Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Da Boss wrote:
See, I agree with him on almost all of his ideology, so I guess that's the difference!

i could probably enjoy a drink with you too! until.......

I despise his Marxist values and political goals, but I can respect him for one thing at least. He's explicitly honest and up front about his views, which makes him a breath of fresh air compared to Teflon Dave (Cameron), and the 'Blair Creature' as Peter Hitchens puts it. Deception and political spin were their MO.

I was really interested in Corbyn and then I saw his comments about how discussion should be opened over the Falklands being shared with Argentina, despite a recent vote by the people on the island being 99% against anything than British rule, and started to get worried. He thinks smoothing over relations with other countries should be more important than the democratic wishes of our people. The problem with doggedly being a pacifist is that you end up folding to threats and betraying the security of your own people to every country that makes aggressive demands. If we lose control of the Falklands, Spain will start up about taking over Gibraltar.

I've not been impressed since by Corbyn. He seems too keen on negotiating with filth like ISIS and giving way to every threat that faces us rather than defending the soverignty of our lands and the people on them. It's not right to meet every threat half way, eventually you end up with nothing. If you give ISIS an inch they'll take the lot.

I don't think he's said much about negotiating with ISIS, rather that we should be focusing on cutting off their cash and weapon supplies by asking our "allies" Turkey and Saudi Arabia to stop buying oil and selling weapons.

On the Falklands, yeah, that is pretty dumb.

Falklands, that's just idiotic.

The people 99% want to belong and be ruled by the uk.

Argentina invaded, occupied and mistreated the islands. Last time it took cobbling a task force we now could not even form. A next time we have no carriar at mo. And a weak navy.

We cannot afford to lose it. As we would struggle to reclaim it. We have to Stand firm and not leave any doubt its uk territory

 Da Boss wrote:
I don't think he's said much about negotiating with ISIS, rather that we should be focusing on cutting off their cash and weapon supplies by asking our "allies" Turkey and Saudi Arabia to stop buying oil and selling weapons.

He is right about ISIS (or rather Daesh) though. As 'Dave' himself said on the 4th of October about the Russian bombing "Russia's bombing campaign Syria will lead to "further radicalisation and increased terrorism", obviously British bombs are magic and will avoid all these problems a scant month later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

We cannot afford to lose it.

It has a population of about 3k (I think about 25% of the population are military) and doesn't export much that isn't wool. OK there may be oil reserves there but the UK is surrounded by oil; a dose of reality never hurts.

North sea production last saw was downward...

It peaked years ago.

There's alot of oil round those islands. Argentina wants that money. There flat broke, oil money would be welcome.

Of course not hurt uk....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If not for oil no one would care about the islands

 jhe90 wrote:
North sea production last saw was downward...

It peaked years ago.

There are untapped reserves off the west coast of Scotland.

Either way Argentinian sovereignty of the Falklands wouldn't damage much more than pride.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Either way Argentinian sovereignty of the Falklands wouldn't damage much more than pride.

Plus we could rabble rouse over it and totally use it to distract the plebs about rampant corruption in politics/government and how the entire country has fallen to bits. Then we could invade and take over because "we totally owned the place anyway - it was always ours"...

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


It has a population of about 3k (I think about 25% of the population are military) and doesn't export much that isn't wool. OK there may be oil reserves there but the UK is surrounded by oil; a dose of reality never hurts.

Yet the dose of reality doesn't extend to the human rights act and the vast fortune the UK spends defending terrorists against deportation.

I find it telling that Corbyn is heavy on the propagation of PC dogma, but is quite happy to sell out the Falkland islanders as if they had no human rights whatsoever. Why? Because Thatcher profited by them.

I watched the debate on the Syria bombing and Corbyn for all his weakness got visibly angry in defence of Syrian asylum seekers. He is dogmatised to the core, and will defend some on principles at all costs yet will discard others who wish to be protected by the same principles. In the light of that I cant even credit him with much actual honesty, the only card his party has to play for him.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
North sea production last saw was downward...

It peaked years ago.

There are untapped reserves off the west coast of Scotland.

Either way Argentinian sovereignty of the Falklands wouldn't damage much more than pride.

How about national security? It'd send out the message that Britain cannot defend its territory. Gibraltar would follow, and any other overseas territories in similar situations regarding disputes over sovereignty.

And of course it'd be a betrayal of the British people, because it'd prove that our British government(s) and ruling class lacks the competence, the will and the courage to defend the freedom of British citizens. Our Government OWES all British citizens a duty to protect them from foreign aggression and occupation. That includes the Falklands.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
North sea production last saw was downward...

It peaked years ago.

There are untapped reserves off the west coast of Scotland.

Either way Argentinian sovereignty of the Falklands wouldn't damage much more than pride.

It's more than pride. It's ours, not argentinas's. It's been ours since before Argentina existed. They have no right or claim to it legally whatsoever. Geography is not the sole basis for nationality.
If we start conceding territory for no good reason, you open a dangerous precedent.

 Muhr wrote:

In the run-up to the leadership election 60,000 voters suddenly joined the Labour party just to vote for him, leading to him winning the election.

So he has popular support...

 Muhr wrote:

What's not widely known is that the vast majority of those 60,000 voters were from ethnic minorities who he'd pandered to.

Who?!? Not the Normans again, or was it the fething Romans and their obnoxious 'one god' religion? Or those Vikings with their smelly foods or the Saxons with their awful music...

 Muhr wrote:

This clown, Comrade Corbyn, is a threat to the traditional British way of life and should be removed by any means neccasary, end of. What's your thoughts?

I'm as British as a Branston and Cheddar sandwich on Hovis with a mug of Yorkshire tea and my ancestors have fought and bled for the sceptred isle for hundreds of years and I bloody love him. I'll take him over the Blairs and Camerons of this world any fething day of the week. He represents no threat to the British way of life, it's people like you with your vague allusions to dislike of 'ethnics' that reek of the jackboots my family shed blood and lots life fighting against, you're the threat to the British way of life, you're the ones that are warping the idea of national pride in beautiful Britannia into a sly fascism and xenophobia. Now slither off to your National Front meeting.

 Orlanth wrote:

Yet the dose of reality doesn't extend to the human rights act and the vast fortune the UK spends defending terrorists against deportation.

Whaaaa?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

How about national security?

It is literally half the world away.

 r_squared wrote:

It's more than pride.

Nope. Its economically dead and its inhabitants are reputed to be inbred hillbillies by those who have actually been there. Its pride given that its one of the few remaining bastions of 'Empire', mixed in with a bit of sabre rattling of course.

I'm not saying that Argentina has some kind of realistic right to the Malvinas but in reality is an economically dead, sparely populated rock in the south Atlantic. Virtually no one would care what flag it flew.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
He represents no threat to the British way of life, it's people like you with your vague allusions to dislike of 'ethnics' that reek of the jackboots my family shed blood and lots life fighting against, you're the threat to the British way of life, you're the ones that are warping the idea of national pride in beautiful Britannia into a sly fascism and xenophobia. Now slither off to your National Front meeting.

You misundertand. The fact that the UK has a mass immigration problem at the moment is undeniable, which, understandably, concerns me a great deal. How on earth does that make me a racist, which is what you're implying. My girlfriend of nearly three years is Nigerian and two of my friends are Muslim, so the implication that I'm a racist is as laughable as it is groundless and pathetic. What you've just done is used a tactic to silence a concerned member of the public, accusing them of racism for voicing concerns about a runaway immigration crisis being inneffectively handled, which would be made FAR worse if Comrade Corbyn were in charge.

I've been accused in this thread of being nasty to anyone who disagrees with me. Also not true! Bullying, intimidating, abusing and threatening others with different opinions is Corbyn's inner circles favourite habit and, it seems, yours, not mine. Someone else also patronizingly said I didn't know what communism really was. Again, not true! As I've said earlier, there's an undeniable Maoist streak running through Comrade Corbyn's inner circle. One of his closest allies said on national tv a few years ago about Chairman Mao: "I think, on balance, he did more good than harm", this about a man under whose rule 60 million people were killed!

And one more thing! Some idiot on here said that I'm probably another "ill-advised Tory". I certainly am not a Tory! I voted for UKIP which is my right to do so. I don't hate immigrants, I just happen to think we have more than enough of them here and should close our borders to any more, as well as leaving the EU. I'm sick of Brussels throwing its weight about with us.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

How about national security?

It is literally half the world away.

So what? There are British citizens living there. It is a British territory. National Security applies there too. Or do you not think the citizens of the Falklands are entitled to the protection of the British government?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Muhr.
I'd say comparing you to jack booted Nazi's is pretty nasty.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

So what? There are British citizens living there. It is a British territory. National Security applies there too. Or do you not think the citizens of the Falklands are entitled to the protection of the British government?
.

This is why it is one of the most heavily garrisoned (by population) places on earth then?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

So what? There are British citizens living there. It is a British territory. National Security applies there too. Or do you not think the citizens of the Falklands are entitled to the protection of the British government?
.

This is why it is one of the most heavily garrisoned (by population) places on earth then?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it was invaded just a few decades ago, and may well be invaded again in the future?

Crazy right? The idea that we should protect British citizens...

The Falklands are a constant rally point for the incompetent Argentinian government.

We'd need to evacuate the population if we were to hand them over. They wouldn't receive particularly pleasant treatment from them.

In other news Hilary Benn is an absolute disgrace as are all the other politicians that voted to bomb Syria.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Crazy right? The idea that we should protect British citizens...

You mean what is actually happening?

At the end of the day though the Falklands are essentially a small village several thousand miles away. 'National security' only goes so far.

I think Comrade Corbyn is doing his job very well. Everything is proceeding according to plan...

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Crazy right? The idea that we should protect British citizens...

You mean what is actually happening?

At the end of the day though the Falklands are essentially a small village several thousand miles away. 'National security' only goes so far.

So what? They're second class citizens?

I like the part where upgrading trident is more important, than say the NHS, the Police, Tax Credit, actually funding our armed forces. But yeah that damn commie how dare he actually spare a thought for actual people and not those funding his party, the absolute fether.

Or something, I haven't read the Sun in a while so my right wing rhetoric is probably a little off, apologies for letting people down.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

So what? They're second class citizens?

They live in one of the most heavily garrisoned places on earth but we won't be starting WWIII over them.

We won't have to, because they live in one of the most heavily garrisoned places on earth. Take that garrison away, and what do you think would happen?

In fact, thats precisely what lead to the first Falklands War. The islands were poorly defended, which tempted the Argentine Junta into invading to distract its population from domestic troubles. A military conflict and quick victory stoked up Nationalist sentiment and anti-British xenophobia, which would have helped prop up the regime had our armed services not kicked their arses.

Now its heavily defended, and it hasn't been invaded or attacked in 30 years. Go figure.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Now its heavily defended, and it hasn't been invaded or attacked in 30 years.

The lack of the Argentinian Junta may have played some role.....

What does this have to do with Jeremy Corbyn?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Now its heavily defended, and it hasn't been invaded or attacked in 30 years.

The lack of the Argentinian Junta may have played some role.....

What does this have to do with Jeremy Corbyn?

You've spent the last hour arguing about the Falklands. And NOW you're complaining its off topic?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

You've spent the last hour arguing about the Falklands. And NOW you're complaining its off topic?

I originally responded to this hyperbole laden statement:

 jhe90 wrote:

We cannot afford to lose it.

And I have spent the last couple of hours restating the same statement repeatedly while watching this evening episodes of the Bridge when I can be bothered to glance at the computer.

Whats your excuse?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Yet the dose of reality doesn't extend to the human rights act and the vast fortune the UK spends defending terrorists against deportation.

Whaaaa?

You're an ork?
Intelligent input required.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Yet the dose of reality doesn't extend to the human rights act and the vast fortune the UK spends defending terrorists against deportation.

Whaaaa?

You're an ork?
Intelligent input required.

Well if we didn't insist upon extraditing them to countries who routinely use torture as part of their 'judicial' process thing would undoubtably be a lot smoother. Damn the rule of law for filthy terrorists amirite?