Is this whole thing escalating to new heights？

[Hugo Sanchez]

How many nuclear weapons do the argies have ?

[leicsmac]

How many nuclear weapons do the argies have ?

None, but I reckon using (or even threatening to use) nukes over this - and by extension risk global armageddon - is a bit strong, don't you?

Storm in a teacup anyway - Argentina can say whatever they like, but they can't back it up with action, whether legal or military. That said, the Sun's piece is another typical example of jingoistic idiocy from them.

[Hugo Sanchez]

I wasn't saying use them. I just wonderd if they had any.

[Trav Le Bleu]

How many nuclear weapons do the argies have ?

Less than Scotland.

Be afraid...

[The People's Hero]

Uh-oh.

I hope this isn't the end of the Argy-Bhaji in Walford Square.

Where with the locals go for their slap up Indian meal?

[Mack]

That bint who Runs Argieland always stirs this up when she becomes unpopular at home.

A bit of Brit bashing over these Islands must play well to the voting public.

Add to that they are looking for oil and it's no wonder she is sniffing around like she is on a promise with Ricky Martin.

Just to be clear the people living there are falklanders, not Brits, and by choice associate themselves with the UK.

There is quite a population of people from Chile etc there now also, so it's not exclusively descendants of the British.

She is pissing in the wind if she thinks any of her bluster will get her anywhere, but she probably knows that anyway.

[Jon the Hat]

As I understand it we have some proper troops and kit on the Falklands these days, including 1200 troops, 3 ships, some nasty missiles and four Typhoon FGR4s. Not a case of walking in and taking over like last time.

[Trav Le Bleu]

That bint who Runs Argieland always stirs this up when she becomes unpopular at home.

A bit of Brit bashing over these Islands must play well to the voting public.

Add to that they are looking for oil and it's no wonder she is sniffing around like she is on a promise with Ricky Martin.

Just to be clear the people living there are falklanders, not Brits, and by choice associate themselves with the UK.

There is quite a population of people from Chile etc there now also, so it's not exclusively descendants of the British.

She is pissing in the wind if she thinks any of her bluster will get her anywhere, but she probably knows that anyway.

Said it before and I'll say it again. Crap poem.

[Jordan]

This is the geopolitical equivalent of Leicester fans going on a Cardiff message board to wind them up about their Chris Wood conspiracy theory. I'm sure the grammar is on the same level, too.

[Trav Le Bleu]

This is the geopolitical equivalent of Leicester fans going on a Cardiff message board to wind them up about their Chris Wood conspiracy theory. I'm sure the grammar is on the same level, too.

I remember the early 80s when maps of the world printed in the US had The Falklands down as Las Malvinas.

[The People's Hero]

Said it before and I'll say it again. Crap poem.

[Captain...]

None, but I reckon using (or even threatening to use) nukes over this - and by extension risk global armageddon - is a bit strong, don't you?

Storm in a teacup anyway - Argentina can say whatever they like, but they can't back it up with action, whether legal or military. That said, the Sun's piece is another typical example of jingoistic idiocy from them.

Well we can't anyway as it would be against the non proliferation treaty, it would be in violation of the treaty to use them against a country that doesn't possess nuclear capability, I think there is a caveat in there saying unless really necessary, but I don't think the Falklands would consitute as that extreme.

Only the US, Russia, UK, France, China, India and Pakistan officially have nuclear weapons, North Korea claims to, and Israel is keeping schtum, but is largely suspected to have some.

[Mack]

Said it before and I'll say it again. Crap poem.

Nope.

That's a crap poem.......

[leicsmac]

Well we can't anyway as it would be against the non proliferation treaty, it would be in violation of the treaty to use them against a country that doesn't possess nuclear capability, I think there is a caveat in there saying unless really necessary, but I don't think the Falklands would consitute as that extreme.

Only the US, Russia, UK, France, China, India and Pakistan officially have nuclear weapons, North Korea claims to, and Israel is keeping schtum, but is largely suspected to have some.

Of course...besides as I insinuated in my earlier comment, IMO there can be no such thing as a 'limited nuclear war'. If one nuke goes off and it's definitively traced back to a nation that can be retaliated against, others will follow...and End of Game.

The Saffers had some too, but they voluntarily destroyed their own stockpile.

Sorry for being offtopic here.

[AdamN]

I think the point Flowy is making is that it is all very well and good saying we will go over there and fight people and kill people and risk people's lives to protect a useless piece of rock when it is not your life that will be at risk.

As much as I do think we have every right to the Falklands, I think it would be a huge tragedy if people go over there risking their lives and die for no reason, especially if feelings are being deliberately stoked up by cvnts at the S*n.

If there's one basic reason for having an armed forces, it's to defend your own country. If there happened to be another Argie invasion - unlikely as it is - it'd probably be the most justifiable use of our military since 1982.

Not that I'm arguing it wouldn't be a huge tragedy (or that the Sun aren't cunts), but how would it look if we were prepared to send soldiers to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not to protect our own citizens from invading forces?

[Captain...]

If there's one basic reason for having an armed forces, it's to defend your own country. If there happened to be another Argie invasion - unlikely as it is - it'd probably be the most justifiable use of our military since 1982.

Not that I'm arguing it wouldn't be a huge tragedy (or that the Sun aren't cunts), but how would it look if we were prepared to send soldiers to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not to protect our own citizens from invading forces?

Not saying we shouldn't or won't but agreeing with flowy's point that it is all well and good saying we will go to war and stirring up patriotic aggression when we will be sitting in our comfy homes watching telly whilst people are out there dying.

[leicsmac]

Not saying we shouldn't or won't but agreeing with flowy's point that it is all well and good saying we will go to war and stirring up patriotic aggression when we will be sitting in our comfy homes watching telly whilst people are out there dying.

Agree with this...but the mostly annoying thing about this is that it is a totally unnecessary argument that is being blown out of all proportion by idiots on both sides. The status quo simply is not going to change because the Argentines do not have the legal or military capacity to change it.

[AdamN]

Not saying we shouldn't or won't but agreeing with flowy's point that it is all well and good saying we will go to war and stirring up patriotic aggression when we will be sitting in our comfy homes watching telly whilst people are out there dying.

Of course. I don't care enough to get my head blown off for it, hence why I'm not in the Army, but there's nothing wrong with me (or anyone else) saying that if we're going to have a military, then this'd be a perfectly valid reason to use it.

[Richard]

Oil.

[Jordan]

I remember the early 80s when maps of the world printed in the US had The Falklands down as Las Malvinas.

Hey, this is your quarrel; leave us out of this!

The Falklands War was before my time, but I remember maps I've seen from the '80s labeling those islands as "Falkland Islands (UK)," though often with "Islas Malvinas" underneath in parentheses or in italics.

[Jon the Hat]

Hey, this is your quarrel; leave us out of this!

The Falklands War was before my time, but I remember maps I've seen from the '80s labeling those islands as "Falkland Islands (UK)," though often with "Islas Malvinas" underneath in parentheses or in italics.

There would never have been a Falklands war if the US hadn't tacitly told the Argies they would not get involved.

[z-layrex]

Not saying we shouldn't or won't but agreeing with flowy's point that it is all well and good saying we will go to war and stirring up patriotic aggression when we will be sitting in our comfy homes watching telly whilst people are out there dying.

That wasnt his point, he was just being a pedantic asshat to me.

I wasnt even talking about war, this will never result in war because Argentina have no real military. I meant politically and morally.

Everyone uses the term 'we' when talking about their nation, I dont deserve to be singled out as some war mongering dickhead who expects people to die for me. I look after people from the army all the time. I spent a week with a lad 2 years ago who'd lost all his ****ing limbs in Helmand and it still breaks my heart to think of him and his mum and dad, I despise war.

Bleh, really annoyed me now!

[Zingari]

Oil.

No mate ,that's what they want you to think

It's all about penguins .

Penguin lard is the fuel of the future ,

Remember you heard it here first

[Richard]

No mate ,that's what they want you to think

It's all about penguins .

Penguin lard is the fuel of the future ,

Remember you heard it here first

Now that's funny, I was told something similar about Iraq

[ithuriel]

I think she would initiate a war if she had even the slighthest notion of winning, the woman is power hungry and will probably end up being kicked out and she obviously has latched onto the Falklands as the prize to save her career.

Never under estimate poeple like her.