Why Indian people destroyed and burnt cricketer’s houses after their some defeats?
The answer is simple my friend, it is CULTURE! Look for example I am a West Indian fan and we here in the West Indies don't burn down our players houses but we curse like hell, so much that some folks get heart and health problems. However, the Indians are better than us they don't get heart problems they just use fire to do the talking and vent their frustration. One more example the Aussies well they don't loose but they trash talk a lot. Okay the English they just get a good english trashing from the tongues of former players, which is very diplomatic of course. Just remember even though it is crazy, its culture and to tell the truth I wish some of the players of the West Indies had received treats as well. They might have played better. (Smile)
What do Argentinians think of the British?
Oh, this is a hard one.I think we equally (as a country, not me personally) love and hate the British. We love their culture, specially the music: The Rolling Stones, Queen, The Beatles. We also like their movies and TV shows.We hate them in every sport we play against them (specially against England), obviously in football mainly. But if we play against a British team/player in tennis, basketball, etc, the feeling is special and we must win that game.About the Falklands/Malvinas, the dispute is like a religion issue here. So, it’s something you cannot argue about with logic. There are many people who hate the British people for this, and other ones that hate only the government/system.And thanks to that we had in the port of my city this awful sign:It said “The mooring of English pirate ships is forbidden”. This is not only a commercial dock, but also a touristic one, so it was not nice that the entrance of the city had this sign in it, but the former soldiers lobby is very powerful and they can get along with this kind of shit.Edit 30/dec/17: The sign has been removed, I updated the answer with this information.
Wath do you think or know of argentina?
Argentina is a South American country, which speaks spanish. They have beautiful beaches and places to visit and pretty ladies. They have a very insteresting cultures that spaniards brought during their expeditions. Economically, they are stable compared to other latin american countries. They are the makers of Bersa line of firearms (I own one, Bersa Thunder Cal. 40). They lose the battle for the Falkland Island to Great Britain. Que pasa? Muchos Gracias.
Why does Argentina always beat Mexico?
Argentina is better than Mexico...but not by much. They play at a similar level and Argentina just finds a way to win in the end. It goes like this for the most part in recent years: USA beats Mexico Mexico beats Brazil more often than Argentina does Argentina beats Mexico (narrowly for the most part) Mexican club teams are slightly superior to Argentina's Mexico would qualify no less than 3rd in the CONMEBOL every four years for the WC. Mexico needs to beat Argentina at least half of the time and never get beat by more than a goal by Argentina for a few years before this argument about who is better even makes sense.
What is the point in countries having nuclear weapons?
The problem is we don't know how to unlearn a technology. Nukes exist and we cannot undo that. If the countries of the world were reasonable and intelligent than your right, they would voluntarily disarm and abandon nuclear weapons technology. So long as a single one is not so reasonable than few are likely to give up their nukes. I say few because according to too some nations they have disarmed. Usually those are nations defended by someone else who has nukes though. The idea of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is that only a completely suicidal state would use their nukes. Most human beings and especially groups of human beings are not prone to racial mass suicide. Israel almost certainly has nukes. I am sure they would love to level Iran and make the country a giant pool of glowing glass. They won't because they know that if they do they will be utterly destroyed within minutes. If Iran manufactures it's own nukes than they will know the same thing. They will be invasion proof for the most part. No one is willing to invade a nuclear state because if the state knows it will be conquered it might just use it's nukes. But they won't wipe out Israel because they will be destroyed if they do. There is no possible advantage to it. No state hates another so much that it is willing to let every citizen within it die just to hurt the other state. That's how MAD works. It's a lousy system but it's the one we have. We have it because we cannot unlearn nuclear technology. SO long as the technology exists someone will use it unless it is rendered obsolete. MAD is as close to making it obsolete as we can manage.
What if Argentina refused to surrender after the Falklands were seized and an invasion of Argentina was ordered?
It is highly unlikely that the British would have ever contemplated a full scale invasion of Argentina. Why would they?All Britain was interested in was reclaiming the Falkland Islands from Argentina after they were taken by force and returning the right of self determination to the Islanders.The Argentine Forces actually on the Falklands surrendered. They had no choice. British forces had air superiority, had destroyed the few aircraft that Argentine Forces had based on the islands, secured an exclusion zone which prevented any Argentine naval vessels from entering it (plus sank their main battle cruiser, the General Belgrano and put one of their submarines out of action, the Santa Fe), forced Argentine ground forces back into Stanley and surrounded them. The Argentine ground Forces, who were mainly conscripts, lacked ammunition resupplies, food rations and shelter. They were demoralised.The only thing Argentina would be able to do was send over their few remaining attack aircraft to try and penetrate the air defences and make sporadic bombing raids. That alone would not have been enough for them to retake the Falklands for a second time after the surrender of their forces on the islands.British special forces could have (and maybe did) undertake operations on the Argentine mainland to disrupt these attack aircraft but a full scale invasion of Argentina was not necessary to achieve the objectives and after the surrender, Argentina was no longer a viable threat.In recent years, Argentina has continued to neglect its armed forces. The still have many of the same aircraft now that they had in 1982. Most are not airworthy and they would certainly be no match for the RAF Typhoons operating from the Falklands today. The British military garrison on the Falkland Islands is well capable of defending the islands from any Argentine task force that might attempt to take the Falklands again today.Invading Argentina would be pointless.
Can teachers legally destroy student property? What are the consequences?
I am aware of a case where a teacher in the US took an expensive phone from a student and put it on her desk. When the student went to retrieve the phone at the end of class it had been stolen. The teacher was found to have violated school policy by not securing the item and the court said she had to pay for the loss. On top of that it contained much of the students work which could not be replaced. All the teacher had to do was keep the phone secure until it was returned. Basically once the teacher took the phone she put herself in the position of properly securing it which she did not.