Sean Penn: The "Malvinas"

[Artevelde]

History is largely a point of view.

That is indeed what many factually challenged people tend to say after it has been demonstrated that they are just plain wrong on the facts.

Not at all. You cherry pick the facts that make your case, I make the ones that back mine.

But at the end of the day, the Mighty and Noble United Kingdom fought a war over sheep.

Hey, this was a funny humor article. It's the "Five Most retarded wars ever fought".

The 5 Most Retarded Wars Ever Fought | Cracked.com

Four of them involved the United Kingdom.... Imagine that. And the Falklands wasn't one of them... They needed a bigger list.

You keep ignoring the fact that it was the Argentinians who started a war over this, not the British.

 

[JoeB131]

That is indeed what many factually challenged people tend to say after it has been demonstrated that they are just plain wrong on the facts.

Not at all. You cherry pick the facts that make your case, I make the ones that back mine.

But at the end of the day, the Mighty and Noble United Kingdom fought a war over sheep.

Hey, this was a funny humor article. It's the "Five Most retarded wars ever fought".

The 5 Most Retarded Wars Ever Fought | Cracked.com

Four of them involved the United Kingdom.... Imagine that. And the Falklands wasn't one of them... They needed a bigger list.

You keep ignoring the fact that it was the Argentinians who started a war over this, not the British.

Completely irrelevent. If the side that starts the war was "always' wrong, then we were wrong as two left nuts in Iraq.

I think both sides are guilty of letting this get to a war, but the overall principle is that these Islands do rightfully belong to Argentina, not the UK.

 

[Artevelde]

Not at all. You cherry pick the facts that make your case, I make the ones that back mine.

But at the end of the day, the Mighty and Noble United Kingdom fought a war over sheep.

Hey, this was a funny humor article. It's the "Five Most retarded wars ever fought".

The 5 Most Retarded Wars Ever Fought | Cracked.com

Four of them involved the United Kingdom.... Imagine that. And the Falklands wasn't one of them... They needed a bigger list.

You keep ignoring the fact that it was the Argentinians who started a war over this, not the British.

Completely irrelevent. If the side that starts the war was "always' wrong, then we were wrong as two left nuts in Iraq.

I think both sides are guilty of letting this get to a war, but the overall principle is that these Islands do rightfully belong to Argentina, not the UK.

One of your most stupid postings to date in this thread (and that's quite something).

1. According to what "overall principle" would the islands belong to Argentina? Quite to the contrary, by every established principle of international law Britain has sovereignty there.

2. The fact that it was Argentina who started the war is very relevant to your argumùent, because your main argument is that it is stupid to fight over these Islands.

3. It was Iraq who invaded Kuwait, remember? And it was Iraq that didn't live up to the cease-fireagreement of 1991.

 

[JoeB131]

You keep ignoring the fact that it was the Argentinians who started a war over this, not the British.

Completely irrelevent. If the side that starts the war was "always' wrong, then we were wrong as two left nuts in Iraq.

I think both sides are guilty of letting this get to a war, but the overall principle is that these Islands do rightfully belong to Argentina, not the UK.

One of your most stupid postings to date in this thread (and that's quite something).

1. According to what "overall principle" would the islands belong to Argentina? Quite to the contrary, by every established principle of international law Britain has sovereignty there.

2. The fact that it was Argentina who started the war is very relevant to your argumùent, because your main argument is that it is stupid to fight over these Islands.

3. It was Iraq who invaded Kuwait, remember? And it was Iraq that didn't live up to the cease-fireagreement of 1991.

1. Britian stole those Islands from Argentina in 1834. Most international conventions call for return of territory by imperial powers. (And most of them have.)

2. Argentina only started a war after 17 years of good faith negotiations (good faith on their side, anyway) failed to provide a fair settlement of the issue.

3. I was referring to the 2003 war, not the 1991 one, which was a settled issue.

 

[Artevelde]

Completely irrelevent. If the side that starts the war was "always' wrong, then we were wrong as two left nuts in Iraq.

I think both sides are guilty of letting this get to a war, but the overall principle is that these Islands do rightfully belong to Argentina, not the UK.

One of your most stupid postings to date in this thread (and that's quite something).

1. According to what "overall principle" would the islands belong to Argentina? Quite to the contrary, by every established principle of international law Britain has sovereignty there.

2. The fact that it was Argentina who started the war is very relevant to your argumùent, because your main argument is that it is stupid to fight over these Islands.

3. It was Iraq who invaded Kuwait, remember? And it was Iraq that didn't live up to the cease-fireagreement of 1991.

1. Britian stole those Islands from Argentina in 1834. Most international conventions call for return of territory by imperial powers. (And most of them have.)

2. Argentina only started a war after 17 years of good faith negotiations (good faith on their side, anyway) failed to provide a fair settlement of the issue.

3. I was referring to the 2003 war, not the 1991 one, which was a settled issue.

1. So you call for returning California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas to Mexico? And Washington and Oregon to Canada or Great Britain? And Florida to Spain? No such international convention exists, you're just trying to make it up as you go along.

2. I'm glad you now finally recognize that Argentina started this war which you term as stupid.

3. The 2003 war was legally a continuation of the 1990-91 war. iraq violated the armistice-agreements numerous times.

 

[JoeB131]

1. Britian stole those Islands from Argentina in 1834. Most international conventions call for return of territory by imperial powers. (And most of them have.)

2. Argentina only started a war after 17 years of good faith negotiations (good faith on their side, anyway) failed to provide a fair settlement of the issue.

3. I was referring to the 2003 war, not the 1991 one, which was a settled issue.

1. So you call for returning California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas to Mexico? And Washington and Oregon to Canada or Great Britain? And Florida to Spain? No such international convention exists, you're just trying to make it up as you go along.

2. I'm glad you now finally recognize that Argentina started this war which you term as stupid.

3. The 2003 war was legally a continuation of the 1990-91 war. iraq violated the armistice-agreements numerous times.[/QUOTE]

1. Not really the same thing, as the US and Mexico were on an equal footing as newly freed colonial nations. So not even a nice try. Fact is, Britian has returned most of its ill-gotten empire... it just can't stand to part with it's last little bit of it.

2. I think both sides are to blame. The British should have returned the Islands back in the 1960's.

3. Please, the UN did not see it that way, nor did most of our allies who helped us in 1991. The US and a few allies may have used that as a fig leaf, but it doesn't pass the laugh test.

We wanted Saddam out after 12 years because he was low hanging fruit.

 

[Artevelde]

1. Britian stole those Islands from Argentina in 1834. Most international conventions call for return of territory by imperial powers. (And most of them have.)

2. Argentina only started a war after 17 years of good faith negotiations (good faith on their side, anyway) failed to provide a fair settlement of the issue.

3. I was referring to the 2003 war, not the 1991 one, which was a settled issue.

1. So you call for returning California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas to Mexico? And Washington and Oregon to Canada or Great Britain? And Florida to Spain? No such international convention exists, you're just trying to make it up as you go along.

2. I'm glad you now finally recognize that Argentina started this war which you term as stupid.

3. The 2003 war was legally a continuation of the 1990-91 war. iraq violated the armistice-agreements numerous times.

1. Not really the same thing, as the US and Mexico were on an equal footing as newly freed colonial nations. So not even a nice try. Fact is, Britian has returned most of its ill-gotten empire... it just can't stand to part with it's last little bit of it.

2. I think both sides are to blame. The British should have returned the Islands back in the 1960's.

3. Please, the UN did not see it that way, nor did most of our allies who helped us in 1991. The US and a few allies may have used that as a fig leaf, but it doesn't pass the laugh test.

We wanted Saddam out after 12 years because he was low hanging fruit.[/QUOTE]

The US and Mexico were on an equal footing, so it doesn't count. What a joke!

Fact is that there is absolutely no reason for the UK to hand over the Falklands to Argentina, or to any other country. And fact is that you simply have some anti-British hang-up. Get over it, it's pretty childish.

 

[Swagger]

Having recently benefitted from health care in my country, I disagree. But I recognise that you are FAR more of an expert on my country than me. Living here, how could I possibly know more about it than someone like you! Oh and by the way...I somehow knew you would eventually resort to calling out the right wing. It's what you moronic wingnuts seem to live for.

Oh, so the riots were about us being broke, were they? And there's me thinking they started as a result of the police shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham. How silly of me!

I tell you what mate. Before you flap your gob, make sure you have at least a modicum of knowledge about your subject. That way you may avoid exposing just how ill-informed you are. BTW isn't your country rather broke too? Perhaps you should be more concerned for your own back yard, rather than worrying about mine.

I've posted 10K posts here. Probably less than 100 of them have been about the UK.

Most of the rest have been about this country, and how we should fix things going forward. So that's an argument fail.

Incidently, I was at a conference last week with someone from your country, and he had little nice to say about your NIH. So, yes, without actually having to live there, I have to go by what people from your country tell me, and I hear more bad than good about NIH. I could probably find a lot of NIH Horror stories I could link to,as well, but I'm trying to keep this thread on topic.

I do also recall that the riot that they attacked Charles and Camilla's car over was about budget cuts to scholarships and such, or at least that's how it was reported.

Also, incidently, I'm a registered Republican and have voted for the GOP Candidate in every election since 1980. I won't this time because I hate Romney. Unfortunately, the loud, crazy right wing has so dominated this party that its' something I barely recognize anymore. So maybe you need to educate yourself on America before you go about whining about how I'm misjudging your country.

Now, back to the topic. How is it perfectly okay to hand over millions of people in Hong Kong to a communist regime that slaughters its own people for transplant organs, but you are going to fight to the death over some fuckin' sheep.

That seems like the actions of 1) A person who has his priorities screwed up or, 2) A cowardly bully.

You lost whatever credibility you had the moment you submitted such an absurd allegation for public ridicule. Besides, the Chinese government has been eager to allow and encourage the economic success Hong Kong has enjoyed. It has a "special economic status" as opposed to the party line brutally toe'd throughout China. Beijing refuses to hold as rigid an authority in Hong Kong as it does in elsewhere in China. It would otherwise stifle an economic asset.

 

[Colin]

Completely irrelevent. If the side that starts the war was "always' wrong, then we were wrong as two left nuts in Iraq.

I think both sides are guilty of letting this get to a war, but the overall principle is that these Islands do rightfully belong to Argentina, not the UK.

One of your most stupid postings to date in this thread (and that's quite something).

1. According to what "overall principle" would the islands belong to Argentina? Quite to the contrary, by every established principle of international law Britain has sovereignty there.

2. The fact that it was Argentina who started the war is very relevant to your argumùent, because your main argument is that it is stupid to fight over these Islands.

3. It was Iraq who invaded Kuwait, remember? And it was Iraq that didn't live up to the cease-fireagreement of 1991.

1. Britian stole those Islands from Argentina in 1834. Most international conventions call for return of territory by imperial powers. (And most of them have.)

2. Argentina only started a war after 17 years of good faith negotiations (good faith on their side, anyway) failed to provide a fair settlement of the issue.

3. I was referring to the 2003 war, not the 1991 one, which was a settled issue.

Yet again you demonstrate your utter ignorance of actual events. You can fabricate whatever you like in your ridiculous attempt to save face, but the facts prove you wrong every single time.

You say the Argentinians showed good faith in negotiations. I suggest you check the historical facts. The Argentinians have NEVER demonstrated good faith in any discussions that have taken place, preferring instead a stance of intrasigence. You are clearly unaware that in 1947, the United Kingdom offered to submit the case over the Falkland Islands to the International Court of Justice at The Hague for a decision on sovereignty, but Argentina refused the offer. Later, in 1955, a unilateral application by the United Kingdom to the Court in respect of Argentine encroachment ended in deadlock when Argentina announced that it would not respect the decision of the court.

Furthermore, in 1976 the British Government commissioned a study to establish whether the Islanders could sustain themselves and the potential for economic development. This was led by Lord Shackleton (son of the Arctic explorer). Argentina, however, refused permission for Lord Shackleton to travel to the Falklands via Argentina. As a result, Shackleton had to travel to the islands with the assistance of the Royal Navy. An Argentine naval vessel later fired upon the ship carrying Shackleton as he visited his father's grave in South Georgia.

Yeh. Right Argentinian good faith! Yet another figment of your imagination!

 

[Toro]

Having recently benefitted from health care in my country, I disagree. But I recognise that you are FAR more of an expert on my country than me. Living here, how could I possibly know more about it than someone like you! Oh and by the way...I somehow knew you would eventually resort to calling out the right wing. It's what you moronic wingnuts seem to live for.

Oh, so the riots were about us being broke, were they? And there's me thinking they started as a result of the police shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham. How silly of me!

I tell you what mate. Before you flap your gob, make sure you have at least a modicum of knowledge about your subject. That way you may avoid exposing just how ill-informed you are. BTW isn't your country rather broke too? Perhaps you should be more concerned for your own back yard, rather than worrying about mine.

I've posted 10K posts here. Probably less than 100 of them have been about the UK.

Most of the rest have been about this country, and how we should fix things going forward. So that's an argument fail.

Incidently, I was at a conference last week with someone from your country, and he had little nice to say about your NIH. So, yes, without actually having to live there, I have to go by what people from your country tell me, and I hear more bad than good about NIH. I could probably find a lot of NIH Horror stories I could link to,as well, but I'm trying to keep this thread on topic.

I do also recall that the riot that they attacked Charles and Camilla's car over was about budget cuts to scholarships and such, or at least that's how it was reported.

Also, incidently, I'm a registered Republican and have voted for the GOP Candidate in every election since 1980. I won't this time because I hate Romney. Unfortunately, the loud, crazy right wing has so dominated this party that its' something I barely recognize anymore. So maybe you need to educate yourself on America before you go about whining about how I'm misjudging your country.

Now, back to the topic. How is it perfectly okay to hand over millions of people in Hong Kong to a communist regime that slaughters its own people for transplant organs, but you are going to fight to the death over some fuckin' sheep.

That seems like the actions of 1) A person who has his priorities screwed up or, 2) A cowardly bully.

You lost whatever credibility you had the moment you submitted such an absurd allegation for public ridicule. Besides, the Chinese government has been eager to allow and encourage the economic success Hong Kong has enjoyed. It has a "special economic status" as opposed to the party line brutally toe'd throughout China. Beijing refuses to hold as rigid an authority in Hong Kong as it does in elsewhere in China. It would otherwise stifle an economic asset.

IOW, for JoeAmpad, its bad that the British to hand over a piece of land to a government that kills its own people for transplant organs even though the British had a legal obligation to do so, but it is good for the British to hand over a piece of land to a government that tosses union organizers out of planes at 10,000 feet into the sea even though the British had zero obligation to do so.

But I guess if you're woefully ignorant, you've got to reach for whatever you've got.

 

[JoeB131]

The US and Mexico were on an equal footing, so it doesn't count. What a joke!

1847, they were. IN fact, contemporarily, most European observers though Mexico would prevail in the war because it had a much more modern army...

Fact is that there is absolutely no reason for the UK to hand over the Falklands to Argentina, or to any other country. And fact is that you simply have some anti-British hang-up. Get over it, it's pretty childish.

Like I said, I like the British. Like their music and their history and their comedy. Just think they are wrong on this issue.

 

[JoeB131]

IOW, for JoeAmpad, its bad that the British to hand over a piece of land to a government that kills its own people for transplant organs even though the British had a legal obligation to do so, but it is good for the British to hand over a piece of land to a government that tosses union organizers out of planes at 10,000 feet into the sea even though the British had zero obligation to do so.

But I guess if you're woefully ignorant, you've got to reach for whatever you've got.

Actually, it was bad because it wasn't worth what it cost.

I kind of understand how your sort crashed the economy with other people's money now, Tojo...

 

[JoeB131]

You lost whatever credibility you had the moment you submitted such an absurd allegation for public ridicule. Besides, the Chinese government has been eager to allow and encourage the economic success Hong Kong has enjoyed. It has a "special economic status" as opposed to the party line brutally toe'd throughout China. Beijing refuses to hold as rigid an authority in Hong Kong as it does in elsewhere in China. It would otherwise stifle an economic asset.

Oh, right. because we all know how good the Chi-Coms are at keeping their promises.

 

[Toro]

IOW, for JoeAmpad, its bad that the British to hand over a piece of land to a government that kills its own people for transplant organs even though the British had a legal obligation to do so, but it is good for the British to hand over a piece of land to a government that tosses union organizers out of planes at 10,000 feet into the sea even though the British had zero obligation to do so.

But I guess if you're woefully ignorant, you've got to reach for whatever you've got.

Actually, it was bad because it wasn't worth what it cost.

I kind of understand how your sort crashed the economy with other people's money now, Tojo...

Deflection, uby.

It was worth it to the British. You might have noticed that the British in this thread are telling you to piss off.

 

[Swagger]

You lost whatever credibility you had the moment you submitted such an absurd allegation for public ridicule. Besides, the Chinese government has been eager to allow and encourage the economic success Hong Kong has enjoyed. It has a "special economic status" as opposed to the party line brutally toe'd throughout China. Beijing refuses to hold as rigid an authority in Hong Kong as it does in elsewhere in China. It would otherwise stifle an economic asset.

Oh, right. because we all know how good the Chi-Coms are at keeping their promises.

What "promises" would they be? Hong Kong wasn't returned to the Chinese on the condition of not interfering with the enclave's economic status. The Chinese knew a good thing when they saw it and didn't interfere, on their own instincts. Besides, after the handover we weren't accountable for anything the Chinese decided upon regarding Hong Kong and the people who live there. To claim otherwise would be like saying the Americans are accountable for those who went missing after being kidnapped in South America by the puppet governments who were funded by Washington.

 

[JoeB131]

IOW, for JoeAmpad, its bad that the British to hand over a piece of land to a government that kills its own people for transplant organs even though the British had a legal obligation to do so, but it is good for the British to hand over a piece of land to a government that tosses union organizers out of planes at 10,000 feet into the sea even though the British had zero obligation to do so.

But I guess if you're woefully ignorant, you've got to reach for whatever you've got.

Actually, it was bad because it wasn't worth what it cost.

I kind of understand how your sort crashed the economy with other people's money now, Tojo...

Deflection, uby.

It was worth it to the British. You might have noticed that the British in this thread are telling you to piss off.

What they are saying is, "We are soooo insecure we can't admit we fucked up."

That's all I'm hearing.

Just like you can't admit you scumbag lowlife shitheels on Wall Street weren't the least responsible for the 2008 crash.

 

[Toro]

Actually, it was bad because it wasn't worth what it cost.

I kind of understand how your sort crashed the economy with other people's money now, Tojo...

Deflection, uby.

It was worth it to the British. You might have noticed that the British in this thread are telling you to piss off.

What they are saying is, "We are soooo insecure we can't admit we fucked up."

That's all I'm hearing.

Just like you can't admit you scumbag lowlife shitheels on Wall Street weren't the least responsible for the 2008 crash.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Deflection, as to be expected when the leftist JoeAmpad gets pwnd in a thread.

 

[JoeB131]

Deflection, uby.

It was worth it to the British. You might have noticed that the British in this thread are telling you to piss off.

What they are saying is, "We are soooo insecure we can't admit we fucked up."

That's all I'm hearing.

Just like you can't admit you scumbag lowlife shitheels on Wall Street weren't the least responsible for the 2008 crash.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Deflection, as to be expected when the leftist JoeAmpad gets pwnd in a thread.

Yawn... no one owned me here..

I'm still waiting for one Thatcher apologist who can tell me a good reason why 900 people had to die for fucking sheep.

Man up, take responsiblity. This was a rich country beating up on a small one over a nothing issue.

 

[Toro]

What they are saying is, "We are soooo insecure we can't admit we fucked up."

That's all I'm hearing.

Just like you can't admit you scumbag lowlife shitheels on Wall Street weren't the least responsible for the 2008 crash.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Deflection, as to be expected when the leftist JoeAmpad gets pwnd in a thread.

Yawn... no one owned me here..

I'm still waiting for one Thatcher apologist who can tell me a good reason why 900 people had to die for fucking sheep.

Man up, take responsiblity. This was a rich country beating up on a small one over a nothing issue.

It's funny when you tell people to "man up" after spewing lies and half-truths throughout this thread.

 

[JoeB131]

Um, told the total truth... but you guys are masters of spin.

Fact. - the UK negotiated with Argentina.

Fact- They beat up on a smaller and weaker country over nothing worth a single life.

Fact- They continue to justify their stupidity, 30 years later.

Other than that, the rest is chest beating filler by people who never wore uniforms.

"The Bravery of Being out of Range"