U.K. to block any sale of JAS-39s to Argentina

[The UK in Exile]

Which has nothing to do with Schengen.

They're both ways in which the EU / EC is slowly eroding the borders between nation-states.

Its not orginally an EC/EU idea. It was started by the member-states.

[Vassenor]

Then again clearly the EU is evil because it recognises the Falklands as British territory.

[Vassenor]

Then again clearly the EU is evil because it recognises the Falklands as British territory.

ANNEX II
OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF PART FOUR OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION APPLY
–
Greenland

New Caledonia and Dependencies

French Polynesia

French Southern and Antarctic Territories

Wallis and Futuna Islands

Mayotte

Saint Pierre and Miquelon

Aruba

Netherlands Antilles:
–
Bonaire

Curaçao

Saba

Sint Eustatius

Sint Maarten
-
Anguilla

Cayman Islands

Falkland Islands

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Montserrat

Pitcairn

Saint Helena and Dependencies

British Antarctic Territory

British Indian Ocean Territory

Turks and Caicos Islands

British Virgin Islands

Bermuda

Sauce. It's on page 425.

[Dracoria]

In other parts of the world.

check your facts. your blatant Anglophobia is blinding you.[/quote


The Indian Army began the war, in 1939, numbering just under 200,000 men.[1] By the end of the war it had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945.[1][2] Serving in divisions of infantry, armour and a fledgling airborne force, they fought on three continents in Africa, Europe and Asia.[1]
The Indian Army fought in Ethiopia against the Italian Army, in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia against both the Italian and German Army, and, after the Italian surrender, against the German Army in Italy. However, the bulk of the Indian Army was committed to fighting the Japanese Army, first during the British defeats in Malaya and the retreat from Burma to the Indian border; later, after resting and refitting for the victorious advance back into Burma, as part of the largest British Empire army ever formed. These campaigns cost the lives of over 36,000 Indian servicemen, while another 34,354 were wounded,[3] and 67,340 became prisoners of war.[4] Their valour was recognised with the award of some 4,000 decorations, and 38 members of the Indian Army were awarded the Victoria Cross or the George Cross.

I'd hate to tell you this, but 36,000 KIAs and 34,000 WIAs doesn't point toward that deep an involvement. According to Wikipedia, it was a more respectable 87,000 killed; this still pales to the British and their modern-day territories, which suffered 383,000 military deaths, the US at 407,000, China at between 3 and 4 million, and the Russians just squint and give a chuckle due to the USSR's loss of between 8 and 14 million (total losses including civilians and famine deaths were between 21 and 28 million).

Back to the topic,

The point of the falklands is not giving it Argentina but not giving it to the British, so as to uproot imperialism from this world

"Guys, I have an idea. Let's uproot imperialism in the world by taking a territory and forcefully annexing it to another state!"

So you would rather make a deal with someone who is slaughtering the Chinese why?

Because the colonized should use the conflict between the new colonist and the old colonist too there advantages and in a very weird way, the Red fort trials that sparked the Royal Indian navy mutiny gave us independence, so it did work in our favor, so I am thankful to bose and his men to let me decide my own future, yes even if he shook hands with the devil

It's a good thing the rampant Japanese expansion was going to stop right at the Indian border. Yep, an imperialist power that was flagrantly violating sovereign borders across Asia was going to leave just that one and the Soviet border alone, especially if India no longer had the support of the rest of the British empire. A definite win-win scenario, gee golly!

The Falklands is the last stronghold

But they want to be British.

Somehow that is a bad thing. Fuck, i am a American an I WANT to be British.

Canadian border. Now. Shoo.

[The balkens]

In other parts of the world.

check your facts. your blatant Anglophobia is blinding you.[/quote


The Indian Army began the war, in 1939, numbering just under 200,000 men.[1] By the end of the war it had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945.[1][2] Serving in divisions of infantry, armour and a fledgling airborne force, they fought on three continents in Africa, Europe and Asia.[1]
The Indian Army fought in Ethiopia against the Italian Army, in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia against both the Italian and German Army, and, after the Italian surrender, against the German Army in Italy. However, the bulk of the Indian Army was committed to fighting the Japanese Army, first during the British defeats in Malaya and the retreat from Burma to the Indian border; later, after resting and refitting for the victorious advance back into Burma, as part of the largest British Empire army ever formed. These campaigns cost the lives of over 36,000 Indian servicemen, while another 34,354 were wounded,[3] and 67,340 became prisoners of war.[4] Their valour was recognised with the award of some 4,000 decorations, and 38 members of the Indian Army were awarded the Victoria Cross or the George Cross.

I'd hate to tell you this, but 36,000 KIAs and 34,000 WIAs doesn't point toward that deep an involvement. According to Wikipedia, it was a more respectable 87,000 killed; this still pales to the British and their modern-day territories, which suffered 383,000 military deaths, the US at 407,000, China at between 3 and 4 million, and the Russians just squint and give a chuckle due to the USSR's loss of between 8 and 14 million (total losses including civilians and famine deaths were between 21 and 28 million).

Back to the topic,

The point of the falklands is not giving it Argentina but not giving it to the British, so as to uproot imperialism from this world

"Guys, I have an idea. Let's uproot imperialism in the world by taking a territory and forcefully annexing it to another state!"

Because the colonized should use the conflict between the new colonist and the old colonist too there advantages and in a very weird way, the Red fort trials that sparked the Royal Indian navy mutiny gave us independence, so it did work in our favor, so I am thankful to bose and his men to let me decide my own future, yes even if he shook hands with the devil

It's a good thing the rampant Japanese expansion was going to stop right at the Indian border. Yep, an imperialist power that was flagrantly violating sovereign borders across Asia was going to leave just that one and the Soviet border alone, especially if India no longer had the support of the rest of the British empire. A definite win-win scenario, gee golly!

But they want to be British.

Somehow that is a bad thing. Fuck, i am a American an I WANT to be British.

Canadian border. Now. Shoo.

Twas a expression, buddy.

Murica.

[Dracoria]

Twas a expression, buddy.

Murica.

Ahh. Well, to be fair, if the USA was to no longer exist tomorrow - let's say the Special Committee on Decolonization parted it out to various developing nations for some reason - I'd be headed to one of the Commonwealth countries or Ireland. Maybe the Falklands would be nice!

[The balkens]

Twas a expression, buddy.

Murica.

Ahh. Well, to be fair, if the USA was to no longer exist tomorrow - let's say the Special Committee on Decolonization parted it out to various developing nations for some reason - I'd be headed to one of the Commonwealth countries or Ireland. Maybe the Falklands would be nice!

Eh, i don't have much connection to this country, grandparents immigrated here after ww2 from Germany.

Britain for that prestige.

[Dracoria]

Ahh. Well, to be fair, if the USA was to no longer exist tomorrow - let's say the Special Committee on Decolonization parted it out to various developing nations for some reason - I'd be headed to one of the Commonwealth countries or Ireland. Maybe the Falklands would be nice!

Eh, i don't have much connection to this country, grandparents immigrated here after ww2 from Germany.

Britain for that prestige.

Some of my family have been very longtime Americans/Colonials. A bit from two native nations, and on the colonial side, can trace my family tree back to Thomas More (that side of the family tree mostly spread out through New England, particularly Vermont, and probably ate pies for breakfast). All of that should add up to some ancestral hate for the Brits, but you know what? I don't care. Any offenders are long, long dead anyway.

[Manisdog]

In other parts of the world.

check your facts. your blatant Anglophobia is blinding you.[/quote


The Indian Army began the war, in 1939, numbering just under 200,000 men.[1] By the end of the war it had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945.[1][2] Serving in divisions of infantry, armour and a fledgling airborne force, they fought on three continents in Africa, Europe and Asia.[1]
The Indian Army fought in Ethiopia against the Italian Army, in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia against both the Italian and German Army, and, after the Italian surrender, against the German Army in Italy. However, the bulk of the Indian Army was committed to fighting the Japanese Army, first during the British defeats in Malaya and the retreat from Burma to the Indian border; later, after resting and refitting for the victorious advance back into Burma, as part of the largest British Empire army ever formed. These campaigns cost the lives of over 36,000 Indian servicemen, while another 34,354 were wounded,[3] and 67,340 became prisoners of war.[4] Their valour was recognised with the award of some 4,000 decorations, and 38 members of the Indian Army were awarded the Victoria Cross or the George Cross.

I'd hate to tell you this, but 36,000 KIAs and 34,000 WIAs doesn't point toward that deep an involvement. According to Wikipedia, it was a more respectable 87,000 killed; this still pales to the British and their modern-day territories, which suffered 383,000 military deaths, the US at 407,000, China at between 3 and 4 million, and the Russians just squint and give a chuckle due to the USSR's loss of between 8 and 14 million (total losses including civilians and famine deaths were between 21 and 28 million).

Back to the topic,

The point of the falklands is not giving it Argentina but not giving it to the British, so as to uproot imperialism from this world

"Guys, I have an idea. Let's uproot imperialism in the world by taking a territory and forcefully annexing it to another state!"

Because the colonized should use the conflict between the new colonist and the old colonist too there advantages and in a very weird way, the Red fort trials that sparked the Royal Indian navy mutiny gave us independence, so it did work in our favor, so I am thankful to bose and his men to let me decide my own future, yes even if he shook hands with the devil

It's a good thing the rampant Japanese expansion was going to stop right at the Indian border. Yep, an imperialist power that was flagrantly violating sovereign borders across Asia was going to leave just that one and the Soviet border alone, especially if India no longer had the support of the rest of the British empire. A definite win-win scenario, gee golly!

But they want to be British.

Somehow that is a bad thing. Fuck, i am a American an I WANT to be British.

Canadian border. Now. Shoo.

1) We are talking about the largest volunteer force in history, you misread the point, it is that the British relied heavily on its colonial units and resources. Your way off the point or prefer to see what you want to see

2) The point is the demise of the British empire, and the demise of Britain in general.

3) The Japanese had a pact with the free India government, in a very weird way this led to Red fort trials that lead to the royal indian mutiny that lead to Indian Independence, in a very skewed way, The world war lead to Indian Independence.

4) With all due respect to the gentlemen above, He is highly disrecptful to the sacrifices that his ancestors made and the blood that was spilled so that he could have the right not to be a subject of the empire.

[Manisdog]

And last time I checked fighting to defend the British Empire was a white mans war.

Wait, you mean Kenyans, Indians, Burmese, Sierra Leonans, they're all white? I'm sure they'd be glad to know they can stick two fingers up at white supremacists.

No, These people did benefit from the war as in there colonial masters got weaker from it, but this was a war between the old world colonialism and New world colonialism, What the British propogated was something known as the White man's burden, check your history

[The balkens]

I'd hate to tell you this, but 36,000 KIAs and 34,000 WIAs doesn't point toward that deep an involvement. According to Wikipedia, it was a more respectable 87,000 killed; this still pales to the British and their modern-day territories, which suffered 383,000 military deaths, the US at 407,000, China at between 3 and 4 million, and the Russians just squint and give a chuckle due to the USSR's loss of between 8 and 14 million (total losses including civilians and famine deaths were between 21 and 28 million).



"Guys, I have an idea. Let's uproot imperialism in the world by taking a territory and forcefully annexing it to another state!"



It's a good thing the rampant Japanese expansion was going to stop right at the Indian border. Yep, an imperialist power that was flagrantly violating sovereign borders across Asia was going to leave just that one and the Soviet border alone, especially if India no longer had the support of the rest of the British empire. A definite win-win scenario, gee golly!



Canadian border. Now. Shoo.

1) We are talking about the largest volunteer force in history, you misread the point, it is that the British relied heavily on its colonial units and resources. Your way off the point or prefer to see what you want to see

2) The point is the demise of the British empire, and the demise of Britain in general.

3) The Japanese had a pact with the free India government, in a very weird way this led to Red fort trials that lead to the royal indian mutiny that lead to Indian Independence, in a very skewed way, The world war lead to Indian Independence.

4) With all due respect to the gentlemen above, He is highly disrecptful to the sacrifices that his ancestors made and the blood that was spilled so that he could have the right not to be a subject of the empire.

Again, none of my ancestors back in the 18th century fought against the crown. If anything, they wouldve gladly fought for it.

[Lordieth]

UK blocks sale of military aircraft that could be used against their own people right on Argentina's doorstep? A country with a leader who openly says she wants to claim the Falklands back for Argentina? Yeah, I have absolutely no problem with this whatsoever.

[Manisdog]

1) We are talking about the largest volunteer force in history, you misread the point, it is that the British relied heavily on its colonial units and resources. Your way off the point or prefer to see what you want to see

2) The point is the demise of the British empire, and the demise of Britain in general.

3) The Japanese had a pact with the free India government, in a very weird way this led to Red fort trials that lead to the royal indian mutiny that lead to Indian Independence, in a very skewed way, The world war lead to Indian Independence.

4) With all due respect to the gentlemen above, He is highly disrecptful to the sacrifices that his ancestors made and the blood that was spilled so that he could have the right not to be a subject of the empire.

Again, none of my ancestors back in the 18th century fought against the crown. If anything, they wouldve gladly fought for it.

By ancestors, I mean those who fought and bleed so that you could be citizen of a free from British imperialism

[The balkens]

Again, none of my ancestors back in the 18th century fought against the crown. If anything, they wouldve gladly fought for it.

By ancestors, I mean those who fought and bleed so that you could be citizen of a free from British imperialism

*Sigh*

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Is the UK in the right here to attempt to block a sale?

fuck yes, lol is this even a question?

[The UK in Exile]

UK blocks sale of military aircraft that could be used against their own people right on Argentina's doorstep?

we didn't think it was an issue in 1980. or 1983.

[Vassenor]

UK blocks sale of military aircraft that could be used against their own people right on Argentina's doorstep?

we didn't think it was an issue in 1980. or 1983.

So apparently we're not allowed to think it's an issue now when the Argentinians are dialling up the rhetoric.

[The UK in Exile]

we didn't think it was an issue in 1980. or 1983.

So apparently we're not allowed to think it's an issue now when the Argentinians are dialling up the rhetoric.

No. You are allowed to believe that a democratic country that repeatedly calling for a negotiated process within the bounds of international law is somehow the same as a military dictatorship that the brutally tortures and kills its own citizens, who your intelligence services have warned you will attack the falklands at somepoint and who have invaded british territory in the South Atlantic, are the same. But you're not allowed to call it thinking.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

So apparently we're not allowed to think it's an issue now when the Argentinians are dialling up the rhetoric.

No. You are allowed to believe that a democratic country that repeatedly calling for a negotiated process within the bounds of international law is somehow the same as a military dictatorship that the brutally tortures and kills its own citizens, who your intelligence services have warned you will attack the falklands at somepoint and who have invaded british territory in the South Atlantic, are the same. But you're not allowed to call it thinking.

Look at it this way - what does the UK have to gain for allowing the sale of 24 aircraft (a number which the Argentinians probably won't afford after all)? Profits from 30% of X number of aircraft? Doesn't sound too convincing to me.

[Vassenor]

repeatedly calling for a negotiated process within the bounds of international law

Because denial of self-determination is totally within international law.

[The UK in Exile]

No. You are allowed to believe that a democratic country that repeatedly calling for a negotiated process within the bounds of international law is somehow the same as a military dictatorship that the brutally tortures and kills its own citizens, who your intelligence services have warned you will attack the falklands at somepoint and who have invaded british territory in the South Atlantic, are the same. But you're not allowed to call it thinking.

Look at it this way - what does the UK have to gain for allowing the sale of 24 aircraft (a number which the Argentinians probably won't afford after all)? Profits from 30% of X number of aircraft? Doesn't sound too convincing to me.

You're unconvinced with the argument that we should sell goods for money?

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

Again, none of my ancestors back in the 18th century fought against the crown. If anything, they wouldve gladly fought for it.

By ancestors, I mean those who fought and bleed so that you could be citizen of a free from British imperialism

His ancestors came from Germany to the U.S in like, the 1800's or something. So no, they didn't.

And as he mentioned, they would've probably fought FOR the UK, not against it if anything. I know I would've.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Look at it this way - what does the UK have to gain for allowing the sale of 24 aircraft (a number which the Argentinians probably won't afford after all)? Profits from 30% of X number of aircraft? Doesn't sound too convincing to me.

You're unconvinced with the argument that we should sell goods for money?

No, the point is that the world isn't going to end if they block the sale. It's not as if this sale is economically crucial or some such.

[The UK in Exile]

You're unconvinced with the argument that we should sell goods for money?

No, the point is that the world isn't going to end if they block the sale. It's not as if this sale is economically crucial or some such.

No, but there's also the absence of a logical reason for blocking it.

Britain sells arms, its always sold arms, frequently to people it ends up fighting. If our standard is that we can't sell arms that might end up being used against us. Then we can't sell them period. To argue that Argentina is currently a special case is nonsense in light of who we have previously sold: Argentina, Iraq, Egypt, Russia.

[Vassenor]

No, the point is that the world isn't going to end if they block the sale. It's not as if this sale is economically crucial or some such.

No, but there's also the absence of a logical reason for blocking it.

Britain sells arms, its always sold arms, frequently to people it ends up fighting. If our standard is that we can't sell arms that might end up being used against us. Then we can't sell them period. To argue that Argentina is currently a special case is nonsense in light of who we have previously sold: Argentina, Iraq, Egypt, Russia.

And how many of those three currently pose an active and vocal threat to our territory?