Moderator: maddog986
ORIGINAL: EUBanana
You're an apologist for a fascist, and bandying about crap about international law which simply is false, and in doing so have managed to derail a perfectly good thread with your nonsense.
ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper
I am surprised about the discussion over who owns the Falkland Islands[:-]. I would have thought that with this site consisting of gamers you would all know the rules of island possession, so here is a quick gaming history lession that I hope will clarify the position. In the 15, 16 17 and 18 centuries the European Countries got together to start the game called PLANT THE FLAG. Anyone with a flag could play and any land that the flag was planted into became the property of the flag owner. Advanced rules allowed for trading hence the Falkland Islands are British. By 1800 France was fed up with this game because the industrial revolution in Britain meant that she was mass producing flags so she had clearly won the game. France looked around for a new game and came upon European Conflict which under Napoleon she was very good at. Germany with their esteemed efficiently took the game and made it bigger and better calling it WW1. However the rules were not well thought out resulting in a stalemate. At this time the USA looked over the playground wall and asked to play so she was allowed to join in. Germany took another look at the rules and introduced Blitzkreig which made the came flow a lot better and this game was called WW2. However when the game had already started the USA and Japan were allowed to join. This was a mistake because the USA had obviously been practicing and trounced everyone. While Europe cleaned up after a rather messy game the USA decided to start its own game without the Europeans called COLD WAR. Now Germany was still annoyed that the USA had ruined their last game so they knocked down the Berlin Wall ending the USA's game. Something had to be done so the USA and Europe decided to stop the bickering and play nicely together. The game they started was called GLobal Warming. They were doing nicely, (again the USA was winning) when China and India wanted to join in. More worrying is that lately people who don't even own a flag have started their own game called Global Terrorism claiming that the USA has been playing a solo version of Plant the Flag. I hope this helps to clarify matters and anyone moaning about who owns what should have read the rules earlier.[;)]
..[:D][:D] roflmao[:D][:D]..
..very Swiftian..
ORIGINAL: Terl
ORIGINAL: Ike99
Ike99: You really need to give it a rest. There are many contested areas around the world and folks claim ownership based on a historical event that makes it work.
Hi Terl. This thread is about the Falklands Conflict.
I`m talking about the Falklands Conflict.
So you really need to give it a rest or go to another thread if you don´t want to talk about the Falklands Conflict.
Rabbit I am going to check out Pink Floyd.
On that Iraq, Mushroom Cloud, Saddam stuff, you yanks and brits can debate that one out amongst yourselves.
The original poster has made it clear he wished to discuss the tactics of the war and not the political issues about ownership of the islands.
ORIGINAL: Dixie
ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper
I am surprised about the discussion over who owns the Falkland Islands[:-]. I would have thought that with this site consisting of gamers you would all know the rules of island possession, so here is a quick gaming history lession that I hope will clarify the position. In the 15, 16 17 and 18 centuries the European Countries got together to start the game called PLANT THE FLAG. Anyone with a flag could play and any land that the flag was planted into became the property of the flag owner. Advanced rules allowed for trading hence the Falkland Islands are British. By 1800 France was fed up with this game because the industrial revolution in Britain meant that she was mass producing flags so she had clearly won the game. France looked around for a new game and came upon European Conflict which under Napoleon she was very good at. Germany with their esteemed efficiently took the game and made it bigger and better calling it WW1. However the rules were not well thought out resulting in a stalemate. At this time the USA looked over the playground wall and asked to play so she was allowed to join in. Germany took another look at the rules and introduced Blitzkreig which made the came flow a lot better and this game was called WW2. However when the game had already started the USA and Japan were allowed to join. This was a mistake because the USA had obviously been practicing and trounced everyone. While Europe cleaned up after a rather messy game the USA decided to start its own game without the Europeans called COLD WAR. Now Germany was still annoyed that the USA had ruined their last game so they knocked down the Berlin Wall ending the USA's game. Something had to be done so the USA and Europe decided to stop the bickering and play nicely together. The game they started was called GLobal Warming. They were doing nicely, (again the USA was winning) when China and India wanted to join in. More worrying is that lately people who don't even own a flag have started their own game called Global Terrorism claiming that the USA has been playing a solo version of Plant the Flag. I hope this helps to clarify matters and anyone moaning about who owns what should have read the rules earlier.[;)]
..[:D][:D] roflmao[:D][:D]..
..very Swiftian..
It can't just be me who was thinking of the Eddie Izzrd bit whilst reading this?
....and we built up empires - we stole countries! That's what you do, that's how you build an empire. We stole countries with the cunning use of flags! Yeah, just sail around the world and stick a flag in.
"I claim India for Britain!"
They go, "You can't claim us, we live here! 500 million of us!"
"Do you have a flag?"
"We don't need a bloody flag! It's our country, you bar stewards!"
"No flag, no country, you can't have one! That's the rules that I've just made up, and I'm backing it up with this gun that was lent from the National Rifle Association."
That was it, you know?
ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets
ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets
Ike 99 - just so that you have some information on war crimes:
A war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war waged not out of self-defense or sanctioned by the UN. [/i]
..cough*cough* h'Iraq*cough*cough
The legality of the invasion of Iraq depends upon the interpretation of UNSC resolution 1442 and whether the UNSC sanctioned the force used.
I do not offer my opinion on that. It is too far off post (and involves court cases that I have dealt with).
..and there was silly ol' me thinking that there were some simple UN rules about declaring war..
..don't see blue helmets tho ....
7th Somersets
Still shy I see. Come on Ike 99 - we know that you are here...Sprior - why would Ike 99 let facts get in the way of a good bit of jingoism?
ORIGINAL: Ike99
7th Somersets
Still shy I see. Come on Ike 99 - we know that you are here...Sprior - why would Ike 99 let facts get in the way of a good bit of jingoism?
No not shy. Just some where complaining it was getting too political (and that's fair enough) so I went to change it to a soley military aspect thing. Unfortunately someone else...
(cough) sprior (cough)
...made a political comment that I had to respond to.
But just to clarify on the Invincible. No one says it was sunk. Just that an attack was made and it was hit. That`s why they put one mark on the plane...not an ¨X¨ after the attack. The British felt it neccessary to hide this because without both aircraft carriers operational they would have lost their aircover.
So what are you people saying? No attack was made at all? That's obviously a lie. You can say it wasn´t sunk...it wasn´t hit. But to say the attack never even took place is British aire of superiority wishful thinking.
ORIGINAL: Terminus
VERY dubiously, to say the least... But that's beside the point here. The Falklands war began when a Fascist military dictatorship decided to invade the territory of a democracy. The bad guys lost.
End.
Of.
Story.
ORIGINAL: sprior
Nobody here has ever said the FAA didn't try and sink the Invincible. You claimed she was hit and offered a pic as "proof", saying that the Illustrious returned to Pompey in place of Invincible. I ask again, if that is indeed the Illustrious where are the Phalanx guns?
ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
ORIGINAL: Terminus
VERY dubiously, to say the least... But that's beside the point here. The Falklands war began when a Fascist military dictatorship decided to invade the territory of a democracy. The bad guys lost.
End.
Of.
Story.
..errr, noooo, the Falklands war began when a Facist (sooooRRyyyy) Conservative mad -person*, elected only because of a flawed electoral system, decided to rig a war with an easily defeatable opponent for who-the-fk-knows what reason..
..thankfully this doesn't happen in these enlightened days..
..*look at the eyes, anyone who organises a war for personal gain is imho totally bats..
..* anyone who can arrest 3'000 year old stones and put them behind razor wire is a loony, especialy when they didn't even get a fair trial..
..errr, noooo, the Falklands war began when a Facist (sooooRRyyyy) Conservative mad -person*, elected only because of a flawed electoral system, decided to rig a war with an easily defeatable opponent for who-the-fk-knows what reason..
..thankfully this doesn't happen in these enlightened days..
..*look at the eyes, anyone who organises a war for personal gain is imho totally bats..
..* anyone who can arrest 3'000 year old stones and put them behind razor wire is a loony, especialy when they didn't even get a fair trial..
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
ORIGINAL: Terminus
VERY dubiously, to say the least... But that's beside the point here. The Falklands war began when a Fascist military dictatorship decided to invade the territory of a democracy. The bad guys lost.
End.
Of.
Story.
..errr, noooo, the Falklands war began when a Facist (sooooRRyyyy) Conservative mad -person*, elected only because of a flawed electoral system, decided to rig a war with an easily defeatable opponent for who-the-fk-knows what reason..
..thankfully this doesn't happen in these enlightened days..
..*look at the eyes, anyone who organises a war for personal gain is imho totally bats..
..* anyone who can arrest 3'000 year old stones and put them behind razor wire is a loony, especialy when they didn't even get a fair trial..
Riiiight... [8|]
??????? how does that have anything to do with the falklands.ORIGINAL: Ike99
ORIGINAL: Ike99
Unless of course we killed 2 of our own pilots during the conflict so we could say we attacked Invincible.
Why not? You threw people out of planes into the sea.
70,000
(Cough cough)
Iraqis dead
(Cough cough)
to
(Cough cough)
¨free¨ them
(Cough cough)
aka steal oil
(Cough cough)
So spare me the morality lecture mate.
ORIGINAL: GreyFox
..errr, noooo, the Falklands war began when a Facist (sooooRRyyyy) Conservative mad -person*, elected only because of a flawed electoral system, decided to rig a war with an easily defeatable opponent for who-the-fk-knows what reason..
..thankfully this doesn't happen in these enlightened days..
..*look at the eyes, anyone who organises a war for personal gain is imho totally bats..
..* anyone who can arrest 3'000 year old stones and put them behind razor wire is a loony, especialy when they didn't even get a fair trial..
No...
but she did not rig a war with somebody else.
ORIGINAL: GreyFox
..and there was silly ol' me thinking that there were some simple UN rules about declaring war..
..don't see blue helmets tho ....
One can argue that the US Senate's authorisation to use military force on Iraq was in effect a declaration of war. Along with the UN resolution 1441, which gave Iraq it's last chance to cooperate, it wrapped things up legally, if somewhat dubiously.
..nooo, of course not..
..withdrawing the few remaining military units was an accident..
..at a time when the Argentinians were doing alota mouthing off..even more so..
..did i mention the hot lead ?..
ORIGINAL: bobogoboom
??????? how does that have anything to do with the falklands.ORIGINAL: Ike99
ORIGINAL: Ike99
Unless of course we killed 2 of our own pilots during the conflict so we could say we attacked Invincible.
Why not? You threw people out of planes into the sea.
70,000
(Cough cough)
Iraqis dead
(Cough cough)
to
(Cough cough)
¨free¨ them
(Cough cough)
aka steal oil
(Cough cough)
So spare me the morality lecture mate.
