthur C. Clarke's novels (I forget which one at the moment)
>> there's a throwaway line about Argentina and the UK being in dispute over
>> sovereignty of the Falklands - because neither country wants them!
>
> the
> Argies invaded them. (Of course now that there's the prospect of oil
> things
> are a bit different.)
I'm sure that even in 1982, there was talk of oil down there.
--
Col
The gulls have plucked out my eyes!
AC
Feb 11, 2012, 5:39:31 AM2/11/12
to
GordonD wrote:
> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:1X6Zq.10804$GN2....@newsfe25.ams2...
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>> The Other Mike wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:14:34 +0100, "Alex"
>>>> <avdeelen.R...@ziggo.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Argentina Appeals
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't. Not in the slightest.
>>>>
>>>> Last time it was 'oh no you've sunk my battleship' This time we
>>>> should take the high ground and make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on
>>>> Buenos Aries.
>>>
>>> Disregarding the fact that it's Buenos Aires, there happen to be more
>>> British people living there than the population of the Falkland Islands,
>>> just as there were at the time of the Falklands conflict. So, your
>>> suggestion may not be such a good idea.
>>
>> Fucking is. Probably a load of non-doms. Yup, nuke the Argies!!!!!
>
>
> Some people *still* haven't forgotten about Maradona...
Or Kenny Everett.
> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:1X6Zq.10804$GN2....@newsfe25.ams2...
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>> The Other Mike wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:14:34 +0100, "Alex"
>>>> <avdeelen.R...@ziggo.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Argentina Appeals
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't. Not in the slightest.
>>>>
>>>> Last time it was 'oh no you've sunk my battleship' This time we
>>>> should take the high ground and make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on
>>>> Buenos Aries.
>>>
>>> Disregarding the fact that it's Buenos Aires, there happen to be more
>>> British people living there than the population of the Falkland Islands,
>>> just as there were at the time of the Falklands conflict. So, your
>>> suggestion may not be such a good idea.
>>
>> Fucking is. Probably a load of non-doms. Yup, nuke the Argies!!!!!
>
>
> Some people *still* haven't forgotten about Maradona...
--
AC
AC
Feb 11, 2012, 5:41:16 AM2/11/12
to
Froot Bat wrote:
> of Spanish imperialists than the descendants of British imperialists?
>
> Really funny to have some fucking dago settler, who wouldn't even be
> there if it weren't for centuries of Spanish aggression and oppression
> all over the world, talking about a British "conquistador".
>
> We'll go home from the Falklands when they go home from Argentina.
>
Its the property of South America. Take it from there.
--
AC
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:03:21 +0000, AC<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>> Credible analysts reckon this is only the beginning of a long game. In
>> the end, they will get their islands back, but I don't think there will
>> be any actual war over it.
>>
>> Main thing is to sort out a mutually acceptable oil deal. And lets face
>> it, that oil is more their than ours.
>
> In what way is South American oil more the property of the descendants
>
>> Credible analysts reckon this is only the beginning of a long game. In
>> the end, they will get their islands back, but I don't think there will
>> be any actual war over it.
>>
>> Main thing is to sort out a mutually acceptable oil deal. And lets face
>> it, that oil is more their than ours.
>
> of Spanish imperialists than the descendants of British imperialists?
>
> Really funny to have some fucking dago settler, who wouldn't even be
> there if it weren't for centuries of Spanish aggression and oppression
> all over the world, talking about a British "conquistador".
>
> We'll go home from the Falklands when they go home from Argentina.
>
Its the property of South America. Take it from there.
--
AC
AC
Feb 11, 2012, 5:41:57 AM2/11/12
to
--
AC
AC
Feb 11, 2012, 5:43:21 AM2/11/12
to
Bush Jr could answer.
--
AC
AC
Feb 11, 2012, 5:52:58 AM2/11/12
to
Now, where were Thatch and her family during the Falklands war? Cuddling
gollywogs and getting lost, I presume.
--
AC
AC
Feb 11, 2012, 5:54:46 AM2/11/12
to
--
AC
AC
Feb 11, 2012, 5:57:17 AM2/11/12
to
a great little film called "An Ungentlemanly Act". I recommend it to any
one. Its basically about the Argie invasion of the islands. Its almost
like an Ealing comedy.
--
AC
Cassandra
Feb 11, 2012, 6:00:07 AM2/11/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:28:58 -0500, "Truebrit" <true...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Brighton while the armed forces were being greeted warmly by the
people of Belfast.
wrote:
people of Belfast.
AC
Feb 11, 2012, 6:05:17 AM2/11/12
to
the Argies invaded the Falklands? Will the French have to comit troops,
sailors what ever to the defence? Do we even have the ability to boot
off a proper Argie invasion? Are the Yanks still backing Argentina? And
weren't Harriers key back in '82?
Im not so sure we could boot them off this time round. Perhaps that's
why we are building up defensive forces now. Put them off before it starts.
--
AC
JNugent
Feb 11, 2012, 6:28:57 AM2/11/12
to
On 11/02/2012 02:25, Froot Bat wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:15:51 -0000, "Tired"<n...@no.com> wrote:
>
>> No, the reality is you just dont like the Tories
>
> Wrong. The fact that I utterly despise the Tories has nothing to do
> with my opinion on the electoral system.
> until the LibDems sold out their own voters.
>
> The simple fact is that FPTP disenfranchises millions of people in the
> UK, making their vote useless before it is even cast. It's an absolute
> scandal that we have such a system and still claim to be a democracy.
>
> The fact that PR is more fair and democratic than FPTP is why almost
> every democracy on the planet uses it in some form, including the UK.
>
> The only reason we don't have it in general elections is because both
> Labour and Tories like taking turns as absolute dictator, stealing
> elections with a minority of the votes.
Even if that were correct (it isn't), you seem to be forgetting that FPTP is
now the Peoples' Choice, by an incredibly wide margin in the referendum.
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:15:51 -0000, "Tired"<n...@no.com> wrote:
>
>> No, the reality is you just dont like the Tories
>
> with my opinion on the electoral system.
>
>> and support any system that makes such a thing unlikely.
>
> Nonsense. A Tory Government was unlikely up to and including 2010,
>> and support any system that makes such a thing unlikely.
>
> until the LibDems sold out their own voters.
>
> The simple fact is that FPTP disenfranchises millions of people in the
> UK, making their vote useless before it is even cast. It's an absolute
> scandal that we have such a system and still claim to be a democracy.
>
> The fact that PR is more fair and democratic than FPTP is why almost
> every democracy on the planet uses it in some form, including the UK.
>
> The only reason we don't have it in general elections is because both
> Labour and Tories like taking turns as absolute dictator, stealing
> elections with a minority of the votes.
Even if that were correct (it isn't), you seem to be forgetting that FPTP is
now the Peoples' Choice, by an incredibly wide margin in the referendum.
JNugent
Feb 11, 2012, 6:30:54 AM2/11/12
to
Dry Gulch Pete
Feb 11, 2012, 6:34:30 AM2/11/12
to
On Feb 10, 4:59 pm, "Truebrit" <trueb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 at 19:14:34, Alex <avdeelen.REMOFETH...@ziggo.nl>
When folk realise that Cameron's witchhunt on bankers bonuses hides
the fact that the politico f**ked up over the credit crunch and turn
on him the little rat might sacrifice a few hundred of our soldiers
lives in the f**king south Atlantic; Thatcher won a second term thanks
to that bloody colonial affair!
Why not sell the Falklands to Argentina?
Must be worth billions.
--
DGP
> > On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 at 19:14:34, Alex <avdeelen.REMOFETH...@ziggo.nl>
the fact that the politico f**ked up over the credit crunch and turn
on him the little rat might sacrifice a few hundred of our soldiers
lives in the f**king south Atlantic; Thatcher won a second term thanks
to that bloody colonial affair!
Why not sell the Falklands to Argentina?
Must be worth billions.
--
DGP
Message has been deleted
JNugent
Feb 11, 2012, 7:17:44 AM2/11/12
to
On 11/02/2012 11:52, Froot Bat wrote:
> JNugent<jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> you seem to be forgetting that FPTP is
>> now the Peoples' Choice, by an incredibly wide margin in the referendum.
>
> When the choice is do you want the terrible system that we've always
> had, or do you want a terrible new system that nobody even really
> wants, it's hardly surprising what the outcome is.
You lost.
If you'd won, you'd insist on your winnings.
But you lost.
> JNugent<jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> you seem to be forgetting that FPTP is
>> now the Peoples' Choice, by an incredibly wide margin in the referendum.
>
> had, or do you want a terrible new system that nobody even really
> wants, it's hardly surprising what the outcome is.
You lost.
If you'd won, you'd insist on your winnings.
But you lost.
Sofa - Spud
Feb 11, 2012, 9:54:34 AM2/11/12
to
On Feb 10, 11:18 pm, Froot Bat <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:03:21 +0000, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:03:21 +0000, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> >Credible analysts reckon this is only the beginning of a long game. In
> >the end, they will get their islands back, but I don't think there will
> >be any actual war over it.
>
> >Main thing is to sort out a mutually acceptable oil deal. And lets face
> >it, that oil is more their than ours.
>
> >the end, they will get their islands back, but I don't think there will
> >be any actual war over it.
>
> >Main thing is to sort out a mutually acceptable oil deal. And lets face
> >it, that oil is more their than ours.
>
> In what way is South American oil more the property of the descendants
> of Spanish imperialists than the descendants of British imperialists?
>
> Really funny to have some fucking dago settler, who wouldn't even be
> there if it weren't for centuries of Spanish aggression and oppression
> all over the world, talking about a British "conquistador".
>
> We'll go home from the Falklands when they go home from Argentina.
A very good point indeed , at nearly 400 miles from Argentina, never
> of Spanish imperialists than the descendants of British imperialists?
>
> Really funny to have some fucking dago settler, who wouldn't even be
> there if it weren't for centuries of Spanish aggression and oppression
> all over the world, talking about a British "conquistador".
>
> We'll go home from the Falklands when they go home from Argentina.
part of Argentina at all as it was uninhabited when us the French and
Spaniards all wanted it in the 17th century. We ended up with it and
were there long before Argentina threw off (nominally) Spanish direct
rule. This bizarre idea that just because it lies near their county
it's theirs is as daft as us claiming the Dutch of shore gas fields
near the various little islands nearby beacie it *only 65 miles
away* .
What makes this either very funny or tragically sad is that the voice
of the left in the media - the guardian , is today publishing articles
along the lines of how daft we are to protest about the Falklands and
how we should sort of give it to them etc etc. All very muddled
thinking , were any other country to make such demands on a near
neighbour there would be all the usual voices raised , because it;s
the UK and the Falkland those same voices remain awfully quiet.
Paul Hyett
Feb 11, 2012, 12:21:42 PM2/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 at 12:17:44, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
in uk.media.tv.misc :
But if they hadn't chosen one of the worst of all voting systems as the
other choice, they might have been a chance of change.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
in uk.media.tv.misc :
other choice, they might have been a chance of change.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
Paul Hyett
Feb 11, 2012, 12:22:38 PM2/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 at 10:39:31, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in
uk.media.tv.misc :
I'm sure it was all done in the best possible taste...
uk.media.tv.misc :
JNugent
Feb 11, 2012, 1:32:25 PM2/11/12
to
Paul Hyett
Feb 12, 2012, 2:50:25 AM2/12/12
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 at 18:32:25, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
in uk.media.tv.misc :
>>
tortuous - so much more could be accomplished if only bureaucracy could
be circumvented!
in uk.media.tv.misc :
>>
>> But if they hadn't chosen one of the worst of all voting systems as the other
>> choice, they might have been a chance of change.
>
>Do a Google search on the terms "Sparta" and "if".
>
ISTM a big part of the problem is that changing *anything* is so slow &
>> choice, they might have been a chance of change.
>
>Do a Google search on the terms "Sparta" and "if".
>
tortuous - so much more could be accomplished if only bureaucracy could
be circumvented!
Hognoxious
Feb 12, 2012, 7:03:55 AM2/12/12
to
On Feb 11, 8:21 am, "Col" <reddwar...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Gordon Freeman" <Gor...@freeman.invalid> wrote in message
>
...
> "Gordon Freeman" <Gor...@freeman.invalid> wrote in message
>
>
> I'm sure that even in 1982, there was talk of oil down there.
There was, he's talking shite.
> I'm sure that even in 1982, there was talk of oil down there.
Truebrit
Feb 12, 2012, 8:58:28 AM2/12/12
to
> >>>> "Paul Hyett"<p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote: Is she for real -
> >>>> talk
>>>>> about sabre-rattling! 8)
>>>>> --
>>>> "Truebrit"<true...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Maybe she feels she has to prove she has as much in the balls
>>>> department
>>>> as
>>>> Maggie. ;-)
>>>
>>> "Cassandra"<shaun.jameson.nott...@ntlworld.comq> wrote:
>>> I must say is was very nice of Thatcher to risk her life back in
>>> Whitehall while the armed forces were on holiday in the South
>>> Atlantic
>>>
>>Truebrit wrote:
>> Are you really as stupid as you make yourself out to be? Or did you
>> forget
>> about how the IRA came very close to killing her?
>> Truebrit
>>
> >>>> talk
>>>>> about sabre-rattling! 8)
>>>>> --
>>>> "Truebrit"<true...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Maybe she feels she has to prove she has as much in the balls
>>>> department
>>>> as
>>>> Maggie. ;-)
>>>
>>> "Cassandra"<shaun.jameson.nott...@ntlworld.comq> wrote:
>>> I must say is was very nice of Thatcher to risk her life back in
>>> Whitehall while the armed forces were on holiday in the South
>>> Atlantic
>>>
>>Truebrit wrote:
>> Are you really as stupid as you make yourself out to be? Or did you
>> forget
>> about how the IRA came very close to killing her?
>> Truebrit
>>
>"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Dont you worry Fakebritboy, no one has forgotten that.
>
Wot! Me worry, DC? You are mistaking me for someone else.
> Dont you worry Fakebritboy, no one has forgotten that.
>
>"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote: Now, where were Thatch and her family during the
>Falklands war? Cuddling gollywogs and getting lost, I presume.
>
Presume? You really don't know? Typical pseudo intellectual shit for brains
>
snob.
Truebrit.
Truebrit
Feb 12, 2012, 9:00:47 AM2/12/12
to
>>>>>"Paul Hyett" <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote: Is she for real -
talk
>>>>>about sabre-rattling! 8)
>>>>> --
>>>>"Truebrit" <true...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>>Maybe she feels she has to prove she has as much in the balls department
>>>>as
>>>>Maggie. ;-)
>>>
>>>"Cassandra" <shaun.jameson.nott...@ntlworld.comq> wrote:
>>> I must say is was very nice of Thatcher to risk her life back in
>>> Whitehall while the armed forces were on holiday in the South
>>> Atlantic
>>>
>>"Truebrit" <true...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Are you really as stupid as you make yourself out to be? Or did you forget
>>about how the IRA came very close to killing her?
>
talk
>>>>>about sabre-rattling! 8)
>>>>> --
>>>>"Truebrit" <true...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>>Maybe she feels she has to prove she has as much in the balls department
>>>>as
>>>>Maggie. ;-)
>>>
>>>"Cassandra" <shaun.jameson.nott...@ntlworld.comq> wrote:
>>> I must say is was very nice of Thatcher to risk her life back in
>>> Whitehall while the armed forces were on holiday in the South
>>> Atlantic
>>>
>>"Truebrit" <true...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Are you really as stupid as you make yourself out to be? Or did you forget
>>about how the IRA came very close to killing her?
>
> "Cassandra" <shaun.jameson.nott...@ntlworld.comq> wrote:
> I must say is was very nice of Thatcher to risk her life back in
> I must say is was very nice of Thatcher to risk her life back in
> Brighton while the armed forces were being greeted warmly by the
> people of Belfast.
>
>
How very nice of you to show such kindness and consideration towards your
> people of Belfast.
>
>
betters.
Truebrit.
Truebrit
Feb 12, 2012, 9:05:34 AM2/12/12
to
, Alex <avdeelen.REMOFETH...@ziggo.nl> wrote: >
> >>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29169
>
> >>Argentina Appeals To UN Over British Military Buildup In South Atlantic
> >>by Global Research News
> >>Global Research, February 9, 2012
>
> >>On February 7 Argentine President Cristina Fernandez accused Britain of
> >>militarizing the South
> >>Atlantic Ocean by deploying a cutting-edge warship and a nuclear-powered
> >>submarine off the coast of
> >>the Falklands Islands, known to Argentina and the rest of Latin America
> >>as
> >>Las Malvinas.
>
> >>She pledged to seek assistance at the United Nations to remove British
> >>military forces from the
> >>region, warning that the heightened British military presence risks a
> >>potential clash between the
> >>two countries.
>
> >"Paul Hyett" <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote: Is she for real - talk
> >about sabre-rattling! 8)
> > --
>"Truebrit" <trueb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe she feels she has to prove she has as much in the balls department
> as
> Maggie. ;-)
>
> Maybe she feels she has to prove she has as much in the balls department
> as
> Maggie. ;-)
>
"Dry Gulch Pete" <paci...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
When folk realise that Cameron's witchhunt on bankers bonuses hides
the fact that the politico f**ked up over the credit crunch and turn
on him the little rat might sacrifice a few hundred of our soldiers
lives in the f**king south Atlantic; Thatcher won a second term thanks
to that bloody colonial affair!
Why not sell the Falklands to Argentina?
Must be worth billions.
Nice of you to be so cavalier towards the people of the Falklands and wish
When folk realise that Cameron's witchhunt on bankers bonuses hides
the fact that the politico f**ked up over the credit crunch and turn
on him the little rat might sacrifice a few hundred of our soldiers
lives in the f**king south Atlantic; Thatcher won a second term thanks
to that bloody colonial affair!
Why not sell the Falklands to Argentina?
Must be worth billions.
to sell their freedom to a country that has a history of iron fisted
dictatorships to its own people.
Truebrit.
Truebrit
Feb 12, 2012, 9:17:21 AM2/12/12
to
>>>, AC<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>> Credible analysts reckon this is only the beginning of a long game. In
>>> the end, they will get their islands back, but I don't think there will
>>> be any actual war over it.
>>> Main thing is to sort out a mutually acceptable oil deal. And lets face
>>> it, that oil is more their than ours.
>>
>>> Credible analysts reckon this is only the beginning of a long game. In
>>> the end, they will get their islands back, but I don't think there will
>>> be any actual war over it.
>>> Main thing is to sort out a mutually acceptable oil deal. And lets face
>>> it, that oil is more their than ours.
>>
>>Froot Bat wrote:
>> In what way is South American oil more the property of the descendants
>> of Spanish imperialists than the descendants of British imperialists?
>>
>> Really funny to have some fucking dago settler, who wouldn't even be
>> there if it weren't for centuries of Spanish aggression and oppression
>> all over the world, talking about a British "conquistador".
>>
>> We'll go home from the Falklands when they go home from Argentina.
>
>"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote: Its the property of South America. Take it from
>> In what way is South American oil more the property of the descendants
>> of Spanish imperialists than the descendants of British imperialists?
>>
>> Really funny to have some fucking dago settler, who wouldn't even be
>> there if it weren't for centuries of Spanish aggression and oppression
>> all over the world, talking about a British "conquistador".
>>
>> We'll go home from the Falklands when they go home from Argentina.
>
>there.
>
So where are the claims from Chile, Brazil, et al?
The truth of the matter is it belongs to the Falkland Island residents and
it is theirs and only theirs decision as to who they wish to be aligned with
and they have more than demonstrably shown they wish to be no part of
Argentina.
Truebrit.
Truebrit
Feb 12, 2012, 9:26:41 AM2/12/12
to
>with France would work if the Argies invaded the Falklands? Will the French
>have to comit troops, sailors what ever to the defence? Do we even have the
>ability to boot off a proper Argie invasion? Are the Yanks still backing
>Argentina? And weren't Harriers key back in '82?
>
> Im not so sure we could boot them off this time round. Perhaps that's why
> we are building up defensive forces now. Put them off before it starts.
>
The trump card is the nuclear submarine and its cruise missiles. If the
>have to comit troops, sailors what ever to the defence? Do we even have the
>ability to boot off a proper Argie invasion? Are the Yanks still backing
>Argentina? And weren't Harriers key back in '82?
>
> Im not so sure we could boot them off this time round. Perhaps that's why
> we are building up defensive forces now. Put them off before it starts.
>
Argies invade again that makes Buenos Aires government buildings a
legitimate target alongside its various military airfields and naval
installations. Other than the sinking of the Belgrano the submarine fleet
kept a very low profile during the first conflict. I doubt if that would be
the case in a second battle.
Truebrit.
Alex
Feb 12, 2012, 11:30:56 AM2/12/12
to
"Dry Gulch Pete" <paci...@btopenworld.com> schreef in bericht
news:4fae3159-16ba-4c8d...@d15g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
ruling class, (Blair, Brown, Cameron, Milibrand, etc.) have been using
armed force to overthrow rival economic models for decades now.
Margaret Thatcher used the jingoism created over the Falklands
war to squash the unions.
Ideologially, this might explain it:
http://www.newstatesman.com/south-america/2007/08/argentina-workers-movement
"Occupy, resist, produce"
Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis
Published 30 August 2007
Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis report on how Argentina's worker-run factories have nurtured a powerful
social movement, while seamstress Matilda Adorno explains how a dispute over pay became a political
struggle
On 19 March 2003, we were on the roof of the Zanón ceramic tile factory, filming an interview with
Cepillo. He was showing us how the workers fended off eviction by armed police, defending their
democratic workplace with slingshots and the little ceramic balls normally used to pound the
Patagonian clay into raw material for tiles. His aim was impressive. It was the day the bombs
started falling on Baghdad.
As journalists, we had to ask ourselves what we were doing there. What possible relevance could
there be in this one factory at the southernmost tip of South America, with its band of radical
workers and its David and Goliath narrative, when bunker-busting apocalypse was descending on Iraq?
But we, like so many others, had been drawn to Argentina to witness first-hand an explosion of
activism in the wake of its 2001 crisis - a host of dynamic new social movements that were not only
advancing a bitter critique of the economic model that had destroyed their country, but were busily
building local alternatives in the rubble.
There were many popular responses to the crisis, from neighbourhood assemblies and barter clubs to
resurgent left-wing parties and mass movements of the unemployed, but we spent most of our year in
Argentina with workers in "recovered companies". Almost entirely under the media radar, workers in
Argentina have been responding to rampant unemployment and capital flight by taking over businesses
that have gone bankrupt and reopening them under democratic worker management. It is an old idea
reclaimed and retrofitted for a brutal new time. The principles are so simple, so elementally fair,
that they seem more self-evident than radical when articulated by one of the workers: "We formed the
co-operative with the criteria of equal wages and making basic decisions by assembly; we are against
the separation of manual and intellectual work; we want a rotation of positions and, above all, the
ability to recall our elected leaders."
The movement of recovered companies is not epic in scale - some 170 companies, around 10,000 workers
in Argentina. But six years on, and unlike some of the country's other new movements, it has
survived and continues to build quiet strength in the midst of the country's deeply unequal
"recovery". Its tenacity is a function of its pragmatism: this is a movement that is based on
action, not talk. And its defining action, reawakening the means of production under worker control,
while loaded with potent symbolism, is anything but symbolic. It is feeding families, rebuilding
shattered pride, and opening a window of powerful possibility.
Like a number of other emerging social movements around the world, the workers in the recovered
companies are rewriting the script for how change is supposed to happen. Rather than following
anyone's ten-point plan for revolution, the workers are darting ahead of the theory - at least,
straight to the part where they get their jobs back. In Argentina, the theorists are chasing after
the factory workers, trying to analyse what is already in noisy production.
These struggles have had a tremendous impact on the imaginations of activists around the world. At
this point, there are many more starry-eyed grad papers on the phenomenon than there are recovered
companies. But there is also a renewed interest in democratic workplaces from Durban to Melbourne to
New Orleans.
That said, the movement in Argentina is as much a product of the globalisation of alternatives as it
is one of its most con tagious stories. Argentinian workers borrowed the slogan "Occupy, Resist,
Produce" from Latin America's largest social movement, Brazil's Movimiento Sin Terra, in which more
than a million people have reclaimed unused land and put it back into community production. One
worker told us that what the movement in Argentina is doing is "MST for the cities". In South
Africa, we saw a protester's T-shirt with an even more succinct summary of this new impatience:
"Stop Asking, Start Taking".
The movement in Argentina is frustrating to some on the left who feel it is not clearly
anti-capitalist, those who chafe at how comfortably it exists within the market economy and see
worker management as merely a new form of auto-exploitation. Others see co-operativism, the legal
form chosen by the vast majority of the recovered companies, as a capitulation in itself - insisting
that only full national isation by the state can bring worker democracy into a broader socialist
project.
Workers in the movement are generally suspicious of being co-opted to anyone's political agenda, but
at the same time cannot afford to turn down any support. More interesting by far is to see how
workers in this movement are politicised by the struggle, which begins with the most basic
imperative: Workers want to work, to feed their families. Some of the most powerful new
working-class leaders in Argentina today discovered solidarity on a path that started from that
essentially apolitical point. Whether you think the movement's lack of a leading ideology is a
tragic weakness or a refreshing strength, the recovered companies challenge capitalism's most
cherished ideal: the sanctity of private property.
The legal and political case for worker control in Argentina does not only rest on the unpaid wages,
evaporated benefits and emptied-out pension funds. The workers make a sophisticated case for their
moral right to property - in this case, the machines and physical pre mises - based not just on what
they are owed personally, but what society is owed. The recovered companies propose themselves as an
explicit remedy to all the corporate welfare, corruption and other forms of public subsidy the
owners enjoyed in the process of bankrupting their firms and moving their wealth to safety,
abandoning whole communities to economic exclusion.
This argument is, of course, available for immediate use in the United States and Europe. But this
story goes much deeper than corporate welfare, and that's where the Argentinian experience will
really resonate with us. It has become axiomatic on the left to say that Argentina's crash was a
direct result of the IMF orthodoxy imposed on the country with such enthusiasm in the neoliberal
1990s. In their book Sin Patrón: Stories from Argentina's Worker-Run Factories, to which this essay
forms the introduction, the Lavaca Collective makes clear that in Argentina, just as in the US
occupation of Iraq, those bromides about private sector efficiency were nothing more than a cover
story for an explosion of frontier-style plunder - looting on a massive scale by a small group of
elites. Privatisation, deregulation, labour flexibility: these were the tools to facilitate a
massive transfer of public wealth to private hands, not to mention private debts to the public
purse. Like Enron traders, the businessmen who haunt the pages of this book learned the first lesson
of capitalism and stopped there: Greed is good, and more greed is better. As one Argentinian worker
says: "There are guys that wake up in the morning thinking about how to screw people, and others who
think: how do we rebuild this Argentina that they have torn apart?"
In the answer to that question, you can read a powerful story of transformation. Capitalism produces
and distributes not just goods and services, but identities. When the capital and its carpetbaggers
had flown from Argentina, what was left was not only companies that had been emptied, but a whole
hollowed-out country filled with people whose identities - as workers - had been stripped away as
well. As one of the organisers in the movement wrote to us: "It is a huge amount of work to recover
a company. But the real work is to recover a worker and that is the task that we have just begun."
On 17 April 2003, we were on Avenida Jujuy in Buenos Aires, standing with the Brukman workers and a
huge crowd of their supporters in front of a fence, behind which was a small army of police guarding
the Brukman factory. After a brutal eviction, the workers were determined to get back to work at
their sewing machines.
In Washington, DC, that day, USAID announced that it had chosen Bechtel Corporation as the prime
contractor for the reconstruction of Iraq's architecture. The heist was about to begin in earnest,
both in the United States and in Iraq. Deliberately induced crisis was providing the cover for the
transfer of billions of tax dollars to a handful of politically connected corporations.
In Argentina, they'd already seen this movie - the wholesale plunder of public wealth, the explosion
of unemployment, the shredding of the social fabric, the staggering human consequences. And 52
seamstresses were in the street, backed by thousands of others, trying to take back what was already
theirs. It was definitely the place to be.
In 2004, Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis released "The Take", a film about worker-run factories in
Argentina.This essay is an edited extract from their introduction to "Sin Patrón: Stories from
Argentina's Worker-Run Factories", written by the Lavaca Collective (Haymarket Books, $16)
Naomi Klein will be discussing The Shock Doctrine at the Queen Elizabeth Hall on Thursday 13
September.
news:4fae3159-16ba-4c8d...@d15g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
Argentina!
President Reagan said, IIRC, "Why anyone is interested in that rock in
the south Atlantic...!".
--
DGP
Naomi Klein should be required reading for everyone. The neoliberal
agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
Argentina!
President Reagan said, IIRC, "Why anyone is interested in that rock in
the south Atlantic...!".
--
DGP
ruling class, (Blair, Brown, Cameron, Milibrand, etc.) have been using
armed force to overthrow rival economic models for decades now.
Margaret Thatcher used the jingoism created over the Falklands
war to squash the unions.
Ideologially, this might explain it:
http://www.newstatesman.com/south-america/2007/08/argentina-workers-movement
"Occupy, resist, produce"
Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis
Published 30 August 2007
Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis report on how Argentina's worker-run factories have nurtured a powerful
social movement, while seamstress Matilda Adorno explains how a dispute over pay became a political
struggle
On 19 March 2003, we were on the roof of the Zanón ceramic tile factory, filming an interview with
Cepillo. He was showing us how the workers fended off eviction by armed police, defending their
democratic workplace with slingshots and the little ceramic balls normally used to pound the
Patagonian clay into raw material for tiles. His aim was impressive. It was the day the bombs
started falling on Baghdad.
As journalists, we had to ask ourselves what we were doing there. What possible relevance could
there be in this one factory at the southernmost tip of South America, with its band of radical
workers and its David and Goliath narrative, when bunker-busting apocalypse was descending on Iraq?
But we, like so many others, had been drawn to Argentina to witness first-hand an explosion of
activism in the wake of its 2001 crisis - a host of dynamic new social movements that were not only
advancing a bitter critique of the economic model that had destroyed their country, but were busily
building local alternatives in the rubble.
There were many popular responses to the crisis, from neighbourhood assemblies and barter clubs to
resurgent left-wing parties and mass movements of the unemployed, but we spent most of our year in
Argentina with workers in "recovered companies". Almost entirely under the media radar, workers in
Argentina have been responding to rampant unemployment and capital flight by taking over businesses
that have gone bankrupt and reopening them under democratic worker management. It is an old idea
reclaimed and retrofitted for a brutal new time. The principles are so simple, so elementally fair,
that they seem more self-evident than radical when articulated by one of the workers: "We formed the
co-operative with the criteria of equal wages and making basic decisions by assembly; we are against
the separation of manual and intellectual work; we want a rotation of positions and, above all, the
ability to recall our elected leaders."
The movement of recovered companies is not epic in scale - some 170 companies, around 10,000 workers
in Argentina. But six years on, and unlike some of the country's other new movements, it has
survived and continues to build quiet strength in the midst of the country's deeply unequal
"recovery". Its tenacity is a function of its pragmatism: this is a movement that is based on
action, not talk. And its defining action, reawakening the means of production under worker control,
while loaded with potent symbolism, is anything but symbolic. It is feeding families, rebuilding
shattered pride, and opening a window of powerful possibility.
Like a number of other emerging social movements around the world, the workers in the recovered
companies are rewriting the script for how change is supposed to happen. Rather than following
anyone's ten-point plan for revolution, the workers are darting ahead of the theory - at least,
straight to the part where they get their jobs back. In Argentina, the theorists are chasing after
the factory workers, trying to analyse what is already in noisy production.
These struggles have had a tremendous impact on the imaginations of activists around the world. At
this point, there are many more starry-eyed grad papers on the phenomenon than there are recovered
companies. But there is also a renewed interest in democratic workplaces from Durban to Melbourne to
New Orleans.
That said, the movement in Argentina is as much a product of the globalisation of alternatives as it
is one of its most con tagious stories. Argentinian workers borrowed the slogan "Occupy, Resist,
Produce" from Latin America's largest social movement, Brazil's Movimiento Sin Terra, in which more
than a million people have reclaimed unused land and put it back into community production. One
worker told us that what the movement in Argentina is doing is "MST for the cities". In South
Africa, we saw a protester's T-shirt with an even more succinct summary of this new impatience:
"Stop Asking, Start Taking".
The movement in Argentina is frustrating to some on the left who feel it is not clearly
anti-capitalist, those who chafe at how comfortably it exists within the market economy and see
worker management as merely a new form of auto-exploitation. Others see co-operativism, the legal
form chosen by the vast majority of the recovered companies, as a capitulation in itself - insisting
that only full national isation by the state can bring worker democracy into a broader socialist
project.
Workers in the movement are generally suspicious of being co-opted to anyone's political agenda, but
at the same time cannot afford to turn down any support. More interesting by far is to see how
workers in this movement are politicised by the struggle, which begins with the most basic
imperative: Workers want to work, to feed their families. Some of the most powerful new
working-class leaders in Argentina today discovered solidarity on a path that started from that
essentially apolitical point. Whether you think the movement's lack of a leading ideology is a
tragic weakness or a refreshing strength, the recovered companies challenge capitalism's most
cherished ideal: the sanctity of private property.
The legal and political case for worker control in Argentina does not only rest on the unpaid wages,
evaporated benefits and emptied-out pension funds. The workers make a sophisticated case for their
moral right to property - in this case, the machines and physical pre mises - based not just on what
they are owed personally, but what society is owed. The recovered companies propose themselves as an
explicit remedy to all the corporate welfare, corruption and other forms of public subsidy the
owners enjoyed in the process of bankrupting their firms and moving their wealth to safety,
abandoning whole communities to economic exclusion.
This argument is, of course, available for immediate use in the United States and Europe. But this
story goes much deeper than corporate welfare, and that's where the Argentinian experience will
really resonate with us. It has become axiomatic on the left to say that Argentina's crash was a
direct result of the IMF orthodoxy imposed on the country with such enthusiasm in the neoliberal
1990s. In their book Sin Patrón: Stories from Argentina's Worker-Run Factories, to which this essay
forms the introduction, the Lavaca Collective makes clear that in Argentina, just as in the US
occupation of Iraq, those bromides about private sector efficiency were nothing more than a cover
story for an explosion of frontier-style plunder - looting on a massive scale by a small group of
elites. Privatisation, deregulation, labour flexibility: these were the tools to facilitate a
massive transfer of public wealth to private hands, not to mention private debts to the public
purse. Like Enron traders, the businessmen who haunt the pages of this book learned the first lesson
of capitalism and stopped there: Greed is good, and more greed is better. As one Argentinian worker
says: "There are guys that wake up in the morning thinking about how to screw people, and others who
think: how do we rebuild this Argentina that they have torn apart?"
In the answer to that question, you can read a powerful story of transformation. Capitalism produces
and distributes not just goods and services, but identities. When the capital and its carpetbaggers
had flown from Argentina, what was left was not only companies that had been emptied, but a whole
hollowed-out country filled with people whose identities - as workers - had been stripped away as
well. As one of the organisers in the movement wrote to us: "It is a huge amount of work to recover
a company. But the real work is to recover a worker and that is the task that we have just begun."
On 17 April 2003, we were on Avenida Jujuy in Buenos Aires, standing with the Brukman workers and a
huge crowd of their supporters in front of a fence, behind which was a small army of police guarding
the Brukman factory. After a brutal eviction, the workers were determined to get back to work at
their sewing machines.
In Washington, DC, that day, USAID announced that it had chosen Bechtel Corporation as the prime
contractor for the reconstruction of Iraq's architecture. The heist was about to begin in earnest,
both in the United States and in Iraq. Deliberately induced crisis was providing the cover for the
transfer of billions of tax dollars to a handful of politically connected corporations.
In Argentina, they'd already seen this movie - the wholesale plunder of public wealth, the explosion
of unemployment, the shredding of the social fabric, the staggering human consequences. And 52
seamstresses were in the street, backed by thousands of others, trying to take back what was already
theirs. It was definitely the place to be.
In 2004, Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis released "The Take", a film about worker-run factories in
Argentina.This essay is an edited extract from their introduction to "Sin Patrón: Stories from
Argentina's Worker-Run Factories", written by the Lavaca Collective (Haymarket Books, $16)
Naomi Klein will be discussing The Shock Doctrine at the Queen Elizabeth Hall on Thursday 13
September.
Enzo Matrix
Feb 12, 2012, 1:48:58 PM2/12/12
to
Alex writted:
Sidewinder missiles to replace the less efficient AIM-9G which was then in
use?
--
Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
> and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
> agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
> Argentina!
Really? Why then did the US provide the British forces with AIM-9L
> agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
> Argentina!
Sidewinder missiles to replace the less efficient AIM-9G which was then in
use?
--
Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Message has been deleted
Luke Curtis
Feb 12, 2012, 6:13:03 PM2/12/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:12:06 +0000, Froot Bat <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 22:45:24 -0000, "Tired" <n...@no.com> wrote:
>
>>somehow the retaking of a small island off the coast of south america that
>>few had ever heard of helped Thatcher get elected in the general election
>>that took place over a year later.
>>
>>Doesnt really add up, does it?
>
>Neither do the numbers in our bent electoral system, which is the real
>reason she 'won'.
>
Yes it is, after all Cameron got 1.2 million more votes in 2010 than
Blair got in 2005 and 5000 more than the Blair landslide of 2001.
And on the other side in '10 Gordon Brown & Labor got only 250k more
votes than Hauge & the Conservatives got on '01 and got nearly 100
more seats.
-
XBox 360 GT: Broton69
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
>On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 22:45:24 -0000, "Tired" <n...@no.com> wrote:
>
>>somehow the retaking of a small island off the coast of south america that
>>few had ever heard of helped Thatcher get elected in the general election
>>that took place over a year later.
>>
>>Doesnt really add up, does it?
>
>Neither do the numbers in our bent electoral system, which is the real
>reason she 'won'.
>
Blair got in 2005 and 5000 more than the Blair landslide of 2001.
And on the other side in '10 Gordon Brown & Labor got only 250k more
votes than Hauge & the Conservatives got on '01 and got nearly 100
more seats.
-
XBox 360 GT: Broton69
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Theodore
Feb 13, 2012, 12:22:48 PM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:32:55 +0000, Froot Bat <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:48:58 -0000, "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
No, probably friendship, that thing some bleat on about as being one
sided all the time.
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:48:58 -0000, "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Alex writted:
>>> and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
>>> agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
>>> Argentina!
>>
>>Really? Why then did the US provide the British forces with AIM-9L
>>Sidewinder missiles to replace the less efficient AIM-9G which was then in
>>use?
>
>Couldn't be money, that's for sure.
>>Alex writted:
>>> and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
>>> agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
>>> Argentina!
>>
>>Really? Why then did the US provide the British forces with AIM-9L
>>Sidewinder missiles to replace the less efficient AIM-9G which was then in
>>use?
>
No, probably friendship, that thing some bleat on about as being one
sided all the time.
Truebrit
Feb 13, 2012, 6:57:50 PM2/13/12
to
>> Alex writted:
>> and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
>> agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
>> Argentina!
>
>provide the British forces with AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles to replace the
>less efficient AIM-9G which was then in use?
>
Also Ronnie supplied his pal, Maggie with much invaluable satellite
>less efficient AIM-9G which was then in use?
>
information.
Truebrit.
Cassandra
Feb 14, 2012, 2:53:30 AM2/14/12
to
>Alex writted:
>> and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
>> agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
>> Argentina!
>
>
>Really? Why then did the US provide the British forces with AIM-9L
>Sidewinder missiles to replace the less efficient AIM-9G which was then in
>use?
>
Field testing
>> and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
>> agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
>> Argentina!
>
>
>Really? Why then did the US provide the British forces with AIM-9L
>Sidewinder missiles to replace the less efficient AIM-9G which was then in
>use?
>
Cassandra
Feb 14, 2012, 2:54:56 AM2/14/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:57:50 -0500, "Truebrit" <true...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
And the Argentinian dictatorship with much needed fence-sitting
wrote:
Cassandra
Feb 14, 2012, 2:59:33 AM2/14/12
to
Compare this to the US, who expect British citizens to be bundled on a
plane to Guantanamo for watching Lawrence of Arabia.
Dry Gulch Pete
Feb 14, 2012, 3:41:44 AM2/14/12
to
On Feb 12, 6:48 pm, "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Alex writted:
>
> > and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
> > agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
> > Argentina!
>
> Really? Why then did the US provide the British forces with AIM-9L
> Sidewinder missiles to replace the less efficient AIM-9G which was then in
> use?
Alex never writted that, lol - DGP writted that!
> Alex writted:
>
> > and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
> > agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
> > Argentina!
>
> Really? Why then did the US provide the British forces with AIM-9L
> Sidewinder missiles to replace the less efficient AIM-9G which was then in
> use?
The Americans said, IIRC, "Of course we couldn't take military action
against Britain!".
Quite. It would have really f**ked up that mythical 'special
relationship'!
--
DGP
Norman Wells
Feb 14, 2012, 4:01:31 AM2/14/12
to
commonwealth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada
The Queen thought she might have been asked first.
Dry Gulch Pete
Feb 14, 2012, 4:15:55 AM2/14/12
to
they grow nice spuds there, California oranges is juicy and Hawaiian
pineapple is mouth-watering!
A missed opportunity.
--
DGP
Theodore
Feb 14, 2012, 7:24:44 AM2/14/12
to
Sofa - Spud
Feb 14, 2012, 8:40:16 AM2/14/12
to
On Feb 9, 11:06 pm, The Other Mike <rootpassw...@somewhereorother.com>
wrote:
LOL it gets sillier , today Sean Penn has waded in and called us
colonialists
***Actor meets Argentinian president and says world cannot tolerate
'archaic commitment to colonialist ideology' ***
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/14/sean-penn-argentina-falkland-islands
What fucking tool
wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:14:34 +0100, "Alex"
>
>
> <avdeelen.REMOFETH...@ziggo.nl> wrote:
> >Argentina Appeals
>
> No it doesn't. Not in the slightest.
>
> Last time it was 'oh no you've sunk my battleship' This time we
> should take the high ground and make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on
> Buenos Aries.
>
> --
> >Argentina Appeals
>
> No it doesn't. Not in the slightest.
>
> Last time it was 'oh no you've sunk my battleship' This time we
> should take the high ground and make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on
> Buenos Aries.
>
LOL it gets sillier , today Sean Penn has waded in and called us
colonialists
***Actor meets Argentinian president and says world cannot tolerate
'archaic commitment to colonialist ideology' ***
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/14/sean-penn-argentina-falkland-islands
What fucking tool
The Other Mike
Feb 14, 2012, 11:33:16 AM2/14/12
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:34:30 -0800 (PST), Dry Gulch Pete
<paci...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>Why not sell the Falklands to Argentina?
>Must be worth billions.
a) Because they can't afford it
<paci...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>Why not sell the Falklands to Argentina?
>Must be worth billions.
b) If they did try and buy it the cheque would bounce
c) Because it is ours, and has been for nigh on 200 years.
d) Why should we let the eighth largest country on the planet acquire
more land. Isn't it satisfied with nearly 3 million square
kilometres?
P.S. Does UK plc get a share of the oil revenues?
--
Col
Feb 14, 2012, 1:02:33 PM2/14/12
to
My first reaction was, what the *fuck* has it got to do with him,
then simply ROTFLMAO at the thought of an American lecturing
others on occupying the territory of other countries.
--
Col
The gulls have plucked out my eyes!
Truebrit
Feb 14, 2012, 2:55:18 PM2/14/12
to
>>>> Alex writted:
>>>> and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
>>>> agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
>>>> Argentina!
>>>
>>>"Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote: Really? Why then did the US
>>>provide the British forces with AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles to replace the
>>>less efficient AIM-9G which was then in use?
>>>
>> "Truebrit" <true...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Also Ronnie supplied his pal, Maggie with much invaluable satellite
>>information.
>
>"Cassandra" <shaun.jameson.nott...@ntlworld.comq> wrote:
>>>> and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
>>>> agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
>>>> Argentina!
>>>
>>>"Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote: Really? Why then did the US
>>>provide the British forces with AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles to replace the
>>>less efficient AIM-9G which was then in use?
>>>
>> "Truebrit" <true...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Also Ronnie supplied his pal, Maggie with much invaluable satellite
>>information.
>
> And the Argentinian dictatorship with much needed fence-sitting.
That's fair seeing as that is about all they are good for.
Truebrit.
Truebrit
Feb 14, 2012, 3:38:45 PM2/14/12
to
in message news:Aqp_q.93126$nu3....@newsfe15.ams2...
> Dry Gulch Pete wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 6:48 pm, "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Alex writted:
>>>
>>>> and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
>>>> agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
>>>> Argentina!
>>>
>>> Really? Why then did the US provide the British forces with AIM-9L
>>> Sidewinder missiles to replace the less efficient AIM-9G which was
>>> then in use?
>>
>> Alex never writted that, lol - DGP writted that!
>> The Americans said, IIRC, "Of course we couldn't take military action
>> against Britain!".
>> Quite. It would have really f**ked up that mythical 'special
>> relationship'!
>
>"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote: As it very nearly did in 1983.
>> On Feb 12, 6:48 pm, "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Alex writted:
>>>
>>>> and during the first Falklands War there was a 'Pan-American
>>>> agreement' with the USA where the Americans promised to protect
>>>> Argentina!
>>>
>>> Really? Why then did the US provide the British forces with AIM-9L
>>> Sidewinder missiles to replace the less efficient AIM-9G which was
>>> then in use?
>>
>> Alex never writted that, lol - DGP writted that!
>> The Americans said, IIRC, "Of course we couldn't take military action
>> against Britain!".
>> Quite. It would have really f**ked up that mythical 'special
>> relationship'!
>
>Not Britain itself but part of its commonwealth:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada
>
> The Queen thought she might have been asked first.
>
Guess the US did not fancy another carbuncle on its arse similar to Cuba.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada
>
> The Queen thought she might have been asked first.
>
Truebrit.
Paul Hyett
Feb 15, 2012, 2:45:19 AM2/15/12
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 at 18:02:33, Col <reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote
in uk.media.tv.misc :
Besides, I doubt there were even any people living on the Falklands at
the time Europeans discovered them?
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
in uk.media.tv.misc :
>>
>> LOL it gets sillier , today Sean Penn has waded in and called us
>> colonialists
>>
>> ***Actor meets Argentinian president and says world cannot tolerate
>> 'archaic commitment to colonialist ideology' ***
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/14/sean-penn-argentina-falkland-islands
>>
>> What fucking tool
>
>Quite.
>My first reaction was, what the *fuck* has it got to do with him,
>then simply ROTFLMAO at the thought of an American lecturing
>others on occupying the territory of other countries.
Indeed!
>> LOL it gets sillier , today Sean Penn has waded in and called us
>> colonialists
>>
>> ***Actor meets Argentinian president and says world cannot tolerate
>> 'archaic commitment to colonialist ideology' ***
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/14/sean-penn-argentina-falkland-islands
>>
>> What fucking tool
>
>Quite.
>My first reaction was, what the *fuck* has it got to do with him,
>then simply ROTFLMAO at the thought of an American lecturing
>others on occupying the territory of other countries.
Besides, I doubt there were even any people living on the Falklands at
the time Europeans discovered them?
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
Dry Gulch Pete
Feb 16, 2012, 2:41:30 AM2/16/12
to
On Feb 14, 6:02 pm, "Col" <reddwar...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Sofa - Spud wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 11:06 pm, The Other Mike <rootpassw...@somewhereorother.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:14:34 +0100, "Alex"
>
> >> <avdeelen.REMOFETH...@ziggo.nl> wrote:
> >>>ArgentinaAppeals
>
> >> No it doesn't. Not in the slightest.
>
> >> Last time it was 'oh no you've sunk my battleship' This time we
> >> should take the high ground and make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on
> >> Buenos Aries.
>
> >> --
>
> > LOL it gets sillier , todaySeanPennhas waded in and called us
> Sofa - Spud wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 11:06 pm, The Other Mike <rootpassw...@somewhereorother.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:14:34 +0100, "Alex"
>
> >> <avdeelen.REMOFETH...@ziggo.nl> wrote:
> >>>ArgentinaAppeals
>
> >> No it doesn't. Not in the slightest.
>
> >> Last time it was 'oh no you've sunk my battleship' This time we
> >> should take the high ground and make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on
> >> Buenos Aries.
>
> >> --
>
> > colonialists
>
> > ***Actor meets Argentinian president and says world cannot tolerate
> > 'archaic commitment to colonialist ideology' ***
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/14/sean-penn-argentina-falkland...
>
> > ***Actor meets Argentinian president and says world cannot tolerate
> > 'archaic commitment to colonialist ideology' ***
>
>
> > What fucking tool
>
> Quite.
<"Sean Penn has waded in and called us colonialists" says Spud>
At the time of Maggie's murderous foray in the South Atlantic (her
Belgrano shame was featured in a huge tome called 'Great Murder
Mysteries of the 20th. Century"), the Southern Irish Government
described England's military action as "colonialism"; this
intellectual girl in the office who resembled Amy Farrah Fowler told
me, "It IS!" and described the Falklands War as "all very silly"!
> My first reaction was, what the *fuck* has it got to do with him,
> then simply ROTFLMAO at the thought of an American lecturing
> others on occupying the territory of other countries.
--
DGP
Alex
Feb 19, 2012, 6:01:38 PM2/19/12
to
I should have made that more clear, but it wa DG that wrote that.
I wrote everything below his mark.
Alex
"Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:9pqfss...@mid.individual.net...
I wrote everything below his mark.
Alex
"Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:9pqfss...@mid.individual.net...
0 new messages