Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
JUst suppose our armed forces were so stretched that the usual bars to entry were lowered dramatically and they needed people to battle with plundering Argies.
Would you pick up your rifle and bayonet and be on the plane out there with other like minded patriots or would you cower in a wardrobe fearing conscription and the ensuing white feather that you would receive when you mumbled something about being a 'conscientious objector' ?
Would you pick up your rifle and bayonet and be on the plane out there with other like minded patriots or would you cower in a wardrobe fearing conscription and the ensuing white feather that you would receive when you mumbled something about being a 'conscientious objector' ?
Show More
On second thoughts I think I'll sit it out in the Politics forum.
I'm pretty sure I'd be a liability in armed combat, so I'd do the patriotic thing and cower in my wardrobe.
Love war me!
Big shout out to the american hero who shot all those afghani civilians...
Love Ya Man
Big shout out to the american hero who shot all those afghani civilians...
Love Ya Man
Interesting programme this - rather poignant moments -
great meeting of the two soldiers just then
great meeting of the two soldiers just then
Personally I think at least the morality of it would be clear cut. One thing about the Falklands is that at least you are sure a vast majority of those living there WANT to be ruled/protected by the UK.
Would certainly be a different war to Iraq/Afghanistan.
The prospect of a Chit Chat Regiment would not fill me with confidence of lasting more than a few days though.
Would certainly be a different war to Iraq/Afghanistan.
The prospect of a Chit Chat Regiment would not fill me with confidence of lasting more than a few days though.
Not to keen on being cannon fodder in the trenches old boy, Il fly anything, if there is an air force option where do I sign?
the chi-chat regiment would be a disaster. All the Argies would have to do is send in a few topless stunnas with trays of lager, and they would all march off in the sunset.
All of this nonsense could be avoided if we would simply drone-strike Messi. Show them we mean business.
Couldn't possibly sign up as the Malvinas should be given to Argentina.
HistoryMaker... Just before Argentina invaded the islands it was well known that political thought was that a negotiated handover to Argentina was the most likely and indeed favoured outcome in the next few years. The islanders rely on Argentina for various services and logistically it would seem to make sense. However I do admit however that I am not a supporter of British imperialism which does affect mu views and hope my sentiments on this topic do not offend you or anyone else.
if it brings petrol down - ill press the button on the argies
I'm against British Imperialism
Jesus wept i hate to say it but it's 2012 not 1855,the queen is no longer the Empress of all India and i must all also inform you Lord Wellesey The Duke of Wellington has recently passed away,though thakfully we held of the bally ruskies at Inkerman.
Jesus wept i hate to say it but it's 2012 not 1855,the queen is no longer the Empress of all India and i must all also inform you Lord Wellesey The Duke of Wellington has recently passed away,though thakfully we held of the bally ruskies at Inkerman.
Not remotely offended.
The islanders rely on Argentina for various services and logistically it would seem to make sense.
By the same token then, you'd support the annexation of Monaco by France and San Marino by Italy then, despite any objections of the local populations?
The world is full of enclaves and exclaves that are the result of all sorts of geopolitical messes of centuries past. Who should control Kaliningrad/Konigsburg for example? At the moment it's Russian territory. Before that it was German. Its only two land borders are with Poland and Lithuania though. Many locals don't even want to be part of Russia, because they need a visa to get there through the two aforementioned countries.
How about Armenia and Azerbaijan? There are no fewer than four enclaves there. Would you just hand control over each so that there is contiguous land area, despite the fierce opposition of the locals.
Give the Channel Islands to the French? Spain to give Ceuta and Melilla to the Moroccans? America to cede Alaska to Canada?
Almost all would be ferociously contested by the locals.
Just before Argentina invaded the islands it was well known that political thought was that a negotiated handover to Argentina was the most likely and indeed favoured outcome
That was a terrible f*ck up by the British which cost lives, but is no justification for allowing them to be taken over now when the islanders don't want it.
However I do admit however that I am not a supporter of British imperialism which does affect mu views
One of the problems with history is that it's done, and can't be changed. There comes a point at which you just have to be pragmatic - if you punish people for their parents' parents' parents' mistakes, where do you stop? Do you want every cathedral in Spain stripped of its gold and returned to the Aztecs and Incas? How about that gold which found its way into private hands? British imperialism is barely worthy of the name these days.
We took the Falklands in 1838 (I think). Argentina effectively controlled only about 20% of its current area then. Should Patagonia and half of the Pampas be restored to native Americans? If so, who qualifies? Do you genetically test people?
It seems to me that the only way to conduct these things sensibly is to do everything possible to prevent countries from displacing people now, and trying to provide some sort of restoration to those that have been harmed within living memory.
The islanders rely on Argentina for various services and logistically it would seem to make sense.
By the same token then, you'd support the annexation of Monaco by France and San Marino by Italy then, despite any objections of the local populations?
The world is full of enclaves and exclaves that are the result of all sorts of geopolitical messes of centuries past. Who should control Kaliningrad/Konigsburg for example? At the moment it's Russian territory. Before that it was German. Its only two land borders are with Poland and Lithuania though. Many locals don't even want to be part of Russia, because they need a visa to get there through the two aforementioned countries.
How about Armenia and Azerbaijan? There are no fewer than four enclaves there. Would you just hand control over each so that there is contiguous land area, despite the fierce opposition of the locals.
Give the Channel Islands to the French? Spain to give Ceuta and Melilla to the Moroccans? America to cede Alaska to Canada?
Almost all would be ferociously contested by the locals.
Just before Argentina invaded the islands it was well known that political thought was that a negotiated handover to Argentina was the most likely and indeed favoured outcome
That was a terrible f*ck up by the British which cost lives, but is no justification for allowing them to be taken over now when the islanders don't want it.
However I do admit however that I am not a supporter of British imperialism which does affect mu views
One of the problems with history is that it's done, and can't be changed. There comes a point at which you just have to be pragmatic - if you punish people for their parents' parents' parents' mistakes, where do you stop? Do you want every cathedral in Spain stripped of its gold and returned to the Aztecs and Incas? How about that gold which found its way into private hands? British imperialism is barely worthy of the name these days.
We took the Falklands in 1838 (I think). Argentina effectively controlled only about 20% of its current area then. Should Patagonia and half of the Pampas be restored to native Americans? If so, who qualifies? Do you genetically test people?
It seems to me that the only way to conduct these things sensibly is to do everything possible to prevent countries from displacing people now, and trying to provide some sort of restoration to those that have been harmed within living memory.
logistically the USA had better have Cuba.
To all intents and purposes, it did until 1959
To all intents and purposes, it did until 1959
id sign up if i was allowed to wear my 'war..hm yeah...ah...what is it good for? absolutely nothin, say it again.'
I could press the button to launch on Buenos Aries.
Buenos Aries ?
Isn't it better to drop one on Argentina's 'Aldershot' ?
Isn't it better to drop one on Argentina's 'Aldershot' ?
Personally I think at least the morality of it would be clear cut. One thing about the Falklands is that at least you are sure a vast majority of those living there WANT to be ruled/protected by the UK.
Would certainly be a different war to Iraq/Afghanistan.
Would we have the stomach for fronting Argentina over these sheep hills if it wasn't for the same reasons we took part in the middle east debacle - oil
Would certainly be a different war to Iraq/Afghanistan.
Would we have the stomach for fronting Argentina over these sheep hills if it wasn't for the same reasons we took part in the middle east debacle - oil
Would we have the stomach for fronting Argentina over these sheep hills if it wasn't for the same reasons we took part in the middle east debacle - oil
Well, there were no known oil reserves in 1982, and presumably nobody even suspected the presence of the black gold unless it took 30 years to find it. Also, it required far more stomach back then to retake the islands that it will now to defend them with a big military base in place.
I can't agree with these comparisons with Iraq (messing with what's not ours) and the Falklands (defending what is). In my opinion, the only two really justified military campaigns undertaken by Britain last century were WW2 and the Falklands.
Well, there were no known oil reserves in 1982, and presumably nobody even suspected the presence of the black gold unless it took 30 years to find it. Also, it required far more stomach back then to retake the islands that it will now to defend them with a big military base in place.
I can't agree with these comparisons with Iraq (messing with what's not ours) and the Falklands (defending what is). In my opinion, the only two really justified military campaigns undertaken by Britain last century were WW2 and the Falklands.
We do like to ensure our fuel though don't we.
There was the political will to protect the Falklands from a direct attack in the 80's. It bolstered Thatchers popularity at a time when she needed it. It was also a direct and unprovoked attack and Britain would have seemed weak to let it pass.
My point was purely that after all the recent conflict Britain has been involved in, would the government still be so keen to posture had these reserves not been found.
The same could be said for Argentina's sudden re-interest however.
I respect the soldiers that bravely fight and have given their lives in Britain's name but our recent history doesn't preclude giving up our colonial territories and repatriating our citizens based on geographical common sense.
There was the political will to protect the Falklands from a direct attack in the 80's. It bolstered Thatchers popularity at a time when she needed it. It was also a direct and unprovoked attack and Britain would have seemed weak to let it pass.
My point was purely that after all the recent conflict Britain has been involved in, would the government still be so keen to posture had these reserves not been found.
The same could be said for Argentina's sudden re-interest however.
I respect the soldiers that bravely fight and have given their lives in Britain's name but our recent history doesn't preclude giving up our colonial territories and repatriating our citizens based on geographical common sense.
I agree with most of your last post, but "geographical common sense" just isn't enough for me here. HM's 21:54 post handily saves me the trouble of creating my own - what do you disagree with about that?
Yes a lot of that post makes sense although you can't always say "what is done is done". We have handed back plenty of territories which we once "owned". Take a good look across Africa. What about the Aboriginies in Australia?
I am not saying that it was should be done with the Falklands in this instance. It's a complex issue as we know only too well when we look across the Irish sea.
I am not saying that it was should be done with the Falklands in this instance. It's a complex issue as we know only too well when we look across the Irish sea.
The fact that the islanders want to be British is key though. I was actually thinking the other day that the Argies might actually be doing us a favour by being so aggressive. If it weren't for their threat, the Falklanders might be giving serious thought to becoming independent. There was an estimate a few weeks back that the oil could generate something like $176bn in tax revenue. This was unconfirmed, but gives some idea of the scale and certainly suggests that everyone on the islands would be a multi-millionaire if they took it all themselves. But they can't, because they would be instantly invaded by Argentina.
Being honest, the oil is a factor for me. I'd be for their remaining British anyway, but our economy's in no position to just give away that much money at the moment. You can't moan about the Olympics, or benefit cheats, or whatever and then just gift away that kind of money imo (unless it's the morally correct thing to do, which it isn't here).
Depending on what international law says about international waters, I'd be prepared to consider some kind of split of the oil profits with the Argies.
Being honest, the oil is a factor for me. I'd be for their remaining British anyway, but our economy's in no position to just give away that much money at the moment. You can't moan about the Olympics, or benefit cheats, or whatever and then just gift away that kind of money imo (unless it's the morally correct thing to do, which it isn't here).
Depending on what international law says about international waters, I'd be prepared to consider some kind of split of the oil profits with the Argies.
Yes a lot of that post makes sense although you can't always say "what is done is done". We have handed back plenty of territories which we once "owned". Take a good look across Africa
Africa's very different though. All the colonies still had large black majorities, so their independence was justified. Also, we're not talking about independence here, we're talking about a small, potentially valuable territory leaving one nation and being subsumed by another.
By 'what's done is done' I'd argue that the rule of thumb ought to be that when none of the people involved in whatever transgressions took place are still alive, an issue probably ought to be put to bed.
There is a slight problem with that view with respect to radiation poisoning, the effects of which can physically be passed from generation to generation.
Essentially, I'm emphatically not a believer in the biblical adage that the sins of the fathers shall be visited on the sons. As a QI aside - the bible isn't actually clear on this. Exodus suggests that they should be, Ezekiel suggests that they shouldn't, and Deuteronomy manages to suggest both in a single book!
Africa's very different though. All the colonies still had large black majorities, so their independence was justified. Also, we're not talking about independence here, we're talking about a small, potentially valuable territory leaving one nation and being subsumed by another.
By 'what's done is done' I'd argue that the rule of thumb ought to be that when none of the people involved in whatever transgressions took place are still alive, an issue probably ought to be put to bed.
There is a slight problem with that view with respect to radiation poisoning, the effects of which can physically be passed from generation to generation.
Essentially, I'm emphatically not a believer in the biblical adage that the sins of the fathers shall be visited on the sons. As a QI aside - the bible isn't actually clear on this. Exodus suggests that they should be, Ezekiel suggests that they shouldn't, and Deuteronomy manages to suggest both in a single book!
It's clear Argentina should be handed to the Falklands imo. It's only a few hundred miles of its coast.
Look at me rambling on, I still haven't actually answered the thread title.
I would not volunteer unless I felt that the British mainland was under threat for some reason.
I would willingly serve if conscripted though, providing there was universal conscription for which there weren't too many get out clauses for use by the rich/creative/cowardly. One reason that the Vietnam War was so reviled in the States is that in one way or another, ethnic minorities and the poor ended up being sent out there in disproportionate numbers. An awful lot of the great and the good's children ended up finding a way out, or getting a cushy, not to mention safe, posting.
I would not volunteer unless I felt that the British mainland was under threat for some reason.
I would willingly serve if conscripted though, providing there was universal conscription for which there weren't too many get out clauses for use by the rich/creative/cowardly. One reason that the Vietnam War was so reviled in the States is that in one way or another, ethnic minorities and the poor ended up being sent out there in disproportionate numbers. An awful lot of the great and the good's children ended up finding a way out, or getting a cushy, not to mention safe, posting.
It's clear Argentina should be handed to the Falklands imo. It's only a few hundred miles of its coast.
I'd like to volunteer to take part please, but only if I can be in charge.
A Field Marshall or an Admiral or something like that.
A Field Marshall or an Admiral or something like that.
Non-volunteer here as I reckon the Argies wouldn't need my help
I'd be more than happy to join a ChitChat Militia for foreign adventures and a share of the spoils.
Not sure how a CCM would look though: would they resemble Arkan's Tigers or the Walmington-on-Sea Platoon of the Home Guard?
Otherwise agree with HM.
Not sure how a CCM would look though: would they resemble Arkan's Tigers or the Walmington-on-Sea Platoon of the Home Guard?
Otherwise agree with HM.
I am digging my trench deeper here in west london and polishing my lee enfield
but to defend a bunch of backward sheep farmers
no way!!!
but to defend a bunch of backward sheep farmers
no way!!!
I don't mind a country defending its own territory for oil, just not invading another.
curious-cat
21 Mar 12 21:57
logistically the USA had better have Cuba.
By the same token Bangladesh should get Newham.
21 Mar 12 21:57
logistically the USA had better have Cuba.
By the same token Bangladesh should get Newham.
History Maker...I take on board what you said in your post 21.54 (21/3) and what I would like to try and explain my current thinking regarding the Falklands/Malvinas. I remember the jingoism associated with the Falklands conflict and the now infamous 'Gotcha' headline in the Sun still turns my stomach. These factors combined with a deep dislike of Thatcher influence my current views and I appreciate that this should not be the case. I actually thought about applying for a job on the islands but thought better of it when the job description also included advice on the best way to grow various foodstuffs.I realised at the point how much I liked my home comforts....for that reason alone I would not sign up.
Happy to be parachuted into Buenos Aries, kitted out in smoking jacket, cigarillo in holder and the finest bottle of Albanian sherry money can buy. Someone has to look after those worried Argentinian women while their men are rounded up and conscripted as cannon fodder. I do draw the line at any with a moustache, (some of them South American birds can be a little hairy). Saying that they do say war is hell so maybe with the lights of for king and country and all that.
Admirable caddishness Spartan, but isn't Albanian sherry an oxymoron?
Pollensa 22 Mar 12 22:29
I remember the jingoism associated with the Falklands conflict and the now infamous 'Gotcha' headline in the Sun still turns my stomach.
Gotcha? I thought it said Gertcha. Nevertheless I'd still fight the dagos be it over Oil, Sheep, Corned Beef, Fray Bentos pies, Handball goals in the World Cup.... you name it and I'd serve it up to them
I remember the jingoism associated with the Falklands conflict and the now infamous 'Gotcha' headline in the Sun still turns my stomach.
Gotcha? I thought it said Gertcha. Nevertheless I'd still fight the dagos be it over Oil, Sheep, Corned Beef, Fray Bentos pies, Handball goals in the World Cup.... you name it and I'd serve it up to them
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539