Should we be talking to Argentina about the Falklands?

[User removed 4]

Vile paper.

I have to agree, but can you also say something disparaging about the daily mail to really complete the cliche post ?

 

[Simster]

Vile paper.

I have to say, who the f*** do they think they are? It's one thing for a head of state to be writing provocative open letters, but quite another for a "newspaper" to be doing the same. I have MPs to speak on my behalf, not a shit profit making rag.

 

[Waynflete]

The islands had been completely uninhabited for more than 3 years when the Brits arrived. The Spanish had left.

We didn't forcibly take it. There was nobody there to take it from. We settled an uninhabited island that was claimed by nobody.

You may well be right, but the Argentinians clearly disagree. I don't know what the evidence is for either position, but it would be odd for them to claim something that could be easily disproved. I expect the history is murky, as is usually the case.

 

[The Spanish]

Vile paper.

you do seem a bit fixated with which newspapers are 'good' and 'bad' Doc.

 

[Doc Lynam]

you do seem a bit fixated with which newspapers are 'good' and 'bad' Doc.

What are you going on about?

 

[BigGully]

I have to say, who the f*** do they think they are? It's one thing for a head of state to be writing provocative open letters, but quite another for a "newspaper" to be doing the same. I have MPs to speak on my behalf, not a shit profit making rag.

Maybe true, but probably more people buy The Sun each day than bothered to vote for our elected politicians.

 

[User removed 4]

What are you going on about?

well from what i can make out after decyphering his cryptic post, i think he's trying to infer that you are a bit obsessed with whether certain newspapers are "good" or "bad".

 

[Brovion]

You're absolutely correct, the nuclear hunter killer submarine permanently on patrol, the fighter aircraft based there, the modern airfield ensuring rapid reinforcement capability and infantry presence would ensure they wouldn't get anywhere near the islands this time, as I said , we hold all the aces.

Hmmm. I admit we're better prepared than 1982, but I don't think we could hold them indefinitely. Firstly from the military perspective there's the logistical re-supply problems, the length of the supply chain and the fact the war would be very much an 'away' fixture. Secondly, even if we were initially winning, there will be the political pressure to reach a compromise, even from our 'friends' such as the USA. (And I'm sure you've seen the released cabinet papers that showed that even with a pro-British president such as Reagan the Yanks wanted to tell the Argies our plans). I'm not saying it could be another Suez - but it could be another Suez!

I'd really rather not get to that stage.

 

[Simster]

Maybe true, but probably more people buy The Sun each day than bothered to vote for our elected politicians.

Er, no. The Sun's average daily circulation is 2.5m, the last GE had a 65% turnout of nearly 30m people.

 

[Simster]

I'd say the real risk of not coming to some sort of agreement with Argentina is being frozen out of a future fairly powerful South American trading bloc.

This isn't a risk all the while we're in the EU - I doubt the EU would allow the South Americans to cherry pick which EU member states they do business with. However, more and more people in this country are concluding we don't benefit sufficiently from the EU, so if we were to leave and become independent, it would be far easier for the South Americans to boycott UK products, much as the US does with Cuba.

 

[BigGully]

Hmmm. I admit we're better prepared than 1982, but I don't think we could hold them indefinitely. Firstly from the military perspective there's the logistical re-supply problems, the length of the supply chain and the fact the war would be very much an 'away' fixture. Secondly, even if we were initially winning, there will be the political pressure to reach a compromise, even from our 'friends' such as the USA. (And I'm sure you've seen the released cabinet papers that showed that even with a pro-British president such as Reagan the Yanks wanted to tell the Argies our plans). I'm not saying it could be another Suez - but it could be another Suez!

I'd really rather not get to that stage.

You seem to imply that you wish to re-negotiate something/anything, due Argentinians threat of military action.

Surely if this is your fear then talking and showing ( in their eyes ) a sign of weakness will only prompt any likely action.

Your position is the exact reason we should stand steadfast against their posturing.

 

[somerset]

Hmmm. I admit we're better prepared than 1982, but I don't think we could hold them indefinitely. Firstly from the military perspective there's the logistical re-supply problems, the length of the supply chain and the fact the war would be very much an 'away' fixture. Secondly, even if we were initially winning, there will be the political pressure to reach a compromise, even from our 'friends' such as the USA. (And I'm sure you've seen the released cabinet papers that showed that even with a pro-British president such as Reagan the Yanks wanted to tell the Argies our plans). I'm not saying it could be another Suez - but it could be another Suez!

I'd really rather not get to that stage.

It wont get to that stage, the Argies still have a very limited offensive capacity, they are good at supressing civilian internal unrest, our stand-off capability will render their airfield and Naval bases to rubble before we even get to the questions about resupply logistics etc..... we dont have the aircraft carriers, but we have massive air to air refuelling capability, and plenty of long range missile technology that we didnt have in the 80's. Believe me, we have a very decent capability through the Asencion Island base to keep the ordanance heading in the direction of the Gouchos.

 

[Brovion]

You seem to imply that you wish to re-negotiate something/anything, due Argentinians threat of military action.

Surely if this is your fear then talking and showing ( in their eyes ) a sign of weakness will only prompt any likely action.

Your position is the exact reason we should stand steadfast against their posturing.

No, I'm not implying that at all.

 

[Doc Lynam]

well from what i can make out after decyphering his cryptic post, i think he's trying to infer that you are a bit obsessed with whether certain newspapers are "good" or "bad".

Thank you Bushy what would i do without your balanced investigative brain!

 

[BigGully]

Er, no. The Sun's average daily circulation is 2.5m, the last GE had a 65% turnout of nearly 30m people.

It was a little tongue in cheek, but you could carry the Suns 2.5 million daily circulation and tear through many of the statistics for elected politicians and parties.

 

[somerset]

I'd say the real risk of not coming to some sort of agreement with Argentina is being frozen out of a future fairly powerful South American trading bloc.

This isn't a risk all the while we're in the EU - I doubt the EU would allow the South Americans to cherry pick which EU member states they do business with. However, more and more people in this country are concluding we don't benefit sufficiently from the EU, so if we were to leave and become independent, it would be far easier for the South Americans to boycott UK products, much as the US does with Cuba.

This is certainly important, but we are a net importer of goods from Brazil, they wouldnt cut off their nose to spite the proverbial,... same goes for Argentina to be honest, and their economy is shot to pieces.

 

[Brovion]

It wont get to that stage, the Argies still have a very limited offensive capacity, they are good at supressing civilian internal unrest, our stand-off capability will render their airfield and Naval bases to rubble before we even get to the questions about resupply logistics etc..... we dont have the aircraft carriers, but we have massive air to air refuelling capability, and plenty of long range missile technology that we didnt have in the 80's. Believe me, we have a very decent capability through the Asencion Island base to keep the ordanance heading in the direction of the Gouchos.

You've ignored the second part of my post. The rest of the world is hardly likely to stand by a watch us splatter the Argies - again. At the very least they'll insist we talk.

 

[User removed 4]

I'd say the real risk of not coming to some sort of agreement with Argentina is being frozen out of a future fairly powerful South American trading bloc.

This isn't a risk all the while we're in the EU - I doubt the EU would allow the South Americans to cherry pick which EU member states they do business with. However, more and more people in this country are concluding we don't benefit sufficiently from the EU, so if we were to leave and become independent, it would be far easier for the South Americans to boycott UK products, much as the US does with Cuba.

The only people that matter trade wise in south america are the brazilians , and whilst they pay lip service to support for argentinas claim to the falklands, their relationship is akin to ours with the french, they really dont like each other and certainly wouldnt put themselves out significantly for the argies benefit.

 

[BigGully]

No, I'm not implying that at all.

Ok sorry for my misinterpretation.

If not then why would you wish to compromise/re-negotiate with a Country that has no legitimate reason to demand it ??

 

[User removed 4]

You've ignored the second part of my post. The rest of the world is hardly likely to stand by a watch us splatter the Argies - again. At the very least they'll insist we talk.

Yes because international pressure has worked so well in syria, iran , israel etc hasnt it ?

PS dont take this personally, its just that i am totally at odds with your position.