Perhaps we should annex the South again?

I see the place is still packed with class 'A' mass debaters, express an opinion that doesn't conform to the general concensus and get labelled a fruit loop, with no qualification of your remarks, apart from ROMCOM whatsisname, but a survey vessel capable of waging war is still a warship.

bowing out now, really not worth it

mm painted Red i.e. not a warship. Think you're showing your complete ignorance of Naval Warfare so cheerio

Did I give my opinion? And did you read my previous post on the thread? No, thought not.

Like it.

I was in Argentina this Christmas. It is a great place to visit and there is a large British community there, as well as Irish. Even with all this sabre ratling going on I would have no hesitation going back tomorrow. Obviously the Falklands Islands were discussed.

Most Argentinians don't give a stuff about the Falklands, in fact many argue that any spare resources should be directed to developing Patagonia rather than wasting time on a few islands in the middle of nowhere. But it is a great subject for the politicians to bring up if times are bad at home and a distraction is needed.

I remember Hilary Clinton went down to visit Christina a while ago and gave her support, at the time I thought well maybe the USA should give Alaska back to Canada, after all it is joined onto it. And while we are at it, what about those Spanish enclaves on the coast of North Africa, Cueta is actually joined on like Alaska, shouldn't the Spaniards give that back to Morocco. And also, while we are at it, what the hell are the French doing in French Polynesia, it's about as far away from France as you can get on this planet.

They couldn't "give it back" to Canada, as Canada never had it in the first place. It was purchased from Russia. However, as opposed to the Falklands, Alaska did (and still does) have aboriginal people.

It's a shame really about our dispute as Argentina has a very strong anglo connection and like you say the man in the street doesn't give a toss and just wants to get on with life.

Very true: I used to go to BA fairly often ten years after the dust-up and was never aware of any antipathy.

As usual it is politicians - and generals - stirring up mischief for their own ends.

If the Irish had built them they still wouldn't be finished

I would swap the Islands for a few of there women, some absolute stunners down that way

Not sure the swap's on the table, but nothing ventured,...............

There's no doubt in my mind that a nice little war can be a nice earner for a politician - after the event - if it goes to plan - but politicians make decisions about military actions because they think its the right thing all the time (even if they are proven wrong).

Probably ludicrous: I don't think politicians entered into two World Wars for election benefits.

Having said that, the case against Thatcher is bolstered due to a) The argies might have backed down - and this was still a possibility b) the war was likely to be 'limited'.

But a lot could have gone wrong. If more Argentinian ordnance had not failed to go off in San Carlos water - a few more Sir Galahads....

Ok, so Argentina claim they are the original owners of the Islands, ok fair enough, so how about we kick everyone off the Islands and send them to the UK and give the Islands back to Argentina.. as the original owners.

By the same token, Argentina can give its country bank to the original native tribes, and the population of Argentina can pi$$ off back to Spain.

Agreed?