The Falklands - are we off again?

Actually, I have it from a friend who is a modern history buff, that there was indeed a referendum thoroughly discussed in 1982, when Argentina and Britain sat down to work out a non-conflict resolution. Al Haigh, representing US support for the Brits, being involved in mediating a peaceful resolution which Mrs T undid by firing on the Belgrano. Don't be too cocksure about the US supporting us again, though. Back in the 1980s they were busy looking for Reds under any bed, anywhere, whereas today, trade preferences have shifted and the USA is keen to do business with Brazil and Chile, two of the countries supporting Argentine dreams.

I'll have to go back about the 'sale' of the Falklands and ask my chum about it, but I think it was offered at one point to us, whereupon we turned it down, and it went briefly to the Russkies. But don't tear me apart on that until I've checked.

I'm not sure about the use of a Type 45 destroyer - aren't they rather more use in open waters, like their use in the Arabian Gulf, than close coastal work? I imagine we're really more interested in drilling for oil on the islands, though, which no-one will ever openly state, than in the wishes of a few people on a far-flung outpost of empire. Heaven forfend we be brutally honest and open about this - that's not the British way. We'll dress this up as protecting the rights of the islanders, yadda-yadda.

Clive - go and have a cuppa, dearie. All these tiresomely pointless analogies don't work. Anyone could SAY that the people want this, the people want that. Why, I think it's the usual statement by any amount of past despots that they are working in the interests of their people - it's what they want. I don't (yet) say we're despotic when it comes to self-interest, although the Falklands war demonstrated that we can blood-let like anyone else when it comes to it. But just SAYING X percent of people want this or that doesn't make it SO - unless you hold a referendum and prove it. I would have thought you'd have seen the value in that, as it's logical, irrefutable, and not just wishful thinking/hearsay, which is all that you're positing at present. And, as it was previously being seriously mulled by Britain previously, it would seem that our government thought it a good idea.

When I put forward the idea of a referendum, I wasn't aware of one being previously worked on, so when you attack my post, you also attack a notion which was being worked upon by Thatcher's govt. at the time. But just going on and on and on about 'knowing it's what the people want' is not good enough. Proof of what they want is, and this is the way to obtain it.
 
The analogies have clearly gone right over some peoples heads, but are spot on Krizon. Proximity (and it is hardly that) is the only claim that the argies have over the falklands. Because it is "nearer to them than it is to us". As with Alaska and elsewhere, that stands for nothing at all.

Some are no doubt desperate to portray britain as the enemy here but this is the very simplest of international disputes. It was uninhabited and unwanted before the british settled. Their was no native population to deal with (unlike alaska and the Carribean isles)

End of story. Sorry Guardian readers and brit haters, but it really is that simple

Colin you are right about Chile and i think its a fair guess that Brazil's "support" is more on the basis of "yeah yeah, whatever". The problem with the US could be Obamas attitude to britain, which may have been overplayed (hes probably no Edward molesting pisshead Kennedy), by the media over here. But it wont come to that and all sides know it

Regardless of childish assumptions about Cameron (who surely could do without this) this will quickly die away
 
Last edited:
Say something worthwhile. Address the points or if you cant just shut it or go and fck off for a few months again... creep
 
Last edited:
The argument has been made. Clear as anything on the thread. if not clearer.

It has always stuck in the craw of many on the left that it was seen as Maggies War and in a simple minded fashion the cause of "the malvinas" is seen in that light

But it was labour under David Owen who aggressively turned back a previous invasion attempt, for which more credit should have been apportioned as opposed to what were botched events leading up to the war
 
I can't be bothered with this any more. Clive, you constantly present conjecture and hearsay as fact, which undermines any discussion, or attempt at a discussion, with you. You are a cyber-bully, frankly, always far too quick off the mark to simply be rude on a personal level if you see any view which isn't your own, and this tiresome knee-jerk nonsense about 'lefties' all the time is worn out.

Sorry, I thought we could discuss whether we're likely to be in for yet another conflict, but I can't be bothered to keep swatting the annoying little fly called Clive all the time. You haven't put forward anything yet to answer the question of the topic, by the way - but don't bother on my part, I'm not really interested in anything else you have to say.
 
Krizon

Not once have i been "personal" (except once justifiably in response to someone else). if the easy destruction of arguments is taken personally, then thats not my problem :)

The answer on a referendum is "why?" . Whatever has been mooted before there is absolutely no requirement for it both on the basis of what is already known and legally

The answer to whether or not there will be war, is on my last full post
 
Last edited:
I see clivex has deleted the bit where he said this thread had been "a doddle" for him, presumably because it sounded like he was in a contest rather than a discussion.
 
I changed it fast enough. Frankly its a little bit off to repeat a post that anyone has quickly changed

You seem to have a bit of a problem? I suppose i would if i had been given the run around (by a brit no less) so frequently on thread after thread
 
clivex said:
I changed it fast enough. Frankly its a little bit off to repeat a post that anyone has quickly changed

You seem to have a bit of a problem? I suppose i would if i had been given the run around (by a brit no less) so frequently on thread after thread
Click to expand...

You're giving yourself away. Bragging about giving people the run around, and that this thread was a doddle for you, shows that you have no interest in genuine debate.
 
Im always happy to large it Grey

Reading back i put up plenty of analogies and banged on about certain facts over and over (til I bored myself) If people disagreed, then they can enter a debate. Pick up any one point and make a case


they didnt. end of

or perhaps you prefer the personal comments made by one poster? No leap to criticise that was there? For someone so concerned about "debate" too
 
Last edited:
I have rather enjoyed this thread. Highlights for me were Ardross's suggestion that David Cameron is dressing up as Thatcher and Walsworth's tagline.

For possibly the first and last time ever, clivex is right. Krizon is wrong. Even if he is a prick, in this instance he is a correct prick.

Kick your hole, boot your hole, I'll put my foot right up your hole have been around for millennia up here in jockland.
 
Clivex is stuck in his ways isn't he?

I wonder if he is a lowly intelligent conservative life form...:D

Imo everyone who is old enough to vote should have to take an exam first to prove their worthy of having a view,. this would eliminate a lot of dead wood on many sides of the political spectrum.

I'm only being sarcastic of course!
 
Last edited:
yes yes simmo ...very funny.

I quite like the personal abuse on here. the first example of it on this thread was like being asked to step outside by Ed Milliband
 
Back
Top