Guardian Column on the falklands

Discussion in 'Falkland Islands (Op CORPORATE)' started by r_gmt, Feb 26, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The writer uses the term 'post-imperial anachronism'. Load of guff? Or got a point?

  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.
  3. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    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,
  5. Utter drivel.

    That Simon Jenkins is evidently a moron and a treasonous one at that.
  6. 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!
  7. Traitorous drivel from the Guardian as per.
  8. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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
  12. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    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.

    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.
  13. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    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.
  14. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    Wrong actually. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded to Britain in perpetuity; the New Territories were on a 99 year lease.