Ryan_m_b said:
Yes, all pretty depressing stuff, but the key word is 'pathetic'. The issue of the Falklands is going nowhere. However, I fear there could be an unpleasant reception for Argentina from the UK public at the forthcoming Olympics. The press would love this. I only hope people will ignore it, both as the pathetic posturing it is and the predictable response from Hammond et al. But I wouldn’t put any money on it.
mheslep said:
I have the opposite opinion. Some Galloway gems:
Agreed, some foolish stuff. But he takes no nonsense off the rich and powerful in the UK, and I stand by my view that his instincts are generally right. He was absolutely brilliant on BBC’s Question Time recently.
Office_Shredder said:
The downturn in acceptance for warfare has generally been over the fact that the public is not clear on whether the military action has any defensive value. I don't think it's obvious that a direct threat to a part of the UK would engender a response like 'what and get into another Iraq?' or anything similar.
Yes, a direct military threat to the UK is one thing, and I think you’re right to say that there would be a strong public demand for action. But I can’t conceive where such a threat could realistically come from.
Elsewhere in the world, though, I’m not sure. The public response to casualties in Afghanistan suggests that politicians would have to be mad to consider hazardous interventions. Of course, politicians are quite good at whipping up the required sentiment through the media when it suits them, but I think that it will be a very long time, if ever, before the UK gets involved in another significant military venture.
As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the reduction in the capacity of the UK to defend the Falklands is greatly exceeded only by the reduction in Argentinian capacity to take them.