• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

You traitorous, treasonous Left Wing swines!

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Defence spending on the Falkland Islands has dropped by 50% over six years. This at a time when the Argies are rumbling over doorstep territory they never even noticed until 1830.

Falklands defence spending plunges by 50 per cent in six years | Mail Online


But never mind. The American left is riding to the rescue. Hilary Clinton (minus the first 'n') has won the day. By wanting to persuade her fellow yellowbellies in London to cast doubt over the legitimacy of the rightful sovereignty of the Islands, the Argies are now pushing for Britain to abandon its people. Again.

Argentina celebrates diplomatic coup as Hillary Clinton calls for talks over … – Times Online - Rock's Blog Spot - RBS


The Labour Party wanted to hand over border control to Argentina in the '60s, much to the Islanders' rage. The Labour Party sold to Argentina the weapons it used against us in 1982. The Labour Party's backbenchers, despite Foot's declaration of support for the 1982 Liberation, howled like banshees for Margaret Thatcher's blood because they would rather Britain not fight back.

These are the scoundrels we are trusting with the safety and security of some of Britain's sovereign islands. Forget Iraq or Afghanistan, the Government would have to battle selflessly for its own People - an idea totally alien to the backstabbers in Power.
 
Last edited:

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,713
Reaction score
51,982
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Defence spending on the Falkland Islands has dropped by 50% over six years. This at a time when the Argies are rumbling over doorstep territory they never even noticed until 1830.

Falklands defence spending plunges by 50 per cent in six years | Mail Online


But never mind. The American left is riding to the rescue. Hilary Clinton (minus the first 'n') has won the day. By wanting to persuade her fellow yellowbellies in London to cast doubt over the legitimacy of the rightful sovereignty of the Islands, the Argies are now pushing for Britain to abandon its people. Again.

Argentina celebrates diplomatic coup as Hillary Clinton calls for talks over … – Times Online - Rock's Blog Spot - RBS


The Labour Party wanted to hand over border control to Argentina in the '60s, much to the Islanders' rage. The Labour Party sold to Argentina the weapons it used against us in 1982. The Labour Party's backbenchers, despite Foot's declaration of support for the 1982 Liberation, howled like banshees for Margaret Thatcher's blood because they would rather Britain not fight back.

These are the scoundrels we are trusting with the safety and security of some of Britain's sovereign islands. Forget Iraq or Afghanistan, the Government would have to battle selflessly for its own People - an idea totally alien to the backstabbers in Power.


Sorry about that. You see, we have spineless self-aggrandizing A-holes in power right now, who lack the moral fiber to remember who our friends are.

Do what you have to do. Hillary Hussien won't do anything other than squawk about it, and in 2012 things should get better.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,534
Reaction score
9,372
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- The Labour Party wanted to hand over border control to Argentina in the '60s, much to the Islanders' rage.

You're leaving out the agreements in the 70's that almost made the Falklands part of Argentina and the Islanders having to travel via Buenos Aires.

However...

-- The Labour Party sold to Argentina the weapons it used against us in 1982.

Which weapons are these? The Argentines used French fighter bombers, French Exocet missiles (which the French kept supplying even though we're "allies")

-- The Labour Party's backbenchers, despite Foot's declaration of support for the 1982 Liberation, howled like banshees for Margaret Thatcher's blood because they would rather Britain not fight back.[/I]

I was around at this time, a couple of guys from the year below me had been across as part of the Royal Marine Corps - I remember the "howling like Banshees" being the suspicion that Thatcher had given signals to Argentina to invade.
It was a labour government that had sent a task force in 1977 / 78 of warships (and a nuclear submarine) that warded off a pre 1980 invasion.

--These are the scoundrels we are trusting with the safety and security of some of Britain's sovereign islands. Forget Iraq or Afghanistan, the Government would have to battle selflessly for its own People - an idea totally alien to the backstabbers in Power.

If they discover oil and gas, there's not the slightest chance in hell that any British Govt would allow the Falklands to become Argentine - even if the Islanders all went psycho and demanded Argentine citizenship.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
British arms sold to Argentina:

The politics of British arms sales ... - Google Books

Fair to say the Tories also share some guilt. But Labour people are more culpable to ideas of just handing places over.



A number of noisy Labour MPs did indeed howl like banshees, for years afterwards too. I remember seeing a 1990s documentary on Channel Four (please let me remember the name, so I can check Youtube), in which various Labour MPs hurled spiteful abuse at Margaret Thatcher and none at General Galtieri. (Indeed, the final quote of the show was of some Labour twat saying "In 1982 Britain was ruled by a bad, bad person".)

Twenty-five years since the Malvinas war

Large segments of the Left have often lambasted Labour's official stance of the time in backing the liberation of the 'Malvinas'.


Let's hope they find oil in Gibraltar, then perhaps the 'ethical foreign policy' of Labour may backpedal there too:

Labour Trashes Colonies | The Sovereign Society


And what about the freedom of the Channel Islands...?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3575453/Jersey-makes-Brown-sweat.html


_____________________________________________________

Mind you, though, the Falklands affair does provide some inspiration for Labour:

Beating economic crisis will be our Falklands moment, say Labour MPs | Mail Online

_____________________________________________________

LABOUR - The natural party of TREASON:

http://www.labour-watch.com/antibrit.htm
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,534
Reaction score
9,372
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
British arms sold to Argentina:

--

Fair to say the Tories also share some guilt.

I was about to say - +do you want a list of all the countries we have sold arms to since 1945 that we have then been at odds / war with? A list of all the places we shouldn't have sold arms to would be even longer.

But Labour people are more culpable to ideas of just handing places over.

Examples? Or are you talking about places where the local populace wanted their independence i.e. former colonies?

-- A number of noisy Labour MPs did indeed howl like banshees, for years afterwards too. I remember seeing a 1990s documentary on Channel Four (please let me remember the name, so I can check Youtube), in which various Labour MPs hurled spiteful abuse at Margaret Thatcher and none at General Galtieri. (Indeed, the final quote of the show was of some Labour twat saying "In 1982 Britain was ruled by a bad, bad person".)

Again - it was a labour Govt that sent an armada to the Southern Atlantic, this stopped any build up or overflow into conflict apparently. Thatcher's policies changed some of that and the perception was that this gave the Argentines reason to beleive they could walk in and take the islands.

I remember insinuations in the 80's that Thatcher even wanted the war as this helped her win the following election.

- Let's hope they find oil in Gibraltar, then perhaps the 'ethical foreign policy' of Labour may backpedal there too:

Labour Trashes Colonies | The Sovereign Society

Your 2001 article states that "[INext on Labour’s abandonment list is Gibraltar. London has all but announced it will cede some sovereignty to Spain within two years, a move resolutely opposed by Gibraltar’s 30,000 inhabitants.][/I]"

Gibraltar remains as it has alwayas been. Diplomatic niceties aside - the stance has been to talk to Spain (who themselves own the Canaries and other islands off the African coast) and say it's up to the residents to decide.


- And what about the freedom of the Channel Islands...?

Jersey makes Brown sweat - Telegraph

What about it? The Channel Islands declared themselves independent and choose what laws they will accept. If France wanted to invade, who would the Channel Islanders look to for protection?
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In the earlier days of the Empire we assumed we'd have to give some colonies back later on. But later on came too soon for many people, particularly as it suited Labour's ideological book to jump on the trends of the times and start disseminating. That Leftists have also been very keen to de-emancipate British sovereign soil slice by slice just reveals a darker agenda.



"Again - it was a labour Govt that sent an armada to the Southern Atlantic, this stopped any build up or overflow into conflict apparently. Thatcher's policies changed some of that and the perception was that this gave the Argentines reason to beleive they could walk in and take the islands"

Well that's what you get when you assume you can trust the Argies to behave like grown-ups towards Britain. The childishness even extends to football, with most Argentinians crowing about Maradonna's World Cup cheating even today. And the fact a Labour government may have dared to abandon its talks on abandoning the Islanders because Argentina was forcing the process must have ruffled a good few Red feathers.




"Diplomatic niceties aside - the stance has been to talk to Spain (who themselves own the Canaries and other islands off the African coast) and say it's up to the residents to decide."

The fact they even think about transferring sovereignty is treason enough. And they're not mere 'residents' as if only there on suffrance or good will, but British citizens holding our passports.




The Channel Islands enjoy a special Devolution, something you'd expect Lefties to cheer but they don't. All the Islanders' roots and links lie with us, as they have since the Middle Ages when our early kingdom also comprised of half of France. When the Nazis invaded the British Channel Islands they were considered by all involved British territory behind the German lines.
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,534
Reaction score
9,372
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In the earlier days of the Empire we assumed we'd have to give some colonies back later on.

Who made this assumption?

The colonies were captured for Queen and Empire. Nobody (in that era) sacrificed troops and blood to capture soil only to give it away.

-- But later on came too soon for many people, particularly as it suited Labour's ideological book to jump on the trends of the times and start disseminating. That Leftists have also been very keen to de-emancipate British sovereign soil slice by slice just reveals a darker agenda.

Labour didn't exist when the empire was being created.. and the natives wanted their land back, it had little to do with Labour being gallant and handing other people's countries back to them. We fought (and lost) a war with the Americas to try and keep hold of America, Kenya etc. Many of these places fought bitter independence battles to gain freedom from the Empire.

-- Well that's what you get when you assume you can trust the Argies to behave like grown-ups towards Britain.

They think they have a claim on the Falklands.

--The fact they even think about transferring sovereignty is treason enough. And they're not bmere 'residents', but British citizens holding our passports.

No argument there.

-- The Channel Islands enjoy a special Devolution, something you'd expect Lefties to cheer but they don't. All the Islanders' roots and links lie with us, as they have since the Middle Ages when our early kingdom also comprised of half of France. When the Nazis invaded the British Channel Islands they were considered by all involved British territory behind the German lines.

The Channel Islanders ally to us when it suits and they don't when it doesn't. They are Crown dependencies and even part of the Commonwealth but that's it.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't know what it's worth, but Professor Simon Sharma, he of telly fame, reckoned that when the British Empire of nations was morphing into its commonly known imperial form, the general consensus of our governments was that we'd 'bring them up' and turn them into dependent trading partners with domestic autonomy. (It's on one of the episodes of History of Britain.)



Labour didn't exist at the start of the Empire, but it was around at the end. By that time we were too weak to hold onto territories whose people wanted to break from London, but Labour went a lot further than just moving with the times. It suited their 'dismantlist' ethos. 'Managed Decline' became the Whitehall motto before long, on everything.



"They think they have a claim on the Falklands." - Yeah, they have some growing up to do! A temporary camp of scrap metal merchants in 1982 doesn't represent a modern territorial claim!



What would happen if Scotland gained 'independence' and ran itself, though culturally and ancestrally linked to us? Would we abandon them if the place got invaded? You bet we wouldn't as the Left would demand we go in, just as they demand we police the world even today.
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,534
Reaction score
9,372
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't know what it's worth, but Professor Simon Sharma, he of telly fame, reckoned that when the British Empire of nations was morphing into its commonly known imperial form, the general consensus of our governments was that we'd 'bring them up' and turn them into dependent trading partners with domestic autonomy. (It's on one of the episodes of History of Britain.)

Completely disagree with Sharma - the aim of Empire was conquest and domination through subjugation (militarily and financially) of the native populace. We were never going to release the Americas / West Indies / African Colonies without a fight. We brought China to her knees in the Opium wars too - simply for market control and economic gain.

That's not autonomy.

'Managed Decline' became the Whitehall motto before long, on everything.

That's one way of looking at it - another is realising (in some cases) that a fruitless battle would use up more resources (soldiers etc) in trying to hold onto something that didn't want to stay part of the empire.

Besides - when in all the years of Empire did we actually create (through deliberate policy and effort) a country that could survive on its own?

-- What would happen if Scotland gained 'independence' and ran itself, though culturally and ancestrally linked to us? Would we abandon them if the place got invaded? You bet we wouldn't as the Left would demand we go in, just as they demand we police the world even today.


If Scotland became "independent" then they could be left to their own devices. If they joined NATO, they'd be covered under the NATO treaty anyway - if they called on NATO help and we as part of NATO would be obliged to help.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Besides - when in all the years of Empire did we actually create (through deliberate policy and effort) a country that could survive on its own?

Now this is interesting. I want to see where we go on this one, but first I have to know what you mean by 'survive'. Any country can exist but things can always be developed.

The British are widely credited with founding the concept of modern multi-national business, which is irony indeed when you look at how things are these days. But in India, business expansion merged with military expansion and we ended up with the Raj, to put it bluntly.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company]East India Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


India certainly became industrialised thanks to us, with proper schools and roads and utilities and what-have-you. We tried to do what we could, though not all of us were kind in it, and this has to be taken into account along with all the issues about suffrage and emancipation and things. It's certainly important not to judge everything by today's standards.
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,534
Reaction score
9,372
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- India certainly became industrialised thanks to us.

It's only just becoming a "Tiger Nation" type economy - nearly 40+ years after independence. What India has achieved is down to Indian effort - not British efforts through "bringing them up."

Even then, there are millions living in terrible poverty in Indian slums to this day.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Certainly by today's morality, you wouldn't want to go barging in with troops to change a country. If they want to do things themselves then they will.

We certainly should have run the Empire better. It was never for the benefit of the ordinary person anyway, which is why it's a nonsense to guilt-trip schoolchildren over slavery and give modern black people a complex over it.

Only a precious few rich mill owners, gentry and politicians felt any true benefit of the riches of Empire and world trade monopolies, with the rest of the people barely living any better than most people in India. Despite the great strides caused by the Industrial Revolution, based on iron and coal, not many people felt too much of a tangeable increase in the standard of living. Few had the vote, there were only peanuts for wages and country landlords often turned out villagers because it was much more profitable to keep livestock. So there was no great oppression of the natives as much as all that, just our people in sh** saw themselves as better off than those people in sh**.

The only thing you can say about the Empire in that direction is it that it helped Britain to maintain its status as a chief world power, and later as a significant player on the world stage as a money market and industrial powerhouse. This at least helped keep us going through the wars and provided some kind of momentum, even after the Empire had gone, to help us continue to improve living standards at long last and still be somebody in the world.

______________________________________________

A bit about the Rise and Fall and the Empire's legacy:

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/article/liverpool.htm

(Mind you, there were plenty of people who tried to do good, though the system didn't let them go very far.)
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,136
Reaction score
37,581
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sorry about that. You see, we have spineless self-aggrandizing A-holes in power right now, who lack the moral fiber to remember who our friends are.

Do what you have to do. Hillary Hussien won't do anything other than squawk about it, and in 2012 things should get better.

true. as Kissinger once said, with these people in power, "To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal."
 

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,550
Reaction score
2,879
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We certainly should have run the Empire better.

That one sentence illuminates your total lack of understanding of what an Empire constitutes. As IC has eloquently pointed out Empires are built on subjugation of the indigenous population for the benefit of 'the empire builder'. So the paradox of that one sentence should be staring you in the face.

Paul
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm no rampant imperialist. If I was then I probably wouldn't have said that the Empire didn't benefit too many ordinary people. But I do know that the British Empire yielded a least a few good things which must not be forgotten in the current fashion of completely denigrating it.

Living standards could have risen a lot higher than they did across our old colonies. Much of the infrastructure used by our old African colonies are still in existence and many old cities are not as well kept as before. If we had kept all the natives as serfs it wouldn't have worked, though the Empire did make men feel demeaned and second class citizens in their own country.

We have been colonial territories too and have often done quite well. A direct parallel is of the Roman Empire, though they apparently did more to help ordinary people.

That a great many soldiers who fought for us during the world wars were loyal colonial troops means that British culture, ties and civilisation wasn't wholly based on taking others for a ride. The Gurkha certainly know what it means.
 
Last edited:

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
38,306
Reaction score
27,385
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The Gurkha know all right, decades of pensions one eighth that of a British soldier's. They know.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yea, that's disgusting. Same old government. Just the parameters have changed.

These days there are lavish social security benefits for the likes of Anjem Chouderay's troublemakers in Leeds, nothing for the Gurkha. Mucky underclass scum turning their estates into sh**holes can make a decent living off the DHSS as they beat up old ladies or set fire to the post office, but people who fought for our country end up living in cardboard boxes under Chelsea Bridge.

Still, as long as our masters are alright.

_____________________________

http://www.soldiersoffthestreet.com/

http://rainbowwarrior2005.wordpress...t-payout-pittance-after-afghanistan-and-iraq/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-need-loans-to-eat-report-reveals-825928.html
 
Last edited:

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
38,306
Reaction score
27,385
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
So you agree with my highlighting your humungous error in claiming that
"British culture, ties and civilisation wasn't wholly based on taking others for a ride. The Gurkha certainly know what it means." you were entirely wrong?
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It was a humungus error that I forgot about the plight of the Gurkha in their battle with the Government.

I meant that colonial troops feeling enough of a tie to fight with us during the wars is testament that we did enough for their lot for them to believe that we were worth becoming brothers in arms.
 
Top Bottom