The Falkland Islands...

**Castle-Bravo354** · 02-14-2012, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by bart5050

There was an interesting physics lesson during the Falklands war.
There had been an emphesis on lighter faster ships over the slow heavy ones with thick armor.

Don't remember the ships name, going on memory so I hope I get all this right.
But one of the UK lighter faster ships had an aluminum hull and superstructure.
It got a missile hit and cought fire, burning down to the waterline and sinking.

Anything, even steel, will burn if it gets hot enough.
But, aluminum doesn't have to get as hot as steel does to burn like wood.

bart....it was the HMS Sheffield that was hit by an exocet missle. Two other ships were also damaged in the same way.

The British submarine sank the biggest ship in the argetine navy.....which had been built in the 1930s as a US Navy light cruiser.

**AD1184** · 02-14-2012, 07:07 PM

Here's a video of Spicoli uttering his nonsense

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17025000

**bart5050** · 02-14-2012, 07:26 PM

Mr. Penn is not held up as an example of clear thought by very many.

**journey** · 02-14-2012, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by Fen Star

This really F*^ks me off, people like this are clueless idiots who should be banned from opening their gobs until what they want to say is vetted by somebody with half a brain,

It has nothing to do with colonialism which is rich coming from Argentina seeing as they are descendants of the Spanish who conquered South America and all but slaughted the indigenous population, when the Falklands were discovered they were uninhabited. Would the USA recognise Mexico claims to Texas/California of course they wouldn't bloody ridiculous, the Falkland Islanders have the right to self determination and they want to remain British which is why the UN dismissed the Argentines claims, they were the ones who weren't interested in diplomacy in 82 they just invaded the Falklands and got their asses well and truly kicked....

Fen
I would recommend you to read the history of the islands from 1501 to 1833.
About California and Texas, I agree with you. thieves would never recognize their thievery.

**AD1184** · 02-14-2012, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by journey

Fen
I would recommend you to read the history of the islands from 1501 to 1833.
About California and Texas, I agree with you. thieves would never recognize their thievery.

What sort of opinion is veiled by this cryptic remark? The Falklands traded hands amongst the colonial powers early in their inhabited history, as many such islands did. It is not terribly important what events occurred up to the early 19th century. The people who had an interest then are now long dead. Britain too had been involved with the islands right from the beginning of their recorded history, and all that matters now is that Britain has had the longest continuous presence surviving until the present. Their inhabitants are British, and wish to remain British. End of.

**nivek** · 02-14-2012, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by journey

About California and Texas, I agree with you. thieves would never recognize their thievery.

Are you implying the US 'stole' Texas and California from Mexico?...

**comfortablynumb** · 02-14-2012, 11:57 PM

Hasn't a British company recently found a sizeable oil deposit beneath the sea surrounding the islands? Which has re-kindled the currant ownership tug of war.

Any decision on sovereignty should rest with the islanders themselves.

I think the Islanders view their relationship with the UK as one of convenience. (iI thought the islands had been moving towards devolution?)

**journey** · 02-15-2012, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by AD1184

What sort of opinion is veiled by this cryptic remark? The Falklands traded hands amongst the colonial powers early in their inhabited history, as many such islands did. It is not terribly important what events occurred up to the early 19th century. The people who had an interest then are now long dead. Britain too had been involved with the islands right from the beginning of their recorded history, and all that matters now is that Britain has had the longest continuous presence surviving until the present. Their inhabitants are British, and wish to remain British. End of.

That sounds simple but is not.
By knowing the history of the islands, you will see why Argentina is claiming sovereignty over the archipelago. End of.

**journey** · 02-15-2012, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by nivek242

Are you implying the US 'stole' Texas and California from Mexico?...

Yes!......Including New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, La Mesilla and the Santa Catalina islands.
But being this a very thorny issue, I prefer no to talk over this matter.

**Fen Star** · 02-15-2012, 04:33 AM

Originally Posted by Castle-Bravo354

bart....it was the HMS Sheffield that was hit by an exocet missle. Two other ships were also damaged in the same way.

The British submarine sank the biggest ship in the argetine navy.....which had been built in the 1930s as a US Navy light cruiser.

On a side note HMS Conquer is the only Nuclear sub to sink a ship in anger..

Originally Posted by journey

Fen
I would recommend you to read the history of the islands from 1501 to 1833.
About California and Texas, I agree with you. thieves would never recognize their thievery.

Originally Posted by journey

That sounds simple but is not.
By knowing the history of the islands, you will see why Argentina is claiming sovereignty over the archipelago. End of.

I know the History of the Islands Journey, and Argentina has no claim over the Falklands, Not just historically but simply because the Islanders have the right to self determination and they have chosen to remain British, Britain has had a presents on the Islands the longest most of the inhabitants are descended from the original British Garrison. so why do you believe that Argentina has a claim that out ways that of the Islanders who live there.?