Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Would you go to war?
31 Answers
If Argentina tried to seize the Falkland Islands again would Britain go to war to keep them , or would they be just written off?....no Maggie Thatcher this time!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
rojash, we obviously have different definitions of the word 'cause'. Yours seems to be the one used by some judges when they say that a woman who wears a short skirt and a low-cut dress is helping to 'cause' her own rape.
ELVIS68, news to me that Galtieri was a woman.
And how to treat hunger strikers is a totally separate subject. Why not start a new thread? Then you can explain how having food, drink and medical facilities constantly available amounts to saying 'Let 'em starve'.
Lonnie, are you suggesting that any country that claims land to which it has no right at all should automatically be indulged in the matter? What a bonanza that would cause throughout the world! Let''s all go out and start claiming.
What I find sad about most of your responses is a failure to address the most important factor - the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders. There also seems a lack of condemnation of Argentina's armed aggression against a peaceful undefended people.
I think it's insufficiently realised that the islands and the islanders have never been anything else but British - unlike, for example, East Anglia which was once Danish.
Anyway, the original question has been answered.
ELVIS68, news to me that Galtieri was a woman.
And how to treat hunger strikers is a totally separate subject. Why not start a new thread? Then you can explain how having food, drink and medical facilities constantly available amounts to saying 'Let 'em starve'.
Lonnie, are you suggesting that any country that claims land to which it has no right at all should automatically be indulged in the matter? What a bonanza that would cause throughout the world! Let''s all go out and start claiming.
What I find sad about most of your responses is a failure to address the most important factor - the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders. There also seems a lack of condemnation of Argentina's armed aggression against a peaceful undefended people.
I think it's insufficiently realised that the islands and the islanders have never been anything else but British - unlike, for example, East Anglia which was once Danish.
Anyway, the original question has been answered.
rojash, in my last I did not accuse you of anything; I used what is called in debate an analogy, whereby one points out the fallacy in an argument by mooting a parallel argument where the fallacy is more obvious.
Failing to defend the islands properly no more 'caused' the Argentine invasion than the shortness of the girl's skirt would have 'caused' any subsequent rape. It might have made the idea of rape more attractive to a rapist ,just as my open window made theft more attractive to a thief.
But numerous law-abiding citizens would not have burgled my house or raped the girl, just as numerous law-abiding countries did not take advantage of our neglect by invading the islands.
That was done by a murderous, corrupt dictator for political glory. It was his ambition that caused it.
I'm glad you like my style of debate. I have often been complimented on my ability to think straight.
Anyway, as I said, the question has been answered and, in the process, I have discovered a lot about the attitude of some fellow ABers to democracy and the way they allow their dislike of one particular woman to cloud their judgment.
Failing to defend the islands properly no more 'caused' the Argentine invasion than the shortness of the girl's skirt would have 'caused' any subsequent rape. It might have made the idea of rape more attractive to a rapist ,just as my open window made theft more attractive to a thief.
But numerous law-abiding citizens would not have burgled my house or raped the girl, just as numerous law-abiding countries did not take advantage of our neglect by invading the islands.
That was done by a murderous, corrupt dictator for political glory. It was his ambition that caused it.
I'm glad you like my style of debate. I have often been complimented on my ability to think straight.
Anyway, as I said, the question has been answered and, in the process, I have discovered a lot about the attitude of some fellow ABers to democracy and the way they allow their dislike of one particular woman to cloud their judgment.
BUT chakka35, your analogy was based on your claim that I had said Thatcher's policies caused the war. You go on "Failing to defend the islands properly no more 'caused' the Argentine invasion ... "
I DIDN'T SAY THAT! You will not find in any of my posts the claim that Thatcher's policies caused the war.
As I said, first you accuse someone of saying something they didn't, then you criticise them for it
I DIDN'T SAY THAT! You will not find in any of my posts the claim that Thatcher's policies caused the war.
As I said, first you accuse someone of saying something they didn't, then you criticise them for it
-- answer removed --
rojash, in your post of 29/11 at 11.58 you said that Thatcher helped to start the war in the first place.
It would have helped had you tried to make your meaning clearer rather than merely sitting back and telling me I'd got it wrong every time.
And no, I don't write leaders for the Doncaster Messenger, the Dubai Mercury, the Denbigh Monitor or whatever DM stands for.
lonnie, you seem to think that just because Argentina claims the Falklands she has a claim on them. She hasn't. Therefore talks would be meaningless. Also pointless because the islanders would never accept any form of deal with Argentina. If they ever did decide that they wanted closer relations with a South American country Argentina would be the last they would choose.
no.knowledge, I answered the original question comprehensively in my post of 01/12 at 14.02.
**
That's all from me folks, I have said all I want to say. So I'll leave you, again expressing my surprise and disapointment that none of you seem to be concerned with the democratic rights of the islanders or with Galtieri's monstrous behaviour. Ah well... 'Bye.
It would have helped had you tried to make your meaning clearer rather than merely sitting back and telling me I'd got it wrong every time.
And no, I don't write leaders for the Doncaster Messenger, the Dubai Mercury, the Denbigh Monitor or whatever DM stands for.
lonnie, you seem to think that just because Argentina claims the Falklands she has a claim on them. She hasn't. Therefore talks would be meaningless. Also pointless because the islanders would never accept any form of deal with Argentina. If they ever did decide that they wanted closer relations with a South American country Argentina would be the last they would choose.
no.knowledge, I answered the original question comprehensively in my post of 01/12 at 14.02.
**
That's all from me folks, I have said all I want to say. So I'll leave you, again expressing my surprise and disapointment that none of you seem to be concerned with the democratic rights of the islanders or with Galtieri's monstrous behaviour. Ah well... 'Bye.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Internet5 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Dores Anyone Know What This Means...
Technology20 mins ago
