Morrissey: British know the Falklands belong to Argentina

[FloppyRaccoon]

bigdog3 said:

This might be a good reason for Britain to defend the Falklands

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southame...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/en...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2012/feb/1...

They've known there's oil there for a number of years, I think (not 100%) it was Shell who drilled 5 wells or so 20(ish) years ago, but couldn't be totally sure that it was enough to be viable, so they moved on. I suppose modern seismic surveys are much more detailed than they were before.

Wasn't there was talk of a 50-50 split with the Argies? They're drilling not too far away anyway though.

[jmorgan]

FloppyRaccoon said:

They're drilling not too far away anyway though.

Slant drilling......


Sorry, term I heard once. No idea if it is doable.

[Some Gump]

Lol, goldblum's logic is more terrible than his namesake's acting - and his lameness shone like a beacon even within the farce that was independence day...

[FloppyRaccoon]

jmorgan said:

Slant drilling......


Sorry, term I heard once. No idea if it is doable.

That'd cause quite the argument

[Halb]

goldblum said:

Did you know Nick Ridley,one of Thatchers schemers,tried to sell a 'leaseback' deal on the Falklands to MPs in 1981? A year before the junta's invasion?

Seems we didn't want the islands that badly after all..

On Newsnight on Thursday Portillo referenced the deals/talks that were going on before the war. The war seemed almost crazy since the talks were heading in the direction of them being handed over, in light of that the war made no sense.

[fido]

Halb said:

On Newsnight on Thursday Portillo referenced the deals/talks that were going on before the war. The war seemed almost crazy since the talks were heading in the direction of them being handed over, in light of that the war made no sense.

Talks have been going on since the 60s - it doesn't give A the justification to invade, neither does it mean B will just handover without a fight. I'm struggling to understand why anyone would support the position of a military dictatorship (in the truest sense of the word) whilst totally dismissing the other side's viewpoints.

[jbi]

FloppyRaccoon said:

Wasn't there was talk of a 50-50 split with the Argies? They're drilling not too far away anyway though.

They tore that agreement up.

Properly shot themselves in the foot

[mackie1]

50-50 probably could have worked (Svarlbard style) IF they hadn't started a war.

[BOR]

Halb said:

On Newsnight on Thursday Portillo referenced the deals/talks that were going on before the war. The war seemed almost crazy since the talks were heading in the direction of them being handed over, in light of that the war made no sense.

An orderly handover would have been worthless to failing fascist dictator Galtieri the same as it would be worthless for tub thumping, rabble rousing, vile, failing politician Kirchner.

The purpose is to distract their citizens from their respective internal national problems and wip up support from those too thick and gullible not to see through it.

[Johnnytheboy]

BOR said:

An orderly handover would have been worthless to failing fascist dictator Galtieri the same as it would be worthless for tub thumping, rabble rousing, vile, failing politician Kirchner.

The purpose is to distract their citizens from their respective internal national problems and wip up support from those too thick and gullible not to see through it.

On that basis they might be rather put out if we cheerfully gave them the Falklands back.

"Oh sorry, we didn't realise you wanted them."

Then how would they distract the plebs/win elections?

I think we should start a campaign to give Patagonia to Wales.

[goldblum]

BOR said:

Halb said:

On Newsnight on Thursday Portillo referenced the deals/talks that were going on before the war. The war seemed almost crazy since the talks were heading in the direction of them being handed over, in light of that the war made no sense.

An orderly handover would have been worthless to failing fascist dictator Galtieri the same as it would be worthless for tub thumping, rabble rousing, vile, failing politician Kirchner.

The purpose is to distract their citizens from their respective internal national problems and wip up support from those too thick and gullible not to see through it.

I'm not sure of the legal rights to oil in the South Atlantic but you can bet if there's enough money to be made from its extraction then deals will be discussed

and if that includes some references to a handover 100 years hence then we all know the U.K. will become a signatory.

[CBR JGWRR]

The miitary angle has been done conclusively on the More Argie Bargie thread.

The end result is it seems we are in a better position now than we were 30 years ago defending the islands wise.

[s2art]

goldblum said:

I'm not sure of the legal rights to oil in the South Atlantic but you can bet if there's enough money to be made from its extraction then deals will be discussed

and if that includes some references to a handover 100 years hence then we all know the U.K. will become a signatory.

Nope. Too much political capital has been spent on backing the principle of self-determination. Only the Falklanders can 'sign-up' to something like that.

[thehawk]

don4l said:

No.

The Falklanders are grateful for British protection.

Scotland... now that is a completely different matter.

Don
--

Could we perhaps reach a compromise with Argentina and give them Scotland?

[bigdog3]

thehawk said:

Could we perhaps reach a compromise with Argentina and give them Scotland?

They wouldn't want it ...

[jmorgan]

CBR JGWRR said:

The miitary angle has been done conclusively on the More Argie Bargie thread.

The end result is it seems we are in a better position now than we were 30 years ago defending the islands wise.

Unless the French help them. Again...


Or did they.... oh I don't know.

[randlemarcus]

jmorgan said:

Unless the French help them. Again...


Or did they.... oh I don't know.

Cracking quote there from John Nott:
'Are the French duplicitous people?' the answer is: 'Of course they are, and they always have been.'

[Halb]

randlemarcus said:

Cracking quote there from John Nott:
'Are the French duplicitous people?' the answer is: 'Of course they are, and they always have been.'

Just like any other people then.

fido said:

Halb said:

On Newsnight on Thursday Portillo referenced the deals/talks that were going on before the war. The war seemed almost crazy since the talks were heading in the direction of them being handed over, in light of that the war made no sense.

Talks have been going on since the 60s - it doesn't give A the justification to invade, neither does it mean B will just handover without a fight. I'm struggling to understand why anyone would support the position of a military dictatorship (in the truest sense of the word) whilst totally dismissing the other side's viewpoints.

That's why the war seemed crazy, I think Portillo said the FI were heading Argentina's way before the war.
Who supported the dictatorship?

[goldblum]

s2art said:

goldblum said:

I'm not sure of the legal rights to oil in the South Atlantic but you can bet if there's enough money to be made from its extraction then deals will be discussed

and if that includes some references to a handover 100 years hence then we all know the U.K. will become a signatory.

Nope. Too much political capital has been spent on backing the principle of self-determination. Only the Falklanders can 'sign-up' to something like that.

Principles can be bought,and sold.

[silvagod]

Roger Waters has responded, it would appear he was misinterpreted.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/roger-waters-the-wal...

I tend to agree with him too.

He makes a quite valid point IMHO.

My best mate's brother fought at Goose Green and he agrees. (if that counts for anything in PH contributor's eyes)