| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) 16:58 - Jan 17 with 16834 views | blueytheblue |
Can't remember what the number for this thread wouldbe...
So to sum it up, Corbyn's views are :-
Have nuclear submarines without nukes; after all you can get veggie burgers which are like burgers. With Veggies only in.
Talk to Argentina despite nobody on the Falklands ( including the penguins ) wanting to be ruled by the Argies.
Talk to ISIS because a nice cup of tea, comfy chair and informal discussion on Marxism and the impact on Kim Kardashian's arse will make Daesh realise their desire for a worldwide Islamic State is a tad silly
Allow secondary strikes and flying pickets because what the world really, really lacks right now is a good acapella group. [Post edited 17 Jan 2016 17:00]
|  |
| |  |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 18:15 - Jan 17 with 2067 views | longlostjack |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 17:55 - Jan 17 by blueytheblue |
Can't see a situation because the nuclear deterrent is thus working. Checks and balances, even the nuttiest of dictator won't launch a nuke knowing for everyone launched five will be returned.
And why should they thus move? People living there have over 9 generations of family from the islands. A perfectly happy community, self sufficient for the most part, own government - yet should be forced to move through dogma?
The less anyone interferes in the world the better. Doesn't mean the West should fail to act against Daesh - I doubt many Syrians will whine about colonialism should the West destroy Daesh.
No sense at all. Strike with all the disruption to the public that can cause on an issue utterly irrelevant to that sector? A ridiculous notion and one I'd assume the vast majority of people won't agree with. Indeed, it'll be interesting when the rule regarding having to opt in to political donations as part of union membership kicks in - that'll be a true test of how strong union members backing for Labour is. |
Political party's election war chests should be state funded and strictly audited. Enough of this lobbying - be it from unions or, in the case of the Tory party, big corporate. |  |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 18:18 - Jan 17 with 2060 views | controversial_jack |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 17:55 - Jan 17 by blueytheblue |
Can't see a situation because the nuclear deterrent is thus working. Checks and balances, even the nuttiest of dictator won't launch a nuke knowing for everyone launched five will be returned.
And why should they thus move? People living there have over 9 generations of family from the islands. A perfectly happy community, self sufficient for the most part, own government - yet should be forced to move through dogma?
The less anyone interferes in the world the better. Doesn't mean the West should fail to act against Daesh - I doubt many Syrians will whine about colonialism should the West destroy Daesh.
No sense at all. Strike with all the disruption to the public that can cause on an issue utterly irrelevant to that sector? A ridiculous notion and one I'd assume the vast majority of people won't agree with. Indeed, it'll be interesting when the rule regarding having to opt in to political donations as part of union membership kicks in - that'll be a true test of how strong union members backing for Labour is. |
Makes me wonder how other countries without nukes have managed to avoid being invaded | | | |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 18:30 - Jan 17 with 2050 views | Lord_Bony |
This nuclear deterrent BS makes me laugh...
It is estimated it would take between 10 to 40 modern supernukes to end civilisation and shortly afterwards most life on the planet through poisonous radiation and the nuclear winter.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY ESTIMATED TO BE 19,000 operational nukes in the world.
It would only take five to ten hidden nukes for the UK not to be messed with by the Russians (our obvious threat)
The money we are going to spend is obscene,unnecessary and could be put to better use. |  |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 18:35 - Jan 17 with 2041 views | Vinnie |
Corbyn is a ****.Fact. | | | |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 18:36 - Jan 17 with 2040 views | Swanzay |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 18:06 - Jan 17 by dailew |
Plenty of countries around the word that have no nuclear weapons and haven't been invaded since their invention.
They don't have to move.
There's always some reason for just one more campaign in the Middle East.
Makes sense for the workers. It all depends whose side you're on. |
Mainly becuase though, they dont continuously invade other countries, thinking they are in some crazy way superior. |  | | |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 18:39 - Jan 17 with 2030 views | Swanzay |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 18:30 - Jan 17 by Lord_Bony |
This nuclear deterrent BS makes me laugh...
It is estimated it would take between 10 to 40 modern supernukes to end civilisation and shortly afterwards most life on the planet through poisonous radiation and the nuclear winter.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY ESTIMATED TO BE 19,000 operational nukes in the world.
It would only take five to ten hidden nukes for the UK not to be messed with by the Russians (our obvious threat)
The money we are going to spend is obscene,unnecessary and could be put to better use. |
Plus is inoperable without a 'code' from our US masters!
Stange that itsn't it... | | | |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 19:05 - Jan 17 with 2015 views | Lohengrin |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 17:51 - Jan 17 by Darran |
Wrong site for defending pedos. |
There are plenty of Labour voters on here who keep supporting them after Rotherham.
If the cap fits... |  |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 19:19 - Jan 17 with 2002 views | epaul |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 17:43 - Jan 17 by dailew |
Can't see a situation where nuclear weapons could be used or threatened to be used.
If the Falklanders want to be British they can live in Britain, not 8000 miles away.
The less that Britain interferes in the world the better it will be. Look at all the problem areas around the world. Palestine, Kashmir, Zimbabwe, Iraq. All places shaped by British colonial meddling.
So workers in one sector can show solidarity and support for workers in other sectors. Makes perfect sense. |
My sentiments exactly |  |
| The hair and the beard have gone I am now conforming to society, tis a sad day
The b*stards are coming back though |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 14:16 - Jan 18 with 1907 views | Lohengrin |
Yes, but the Kelpers are of white Celtic and Anglo-Saxon stock. Descendents, for the most part, of British servicemen. Off the top of my head I can't imagine a group of people that Corbyn and his Androphagoi would hate more. | |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 14:19 - Jan 18 with 1903 views | controversial_jack |
No mention that the islanders were not full British citizens before the conflict | | | |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 14:20 - Jan 18 with 1903 views | Phil_S |
Why not just add to the original thread? |  | | |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 15:10 - Jan 18 with 1872 views | Kerouac |
This "Falklands should be handed over to the Argentinians" argument is so fukking stupid.
To buy that shite you have to be a special kind of ignoramus / weak lilly livered coward.
The first recording of the existence of the Falklands islands was written by a Brit (Captain John Strong) in 1690. - FACT
There was no evidence of any human activity on these islands and they were completely uninhabited - FACT
The first settlement on the Falklands was completed by the French on East Falkland in 1764 (A continuous settlement being the best claim to a territory, they were hoping to claim the Falklands before we could). - FACT
2 years later, 1766 Brits settled on Saunders Island (This was done to ensure that the islands that British Captain John Strong discovered were claimed for Britain and stop the French getting their hands on them) - FACT
AT THIS POINT THERE WAS NO SUCH PLACE AS ARGENTINA - FACT
The SPANISH COLONY of River Plate was not even settled until 1776, At which point the British settlement had been going 10 years (the French having buggered off, bullied off their settlement by a Spanish ship) - FACT
The Brits then fekked off leaving a plaque claiming the islands for Britain.
There was a revolution in the Spanish colony in 1810 - FACT
The Argentines claimed independence from Spain in 1816 - FACT
There ensued a civil war in the Spanish Colony - FACT
Britain came back and settled the Falklands properly in 1832 (mostly Scottish settlers) - FACT
The Argentines didn't even get around to writing a constitution until 1853 - FACT
Argentina was only formerly recognised by Spain and the rest of the World in 1857 - FACT
So as anyone with even half a brain can see from the facts...
- We were there first
- We made 2 serious attempts to settle it the second attempt taking hold.
- and we did this before there even was an Argentina
- There were no indigenous people's on the Island (and had never been) before we discovered it.
- The descendants of those Scottish settlers have made the islands their home, have built businesses, harbours, infrastructure etc
A thriving independent economy actually.
Tribes of Indians didn't do that (there never was any) and the descendants of Spanish colonists, who have no claim to the islands or their waters whatsoever, certainly never did.
Yet some would just hand over these people's homes, businesses, their land because Argentina says the islands are called 'Islas Malvinas' and would like us to hand it over?!?!?
Fukking weak cowards. [Post edited 18 Jan 2016 15:15]
|  |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 15:18 - Jan 18 with 1856 views | Groo |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 14:20 - Jan 18 by Phil_S |
Why not just add to the original thread? |
I just added it to the first Corbyn thread I seen |  |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 15:19 - Jan 18 with 1851 views | trampie |
France controlled the islands first and then they gave it to Spain with money exchanging hands between the French and Spanish with the French condition that the British did not get it off the Spanish.
Spain interpreted the Treaty of Utrecht as giving them the islands anyway and they had left a plaque there claiming sovereignty at one point, the forerunner of the Argentine state gained independence from Spain and therefore Argentina claimed the Falklands |  |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 15:50 - Jan 18 with 1687 views | Groo |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 15:10 - Jan 18 by Kerouac |
This "Falklands should be handed over to the Argentinians" argument is so fukking stupid.
To buy that shite you have to be a special kind of ignoramus / weak lilly livered coward.
The first recording of the existence of the Falklands islands was written by a Brit (Captain John Strong) in 1690. - FACT
There was no evidence of any human activity on these islands and they were completely uninhabited - FACT
The first settlement on the Falklands was completed by the French on East Falkland in 1764 (A continuous settlement being the best claim to a territory, they were hoping to claim the Falklands before we could). - FACT
2 years later, 1766 Brits settled on Saunders Island (This was done to ensure that the islands that British Captain John Strong discovered were claimed for Britain and stop the French getting their hands on them) - FACT
AT THIS POINT THERE WAS NO SUCH PLACE AS ARGENTINA - FACT
The SPANISH COLONY of River Plate was not even settled until 1776, At which point the British settlement had been going 10 years (the French having buggered off, bullied off their settlement by a Spanish ship) - FACT
The Brits then fekked off leaving a plaque claiming the islands for Britain.
There was a revolution in the Spanish colony in 1810 - FACT
The Argentines claimed independence from Spain in 1816 - FACT
There ensued a civil war in the Spanish Colony - FACT
Britain came back and settled the Falklands properly in 1832 (mostly Scottish settlers) - FACT
The Argentines didn't even get around to writing a constitution until 1853 - FACT
Argentina was only formerly recognised by Spain and the rest of the World in 1857 - FACT
So as anyone with even half a brain can see from the facts...
- We were there first
- We made 2 serious attempts to settle it the second attempt taking hold.
- and we did this before there even was an Argentina
- There were no indigenous people's on the Island (and had never been) before we discovered it.
- The descendants of those Scottish settlers have made the islands their home, have built businesses, harbours, infrastructure etc
A thriving independent economy actually.
Tribes of Indians didn't do that (there never was any) and the descendants of Spanish colonists, who have no claim to the islands or their waters whatsoever, certainly never did.
Yet some would just hand over these people's homes, businesses, their land because Argentina says the islands are called 'Islas Malvinas' and would like us to hand it over?!?!?
Fukking weak cowards. [Post edited 18 Jan 2016 15:15]
|
No bad except a few errors in your FACTS :)
1. John Strong was the first European known to walk on the Islands, he wasn't the first recorded discoverer.
They first appeared on maps around the 1520's, its unknown who saw them first, they appeared on maps at the time which were created by adding information as it came in from all sources. It's thought that it may have been the Portuguese, they had no reason to publicise it as they were on the Spanish side of their treaty with Spain.
John Davis on the Desire made the first recorded discovery in 1592, Richard Hawkins made the second in 1594 and he claimed the Islands in the name of Queen Elizabeth and called them Hawkins Maidenland.
John Strong was surveying them.
2. The Spanish colony of River Plate was started in the 16th Century, the Spanish never made a claim on the Islands until 1767, when they persuaded the French to give up their claim due to family ties. Spain never paid much attention to these small islands when they had gold and silver on the mainland, they only became interested when other European Countries started to settle them.
3. There was no revolution in 1810, in fact they were in favour of the true Spanish king, they were revolting against Napolean's brother being made king. This and their successful repulsion of British attacks in 1806 and 1807 pathed the way for their independence move in 1816.
4. Britain never went back with Scottish settlers in 1832, it never became an official colony until 1840. In 1829 the United Provinces (Argentina's predecessor) made a businessman Luis Vernet governor, Vernet had been running a business on the islands (with British permission) since 1826. Britain protested and warned them that the islands were British sovereign territory, they didn't reply to the warning.
In 1831 Vernet captured 3 American whaler ships because they didn't have a license from him, one of those ships escaped and in retaliation America sent a ship, Lexinton, which went to the islands and captured the leaders of Vernets settlement, destroyed their guns, recovered the American ships and cargoes and took most of the settlers off the Island. America complained to Britain for allowing pirates on the island.
In 1832 the United province declared they were sending a Garrison to the islands, Britain again protested and warned them to stay away.
In October 1832 the garrison arrived, the leader was made governor. Within a month the men mutinied and killed the leader, the second in command then recovered control and imprisoned the mutineers.
In December 1832 three British ships arrived at the old British fort and settlement and reclaimed the islands. In January 1833 one of the ships arrived at Vernets settlement and ordered the garrison to leave, which they did without a fight.
In 1845 Britain and France started a blockade against the United provinces as they were restricting trade to Paraguay, taxing anyone who made their way to Paraguay. In 1849 seeing not enough benefit of continuing Britain and France made separate peace treaties with the United Provinces, signed in 1850.
As no mention was made of the Falklands in the treaty, the norm at the time was any territory held by one side would be left with that side unless any mention was made in the treaty. This was seen as ending any dispute with the United Provinces over the Falklands.
The only other claimant left for the islands was Spain, in 1863, just prior to travelling to Argentina to officially recognise the Country, the Spanish delegation stopped off at the Falklands, during which time they fired an official salute which was seen as recognising British sovereignty for the first time. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 16:03 - Jan 18 with 1678 views | Groo |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 15:19 - Jan 18 by trampie |
France controlled the islands first and then they gave it to Spain with money exchanging hands between the French and Spanish with the French condition that the British did not get it off the Spanish.
Spain interpreted the Treaty of Utrecht as giving them the islands anyway and they had left a plaque there claiming sovereignty at one point, the forerunner of the Argentine state gained independence from Spain and therefore Argentina claimed the Falklands |
France were the first to send settlers, yes. They were Arcadians displaced from Canada during the 7 year war. that was in 1765. They knew of Britains claim and plans and got in first as retaliation for Canada.
Britain finally sent settlers and built a garrison in 1766, they had been planning this for some time, going back to the 1740's. They made the claim as reasserting the previous claim. Britain had seen these Islands as being British since the 16th Century.
At first neither side knew the other was there.
The French and Spanish kings were cousins and had family pacts, through this Spain pressured the French to give up their claim and they compensated the French settlers who went into the Pacific and found another Island there. The first Spanish claim came in 1767.
The Treaty of Utrecht (1713) returned territories held by Spain prior to the war of Succession. The Falklands were never held by Spain, in fact Britain had already claimed them.
Argentina inherited nothing from Spain, they took only what they could hold. The boundaries bear no resemblance to what they were at the time of their declaration of independence. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 16:46 - Jan 18 with 1656 views | exiledclaseboy |
F*ck me, anyone would think that the future of the Falklands is the most pressing issue this country faces. |  |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 17:25 - Jan 18 with 1632 views | dailew |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 16:46 - Jan 18 by exiledclaseboy |
F*ck me, anyone would think that the future of the Falklands is the most pressing issue this country faces. |
FACT. |  |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 11:24 - Jan 19 with 1546 views | Kerouac |
It's the principle though isn't it.
Glib phrases from the likes of Dailew like this;
"If the Falklanders want to be British they can live in Britain, not 8000 miles away."
sums up the attitude of Corbyn and people like him quite neatly.
That is people's lives, homes, land and businesses you are talking about.
Can anyone give me 1 valid reason why they should be forced to give up what they and generations of their family have struggled and worked for?
Ever heard of self-determination? They don't want to be part of Argentina. Why on earth should they accept being bullied. They have long been British and we need to do the right thing by them.
Try and come back with a valid argument rather than glib statements like;
"F*ck me, anyone would think that the future of the Falklands is the most pressing issue this country faces."
Because you personally couldn't care less about the Falklands doesn't mean that this country shouldn't do the right thing by it's citizens.
There are plenty on the left that argue daily on here that we need to do the right thing by minorities on the British Isles, even do the right thing by people who aren't even our citizens and therefore NOT our responsibility.
The 3000 Falkland Islanders are our responsibility as long as they wish to remain British. | |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 13:40 - Jan 19 with 1500 views | GehbeHindert_Bosman |
Can't we have a whipround to send feeble-minded Fabian feckwits like Corbinski and Abbot off to the next Da'esh Jamboree on a fact finding mission?
I'm confident that's the last we'd ever see of them and then we can get back to "Politics For Grown Ups" rather than suffer their Ladybird Janet and John version of it...
The only reason those donkey-shafting UK hating vermin in Buenos Aires have been interested in the Falklands since the 1970's is when the geological reports of potential oil and gas reserves started rolling in before that I doubt many of the slimy barturds could point to it on a map. |  | | |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 14:27 - Jan 19 with 1476 views | skippyjack |
The Falklands has an outer oil supply.. the Argies want the oil, and it's British territory.
They know it's British territory by right.. and they know it has an oil field.
how many times does it have to go round and round and round and round and round the same poxy circle.
This is an oil field Britain has a 'right' to invade. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 14:29 - Jan 19 with 1474 views | Groo |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 13:40 - Jan 19 by GehbeHindert_Bosman |
Can't we have a whipround to send feeble-minded Fabian feckwits like Corbinski and Abbot off to the next Da'esh Jamboree on a fact finding mission?
I'm confident that's the last we'd ever see of them and then we can get back to "Politics For Grown Ups" rather than suffer their Ladybird Janet and John version of it...
The only reason those donkey-shafting UK hating vermin in Buenos Aires have been interested in the Falklands since the 1970's is when the geological reports of potential oil and gas reserves started rolling in before that I doubt many of the slimy barturds could point to it on a map. |
Its not oil, it's more to do with the whole Southern Ocean and Antarctica.
Their claims resurfaced in the late 1930's, with the fascist Peron. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Corbyn 4 ( 5? 6?) on 14:41 - Jan 19 with 1463 views | acejack3065 |
That article is almost six years old... |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
