Conquer Club

Argentina's President decides that money can grow on trees
Argentina makes it illegal to present factual information
Argentinian government steals the pension fund and...
subsequently fucks over the pensioners

dang...

Maggie should have used nukes.

Lamest country ever.

bitches be crazy

Yeah, ARG. economically and politically sucks:

http://www.freetheworld.com/countrydata.php?country=C3

The people are probably nice enough though. I hear it's a gorgeous country too, with great food.

Nietzsche would agree with me. They can t even talk properly. No wonder everything is going south.

Perhaps Argentina suffers from corruption issues and the Kirchener administration are not angels. The Malvinas Islands still need to be returned to Argentina. This is a constitutional, not a political, question. The Malvinas are Argentine and they are Argentina's to manage or mismanage as Argentina sees fit.

The Falklands are British. The Senkakus are Japanese. The civilized world should not allow its sovereignty to be threatened by thugs.

mrswdk wrote:The Falklands are British. The Senkakus are Japanese. The civilized world should not allow its sovereignty to be threatened by thugs who I dislike.

FTFY

saxitoxin wrote:Perhaps Argentina suffers from corruption issues and the Kirchener administration are not angels. The Malvinas Islands still need to be returned to Argentina. This is a constitutional, not a political, question. The Malvinas are Argentine and they are Argentina's to manage or mismanage as Argentina sees fit.

saxi is in love with Kirchener



saxi and Cristina
sitting in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
first comes love
then comes marriage
then comes baby
in a baby carriage

mrswdk wrote:The Falklands Malvinas are have British living on them.

fixed

nietzsche wrote:saxi is in love with Kirchener

she's our Princess Diana

saxitoxin wrote:Perhaps Argentina suffers from corruption issues and the Kirchener administration are not angels. The Malvinas Islands still need to be returned to Argentina. This is a constitutional, not a political, question. The Malvinas are Argentine and they are Argentina's to manage or mismanage as Argentina sees fit.

The Falklands are British, by the simple right of homestead. Only the British built a successful, self-sustaining colony there. The French and Spanish colonies were catastrophic failures incapable of any economic activity and any claims based on them are null and void.

If there had been an indigenous population, there might be some need to consider their views, but in this case there were not. The Falklands were uninhabited virgin soil, and therefore the first people to successfully colonize there are the owners. Case closed.

Dukasaur wrote:The Falklands are British, by the simple right of homestead. Only the British built a successful, self-sustaining colony there.

Great. So you won't have any objection if, tomorrow, Russia builds a military base in Hudson Bay on the Ottawa Islands. They're uninhabited after all.

saxitoxin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:The Falklands are British, by the simple right of homestead. Only the British built a successful, self-sustaining colony there.

Great. So you won't have any objection if, tomorrow, Russia builds a military base in Hudson Bay on the Ottawa Islands. They're uninhabited after all.

Morally speaking, I have no objection.

Of course on strategic grounds I would oppose the move. But that is a purely pragmatic position and has nothing to do with the rights involved.

Neither Canada or any other former soviet nation can afford to build a habitable colony on those islands.

Dukasaur wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:The Falklands are British, by the simple right of homestead. Only the British built a successful, self-sustaining colony there.

Great. So you won't have any objection if, tomorrow, Russia builds a military base in Hudson Bay on the Ottawa Islands. They're uninhabited after all.

Morally speaking, I have no objection.

Of course on strategic grounds I would oppose the move. But that is a purely pragmatic position and has nothing to do with the rights involved.

Great, so you're fine with tomorrow Russia occupying islands in Hudson's Bay and flying MiGs about and having destroyers steaming up all over the place. Then Putin's balding son will go on a party camp-out there for six months for photo opps that will run in various Russian tabloids under the headline "Sexy Dmitri Standing Down Evil Cancuks!" Then they'll send a nuclear-armed submarine into the bay and make various veiled threats to turn Toronto into glass if your fishing boats get too close. And Canadians will be banned from traveling there. However, you'll still be expected to provide mail service. Oh, and medical flights to Montreal if one of the Russians gets sick.

saxitoxin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:The Falklands are British, by the simple right of homestead. Only the British built a successful, self-sustaining colony there.

Great. So you won't have any objection if, tomorrow, Russia builds a military base in Hudson Bay on the Ottawa Islands. They're uninhabited after all.

Morally speaking, I have no objection.

Of course on strategic grounds I would oppose the move. But that is a purely pragmatic position and has nothing to do with the rights involved.

Great, so you're fine with tomorrow Russia occupying islands in Hudson's Bay and flying MiGs about and having destroyers steaming up all over the place. Then Putin's balding son will go on a party camp-out there for six months for photo opps that will run in various Russian tabloids under the headline "Sexy Dmitri Standing Down Evil Cancuks!" Then they'll send a nuclear-armed submarine into the bay and make various veiled threats to turn Toronto into glass if your fishing boats get too close. And Canadians will be banned from traveling there. However, you'll still be expected to provide mail service. Oh, and medical flights to Montreal if one of the Russians gets sick.

Those are precisely the pragmatic considerations I referred to.

Dukasaur wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:The Falklands are British, by the simple right of homestead. Only the British built a successful, self-sustaining colony there.

Great. So you won't have any objection if, tomorrow, Russia builds a military base in Hudson Bay on the Ottawa Islands. They're uninhabited after all.

Morally speaking, I have no objection.

Of course on strategic grounds I would oppose the move. But that is a purely pragmatic position and has nothing to do with the rights involved.

Great, so you're fine with tomorrow Russia occupying islands in Hudson's Bay and flying MiGs about and having destroyers steaming up all over the place. Then Putin's balding son will go on a party camp-out there for six months for photo opps that will run in various Russian tabloids under the headline "Sexy Dmitri Standing Down Evil Cancuks!" Then they'll send a nuclear-armed submarine into the bay and make various veiled threats to turn Toronto into glass if your fishing boats get too close. And Canadians will be banned from traveling there. However, you'll still be expected to provide mail service. Oh, and medical flights to Montreal if one of the Russians gets sick.

Those are precisely the pragmatic considerations I referred to.

Then you'll ask to negotiate with them to get the islands back and they'll say "there's no way in hell you can talk to our ambassador!" Instead they'll insist you negotiate with Olga, the 8-fingered baboushka-wearing woman who cleans the barnacles out of the fish nets and never graduated fifth grade. "See what Olga says first, then we'll talk!" the Russians say, laughing.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:The Falklands are British. The Senkakus are Japanese. The civilized world should not allow its sovereignty to be threatened by thugs who I dislike.

FTFY

In my defence, my views on Senkaku have nothing to do with preferring Japan to China. I think both administrations are as bad as each other. I just think it's better if people make rules and stick to then, rather than taking the things they want by hitting the current owner over the head with a stick.

mrswdk wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:The Falklands are British. The Senkakus are Japanese. The civilized world should not allow its sovereignty to be threatened by thugs who I dislike.

FTFY

In my defence, my views on Senkaku have nothing to do with preferring Japan to China. I think both administrations are as bad as each other. I just think it's better if people make rules and stick to then, rather than taking the things they want by hitting the current owner over the head with a stick.

you and Ian Smith

Anyway ...

We don't gots Youtube in this country. What's the gist of the video?

mrswdk wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:The Falklands are British. The Senkakus are Japanese. The civilized world should not allow its sovereignty to be threatened by thugs who I dislike.

FTFY

In my defence, my views on Senkaku have nothing to do with preferring Japan to China. I think both administrations are as bad as each other. I just think it's better if people make rules and stick to then, rather than taking the things they want by hitting the current owner over the head with a stick.

Um, that's how governments have been behaving since they sprung up from chiefdoms.

Why is accepting their rules in a certain time period the correct choice?

I was pretty neutral about the Russian Base at first, but I am starting to get disappointed it's not an actual plan.

2dimes wrote:I was pretty neutral about the Russian Base at first, but I am starting to get disappointed it's not an actual plan.

Me too, I'd love for the US to have an excuse to nuke those fuckers.