VILLAFC2000

I will think you will find George Galloway voted for the war in the Falkands for exacly those reasons - Did you know that...?

In what sense? He wasn’t an MP until 1987...

He supported the campaign to invade the Falklands.

Arse meet elbow, pleasure to meet you.

Your logic we should sack of the north, as that's a bit expensive to keep. Is a pity the Argies don't take it to the international court, but then there its a very good reason why they don't.

Not really no - the North is actually part of the UK - Joined on as one.#

Where as the Falkland are over 7000 miles away - so no not the same.

You cannot own the land the land owns you.

It's got nothing to do with arrogance FFS. The Falklands are British islands and the islanders want to remain on that island as British citizens. You can't just turf them out and hand over their home to Argentina because other countries think that would be the right thing to do.

Anyway, Latin American countries aren't going to refuse to trade with us over something as small as this.

Exacly the point if its a small issue what the f--k was the point in going to war over it...?!

For a start the Islands are thousands of miles aways from the UK. It’s a bit like saying Argentina are well within their rights to claim the Isle of the man. There is something thats been around for a long time its called common sense.

The Argentines claim the islands, most latin countries back this and the majority of other countries also back this FOR THESE MAIN REASONS.

You cannot translate 2000 of you own settlers at the time of the Falkland war and put them on vacant territory and them claim that you have sovereignty over those islands forever.

If the local residents want to remain brittish. Why not give them money to relocate to Brittian a nation which they want to be part of.

You do the Maths there are 2000 people in the Falkands. Its has cost us Billions in the Falkands.

Or let the UN decide.

Cheers.

Your comparison doesn't even make sense. The Isle of Man isn't an Argentinian territory and the people who live on the Isle of Man aren't demanding to be part of Argentina. As meregreen said, the principle of self determination is key here. The islanders (you know, the people that actually live there) want to remain on the island as Brits. Nobody other than the islanders should get to decide who the Falklands belongs to. Not Britain, not Argentina and certainly not other Latin American countries. I find it utterly appalling that you think they should be kicked off their home just because you want to pander to Latin America.

I really don't understand your reasons behind wanting to give the Falklands to Argentina. Is it the cost?

Is it the cost - lol...! Do you actually no how much those Islands have cost us.

As you correctly ponted out - this is a small issue there was no need to go to war over these islands.

The UK is nowhere near the Falklands - it makes no sense.

Where did those 2000 people come from and how long have they lived there for...?

By your philosophy Australians should all come back as should all non native Americans. Incidentally most Argentinians came from Spain and Italy, should they all leave as well. The current islanders have been there since 1830. Prior to this the islands were uninhabited.If you trade the human rights of one man, we are all the poorer for it. Not all human principles should be judged by the fiscal cost.

I have not specifically said that the Islands should be directely handed back to Argentina straight away - I think the UK needs to listen more.

Either that or let the UN decide.

So basically it is the cost then?

read my posts!

I have, and that's the message I can get from them. If not the cost, then why do you want to see the islands handed over and the people turfed out?

I am not going to keep on going around in circles - Its only a small issue after all...!

By your philosophy Australians should all come back as should all non native Americans. Incidentally most Argentinians came from Spain and Italy, should they all leave as well. The current islanders have been there since 1830. Prior to this the islands were uninhabited.If you trade the human rights of one man, we are all the poorer for it. Not all human principles should be judged by the fiscal cost.

lol

I have never said the only thing to do is Turf them out. In fact I never said those words. They should be able to stay British on the Islands if they want.

So basically it is the cost then?

read my posts!

Why do you think the islands should go to Argentina anyway? Why not France? They were there first.

Ask France!

It's got nothing to do with arrogance FFS. The Falklands are British islands and the islanders want to remain on that island as British citizens. You can't just turf them out and hand over their home to Argentina because other countries think that would be the right thing to do.

Anyway, Latin American countries aren't going to refuse to trade with us over something as small as this.

Exacly the point if its a small issue what the f--k was the point in going to war over it...?!

For a start the Islands are thousands of miles aways from the UK. It’s a bit like saying Argentina are well within their rights to claim the Isle of the man. There is something thats been around for a long time its called common sense.

The Argentines claim the islands, most latin countries back this and the majority of other countries also back this FOR THESE MAIN REASONS.

You cannot translate 2000 of you own settlers at the time of the Falkland war and put them on vacant territory and them claim that you have sovereignty over those islands forever.

If the local residents want to remain brittish. Why not give them money to relocate to Brittian a nation which they want to be part of.

You do the Maths there are 2000 people in the Falkands. Its has cost us Billions in the Falkands.

Or let the UN decide.

Cheers.

Your comparison doesn't even make sense. The Isle of Man isn't an Argentinian territory and the people who live on the Isle of Man aren't demanding to be part of Argentina. As meregreen said, the principle of self determination is key here. The islanders (you know, the people that actually live there) want to remain on the island as Brits. Nobody other than the islanders should get to decide who the Falklands belongs to. Not Britain, not Argentina and certainly not other Latin American countries. I find it utterly appalling that you think they should be kicked off their home just because you want to pander to Latin America.

I really don't understand your reasons behind wanting to give the Falklands to Argentina. Is it the cost?

Is it the cost - lol...! Do you actually no how much those Islands have cost us.

As you correctly ponted out - this is a small issue there was no need to go to war over these islands.

The UK is nowhere near the Falklands - it makes no sense.

Where did those 2000 people come from and how long have they lived there for...?

What he said about the Falkands was absolutely correct its redicoulous that we fought over island thousands away - with a poplulation no bigger than neverstowy. Imagine if Argentina tried to take the Isle of Man. Do you realize virtually the only Country in the world that thinks we should keep the Falklands are ourselves....! Argentina Brazil and virtually all the other Latino countries think we should not to have. Not to mention European countries, China ect. If any of those countries decided to put not to trade with us it would be a disaster for the economy.

I dont agree with everything he says but he is a very astute politician for sure. It will be good to see him in Parliament - after all we do live in a democracy where he was voted in.

What are you talking about? The islanders want to remain British. It's a British island. End of. What other Latin American countries think is irrelevant. They're going to side with Argentina anyway for obvious reasons.

Thats where your wrong.

Thats like saying we agree with everything that France and Germany say for obvious reasons. That argument makes no sense. Its not just Latin Countries that think that, the vast majorities of countries outside the SA have expressed concerns. Its only our arrogance that demands we should keep them.

In fact its really only the UK that think we should keep them - that speaks volumes..!

If the Islanders want to remain Brittish then thats absolutely fine - relocate them to the UK.

Your ignorance astounds me. When the British settled the islands, they were uninhabited. No Argentinians have ever lived there. The islands arte four hundred miles from Argentina, not exactly within their territorial waters. It is for the people of those islands to decide if they wish to be part of Argentina, no one else has the right to impose this upon them. The priciple of self determination is an important one. To ignore it, would mean that threats and coercion would hold sway. That is a road we would all tread at our peril.

My Ignorance.

So you knew Galloway voted for the invasion of the Falklands?

Your correct the Islands are roughly 400 miles away from Argentian but did you also know they are a lot lot lot further away from the UK- 7913.06 miles to be precise.

With your conceptual view point they are not exacly in out territorial waters either. Pop corn in the kettle black is it.

As I have already stated

You cannot translate 2000 of you own settlers at the time of the Falkland war and put them on vacant territory and them claim that you have sovereignty over those islands forever.

If the local residents want to remain brittish. Why not give them money to relocate to Brittian a nation which they want to be part of.

You do the Maths there are 2000 people in the Falkands. Its has cost us Billions in the Falkands.

Or let the UN decide.

It's got nothing to do with arrogance FFS. The Falklands are British islands and the islanders want to remain on that island as British citizens. You can't just turf them out and hand over their home to Argentina because other countries think that would be the right thing to do.

Anyway, Latin American countries aren't going to refuse to trade with us over something as small as this.

Exacly the point if its a small issue what the f--k was the point in going to war over it...?!

For a start the Islands are thousands of miles aways from the UK. It’s a bit like saying Argentina are well within their rights to claim the Isle of the man. There is something thats been around for a long time its called common sense.

The Argentines claim the islands, most latin countries back this and the majority of other countries also back this FOR THESE MAIN REASONS.

You cannot translate 2000 of you own settlers at the time of the Falkland war and put them on vacant territory and them claim that you have sovereignty over those islands forever.

If the local residents want to remain brittish. Why not give them money to relocate to Brittian a nation which they want to be part of.

You do the Maths there are 2000 people in the Falkands. Its has cost us Billions in the Falkands.

Or let the UN decide.

Cheers.

What he said about the Falkands was absolutely correct its redicoulous that we fought over island thousands away - with a poplulation no bigger than neverstowy. Imagine if Argentina tried to take the Isle of Man. Do you realize virtually the only Country in the world that thinks we should keep the Falklands are ourselves....! Argentina Brazil and virtually all the other Latino countries think we should not to have. Not to mention European countries, China ect. If any of those countries decided to put not to trade with us it would be a disaster for the economy.

I dont agree with everything he says but he is a very astute politician for sure. It will be good to see him in Parliament - after all we do live in a democracy where he was voted in.

What are you talking about? The islanders want to remain British. It's a British island. End of. What other Latin American countries think is irrelevant. They're going to side with Argentina anyway for obvious reasons.

Thats where your wrong.

Thats like saying we agree with everything that France and Germany say for obvious reasons. That argument makes no sense. Its not just Latin Countries that think that, the vast majorities of countries outside the SA have expressed concerns. Its only our arrogance that demands we should keep them.

In fact its really only the UK that think we should keep them - that speaks volumes..!

If the Islanders want to remain Brittish then thats absolutely fine - relocate them to the UK.

What he said about the Falkands was absolutely correct its redicoulous that we fought over island thousands away - with a poplulation no bigger than neverstowy.

Er... We stood up to a right wing dictatorship that threw people out of planes blindfolded who decided to invade a territory that wasn’t theirs? Let the people who live there decide what they want. Not General Leopoldo Galtieri and George ‘Greek’ Galloway

I will think you will find George Galloway supported the war in the Falkands for exacly those reasons - Did you know that...?

If the residents of the Falkadns want to remain as parts if the UK then let them - relocate them to the UK.

However the situation has changed the right wing dictatorship is no longer in charge of Argentina are they. The Islands have not moved any closer to the UK - suprisingly. The latinos encconomies are becoming much stronger especially in this economic hardship let me tell you this now is not the time to be making enemies with South America its the time to embrace it.

So what your saying is that all other countries are completely wrong and we are right, 99 % of countries believe Argentina should have soverignty its only the arrongance of the UK that thinks we should have them.

If the residents of the Falkadns want to remain as parts if the UK then let them,relocate them to the UK

Which begs the question why not let it go to the UN to decide...?

He has nothing but hatred for the UK.

think he was on "this week" the other week saying we should give the Falklands back as they weren't ours .. to steal an overused phrase

an odious man

He was a cheerleader for Saddam Hussein personally (1994 "Sir, I salute your courage, strength and indefatigability"), loves Hamas, the Taliban, is massively anti-semitic and is one of the staunchest supporters of the regime that murders and tortures their own in Iran.

He sent a letter to all Mosques trumpeting his abstention from alcohol and banging on about Pakistan, Kashmir, Iraq, Iran and his gobbing off in the US Senate hearing.

GG pushed an utterly sectarian agenda so is it really surprising to anyone that he mobilised the block Muslim vote in Bradford to support him instead of Labour?

EDIT: Does this mean he has to give up his paid job as the resident hater of the west on Iran's Press TV? I'd have thought it was unethical to take money from both the Iranian Government as their propagandist, and the UK Treasury for being an MP?

There seems to be an attempt to present Galloway as the main defender of Saddam, based on his ridiculous kowtowing and the daft words he used.

Robert Fisk has pointed out how Chirac, Rumsfeld and Haughey, for example, were similarly up his arse. But of course the greater crime is the way our government and others looked the other way when Saddam was butchering his own people. It was useful to play Iraq off against other countries for our gain, no matter how many Kurds and dissident Iraqis were slowly tortured to death in Saddam's prisons, or shot in their own homes, or gassed.

The way our establishment tries to criticise Galloway for his support of Saddam is not only the most barefaced hypocrisy imaginable, it is also morally repugnant.

Galloway has many faults. But if criticism on the grounds of supporting a butchering tyrant is in order, then there's a great many people who are far more culpable than him; some of them even have the gall to criticise him while glossing over their own complicity.

Yes people forget that the east has lots of Oil. There are no doubts that Galloiway made a few mistakes as did Tony Blair With Gidaffi. A ot of the west did this for political reasons. Dont forget the worst thing ever done was selling them weapons for mass profit. Theres no way I agree with any of this.

What he said about the Falkands was absolutely correct its redicoulous that we fought over island thousands away - with a poplulation no bigger than neverstowy. Imagine if Argentina tried to take the Isle of Man. Do you realize virtually the only Country in the world that thinks we should keep the Falklands are ourselves....! Argentina Brazil and virtually all the other Latino countries think we should not to have. Not to mention European countries, China ect. If any of those countries decided to put not to trade with us it would be a disaster for the economy.

I dont agree with everything he says but he is a very astute politician for sure. It will be good to see him in Parliament - after all we do live in a democracy where he was voted in.

Terrible news today - Stilian superb player and a superb bloke.

Get better Top man.

The fans are with you all the way.

thats the biggest problem, the previous government managed to turn having kids in to a career choice, add that to what i think ender4 is getting that, people who even 10 years ago wouldnt be entitled to anything are now entitled to a fair bit and the horse has bolted

people used to be able to make do , i dont think they could now, they'd be riots if child benefits were cut, wasbt there a claim from a leading charity recently that children would be starving in the street if cuts were made, its not really true is it?

What do you mean by career..!

People used to make do - oh you mean like in the 80s...?!

If they live the life of Riley then why don't you give your job up retire you live their life.

Thatcher created an underclass system in the 1980s by making at least 2-4 million unemployed by taking away their industries - Coal,steel, docks ect.

Those 2-4 million had a family so you can then double that figure. Generations then grew up without strong role models and a working ethic. Communities were destroyed ask the Welsh and the northern industrial Cities...!

The wealthiest people in this country get away time and time again withouht paying millions and billions in tax. Thats right an individual can get away with not paying a million in tax yet you seem more concerned about some getting 50 pounds a month money on bennifits. What a fantastically constructed intellectual view point you have made. You dont read the Daily Mail do you?

This video tells it like it is.

2010 cost of top 10 benefits:

Tax Credits - £24 Billion

Housing Benefit - £22 Billion

Child Benefit - £11 Billion

Disability Living Allowance - £7.7 Billion

Income Support - £7.7 Billion

Incapacity Benefit - £6.2 Billion

Jobseekers - £3.7 Billion

Council Tax benefit - £2.5 Billion

Maternity Pay - £1.8 Billion

Carer's Allowance - £1.5 Billion

This is the whole point.

There is an estimated 100 billion which is avoided in tax each year and thats not even considering tax evasion.

Why are you not harping on about that?

Oh dear, it seems some sensitive souls are getting a bit Butthurt over criticism of O'Neill. Bless.

Phil, you seem to be very confused. I haven't said anywhere that MON tried to sign Bent, that is after all one of the things I'm criticising him for, yes?

**** me, if I was trying to "win" a debate with you and some of the other genius types on this thread it wouldn't be much of a challenge. I'm only stating a case for why MON should not get away scott free in the blame game.

He knew how to buy a defence? LOL, he had enough **** practice buying defenders, it was awfully nice of him getting it right for a few months (at the expense of buying the striker we needed and sacrificing attacking play). Have you even asked yourself why he had to buy an entire defence twice in two years?

Yes, the last one he put together had half a good season but also included a centre half at right back who was terrible going forward and lets not forget half of the money he spent (wasted) was on defenders because he had to keep replacing the mistakes he made. Beye hardly ever played and he decided to forget to speak to Young and Shorey. There's £12m worth of full backs on £130,000 p/w that sat on their arse. Never mind letting our best young defender go and paying £10m for a defender who we let go for **** all and went straight into the Dogshit's reserves. Oh yes, very impressive.

Lets look at the transfer genius of St Martin the blameless, blessing and peace be upon him.

I'll let the court view this and decide how good or bad it was. Personally it's lack of imagination, long term vision and value for money makes me want to puke.

2006-07

In

Stiliyan Petrov (Celtic, £6.5m)

Didier Agathe (Celtic, Free)

Chris Sutton (Celtic, Free)

John Carew (Lyon, Swap)

Ashley Young (Watford, £9.65m)

Shaun Maloney (Celtic, £1.1m)

Out

Kevin Phillips (WBA, £700k)

Matthieu Berson (Levante, £1m)

Ulises De La Cruz (Reading, Free)

Peter Whittingham (Cardiff City, £250k)

Eric Djemba Djemba (Quatar, Free)

Milan Baros (Lyon, Swap)

Mark Delaney (Retired)

Juan Pablo Angel (New York Red Bulls, Free)

Spent: £17.25m

Brought in: £1.95m

Net spend: £15.3m

2007-08 In

Moustapha Salifou (FC Wil, Undisc)

Zat Knight (Fulham, £3.5m)

Harry Forrester (Watford, £250 000)

Eric Lichaj (Unattached, Free)

Marlon Harewood (West Ham, £3.5m)

Nigel Reo-Coker (West Ham £8.5m)

Wayne Routledge (Tottenham, £1.5m)

Out

Liam Ridgewell (Birmingham, £2m)

Jlloyd Samuel (Bolton, Free)

Lee Hendrie (Sheffield United, Free)

Chris Sutton Retired

Didier Agathe released

Steven Davis (Fulham, £4m)

Aaron Hughes (Fulham, £1m)

Gavin McCann (Bolton, £1m)

Gary Cahill (Bolton, £4.5m)

Robert Olejnik (Falkirk, Free)

Spent: £17.25m

Brought in: £12.5m

Net spend: £4.75m

2008-09 In

Curtis Davies (WBA, £10m)

Steve Sidwell (Chelsea £5.5m)

Brad Friedel (Blackburn, £2.5m)

Brad Guzan (Chivas US, £1m)

Nicky Shorey (Reading, £4m)

Luke Young (Middlesbrough, £5m)

Carlos Cuellar (Rangers £7.8m)

James Milner (Newcastle, £12m)

Arsenio Halfhuid (Excelsior, nominal)

Emile Heskey (Wigan £3.5m)

Out

Luke Moore (West Brom - £3.5m)

Olof Mellberg (Juventus - free)

Patrick Berger (Sparta Prague - free)

Thomas Sorensen (released)

Shaun Maloney (Celtic, £1m)

Wayne Routledge (undisclosed)

Spent: £51.3m

Brought in: £4.5m

Net spend: £46.8m

2009-10 In

Stewart "Broken Leg" Downing (Middlesbrough £10m)

Fabian Delph (Leeds United £6m)

Habib Beye (£2m)

Andy Marshall (free agent)

Stephen Warnock (£6m)

James Collins (West Ham United, £5m)

Richard Dunne (Manchester City, £6m)

Out:

Gareth Barry (Manchester City, £12m)

Stuart Taylor (Manchester City, free)

Zat Knight (Bolton £4.5m)

Martin Laursen (retired)

Craig Gardner (Birmingham, £3.5m)

Spent: £35million

Brought in: £20million

Net spend: £15million

£82m net spend plus all the wages those players were on. What would a better manager have done with that? Maybe one who actually had scouts.

What legacy would they have left if one day they **** off just before the start of a season with all their staff?

By the way, even though I couldn't stand O'Leary he still managed to equal MONs best league finish with a fraction of the resources. You can dress it up however you like, that's a 24k fact.

And his own players hated him at the end, true. I recall a few knives coming out for MON too, who ignored and never spoke to players he had recently bought at great expense because he's a childish petulant man. Then there was the resentment of anybody outside the usual starting XI because they were never used and awful training routines etc. It's all out there, if you want to look. Let's not pretend he was beloved of all the players because he wasn't.

Of course, I may as well piss into the wind than expect any of this to sink in because its all Randy's fault and I am an agent of the General and other fantastic reasoning.

He probably had MON sign all those average players on huge contracts at gunpoint and had MONs scouts drowned in the channel I suppose.

Anyway, I have nothing more to add and wouldn't waste my time anyway. I've presented the facts as I understand them and that's that.

Thanks to those people who liked and or agreed with what I had to say especially as it seemed to annoy Big Job.

In that case dont ever moan about this current absolute bunch of senior misfits that are playing for Villa at the moment who are clueless, who have no direction home.

Dont ever moan about McClesish dire tactics, inability to get the best out of players and attacking ineptness.

Now MON has gone you should be satisified with the reduction in wages and net profit ratios of player. You cant have your cake and eat it. The PL is about mega bucks.

Unfortunately MONs Spending was more of a symptom of the PL. You are missing what the PL is all about you cannot compete in the PL without gambling and spending millions of $$$£££. Its a terrible league, 99% of teams can not compete.

It says a lot when Chelsea cant compete.

At the end of the day it was not MON that sanctioned the signings - the FINAL decsion was down to Faulkner and Learner. There fore when you make the point that MON signed these players when it was ultimately down to the board.

Look MON was not without his limitations - he certainly bought some signings that proved to be costly. However Have you seen some of signings United, City and Chelsea and Arsenal have made over the years.

We were lucky to witness three class attacking players in Young, Milner and Downing, its rare that you get a player like that in a generation let alone three. It will be a long time before we have one players like that let alone three.

You have to spend 30 million in the PL just to stay still. Look at Liverpool 125 million - where are they.

A few questions:-

-What is our sales turnover now compared to when MON was manager.

-Where are we in the League.

-How are attendences and Season ticket sales compared to MON.

-How many times have we scored from a corner now compared to MON.

-You seem crictical of MON defence - did we not have ONE of the best defensive records in the league under MON.

Churs.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not go half-and-half?

I take the same attitude when deciding between still or fizzy mineral water.

I reckon this guy was thinking he should have taken your attitude when deciding still or fizzy...........!

It would be good if the General came back - he was class.

We are terrible.

We need to face facts:

1. We have a manager who is best suited to a mid table championship side

2. The majority of our players likewise are best suited to mid table championship sides

I see no point in getting upset about today's game against an Arsenal team who totally outclass us in every department who have a manager who wouldnt employ AM to manage his reserves.

The sooner this season is over the better. Unfortunately we have several more humiliations to come!

I can when he plays Heskey over Weinman.

Stupidity from the Management staff...!

I have lost patience with AM.

HESKEY - WHY.

He needs to answer the fan. What the F--K is his justification.

Ha - Also Becks is on here some where - surely...!

no you got any...?!

I'm pretty sure CI is McLeish

What makes you say that?