This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Appointment of Governor
- Are student loans in the UK halal?
- Imperial College MSc Finance Video Interview
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- Participation crisis essay
- Is it just me or there are more and more people begging for money
- EPQ
- Tier 4 (Student) Visa not valid for a Summer Vacation Scheme
- What do you think of HS2 only going to Birmingham
- HE fee status
- EPQ
- higher modern studies assignment
- Registered with SAAS but need SFE funding
- interest rates go up again!
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Choosing a University
- Applying for a Masters Loan in the UK as a German citizen
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Clearing 2024- Queen Mary/ City Uni of London
- TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?
How should the UK government respond to Argentinia?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by kingsholmmad
And you prove my belief that the introduction of name-calling to a debate is invariably inversely proportional to the validity of the argument of the one doing the name-calling.
So in other words, you admit that you called me a troll because your argument has no validity?
Original post by kingsholmmad
War is necessary; I have not said anything other than that; that's (partly) why I have been saying all along that, if it proves to be the best option, we should not hesitate to take military action in the Falklands. I am referencing the Falklands because that is what this thread is about.
War is necessary; I have not said anything other than that; that's (partly) why I have been saying all along that, if it proves to be the best option, we should not hesitate to take military action in the Falklands. I am referencing the Falklands because that is what this thread is about.
You said the war in Afghanistan is unjustified and I queried you on that part. Not the Falklands, Afghanistan. So far your explanation of why you think the war in Afghanistan is unjustified is along the lines of civilians might die, which smacks of pacifism.
Original post by kingsholmmad
Pacifism is frequently self-defeating and does not appeal to me. I have no problem with getting rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, it can't happen soon enough. My problem is that I cannot see how spending a decade killing thousands of innocent civilians so that we can then walk away with the Taliban still in charge, is the best way of achieving that. Your problem is that you consider (as you have repeatedly said) that action justified.
Pacifism is frequently self-defeating and does not appeal to me. I have no problem with getting rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, it can't happen soon enough. My problem is that I cannot see how spending a decade killing thousands of innocent civilians so that we can then walk away with the Taliban still in charge, is the best way of achieving that. Your problem is that you consider (as you have repeatedly said) that action justified.
Your problem is your inability to follow different threads of logic at the same time without muddling them up. Firsly, you once again imply that there is some sinister Coalition doctrine of purposefully killing civilians. Secondly, you fail to grasp the fact that failings that have happened during the conduct of the war are irrelevant to the justification of going to war in the first place. You have just said yourself that we should get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda! If we do fail to defeat the Taliban, as is looking likely, that means the war would have been a failure, but it would not have been unjustified.
Original post by kingsholmmad
I don't pretend to know what the best answer is. The White House and Downing St combined obviously don't know, so how can I? I just don't believe what they've been doing is it.
I don't pretend to know what the best answer is. The White House and Downing St combined obviously don't know, so how can I? I just don't believe what they've been doing is it.
Again, irrelevant to whether or not we had a valid casus belli to go to war in the first place.
Original post by kingsholmmad
No. It means they haven't learned their lesson.
No. It means they haven't learned their lesson.
Which is pretty much the gist of what I just said.
Original post by kingsholmmad
Yes and it's the original post ie the theme of this thread that I'm trying to get back to. Though why we're still talking is not immediately apparent if your position is so in favour of defending the Falklands that it implies you would look favourably on a pre-emptive strike.
Yes and it's the original post ie the theme of this thread that I'm trying to get back to. Though why we're still talking is not immediately apparent if your position is so in favour of defending the Falklands that it implies you would look favourably on a pre-emptive strike.
'I still haven't heard why you consider it so wrong (or, at least, pointless) for Britain to defend our own territory'
That's what you said. You implied that I have already stated my position on the Falklands, and that position was that I don't think we should defend it, which I take great offence to. But yet again, you attempt to spin it because you simply can not admit that you are wrong, can you?
And no, I do not favour a pre-emptive strike on Argentina. I did not say that either. A pre-emptive strike on Argentina would undermine Britain's international position and would not in anyway serve the people of the Falkland Islands.
And if you don't want to debate the justification of the war in Afghanistan, don't bring it up in the first place.
Original post by pol pot noodles
So in other words, you admit that you called me a troll because your argument has no validity?
No, I called you a troll because your argument had so little validity that it can only have been mooted as a means of gaining reaction.
You said the war in Afghanistan is unjustified and I queried you on that part. Not the Falklands, Afghanistan. So far your explanation of why you think the war in Afghanistan is unjustified is along the lines of civilians might die, which smacks of pacifism.
Your problem is your inability to follow different threads of logic at the same time without muddling them up. Firsly, you once again imply that there is some sinister Coalition doctrine of purposefully killing civilians. Secondly, you fail to grasp the fact that failings that have happened during the conduct of the war are irrelevant to the justification of going to war in the first place. You have just said yourself that we should get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda! If we do fail to defeat the Taliban, as is looking likely, that means the war would have been a failure, but it would not have been unjustified.
Your problem is your inability to follow different threads of logic at the same time without muddling them up. Firsly, you once again imply that there is some sinister Coalition doctrine of purposefully killing civilians. Secondly, you fail to grasp the fact that failings that have happened during the conduct of the war are irrelevant to the justification of going to war in the first place. You have just said yourself that we should get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda! If we do fail to defeat the Taliban, as is looking likely, that means the war would have been a failure, but it would not have been unjustified.
Anyone who answers my statement that "war is necessary" by accusing me of pacifism deserves to be called a troll. My apologies if that offends you.
Anyone who chooses to describe what I earlier referred to as "collateral" (ie undesirable but necessary) as a sinister coalition doctrine just strengthens the troll argument.
And anyone who considers the outcome of a war to be irrelevant to the decision to start it has to be a troll.
Again, irrelevant to whether or not we had a valid casus belli to go to war in the first place.
Which is pretty much the gist of what I just said.
Which is pretty much the gist of what I just said.
'I still haven't heard why you consider it so wrong (or, at least, pointless) for Britain to defend our own territory'
That's what you said. You implied that I have already stated my position on the Falklands, and that position was that I don't think we should defend it, which I take great offence to. But yet again, you attempt to spin it because you simply can not admit that you are wrong, can you?
And no, I do not favour a pre-emptive strike on Argentina. I did not say that either. A pre-emptive strike on Argentina would undermine Britain's international position and would not in anyway serve the people of the Falkland Islands.
And if you don't want to debate the justification of the war in Afghanistan, don't bring it up in the first place.
That's what you said. You implied that I have already stated my position on the Falklands, and that position was that I don't think we should defend it, which I take great offence to. But yet again, you attempt to spin it because you simply can not admit that you are wrong, can you?
And no, I do not favour a pre-emptive strike on Argentina. I did not say that either. A pre-emptive strike on Argentina would undermine Britain's international position and would not in anyway serve the people of the Falkland Islands.
And if you don't want to debate the justification of the war in Afghanistan, don't bring it up in the first place.
I brought up Afghanistan purely as an analogy, not a central point, in much the same way that you introduced WWII. You didn't like my subsequent references to your analogy and now you don't like my analogy either. And you accuse me of being unable to maintain a debate?
Ah well, at least we agree on the Falklands.
Original post by kingsholmmad
No, I called you a troll because your argument had so little validity that it can only have been mooted as a means of gaining reaction.
And you have yet to substantiate that with anything other than 'it's an opinion different to mine, so it must be trolling.'
I ask again, where and when exactly has being pro war in Afghanistan been debunked as invalid and trolling?
You are a pretentious little **** and if you can't handle the concept of a debate, I suggest you stay clear of TSR.
Original post by kingsholmmad
Anyone who answers my statement that "war is necessary" by accusing me of pacifism deserves to be called a troll. My apologies if that offends you.
Anyone who answers my statement that "war is necessary" by accusing me of pacifism deserves to be called a troll. My apologies if that offends you.
Jesus Christ, are you actually so devoid of brain capacity that you can't handle different trains of thought without muddling them up? I clearly explained what you said that I thought was pacifist.
Are you actually so desperate that you have to take my answers out of context in an attempt to gain the upper hand?
Original post by kingsholmmad
Anyone who chooses to describe what I earlier referred to as "collateral" (ie undesirable but necessary) as a sinister coalition doctrine just strengthens the troll argument.
Anyone who chooses to describe what I earlier referred to as "collateral" (ie undesirable but necessary) as a sinister coalition doctrine just strengthens the troll argument.
You described the war as simply spending a decade killing thousands of innocent civilians. You obviously think that our objective out there is to kill innocent civilians. But don't bother actually adressing that point, no, quote me out of context and continue dismissing every point you can't handle as 'trolling'
Original post by kingsholmmad
And anyone who considers the outcome of a war to be irrelevant to the decision to start it has to be a troll.
And anyone who considers the outcome of a war to be irrelevant to the decision to start it has to be a troll.
And anyone who disagrees with me on this issue has to be a troll, and if you disagree with me on this issue you are cetainly a troll, and if you disagree with me on this issue you must be a troll, because I'm the mighty kingsholmmad and I come onto a debating forum not to debate, but to dictate the opinons that everyone else can have
Next time somebody kills 3,000 of our civilians, we'll just write them a strongly worded letter asking them to please not do it again, shall we?
Original post by kingsholmmad
I brought up Afghanistan purely as an analogy, not a central point, in much the same way that you introduced WWII. You didn't like my subsequent references to your analogy and now you don't like my analogy either. And you accuse me of being unable to maintain a debate?
I brought up Afghanistan purely as an analogy, not a central point, in much the same way that you introduced WWII. You didn't like my subsequent references to your analogy and now you don't like my analogy either. And you accuse me of being unable to maintain a debate?
I have actually been attempting to debate you on these points, where as you have simply been dismissing any point you don't like as trolling. Ironically your behaviour is bordering on trolling itself.
Original post by hamijack
Sit back laughing at them and flipping them off. Argentina can't do anything in either the political or military arena when it comes to the Falklands. All that's going on is she's sabre rattling for votes.
This, plus I love how 'sabre rattling' has been used so much in the media when reporting this
Personally I'm all for taking the piss out of them, treat them like the whiny kid of the classroom who complains about the cool kids, and can't do anything unless they want to get their heads flushed in the toilet.
Original post by pol pot noodles
And you have yet to substantiate that with anything other than 'it's an opinion different to mine, so it must be trolling.'
I ask again, where and when exactly has being pro war in Afghanistan been debunked as invalid and trolling?
You are a pretentious little **** and if you can't handle the concept of a debate, I suggest you stay clear of TSR.
Jesus Christ, are you actually so devoid of brain capacity that you can't handle different trains of thought without muddling them up? I clearly explained what you said that I thought was pacifist.
Are you actually so desperate that you have to take my answers out of context in an attempt to gain the upper hand?
I ask again, where and when exactly has being pro war in Afghanistan been debunked as invalid and trolling?
You are a pretentious little **** and if you can't handle the concept of a debate, I suggest you stay clear of TSR.
Jesus Christ, are you actually so devoid of brain capacity that you can't handle different trains of thought without muddling them up? I clearly explained what you said that I thought was pacifist.
Are you actually so desperate that you have to take my answers out of context in an attempt to gain the upper hand?
Oh, it's about "gaining the upper hand", is it? I come here for a debate and you've come here for a bit of name-calling, trolling and "gaining the upper hand"? But, since you ask so nicely, you clearly explained that my view on Afghanistan was pacifist. I clearly explained that noone who believes that war is necessary can be a pacifist. As with the majority of points I've raised, you've found it easier to abuse me than to answer the point in hand.
You described the war as simply spending a decade killing thousands of innocent civilians. You obviously think that our objective out there is to kill innocent civilians. But don't bother actually adressing that point, no, quote me out of context and continue dismissing every point you can't handle as 'trolling'
And anyone who disagrees with me on this issue has to be a troll, and if you disagree with me on this issue you are cetainly a troll, and if you disagree with me on this issue you must be a troll, because I'm the mighty kingsholmmad and I come onto a debating forum not to debate, but to dictate the opinons that everyone else can have
Next time somebody kills 3,000 of our civilians, we'll just write them a strongly worded letter asking them to please not do it again, shall we?
I have actually been attempting to debate you on these points, where as you have simply been dismissing any point you don't like as trolling. Ironically your behaviour is bordering on trolling itself.
And anyone who disagrees with me on this issue has to be a troll, and if you disagree with me on this issue you are cetainly a troll, and if you disagree with me on this issue you must be a troll, because I'm the mighty kingsholmmad and I come onto a debating forum not to debate, but to dictate the opinons that everyone else can have
Next time somebody kills 3,000 of our civilians, we'll just write them a strongly worded letter asking them to please not do it again, shall we?
I have actually been attempting to debate you on these points, where as you have simply been dismissing any point you don't like as trolling. Ironically your behaviour is bordering on trolling itself.
Finally, FINALLY, the light is beginning to dawn.
I should just mention a couple of things before we draw this to a close
1) resorting to name-calling generally weakens your argument
2) being the one who provides a significantly larger quantity of direct answers (if you don't believe me, check it) generally strengthens my argument.
You'll need to do better if you want to dish out accusations of poor debating.
Meanwhile, this remains a Falklands thread, we've already established that we agree on the Falklands so, if you wish to continue discussing Afghanistan, I suggest you open an Afghanistan thread.
Original post by kingsholmmad
Oh, it's about "gaining the upper hand", is it? I come here for a debate and you've come here for a bit of name-calling, trolling and "gaining the upper hand"?
You didn't come here for a debate, because you've dismissed any point I make that you don't like as trolling, and you take my statements out of context so you can prove some point that I wasn't arguing. That's not debating by any stretch of the imagination.
Original post by kingsholmmad
But, since you ask so nicely, you clearly explained that my view on Afghanistan was pacifist. I clearly explained that noone who believes that war is necessary can be a pacifist. As with the majority of points I've raised, you've found it easier to abuse me than to answer the point in hand.
But, since you ask so nicely, you clearly explained that my view on Afghanistan was pacifist. I clearly explained that noone who believes that war is necessary can be a pacifist. As with the majority of points I've raised, you've found it easier to abuse me than to answer the point in hand.
I clearly explained that your earlier implication that the war in Afghanistan is unjustified because it would involve 'killing natives', is what smacks of pacifism. Any war obviously involves 'killing natives', so to use that as a reason for not waging war in Afghanistan would make you against every war in principle.
You finally said that you thought the war is necessary in only one of our more recent exchanges, long after I accused you of pacifism. Are you unable to understand the concept of chronology?
What you did there was a text book straw man, that was.
Original post by kingsholmmad
Finally, FINALLY, the light is beginning to dawn.
I should just mention a couple of things before we draw this to a close
1) resorting to name-calling generally weakens your argument
Finally, FINALLY, the light is beginning to dawn.
I should just mention a couple of things before we draw this to a close
1) resorting to name-calling generally weakens your argument
It does, which is why your constant dismissing of everything I say as trolling has left you pretty much without a leg to stand on.
Original post by kingsholmmad
2) being the one who provides a significantly larger quantity of direct answers (if you don't believe me, check it) generally strengthens my argument.
You'll need to do better if you want to dish out accusations of poor debating.
2) being the one who provides a significantly larger quantity of direct answers (if you don't believe me, check it) generally strengthens my argument.
You'll need to do better if you want to dish out accusations of poor debating.
You're beginning to sound delusional. You haven't provided any direct answers. You rely on straw man arguments, and everything else you dismiss as trolling, which I can only assume is either because you actually can't answer the point, or you are intent on trolling yourself, or you genuinely believe that your point of view is automatically bona fide superior.
Original post by kingsholmmad
Meanwhile, this remains a Falklands thread, we've already established that we agree on the Falklands so, if you wish to continue discussing Afghanistan, I suggest you open an Afghanistan thread.
Meanwhile, this remains a Falklands thread, we've already established that we agree on the Falklands so, if you wish to continue discussing Afghanistan, I suggest you open an Afghanistan thread.
As I said, if you don't want to debate Afghanistan, don't bring it up in the first place.
That goal was a deliberate affront to British ideals of fair play. Its our game and if Argentina cant play it properly they shouldn't be allowed to play it at all. I say we invade and install a puppet government with a law banning football. In doing so we'd also protect the falklands. 
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by cl_steele
by pre-emptive strike i assume you mean bomb the ****ers? personally i say thats a bad move, the americans would not take kindly to us carpet bombing their back garden and messing up their supply of mcdonalds meat
Bomb the hell out of them, don't worry we have plenty of ranches in texas where we can get beef. Trust me we couldn't care less about argentina, anything south of our border we could care less about unless it's mexicans coming over it. If a new president is elected in november you might have an ally as well
Most informed Americans disdain argentina as much as you brits do.Original post by Texan88
Bomb the hell out of them, don't worry we have plenty of ranches in texas where we can get beef. Trust me we couldn't care less about argentina, anything south of our border we could care less about unless it's mexicans coming over it. If a new president is elected in november you might have an ally as well Most informed Americans disdain argentina as much as you brits do.
Most informed Americans disdain argentina as much as you brits do.then i do believe its time to ge tthe bombers rolling
Original post by cl_steele
then i do believe its time to ge tthe bombers rolling
I shall give the RAF a ring now.
A strongly worded letter of course.
referendum in the falklands. simple.
..
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by patrickinator
The Argentine government is now looking to take back the Falklands creating more political pressure and instability between us the the Argies. What do you think the UK government should do now??
SORRY TITLE SHOULD BE ARGENTINA NOT ARGENTINIA SORRY!!!!
SORRY TITLE SHOULD BE ARGENTINA NOT ARGENTINIA SORRY!!!!
Considering they have very nearly disarmed themselves, and now hardly spend anything on a military budget, which means more money for their people, and actually show no signs of military aggression, i'd say our government should get the f*ck out of their, stop sticking their noses where they dont belong, stop sucking up to the US trying to be the "world police's" little bro, and take on Argentina's example.
How much do we spend on the military each year? Something like £15 Billion if i remember correctly. Think how much good that could do in our country.
..
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by AdvStudy
Trade embargo. They're trying to make life as hard as possible for our fellow Brits on the Falklands, so lets return the favour. Be even better if we could get allies like the US and the EU to cripple them.
So you would force Argentinian civilians who bear no ill will toward the United Kingdom to pay for the actions of the Argentinian government?
Original post by Texan88
Bomb the hell out of them, don't worry we have plenty of ranches in texas where we can get beef. Trust me we couldn't care less about argentina, anything south of our border we could care less about unless it's mexicans coming over it. If a new president is elected in november you might have an ally as well Most informed Americans disdain argentina as much as you brits do.
Most informed Americans disdain argentina as much as you brits do.Really? a neg for this? you can't realize that it is sarcasm and satire? Whoever negged you need to grow a funny bone.
Original post by Bax-man
So you would force Argentinian civilians who bear no ill will toward the United Kingdom to pay for the actions of the Argentinian government?
Not that I agree but you could say its a democracy, you vote in a person with those views and you live what happens because of them. Obviously I don't think we should ever target civilians.
just nuke the ****ers
Related discussions
- Appointment of Governor
- Are student loans in the UK halal?
- Imperial College MSc Finance Video Interview
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- Participation crisis essay
- Is it just me or there are more and more people begging for money
- EPQ
- Tier 4 (Student) Visa not valid for a Summer Vacation Scheme
- What do you think of HS2 only going to Birmingham
- HE fee status
- EPQ
- higher modern studies assignment
- Registered with SAAS but need SFE funding
- interest rates go up again!
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Choosing a University
- Applying for a Masters Loan in the UK as a German citizen
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Clearing 2024- Queen Mary/ City Uni of London
- TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
