Guardian Column on the falklands

#2
Utter,utter dross.

No wonder the Guardian group is hemorrhaging money and selling off assets at a rate of knots if this is the standard of journalism it endorses.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
This is the same fcukwit who would assert that the Basques and the Kurds have no right to their own homeland. What does he have to say for what's left of the Armenians?

If the Islanders want to stay under British rule, the so be it. If they want independence from Britain, so be it, but if we give the islands to the Argies without the express wish of the residents, then they simply become colonised by another country - Argentina, against their will. They become Basque, or Cornish or Kurdish.

He speaks highly of the UN giving freedom from colonisation, but what about the other UN ideals? Those whioch encompass the right of a tribe or people to choose their own leaders, or choose to ally with another country?

The Falkland Islanders do not wish to become a colony of Argentina.

Saying the islands should be given to Argentina is like saying that England should be given to the Romans in Italy, because it was under them that England was a unified country, and on that basis, they were the first from the mainland of Europe to lay claim.
 
#4
Just another stupid lazy Jorno trying to come across as an academic,
 
#7
Simon Jenkins. Guardian.

Says it all really!

They will be the first casualties of a Conservative government when the rug gets pulled over job advertising!
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#9
Simon Jenkins's articles are becoming increasingly odd as the years go by; I wonder if he's beginning to lose his marbles? He seems to have become a sort of obsessive defeatist. Whilst some of his stuff on scientific topics is frankly weird. See the Bad Science Forum for details.

Worth looking at the comments on that piece as well, as the usual Guardianista suspects give him a fierce drubbing.
 
#10
Simon Jenkins has a valid point. He makes two points well, namely;

The Falklands, in pure economic terms is a white elephant, 3bn quiddles spent since 82! Where's the return on that investment? Oh now I see, hence the drilling rig at present! Well I suppose they have to get the money back somehow. Funny thing is oil drilling is hit and miss, so there may still be no return on their....or should I say, your tax payer investment!

And two, it is no accident that in 82 the vast majority of Brits had to reach for the atlas to find out where the Falkland islands were. By some strange coincidence most Brits could tell you where to find Hong Kong! But then again the lease on HK island was to end, and most people there are Chinese. Seems that those in Hong Kong didn't warrant a say in what happened, but strangely enough when the white boys of the Falklands cried, the Brits came running. Its strange to think what skin colour and eye shape can make!

The article is good. Jenkins tells it straight.
 
#11
zazabell_012 said:
Simon Jenkins has a valid point. He makes two points well, namely;

The Falklands, in pure economic terms is a white elephant, 3bn quiddles spent since 82! Where's the return on that investment? Oh now I see, hence the drilling rig at present! Well I suppose they have to get the money back somehow. Funny thing is oil drilling is hit and miss, so there may still be no return on their....or should I say, your tax payer investment!

And two, it is no accident that in 82 the vast majority of Brits had to reach for the atlas to find out where the Falkland islands were. By some strange coincidence most Brits could tell you where to find Hong Kong! But then again the lease on HK island was to end, and most people there are Chinese. Seems that those in Hong Kong didn't warrant a say in what happened, but strangely enough when the white boys of the Falklands cried, the Brits came running. Its strange to think what skin colour and eye shape can make!

The article is good. Jenkins tells it straight.
Bollox.
Hong Kong was only ever leased from China, it didn't belong to us.
Your assertion that the UK ignored Hong Kong because the people there weren't white and went to war over the Falklands because the population is white is the biggest pile of steaming shite since Sven last posted on a thread about politics.

Did you actually believe the bollox you wrote there?
 
#12
Your not looking to the future, in time the antarctic will have to be developed, we and the Yanks have been surveying the place for decades, and the FI will be our gateway there, thats why we built the Airport
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#13
zazabell_012 said:
The Falklands, in pure economic terms is a white elephant, 3bn quiddles spent since 82! Where's the return on that investment? Oh now I see, hence the drilling rig at present! Well I suppose they have to get the money back somehow. Funny thing is oil drilling is hit and miss, so there may still be no return on their....or should I say, your tax payer investment!
A worthwhile point only if you regard the Falklands as a business rather than as a UK territory with a population who want to retain their current form of government and way of life. By the same logic, we might as well divest ourselves of much of northern England, Scotland and Wales: they have to be subsidised by London and the south east, and nobody civilised would want to live there.

And two, it is no accident that in 82 the vast majority of Brits had to reach for the atlas to find out where the Falkland islands were. By some strange coincidence most Brits could tell you where to find Hong Kong! But then again the lease on HK island was to end, and most people there are Chinese. Seems that those in Hong Kong didn't warrant a say in what happened, but strangely enough when the white boys of the Falklands cried, the Brits came running. Its strange to think what skin colour and eye shape can make!
Horsesh1t. It would be entirely reasonable to suppose that, had Argentina not invaded, then some form of duel sovereignty or leaseback arrangement would be in place now. Skin colour had fcuk all to do with it: responding to unwarranted aggression did.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#14
zazabell_012 said:
Simon Jenkins has a valid point. He makes two points well, namely;

The Falklands, in pure economic terms is a white elephant, 3bn quiddles spent since 82! Where's the return on that investment? Oh now I see, hence the drilling rig at present! Well I suppose they have to get the money back somehow. Funny thing is oil drilling is hit and miss, so there may still be no return on their....or should I say, your tax payer investment!

And two, it is no accident that in 82 the vast majority of Brits had to reach for the atlas to find out where the Falkland islands were. By some strange coincidence most Brits could tell you where to find Hong Kong! But then again the lease on HK island was to end, and most people there are Chinese. Seems that those in Hong Kong didn't warrant a say in what happened, but strangely enough when the white boys of the Falklands cried, the Brits came running. Its strange to think what skin colour and eye shape can make!

The article is good. Jenkins tells it straight.
Bollox again. Your bit about HK has already been dismissed - and as for the financial one, if money was the sole reasoning, we'd have ditched the Porridge Wogs years ago. If we had though, we'd have had no access to what you would no dout consider their Top Export - people - and we'd have missed out on benefitting from the talents of Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Alastair Darling, John Reid, etc.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#15
jagman said:
Hong Kong was only ever leased from China, it didn't belong to us.
Wrong actually. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded to Britain in perpetuity; the New Territories were on a 99 year lease.
 
#16
jagman said:
zazabell_012 said:
Simon Jenkins has a valid point. He makes two points well, namely;

The Falklands, in pure economic terms is a white elephant, 3bn quiddles spent since 82! Where's the return on that investment? Oh now I see, hence the drilling rig at present! Well I suppose they have to get the money back somehow. Funny thing is oil drilling is hit and miss, so there may still be no return on their....or should I say, your tax payer investment!

And two, it is no accident that in 82 the vast majority of Brits had to reach for the atlas to find out where the Falkland islands were. By some strange coincidence most Brits could tell you where to find Hong Kong! But then again the lease on HK island was to end, and most people there are Chinese. Seems that those in Hong Kong didn't warrant a say in what happened, but strangely enough when the white boys of the Falklands cried, the Brits came running. Its strange to think what skin colour and eye shape can make!

The article is good. Jenkins tells it straight.
Bollox.
Hong Kong was only ever leased from China, it didn't belong to us.
Your assertion that the UK ignored Hong Kong because the people there weren't white and went to war over the Falklands because the population is white is the biggest pile of steaming shite since Sven last posted on a thread about politics.

Did you actually believe the bollox you wrote there?
Jagman...read. I said the lease was coming to an end. And yes I believe my bollox because it makes more sense that yours :D
 
#17
jagman said:
zazabell_012 said:
Simon Jenkins has a valid point. He makes two points well, namely;

The Falklands, in pure economic terms is a white elephant, 3bn quiddles spent since 82! Where's the return on that investment? Oh now I see, hence the drilling rig at present! Well I suppose they have to get the money back somehow. Funny thing is oil drilling is hit and miss, so there may still be no return on their....or should I say, your tax payer investment!

And two, it is no accident that in 82 the vast majority of Brits had to reach for the atlas to find out where the Falkland islands were. By some strange coincidence most Brits could tell you where to find Hong Kong! But then again the lease on HK island was to end, and most people there are Chinese. Seems that those in Hong Kong didn't warrant a say in what happened, but strangely enough when the white boys of the Falklands cried, the Brits came running. Its strange to think what skin colour and eye shape can make!

The article is good. Jenkins tells it straight.
Bollox.
Hong Kong was only ever leased from China, it didn't belong to us.
Your assertion that the UK ignored Hong Kong because the people there weren't white and went to war over the Falklands because the population is white is the biggest pile of steaming shite since Sven last posted on a thread about politics.

Did you actually believe the bollox you wrote there?
Now, I always thought that Honkers was ours, but New Territories were on a lease. HK itself had come to rely so much on NT for all sorts of stuff (not least fresh water) that effectively was not a going concern alone.

Pragmatism.

Or am I wrong? (a not uncommon occurrence)
 
#18
Typical Guardian "We're Sorry" reporting.

Its hard to think that only 20 odd years ago the country got behind the task force and had the stomach for such a bold military operation when we have such wet fannies everywhere these days. Where did they get it from? No doubt the lefty CND supporting parents.

I have no doubt the governments motivation for keeping The Falklands British is a purely financial/political one however if a biproduct of this is that the moral objective is met (Respecting the current occupants wishes) then so be it. Enough people have been born, lived and died on the Falklands for us to now say that their families hold a legitimate claim to the land.

There is only one element of truth in his article. A repeat of the War is unlikely. Neither side has the balls or the equipment to pull it off in the same manner... The task force would be sat on their bergans listening to their ipods but sailing south... on what exactly?
 
#19
cpunk said:
jagman said:
Hong Kong was only ever leased from China, it didn't belong to us.
Wrong actually. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded to Britain in perpetuity; the New Territories were on a 99 year lease.
Thatcher didn't contest, did she! Nor were the people given any choice. Mind you I suppose it would be imprudent to pick a fight with China!
 
#20
The way the British Government has treated the FI beggers beliefe, in the 80s there was a massive fishing industry there but not one penny was paid to the Islands, there were over 140 fish processing,factory ships in Bearkly sound alone ,and thy did not even pay bearthing fees, now they all pay millions into the Islands coffers. the crews of these ships from all over the world outnumbered the Islanders for some time but never went ashore
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top