6000 british soldiers going to war tonight

[-:Undertaker:-]

Okay let's just sit back and let a fanatical minority take over the world. Where have I heard that before?

How will they take over the world?

They have not died for nothing. About the same number of british Soldiers have died in Afghanistan, or maybe a few more since 2002(8 years), than in 10 weeks during the Falkland conflict and they are welcome in the country of Afghanistan. These soldiers were all given a hero's welcome on return.

The Falklands was a winnable war and was for a number of good reasons, Afghanistan, as shown by my various examples is an unwinnable war which is only making the whole thing worse, as did the Invasion of Iraq. Of course they will be given a heroes welcome and I don't disrespect the troops either, i'd gladly honour our troops and i'm not saying we shouldn't.

Russia didn't win the conflict because they were trying to get rid of the Mudjahdine the moderate people who are now in charge of the country and who had the help of other countries. Russia had no support from the Afghanistan people.

Is this the same Mujahideen which Osama Bin Laden was a member of, of which we armed against the Soviet Union and who are now shooting at our troops with our own British/American weapons?

Could it also be the same government which also rigged elections and is headed by Hamid Karzai who Michael Moore helpfully pointed out in his Farenheit 9/11, was somebody who had worked for the oil company UNOCAL?

If all countries remove all troops what happens then? What do you think should happen? Al-Qaeda terrorises the world globally. In Afghanistan they have taken to 'suicide' training camps and even bought children from destitute families to be suicide bombers. They rescued about 8 of them the other day.

Yes and in China many go missing everyday, in Iran they execute people for being homosexual, in Saudi Arabia they still perform public stonings, in North Korea its people are impoverished and trapped by their socialist government, in Cuba political opponents are still in jail for their opposition to socialism/communism, in Africa people starve while their government eats and dines in grotesque wealth - what would you like us to do?

I have said before, you cannot stop terrorism. You hit 1 and 10 more sprout up.

You may think it is a 'lost' cause but I do think that your comments are quite simplistic and do not address the differences here. There is much more we don't know about than what we do about regarding what is happening in the world. My Dad was helping with a documentary about what Saddam Hussein was doing to his own people for his entertainment. One was putting them head first into a meat grinding machine and other stuff is just to gory to put here.

So I take it you are now in full support of invading China (nuclear), North Korea (nuclear), Northern Pakistan (nuclear), Cuba, Zimbabwe, Iran (massive army), Saudi Arabia (modern airforce supplied by us) and others?

I have addressed the differences, you have ignored my examples of guerilla warfare and treat this battle so simply as though we were fighting a convential war.

If Hitler had been left to his own devices god knows what would have happened. Stalin massacred 7 million Ukranians. Other dictators such as Trotsky, Mao and Lenin only stayed in power because of mass murder of millions. The world is just not safe with fanatics like this around. The soldiers signed up to defend our country and are defending it against global terrorism and to say they died for nothing is not showing them the respect they deserve in my view.

Again, I shall ask;- you also now support invading China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Zimbabwe and the rest?. Evil people exist yes, and going into a country thinking you can just solve everything with western democracy is dream-like.

I believe in hindsight most people believe that Vietham was a mistake but that doesn't mean all conflicts are and seriously wars from the 1800's bear little relation as to what is going on in the world today.

I am not discussing whether people supported the Vietnam war or not, I have shown in many examples (the most recent being Vietnam) how these wars cannot be won when up against an enemy who uses guerilla warfare. You say 1870s battles have little in relation to the world today, ok then fine so hopefully you could address the battles I brought up which have happened in modern times.

- The defeat of the superior Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
- The defeat of the superior Chinese Nationalists by the CPC.
- The defeat of the vastly superior United States by the Vietcong.

Its all very well said and done by saying i'm wrong, but when history is actually showing you that this type of battle and war cannot be won - its very hard to justify why we should send our men and women into a war which in the end, will fail.

[Catzsy]

How will they take over the world?

That is their main aim - to rid the world of 'infidels' - without resistance who knows what would happen?

The Falklands was a winnable war and was for a number of good reasons, Afghanistan, as shown by my various examples is an unwinnable war which is only making the whole thing worse, as did the Invasion of Iraq. Of course they will be given a heroes welcome and I don't disrespect the troops either, i'd gladly honour our troops and i'm not saying we shouldn't.

Saying they died for nothing amounts to a certain amount of disrepect in my view. The Falklands it seems to me was a publicity stunt by the then ailing prime minister , Margaret Thatcher who saw it as an opportunity to get back into favour and it worked. I am sure we could have spent more time on dip
lomacy there.

Is this the same Mujahideen which Osama Bin Laden was a member of, of which we armed against the Soviet Union and who are now shooting at our troops with our own British/American weapons?

Could it also be the same government which also rigged elections and is headed by Hamid Karzai who Michael Moore helpfully pointed out in his Farenheit 9/11, was somebody who had worked for the oil company UNOCAL?

Yes he was fighting then but was not the same person then - it was not until later that he turned to terroism & fanaticism. Please don't get me started on Farenheit 9/11 - that is a very controversial and highly emotive documentary. He criticises anything that will make him money. Their government isn't perfect I admit but it's better than the taliban getting a foothold back into government.

Yes and in China many go missing everyday, in Iran they execute people for being homosexual, in Saudi Arabia they still perform public stonings, in North Korea its people are impoverished and trapped by their socialist government, in Cuba political opponents are still in jail for their opposition to socialism/communism, in Africa people starve while their government eats and dines in grotesque wealth - what would you like us to do?

I have said before, you cannot stop terrorism. You hit 1 and 10 more sprout up.
So I take it you are now in full support of invading China (nuclear), North Korea (nuclear), Northern Pakistan (nuclear), Cuba, Zimbabwe, Iran (massive army), Saudi Arabia (modern airforce supplied by us) and others?

I have addressed the differences, you have ignored my examples of guerilla warfare and treat this battle so simply as though we were fighting a convential war.

Again, I shall ask;- you also now support invading China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Zimbabwe and the rest?. Evil people exist yes, and going into a country thinking you can just solve everything with western democracy is dream-like.

No whilst I do not agree with what they do they do not represent a major threat to the world through terrorism, possibly, with the exception of Iran which is being monitored closely.

I am not discussing whether people supported the Vietnam war or not, I have shown in many examples (the most recent being Vietnam) how these wars cannot be won when up against an enemy who uses guerilla warfare. You say 1870s battles have little in relation to the world today, ok then fine so hopefully you could address the battles I brought up which have happened in modern times.

- The defeat of the superior Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
- The defeat of the superior Chinese Nationalists by the CPC.
- The defeat of the vastly superior United States by the Vietcong.

Its all very well said and done by saying i'm wrong, but when history is actually showing you that this type of battle and war cannot be won - its very hard to justify why we should send our men and women into a war which in the end, will fail.

I do not really have a great knowledge about guerilla warfare but whilst there maybe examples of it not succeeding there is no reason to suggest that this war may not succeed and only time will tell.

[-:Undertaker:-]

That is their main aim - to rid the world of 'infidels' - without resistance who knows what would happen?

Nothing would happen - its that simple. The aim of the regimes of Mao, Pol Pot and others was to create a global socialist regime which would eventually destroy capitalism and spread everywhere. They were far more powerful and had countries at their command but nothing happened. The only way I would support military action against the Taliban would be co-ordinated airstrikes against their strongholds and/or military action in Pakistan when needed to stop them gaining influence in Pakistan, which is a country with a nuclear arsenal.

Saying they died for nothing amounts to a certain amount of disrepect in my view. The Falklands it seems to me was a publicity stunt by the then ailing prime minister , Margaret Thatcher who saw it as an opportunity to get back into favour and it worked. I am sure we could have spent more time on diplomacy there.

Well I could pretend and say they died for something but what good would that do, it'd only mean more of their fellow soliders die for nothing aswell. On the Falklands again just being against something to support your political stance, but since we've touched on it i'll delve into the Falklands conflict and its exact reasons which were far from political;

The Argentines were under a regime which only intitated the war because it was facing deep economic trouble at home, and since Argentina had always claimed the Falklands they saw it as the perfect attempt to sum up home support for the collapsing regime by invading the Falklands while the United Kingdom was still economically and militaraily feeble, hoping to eventually thrash out what you said yourself as a 'diplomatic solution' which would of ment either joint-sovereignty or a timetable for handover by Britain to Argentina - not acceptable, especially to some our most proud and patriotic people living there who were under the threat of occupation by a foreign regime (not to mention the vast oil reserves around the islands which will give the United Kingdom energy security in the future).

While you consider the Falklands a waste of time simply because of the fact a Conservative Prime Minister took the action, i'm sure the people under the occupation of the Argentine regime would say otherwise, don't you?

Yes he was fighting then but was not the same person then - it was not until later that he turned to terroism & fanaticism. Please don't get me started on Farenheit 9/11 - that is a very controversial and highly emotive documentary. He criticises anything that will make him money. Their government isn't perfect I admit but it's better than the taliban getting a foothold back into government.

Osama Bin Laden has always been a militant, hence why he left his family early on who lived in Saudi Arabia and were minted basically, to become an Islamic fighter. If you think otherwise i'm afraid to say you are kidding yourself about him - he has always been against the western world although granted, at one point he did accept our help but only because we, in his eyes, were the less of two evils (western democracy against communism). On Farenheit, you are choosing to ignore the absolute hypocrisy and corruption of the whole war just because you think Michael Moore is out to make a quick buck or two?

I'm no avid fan of Michael Moore and his left wing politics, but hes sure pin-pointed some of the disgraceful actions the western world has followed for the past decade or so.

No whilst I do not agree with what they do they do not represent a major threat to the world through terrorism, possibly, with the exception of Iran which is being monitored closely.

So China,

• Has nuclear missiles pointing at India, Taiwan and Japan.
• US is legally required to defend Taiwan.
• China is a nuclear nation.
• China continues to expand its military annually.
• Has largest military in the world.

Not a threat?

Iran,

• Is most likely building a nuclear arsenal.
• Will face a nuclear standoff with Israel.
• Has large army which is militarily equipped.

Not a threat?

North Korea,

• Actually has nuclear weapons pointing at South Korea.
• Loathes Japan, a US allie.
• Has backing of China (also a nuclear armed state)
• Has very large army capable of invading South Korea from the word 'go'.

Not a threat?

Compare this with Afghanistan & the Taliban which has no nuclear weapons, very little modern warfare equipment, no resources, no international support from any other nation - yet Afghanistan is the greatest threat in your eyes?

I do not really have a great knowledge about guerilla warfare but whilst there maybe examples of it not succeeding there is no reason to suggest that this war may not succeed and only time will tell.

As I said before, there is no difference between this war now and the Vietnam one, along with the others. Infact, this time around we have less soliders and less military action compared to that taken against the Vietcong. Understanding guerilla warfare is essential to understanding a battle like this otherwise history will repeat itself and more lives will be lost, while quickening the potential demise of the western world by our own doing.

[syko2006]

3 Nuke's 0 soldiers - Perfect mission

Then watch everybody else suffer? Sounds perfect! :S lol

[Catzsy]

Nothing would happen - its that simple. The aim of the regimes of Mao, Pol Pot and others was to create a global socialist regime which would eventually destroy capitalism and spread everywhere. They were far more powerful and had countries at their command but nothing happened. The only way I would support military action against the Taliban would be co-ordinated airstrikes against their strongholds and/or military action in Pakistan when needed to stop them gaining influence in Pakistan, which is a country with a nuclear arsenal.

Well luckily the UN disagreed with you.The problem is whilst the regimes you state did have considerable power they did not pose a global terrorist threat.
The pakistani army are already tackling Taliban bolt holes in their own country.

Well I could pretend and say they died for something but what good would that do, it'd only mean more of their fellow soliders die for nothing aswell. On the Falklands again just being against something to support your political stance, but since we've touched on it i'll delve into the Falklands conflict and its exact reasons which were far from political;

The Argentines were under a regime which only intitated the war because it was facing deep economic trouble at home, and since Argentina had always claimed the Falklands they saw it as the perfect attempt to sum up home support for the collapsing regime by invading the Falklands while the United Kingdom was still economically and militaraily feeble, hoping to eventually thrash out what you said yourself as a 'diplomatic solution' which would of ment either joint-sovereignty or a timetable for handover by Britain to Argentina - not acceptable, especially to some our most proud and patriotic people living there who were under the threat of occupation by a foreign regime (not to mention the vast oil reserves around the islands which will give the United Kingdom energy security in the future).

While you consider the Falklands a waste of time simply because of the fact a Conservative Prime Minister took the action, i'm sure the people under the occupation of the Argentine regime would say otherwise, don't you?

If this British Government has been severely criticised for go to war in Afghanistan with full UN approval then what about Margaret Thatcher who just decided to go to war without any international consensus? History has proved this to be a cynical ploy to re-gain popularity and get her self re-elected which is any event backfired because her own party got rid of her. There was no negotiation with the argentinians at all. I am not saying that it was a waste of time but was handled very badly. Also it was not known that the Islands had oil reserves way back then. It is only in recent times it had come to light.

Osama Bin Laden has always been a militant, hence why he left his family early on who lived in Saudi Arabia and were minted basically, to become an Islamic fighter. If you think otherwise i'm afraid to say you are kidding yourself about him - he has always been against the western world although granted, at one point he did accept our help but only because we, in his eyes, were the less of two evils (western democracy against communism). On Farenheit, you are choosing to ignore the absolute hypocrisy and corruption of the whole war just because you think Michael Moore is out to make a quick buck or two?

I'm no avid fan of Michael Moore and his left wing politics, but hes sure pin-pointed some of the disgraceful actions the western world has followed for the past decade or so.

There is a great deal of difference between a militant and a terrorist.
He was an islamic scholar & idealist but not a fanatic at that time. He turned to terrorism when Saudi Arabia refused his offer of help of defending Saudi Arabia with his followers. When his offer was turned down and Saudi Arabia asked America for aid he turned to terrorism and started to attack the West. That was 1990 onwards. I am not ignoring hypocrisy and corruption but that is one thing that is endemic of the whole human race and will never be stopped.

You have chosen to ignore the fact that diaffected young men from all over the world have been indoctrinated and are being trained as suicide bombers not including the children mentionedI mentioned before. You have not commented on this?

So China,

• Has nuclear missiles pointing at India, Taiwan and Japan.
• US is legally required to defend Taiwan.
• China is a nuclear nation.
• China continues to expand its military annually.
• Has largest military in the world.

Not a threat?

Iran,

• Is most likely building a nuclear arsenal.
• Will face a nuclear standoff with Israel.
• Has large army which is militarily equipped.

Not a threat?

North Korea,

• Actually has nuclear weapons pointing at South Korea.
• Loathes Japan, a US allie.
• Has backing of China (also a nuclear armed state)
• Has very large army capable of invading South Korea from the word 'go'.

Not a threat?

Compare this with Afghanistan & the Taliban which has no nuclear weapons, very little modern warfare equipment, no resources, no international support from any other nation - yet Afghanistan is the greatest threat in your eyes?

As I said before, there is no difference between this war now and the Vietnam one, along with the others. Infact, this time around we have less soliders and less military action compared to that taken against the Vietcong. Understanding guerilla warfare is essential to understanding a battle like this otherwise history will repeat itself and more lives will be lost, while quickening the potential demise of the western world by our own doing.

Lots of countries have nuclear weapons but they have not attacked us or embarked on global terrorism. China is is discussions with America over a nuclear weapons agreement.
Those we are fighting in Afghanistan have and yes I do believe they present a huge terrorism threat globally because they are backed by fanatics who train young men to travel across the world to maim and kill people as has been shown in recent years in many countries of the world. Fanatics are unpredictable and extremely dangerous. I said Iran shoud be watched as it has declared Britain as an enemy. The government has been successful in finally sorting out the Irish problem which was surely a form of guerilla warfare. At present they are trying to get talks with the Taliban not all of whom are fanatics but who shield the fanatics that threaten's the security and safety of the world.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well luckily the UN disagreed with you.The problem is whilst the regimes you state did have considerable power they did not pose a global terrorist threat. The pakistani army are already tackling Taliban bolt holes in their own country.

So nuclear weapons pointing at eachother (which can kill millions in a flash) are perfectly fine while terrorist plots which kill a few thousand in the rarest of cases are not?. That does not make sense, and does it not show you by the struggle the Pakistan Military are having that its a pretty futile battle and we should put our efforts into Pakistan and the Warizstan region rather than Afghanistan?

If this British Government has been severely criticised for go to war in Afghanistan with full UN approval then what about Margaret Thatcher who just decided to go to war without any international consensus? History has proved this to be a cynical ploy to re-gain popularity and get her self re-elected which is any event backfired because her own party got rid of her. There was no negotiation with the argentinians at all. I am not saying that it was a waste of time but was handled very badly. Also it was not known that the Islands had oil reserves way back then. It is only in recent times it had come to light.

I'm afraid there was international consensus on the Falklands and you know fully well there was, Argentina was a regime and we did not have any plans or motives to invade the Argentinian mainland otherwise it would of indeed been illegal (just like Iraq). The Falklands are regarded as British sovereign territory and therefore according to the United Nations is perfectly legal.

How can you actually say that a British Prime Minister who sent the military to defend our own people against a harsh and brutal regime in its final throws actually sent our military there to gain our sovereign lands back despite the fact even our allie the United States said it was militarily unfeesable. I would not comment on history because I know history has not said that; history has actually shown the defeat of Argentina actually helped make that regime collapse and that was another dictatorship down the pan.

On handled badly, the Argentinians actually only attacked after one of our warships were taken away from the islands so the regime was very intentionally preparing to take back the islands. There was nothing to be negociated, Argentina thought it had Britain by the balls. If France invaded Dover and occupied Devon, would you also be calling for months and months of diplomatic negociation? - much like we tried in WW2 with Czechoslovakia and look what happened there. You have let your own hatred of someone who you have most likely been brought up to hate, blind you.

On the oil part, it was suspected at the time that major reserves were held there. As of today and back then, it is still economically unfeesable to exploit and explore these pockets properly which are expected to hold over a billion barrels of crude oil, which will prove to be a vital lifeline for the energy crisis which we are heading for, and which the world is heading for.

There is a great deal of difference between a militant and a terrorist. He was an islamic scholar & idealist but not a fanatic at that time. He turned to terrorism when Saudi Arabia refused his offer of help of defending Saudi Arabia with his followers. When his offer was turned down and Saudi Arabia asked America for aid he turned to terrorism and started to attack the West. That was 1990 onwards. I am not ignoring hypocrisy and corruption but that is one thing that is endemic of the whole human race and will never be stopped.

Of course there are, and militant views lead to terrorism hence Irish nationalism and the United Ireland concept held by the IRA. Osama Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia at quite an early age to fight for the Taliban against the Soviet Union, of which we provided weapons for. A man who was immensely rich, his family influential and even had connections with prominent and upcoming politicians (George H Bush) left his family who had embraced western culture while he hated it. As I said before, to him it was a choice of the lesser of two evils and he choose communism as the evil especially as it was the very thing which was occupying Afghanistan.

Indeed it may be endemic of the human race, and thats why people such as that should be removed from power because they cannot be trusted. Our troops are dying to keep a man who was involved in oil companies and rigged elections in power. A disgrace.

You have chosen to ignore the fact that diaffected young men from all over the world have been indoctrinated and are being trained as suicide bombers not including the children mentionedI mentioned before. You have not commented on this?

I have commented on this and i'll comment on it again. Us being in Afghanistan, burning farmers poppy crops which give them a living, us bombing Afghanistan and fighting an unwinnable war just like Vietnam, us invading Iraq based on a total lie which cost over a million people their lives creates militantism and hatred. There will always be hatred, always. We are not doing anything to help it and if we continue in this state of mind of "hey we're the liberators who are always right no matter what" then we are only hastening our own demise.

God help us if we face a showdown with China, in other words a new Cold War. What morale highground have we [the western world] got left?

Lots of countries have nuclear weapons but they have not attacked us or embarked on global terrorism. China is is discussions with America over a nuclear weapons agreement.

Of course they do and nuclear weapons are a good thing in some ways, but I think you are totally ignoring what kind of countries these are. These countries are in a lot of ways, far more worse than the Afghanistan-Taliban regime ever was and far more of a threat to global security. You argue on the basis of global security, i've just given examples of far greater threats and now you are pulling away from that side of the discussion based on the technicality that we only fight terrorist threats.

Those we are fighting in Afghanistan have and yes I do believe they present a huge terrorism threat globally because they are backed by fanatics who train young men to travel across the world to maim and kill people as has been shown in recent years in many countries of the world. Fanatics are unpredictable and extremely dangerous. I said Iran shoud be watched as it has declared Britain as an enemy. The government has been successful in finally sorting out the Irish problem which was surely a form of guerilla warfare. At present they are trying to get talks with the Taliban not all of whom are fanatics but who shield the fanatics that threaten's the security and safety of the world.

Then does that not show one very important thing? - instead of going around the world shooting at something that you'll never be able to completely shoot out (again Vietnam, Soviet-Afghanistan and British Empire-Afhganistan) instead we should be improving our own security and the security of countries which these people gain access to the west through.

On the Irish problem, and do you know why the IRA stopped? - because the British government handed over executive powers of the running of Northern Ireland to the Republic of Irelands government, which in essence means that Northern Ireland is being run by a country which doesn't even have any real sovereignty over it. Do you also propose the same for Afghanistan now then and Northern Pakistan, so we'll have a Afghan/Pakistani government with Taliban influence (elected or unelected)?

What is different between this war and Vietnam that makes you think we have a solid chance of winning?

[Catzsy]

So nuclear weapons pointing at eachother (which can kill millions in a flash) are perfectly fine while terrorist plots which kill a few thousand in the rarest of cases are not?. That does not make sense, and does it not show you by the struggle the Pakistan Military are having that its a pretty futile battle and we should put our efforts into Pakistan and the Warizstan region rather than Afghanistan?

Well Countries have had nuclear weapons since or maybe even before the 1960's (Bay of Pigs). Obviously it is the ultimate deterrant but history shows that this is unlikely.

I'm afraid there was international consensus on the Falklands and you know fully well there was, Argentina was a regime and we did not have any plans or motives to invade the Argentinian mainland otherwise it would of indeed been illegal (just like Iraq). The Falklands are regarded as British sovereign territory and therefore according to the United Nations is perfectly legal.

How can you actually say that a British Prime Minister who sent the military to defend our own people against a harsh and brutal regime in its final throws actually sent our military there to gain our sovereign lands back despite the fact even our allie the United States said it was militarily unfeesable. I would not comment on history because I know history has not said that; history has actually shown the defeat of Argentina actually helped make that regime collapse and that was another dictatorship down the pan.

On handled badly, the Argentinians actually only attacked after one of our warships were taken away from the islands so the regime was very intentionally preparing to take back the islands. There was nothing to be negociated, Argentina thought it had Britain by the balls. If France invaded Dover and occupied Devon, would you also be calling for months and months of diplomatic negociation? - much like we tried in WW2 with Czechoslovakia and look what happened there. You have let your own hatred of someone who you have most likely been brought up to hate, blind you.

On the oil part, it was suspected at the time that major reserves were held there. As of today and back then, it is still economically unfeesable to exploit and explore these pockets properly which are expected to hold over a billion barrels of crude oil, which will prove to be a vital lifeline for the energy crisis which we are heading for, and which the world is heading for.

This link are the steps to War in the Falklands. There was no UN concensus. They requested both countries to talk about sovereignty. EEC agreed sanctions but that's all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...lands-War.html

It is not me that says it was a cynical war - in hindsight it is considered by many, many to have been. Even Ronald Regan requested her to call a ceasefire. This is an interesting take on the whole issue.

http://www.kirkbytimes.co.uk/antiwar...deception.html

Evidence that it was suspected there were major oil reserves in the Falklands in 1980's?

The major difference is that over 40 Countries are involved in Afghanistan which is UN approved. If they can get a inclusive government even with some of the moderate Taliban all well and good. Vietnam was a 'gung ho' war with no aims or objectives which resembles nothing similar to present war strategy of post war reconstruction, training local forces to eventually become independent.

In the Irish problem, and do you know why the IRA stopped? - because the British government handed over executive powers of the running of Northern Ireland to the Republic of Irelands government, which in essence means that Northern Ireland is being run by a country which doesn't even have any real sovereignty over it. Do you also propose the same for Afghanistan now then and Northern Pakistan, so we'll have a Afghan/Pakistani government with Taliban influence (elected or unelected)?

Where on earth do you get this from? Northern Ireland is run by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Link:
http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/in...d-assembly.htm
You may have further information on this but I would suspect that the Northern Irish people would have something to say about this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well Countries have had nuclear weapons since or maybe even before the 1960's (Bay of Pigs). Obviously it is the ultimate deterrant but history shows that this is unlikely.

Not all countries; Pakistan, India, China, Israel (illegal), North Korea are all what you'd class as unstable/rogue/on verge of war states. Pakistan is fighting the Taliban in the North, India has its nuclear missiles pointing at Pakistan and China, China has its missiles pointing at India, Japan and Taiwan, Israels illegal nuclear program is pointing at all of the middle east and North Korea has its own pointing at South Korea, most likely along with China. Ontop of that, the United States is legally obliged to defend Taiwan and so is Japan.

Are you seriously telling me that the threat of terrorism is far greater than that?

This link are the steps to War in the Falklands. There was no UN concensus. They requested both countries to talk about sovereignty. EEC agreed sanctions but that's all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...lands-War.html

It is not me that says it was a cynical war - in hindsight it is considered by many, many to have been. Even Ronald Regan requested her to call a ceasefire. This is an interesting take on the whole issue.

http://www.kirkbytimes.co.uk/antiwar...deception.html

Evidence that it was suspected there were major oil reserves in the Falklands in 1980's?

What is there to talk about? - would you agree that if France invaded Dover and took over Devon, the South East and London that we sit down and 'talk about sovereignty'. I don't know how I can make it more clear; this was a collapsing regime of a country which had always claimed ownership over these islands which only invaded because it thought Britain was weak and would just surrender the islands back through negociation, just like you are suggesting right now.

People live there, they are our islands and our people live on them. Not to mention we were at the height of the Cold War where on one hand we'd lose an important strategic point in the South Atlantic aswell as being showed up as weak to the USSR, as for Reagan - he most likely called for talks because he did not want any possible conflict with the Soviet Union. Although I wonder if an American island was invaded and occupied if the US would be so willing to leave military action on the table and talk to the tinpot regime of the Argentinians?

On the evidence, I remember reading although I can't find now. It would make sense as the Thatcher government had conducted searches throughout the North Sea and had found many gas and oil reserves, and the United Kingdom has the sovereign right to search around sovereign land. Again you are determined to hate her over nearly everything because you have most likely been taught and brought up to hate her. But for heavens sake, politics aside;- we saved our own people from a regime which would never of shaken its grip if we hadn't forcefully removed that grip.

If that regime would of sat in negociations it would never of agreed to a simple "ok then chaps we'll withdraw we were wrong." - it only invaded to keep the morales of its own people who it was losing control over, if it had invaded and cost the lives of Argentinian soliders for a cause they all truly believe in and then withdrew because the United Kingdom had asked them nicely over a brew in the UN - do you think the regime would stand a chance in hell of surviving for a number of weeks for that matter after withdrawing?. They invaded for morale, just like the Russian Empire in its final two decades waged war against the Japanese Empire purely to raise morale for the Tsar.

The major difference is that over 40 Countries are involved in Afghanistan which is UN approved. If they can get a inclusive government even with some of the moderate Taliban all well and good. Vietnam was a 'gung ho' war with no aims or objectives which resembles nothing similar to present war strategy of post war reconstruction, training local forces to eventually become independent.

What you just said it exactly what Vietnam was, instead this time around the only difference is that we are fighting Islamic extremists and not the Communists. They are both using the same tactics and are winning, so i'll ask again; with less people now than the Soviets had and less soliders than the Americans had in Vietnam - what makes you so sure and positive that this war is winnable?

Where on earth do you get this from? Northern Ireland is run by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Link:
http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/in...d-assembly.htm
You may have further information on this but I would suspect that the Northern Irish people would have something to say about this.

The Irish government has an input into the politics of Northern Ireland as part of the agreement, the Irish government is not elected by the people of Northern Ireland and therefore has no right in my mind and many others to have any influence over the politics or policy of Northern Ireland. Check if out if you don't believe me, its only proven even more by the fact that Brain Cowen (Irish Taosrich) was recently involved with Gordon Brown in a British issue regarding Northern Ireland - it has absolutely nothing to do with him.