The Conservative Party fails to apply the sense check

[Catzsy]

No that is the bottom line of it, no matter how many times you say you think Saddam Hussein might have WMD still hidden, no matter what you say about Afhganistan and how we could win it - both are totally and utterly different to the Falklands. In regards to Thatcher, if Nazi Germany (comparable as the regime in Argentina was a brutal undemocratic regime in collapse) invaded and annexed Dover would you support sitting down for talks or would you support military action? - its very different when the shoe is on the other foot isnt it which adds to what Jordy said.

In regards to Israel I believe the guy who exposed the nuclear weapons programme to the British Press (the Times newspaper) was abducted or arrested (one of them) by Mossad and was only released from prison a few years ago. 'A bit more firm' - so its perfectly alright to invade Iraq on the pretext that they might have WMD, but when we know Israel has them we just need to be a 'bit more firm' with them.

It is that exact outlook that breeds hatred towards the western world.

My Dad has a good saying 'if my aunty had balls she would be my uncle'. There is no point making hypothesis on wars that haven't actually happened ie whoever invading Dover. There was general consenus around the world that there should have been negotiations in respect of the Falklands war. It took our troops days to get out there and they could have taken place. If you then say why negotiate with a brutal regime then you have shot yourself in the foot because that's exactly what Iraq was and there were negotiations there. There are so many threads about this now all virtually saying the same thing. Getting back to the Conservatives their reseachers need to be a lot more careful in what information is given as it is making them look quite idiotic and whilst I don't agree with their politics nobody could ever claim that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My Dad has a good saying 'if my aunty had balls she would be my uncle'. There is no point making hypothesis on wars that haven't actually happened ie whoever invading Dover. There was general consenus around the world that there should have been negotiations in respect of the Falklands war. It took our troops days to get out there and they could have taken place. If you then say why negotiate with a brutal regime then you have shot yourself in the foot because that's exactly what Iraq was and there were negotiations there. There are so many threads about this now all virtually saying the same thing. Getting back to the Conservatives their reseachers need to be a lot more careful in what information is given as it is making them look quite idiotic and whilst I don't agree with their politics nobody could ever claim that.

Of course there is, if Dover (British sovereign territory) was invaded would you either negociate with the Third Reich or would you try to free Dover? - and the same applies for the Falklands (British sovereign territory) which a brutal regime invaded and occupied.

Negotiatations, so how are you supposed to negotiate with a brutal regime which only occupied our islands because it was on its last legs and needed to drum up support at home? - even more so, I cant find this international outcry at the British regaining their own islands? Do you think if China, the US, USSR or any other country had their islands attacked, they'd be calling for negotiations?

Infact if there was any outcry then it was down to the time the battle took place, when the Falklands was on the USSR still existed and as you may know, half the world was on the USSR side and half on the US side. The Argentine regime at that time declared itself neutral, but was in reality a left-leaning regime which supported the USSR. Also there was some opposition from within the Reagan administration, but only because they felt that the possibility of the USSR and US being drawn in was dangerous. Infact, in the end the US supplied missiles to Britain.

I even read something the other day, although the USSR protested about the retaliation by the United Kingdom (as it would) against the Argentine occupation, a reporter I think it was told by a Russian diplomat at the time; 'We would no longer have considered you a serious country if you hadn't defeated the Argentines.'

The difference between Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands is that the Argentines posed a threat and carried out that threat, Iraq did not pose a threat and the small threat posed by Afghanistan is unwinnable. You cannot beat guerilla warfare.

More here; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...s-deepens.html

[Catzsy]

Of course there is, if Dover (British sovereign territory) was invaded would you either negociate with the Third Reich or would you try to free Dover? - and the same applies for the Falklands (British sovereign territory) which a brutal regime invaded and occupied.

Negotiatations, so how are you supposed to negotiate with a brutal regime which only occupied our islands because it was on its last legs and needed to drum up support at home? - even more so, I cant find this international outcry at the British regaining their own islands? Do you think if China, the US, USSR or any other country had their islands attacked, they'd be calling for negotiations?

Infact if there was any outcry then it was down to the time the battle took place, when the Falklands was on the USSR still existed and as you may know, half the world was on the USSR side and half on the US side. The Argentine regime at that time declared itself neutral, but was in reality a left-leaning regime which supported the USSR. Also there was some opposition from within the Reagan administration, but only because they felt that the possibility of the USSR and US being drawn in was dangerous. Infact, in the end the US supplied missiles to Britain.

I even read something the other day, although the USSR protested about the retaliation by the United Kingdom (as it would) against the Argentine occupation, a reporter I think it was told by a Russian diplomat at the time; 'We would no longer have considered you a serious country if you hadn't defeated the Argentines.'

The difference between Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands is that the Argentines posed a threat and carried out that threat, Iraq did not pose a threat and the small threat posed by Afghanistan is unwinnable. You cannot beat guerilla warfare.

More here; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...s-deepens.html

Britain and many other countries negotiated with the Third Reich. They are probably negotiating with Argentina right now. As I said before but you chose to ignore negotiations went on for years with Iraq which was a brutal regime so
by defending the straight invasion of Argentina in the 80s you are cointradicting yourself, basically.

It seems you are very isolationist - if it doesn't directly effect the UK then you are not interested. The problem arises when it effects us indirectly and the Iraq situation was extremely volatile and unpredictable:


'During the Presidency of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program.

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction. In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections.'


From that it shows that Iraq did have WMD which does not just mean nuclear it also means chemical and biological weapons which Iraq used against it's own people as you know. Having found WMD then it was a pretty good assumption to suspect he still had them and had Hussein co-operated fully with the inspections maybe the war may never have happened. Also you are happy to state that Israel has Nuclear Weapons when it is only, in fact, suspected. It has never been confirmed. None have been found. So what's the difference ?

Saddam had already invaded Iran and Kuwait previously and instability in the Middle East would have effected us all and not just because of the oil. Why did we go to war in World War 1 and World War 2? For exactly the same reasons - a tin pot dictator who wanted to get rid of people who he felt did not belong in this world eg. Jews, Gypsys, people with physical and mental disorders. Saddam wanted to rid the world of Kurds. Al Qaeda want to rid the world of 'infidels' and the frightening part of this is that they are recruiting from all countries of the world. They even arrested them in Australia. If an argentinian conflict is more important than that then it is breathtakingly naïve in my personal opinion. Party politics really shouldn't enter into this at all. Whether China, US or other countries would enter into negotiations I don't know and neither do you but I am sure NATO and the UN would encourage it as they do with all conflicts.

[Eoin]

This makes me support my signature even more

were havin a party when thatcher dies :eusa_danc

[-:Undertaker:-]

Britain and many other countries negotiated with the Third Reich. They are probably negotiating with Argentina right now. As I said before but you chose to ignore negotiations went on for years with Iraq which was a brutal regime so by defending the straight invasion of Argentina in the 80s you are cointradicting yourself, basically.

It seems you are very isolationist - if it doesn't directly effect the UK then you are not interested. The problem arises when it effects us indirectly and the Iraq situation was extremely volatile and unpredictable:

'During the Presidency of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program.

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction. In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections.'

Indeed they did, so as I have asked in the past - you also support attacking China, Israel, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe which have far worse regimes and regimes which actually possess nuclear weapons and whom frequently play diplomatic games with the west? Its a simple yes or know answer, because by your logic you say that anyone who does not comply with your rules/you consider bad/has any weapons that match those of ours then we must take military action.

Of course you wouldnt support taking action against any of them countries because they can smack us back. If i'm quite 'isolationist' then your foreign policy i'd class as cowardly at the least because like a bully would do so, you only support going after the nations you know you can beat. In essence, its not right or wrong you are putting across;- its the argument of 'because I can'

And you wonder why the Arab world loathes the west? - I can tell you that if I was an Arab and my homeland was having that sort of foreign policy placed on it, i'd be first in the queue to free my country from the international, hypocritical bullies who have destroyed my country.

From that it shows that Iraq did have WMD which does not just mean nuclear it also means chemical and biological weapons which Iraq used against it's own people as you know. Having found WMD then it was a pretty good assumption to suspect he still had them and had Hussein co-operated fully with the inspections maybe the war may never have happened. Also you are happy to state that Israel has Nuclear Weapons when it is only, in fact, suspected. It has never been confirmed. None have been found. So what's the difference ?

Indeed Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, and did once have a nuclear power plant which was taken out by the Isreali airforce. The UN weapons team headed by Hans Blix found that Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction as they had all been decommissioned in the 1990s. South Africa also used to have nuclear weapons, support going over there aswell then? - On Israel, yes I am 100% sure and so is anybody else with clear eyesight that Israel has a nuclear weapons programme - heres some pictures; http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.html

So you also support taking military action against Israel of which we know has nuclear weapons (unlike Iraq) if they refuse to co-operate in disarming?

Saddam had already invaded Iran and Kuwait previously and instability in the Middle East would have effected us all and not just because of the oil. Why did we go to war in World War 1 and World War 2? For exactly the same reasons - a tin pot dictator who wanted to get rid of people who he felt did not belong in this world eg. Jews, Gypsys, people with physical and mental disorders. Saddam wanted to rid the world of Kurds. Al Qaeda want to rid the world of 'infidels' and the frightening part of this is that they are recruiting from all countries of the world. They even arrested them in Australia. If an argentinian conflict is more important than that then it is breathtakingly naïve in my personal opinion. Party politics really shouldn't enter into this at all. Whether China, US or other countries would enter into negotiations I don't know and neither do you but I am sure NATO and the UN would encourage it as they do with all conflicts.

If you knew why Saddam invaded Kuwait you'd be singing a different tune, Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was using slant drilling which was using Iraqi oil resources which obviously, are worth hundreds of billions to Iraq. Infact on the programme I watched called House of Saddam a few years ago apparently based on true events, Saddam Hussein caught up with the Emir of Kuwait in his limo at a conference and warned him to stop slant drilling or face the consquences. The Emir refused and cited he had US support so Iraq was powerless to act.

Ontop of that, Hussein also called a senior adminstration offical to Baghdad before the invasion of Kuwait in which he asked if Iraq was to take military action against Kuwait, would the United States intervene? - the answer was no and so Hussein was given the green light by the United States to take military action.

On the issue of the kurds, the kurds tried to bring down the government by using violence and would stop at nothing to overpower the Iraqi government. Iraq was facing civil war, hard for you to comprehend over here in Britain and the western world but when you face the prospect of civil war you have no other choice but to hit back or face total bloodshed. Yes innocent kurds died and the gassing was truly awful, but then again we used gas in WW1 against the Germans anyway so no use trying to tell teh Iraqis right and wrong; Saddam Hussein and Iraq posed no threat to the western world, and thanks to a decade of sanctions Iraq was feeble compared to its neighbours so again, the argument of a 'threat to his neighbours' is quite honestly, total rubbish put forward by the Blair government and Bush administration to try and give the war some kind of justification.

I do know the answer, if your military (which is for fighting/defence) is stationed in the Falklands and you have a Argentinian fleet shooting at you - what do you do? - what would anybody do in a situation like that?

They would shoot back and afterall thats why we have a military.

[Catzsy]

Indeed they did, so as I have asked in the past - you also support attacking China, Israel, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe which have far worse regimes and regimes which actually possess nuclear weapons and whom frequently play diplomatic games with the west? Its a simple yes or know answer, because by your logic you say that anyone who does not comply with your rules/you consider bad/has any weapons that match those of ours then we must take military action.

No because they have not shown the instability or have actually had a track history of invading other countries and use of WMD like Iraq. This is with the exception of Iran who has declared Britain an enemy and who need careful watching. They are not my rules anyway.

Of course you wouldnt support taking action against any of them countries because they can smack us back. If i'm quite 'isolationist' then your foreign policy i'd class as cowardly at the least because like a bully would do so, you only support going after the nations you know you can beat. In essence, its not right or wrong you are putting across;- its the argument of 'because I can'

That is just silly to assume what I think and don't think. It's what you think I think and then just tell me I do:S.
Please do not put words into my mouth. The reasons I have already stated in the first paragraph

And you wonder why the Arab world loathes the west? - I can tell you that if I was an Arab and my homeland was having that sort of foreign policy placed on it, i'd be first in the queue to free my country from the international, hypocritical bullies who have destroyed my country.

Again an incredibly out of proportion and sweeping statement which has no actual evidence to back it up. Sure some Arabs do I am sure - the same as some westerners do not like Arabs.

Indeed Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, and did once have a nuclear power plant which was taken out by the Isreali airforce. The UN weapons team headed by Hans Blix found that Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction as they had all been decommissioned in the 1990s. South Africa also used to have nuclear weapons, support going over there aswell then? - On Israel, yes I am 100% sure and so is anybody else with clear eyesight that Israel has a nuclear weapons programme - heres some pictures; http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.html

I have no reason to argue that you are not 100% sure that Israel has nuclear weapons but really that's not the issue. The issue is that it is an opinion and not a fact and that if the world were sure it would be declared as such and not listed as 'suspected' Find me anything to back up your assertion that Hans Blix found there were no WMD weapons, biological or otherwise. He couldn't find any but he did not make a finding that there were none.

So you also support taking military action against Israel of which we know has nuclear weapons (unlike Iraq) if they refuse to co-operate in disarming?

No and are the same reasons as given in Paragraph one.

If you knew why Saddam invaded Kuwait you'd be singing a different tune, Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was using slant drilling which was using Iraqi oil resources which obviously, are worth hundreds of billions to Iraq. Infact on the programme I watched called House of Saddam a few years ago apparently based on true events, Saddam Hussein caught up with the Emir of Kuwait in his limo at a conference and warned him to stop slant drilling or face the consquences. The Emir refused and cited he had US support so Iraq was powerless to act.

This is all alleged there are no facts to back it up. Just because a documentary says it is true doesn't mean it is. It is also alleged that Saddam invaded because he was in huge debt from the war with Iran and Kuwait would not agree to put up oil prices which would have enabled him to pay them off. It is also alleged that Saddam had planned for many months to invade Kuwait long before the row over the disputed border. Make with that as you will.

On the issue of the kurds, the kurds tried to bring down the government by using violence and would stop at nothing to overpower the Iraqi government. Iraq was facing civil war, hard for you to comprehend over here in Britain and the western world but when you face the prospect of civil war you have no other choice but to hit back or face total bloodshed. Yes innocent kurds died and the gassing was truly awful, but then again we used gas in WW1 against the Germans anyway so no use trying to tell teh Iraqis right and wrong; Saddam Hussein and Iraq posed no threat to the western world, and thanks to a decade of sanctions Iraq was feeble compared to its neighbours so again, the argument of a 'threat to his neighbours' is quite honestly, total rubbish put forward by the Blair government and Bush administration to try and give the war some kind of justification.

The Kurds wanted an independent state much like the IRA wanted a united Ireland. Again you grossly overestimate the power of the Kurds and you seem to think that excuses them for using chemical weapons to wipe out a whole town with WMD?

Warning: Link has images that may disturb some members.
http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html

I do know the answer, if your military (which is for fighting/defence) is stationed in the Falklands and you have a Argentinian fleet shooting at you - what do you do? - what would anybody do in a situation like that?

They would shoot back and afterall thats why we have a military.

Hmm I don't think the Argentinians shot at anybody until the UK forces arrived
in the 1980s and there was plenty of time to negotiate while the forces were travelling. Also you can fight and negotiate at the same time which is something that never happened because it was well known that there was no chance of losing. It was the lack of willingness to co-operate that was the problem and I still believe it was a very cynical war and
I am entitled to this opinion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

were havin a party when thatcher dies :eusa_danc

Its always good to hate somebody your family most likely taught you to hate.

No because they have not shown the instability or have actually had a track history of invading other countries and use of WMD like Iraq. This is with the exception of Iran who has declared Britain an enemy and who need careful watching. They are not my rules anyway.

Not shown instability? Not invaded other countries?

China

• Ethnic tensions still plague China; the issue of Tibet.
• China still unstable with government using tight controls to stop any outbreaks.
• China still on verge of war with India and Taiwan over border issues.
• China invaded the Kingdom of Tibet and annexed it.
• China invaded North Korea in the Korean War.

Iran

• Mass protests against the hardline government resulting in many deaths.
• Government still uses harsh military-like laws to crackdown on any protests.
• Iran has crossed an Iraqi border and seized control of an oilfield.
• Roadside bombs in Iraq were found to be supplied from within Iran.

Zimbabwe

• Mass instability and lack of law across the country.
• Protests against the government cracked down on.
• People go missing every day because of their political outlook.
• Mugabe remains in control of the military and police to avoid chaos.
• People are starving, disease is rampant.
• Water supplies dwindling as infastructure falls apart at the seems.

Israel

• Has invaded and occupied/occupies; Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Egypt.
• Constantly fighting with Palestine and firing rockets.
• Has built a gigantic concrete wall.
• Regularly flattens settlements so Palestinians cannot use them.
• Remains border disputes between Israel and Palestine/Syria.

North Korea

• Remains on verge of war with South Korea.
• Regular firings across the border.
• Its people remain in poverty.
• Government abducts foreigners.
• Government uses extreme force to crackdown on any unrest.

Perhaps you should reconsider that, whereas on the other hand Iraq was a quiet country in which any ethnic tensions had been cracked down on. The Iraqi government was firmly in control and there were no rifts between the government of Iraq and its neighbours. As I have said earlier before, Iraq was in no position to attack its neighbours, let alone the western world.

So would you support taking military action against these countries, countries which have active nuclear weapons programmes, countries which are in the verge of war with their neighbours/are regularly at war with their neighbours and many who detest the west and have the capability to attack the west (not to mention the military scuffles between NATO ships and Chinese ships)?

That is just silly to assume what I think and don't think. It's what you think I think and then just tell me I do:S.
Please do not put words into my mouth. The reasons I have already stated in the first paragraph

So you do support taking action against these countries?

Again an incredibly out of proportion and sweeping statement which has no actual evidence to back it up. Sure some Arabs do I am sure - the same as some westerners do not like Arabs.

Oh no I think you'll find its far more deep-rooted than that. Some of us may not like Arabs (personally haven't heard or know anyone who takes that view) but I notice how the western world doesnt feel the need to fight back against the Arab world in which the Arab people do. I dont see Iraqi/Iranian etc flags being burnt on the streets of London or Washington, however I do see in Iraq and other countries British flags and American flags being burnt in the streets of Baghdad and Tehran.

I have no reason to argue that you are not 100% sure that Israel has nuclear weapons but really that's not the issue. The issue is that it is an opinion and not a fact and that if the world were sure it would be declared as such and not listed as 'suspected' Find me anything to back up your assertion that Hans Blix found there were no WMD weapons, biological or otherwise. He couldn't find any but he did not make a finding that there were none.

How are you supposed to find something that does not exist? :S

No and are the same reasons as given in Paragraph one.

But wait a minute, we actually know Israel has an active and expansive nuclear weapons programme that it attempted to keep hidden from the world until it was exposed. So what makes Israel so different from a country like Iran/Iraq?

This is all alleged there are no facts to back it up. Just because a documentary says it is true doesn't mean it is. It is also alleged that Saddam invaded because he was in huge debt from the war with Iran and Kuwait would not agree to put up oil prices which would have enabled him to pay them off. It is also alleged that Saddam had planned for many months to invade Kuwait long before the row over the disputed border. Make with that as you will.

There was no row as far as I know over any disputed border between Kuwait and Iraq, the issue was slant drilling. Of course Saddam would of took action if Kuwait was also making it difficult for him, but Kuwait are no innocent little darlings like you are making them out to be.

The Kurds wanted an independent state much like the IRA wanted a united Ireland. Again you grossly overestimate the power of the Kurds and you seem to think that excuses them for using chemical weapons to wipe out a whole town with WMD?

Oh so its ok for the Kurds (like the IRA) to attack the government and the Iraqi people which would of led to full-scale civil war? - the power of the Kurds is quite immense, they had backing from the US which dropped leaflets pursueing them to 'rise up' against the Iraqi government and overthrow it. On the chemical weapons, no I don't think its an acceptable as I have made clear; I believe action against the Kurds was needed but the action taken took far more innocent lives than any normal military action would of resulted in from the Iraqi government.

I also disagree with Israel using the chemical white phosphorus against Palestine in 2008 & 2009.

Warning: Link has images that may disturb some members.
http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html

Yes very terrible as I have said before, dont support the usage of chemical weapons. While we're onto providing pictures of how bad each regime was, heres just a small selection of pictures from the actions of the regimes I mentioned above which you claim are stable, do not use WMD and therefore in your eyes dont seem to warrant military action, but Iraq does.

Warning: links below contain graphic images.

Israel

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multime...43_464433a.jpg

http://artintifada.files.wordpress.c...9/01/leb54.jpg

China

http://www.asianews.it/files/img/CHI...a_di_morte.jpg

http://img520.imageshack.us/i/pict520gr9.jpg/

http://barbadosfreepress.files.wordp...re-crushed.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/images/355585/1_67_clash320.jpg

Zimbabwe

http://www.amnesty.org.nz/files/u1/Z...20activist.jpg

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...11starving.jpg

http://manoamondo.files.wordpress.co...babwe_beat.jpg

Thats just the tip of the iceberg for some of them, if we could get images from the Great Leap Foward i'm sure they would make anyone sick to the stomach not to mention the torture that goes on as we speak in North Korea, China and Zimbabwe against people because they have a religion or because they have an opposing political view.

Hmm I don't think the Argentinians shot at anybody until the UK forces arrived in the 1980s and there was plenty of time to negotiate while the forces were travelling. Also you can fight and negotiate at the same time which is something that never happened because it was well known that there was no chance of losing. It was the lack of willingness to co-operate that was the problem and I still believe it was a very cynical war and I am entitled to this opinion.

As for the Falklands, there was fighting before the British military taskforce was sent there in fighting which occured between the advancing Argentinians and the Falkland Islands Defence Force. On negotiation, i'm sure all attempts were made to tell the Argentinians to leave the Falklands, infact the advancing military taskforce from the United Kingdom I think would serve as a pretty clear indication of what choice the Argentinians faced, dont you?

On Argentina, the regime would not negotiate. It wouldn't be possible for them to as they only invaded in the first place as a last ditch attempt to hold onto power in Argentina as the country was economically collapsing thanks to the regime. You say co-operate, co-operate over what? If the Nazis took Dover and London, would you be calling for negotiations and peace talks?

If you attack the sovereign territory of another country you are inviting conflict, the Argentinians didnt occupy the Falklands and think "oh its alright the British wont mind" - they took them knowing there was a possibility of the UK sending a taskforce to regain the islands. What is the point in a military if you dont defend your own sovereign land with it?

[Catzsy]

You keep asking me whether I support invading these other countries and I have answered you more than once.

In paragraph one of my last post:

No because they have not shown the instability or have actually had a track history of invading other countries and use of WMD like Iraq. This is with the exception of Iran who has declared Britain an enemy and who need careful watching. They are not my rules anyway

I should have said probably recent track record, however, I may not approve of these other countries especially Zimbabwe but supporting invasion is something I would consider if the UN and NATO considered it. We are way apart on Iraq - it even sounds like you supported Saddam Hussein's actions against the Kurds :S I do think we should agree to diagree on this one.
Also what I said about Kuwait and Iraq I researched so please don't just dismiss it and what really gets my goat is you saying 'Kuwait are not the darlings you think they are'. Again you are telling me what I think and I find it bizarre. I don't actually think anything about Kuwait. Poles apart and not worth continuing. Thanks =]

[-:Undertaker:-]

You keep asking me whether I support invading these other countries and I have answered you more than once.

In paragraph one of my last post:

I should have said probably recent track record, however, I may not approve of these other countries especially Zimbabwe but supporting invasion is something I would consider if the UN and NATO considered it. We are way apart on Iraq - it even sounds like you supported Saddam Hussein's actions against the Kurds :S I do think we should agree to diagree on this one.

Also what I said about Kuwait and Iraq I researched so please don't just dismiss it and what really gets my goat is you saying 'Kuwait are not the darlings you think they are'. Again you are telling me what I think and I find it bizarre. I don't actually think anything about Kuwait. Poles apart and not worth continuing. Thanks =]

I have just shown how those countries are far more unstable, do have WMD and are still murdering their people - most of which have occured after the gassing of the Kurds in the late 1980s so time isnt an issue. And is time passing by acceptable anyway?

On Saddam, yes action needed to be taken to stop Iraq spiralling into full-scale civil war but not the action that was taken and as I have said; I do not agree with the use of gas as it is totally wrong. Do you support the IRA fighting aswell just as the Kurds were to create a breakaway province?

I have researched it, and you brought up Kuwait originally anyway as a way to try and convince me that we needed to get rid of Saddam Hussein as he was 'a danger to his neighbours' despite the fact that Kuwait wasnt just invaded as a spare of the moment thing like you made out, deeper issues behind the issue especially concerning the slant drilling.