It certainly wasn't even remotely an option

 

You're not Mrs Thatcher are you Martin? Only, such a definitive response implies you might be....

(Joking again, please don't hit me with your, er, handbag!?)

 

Do you have the evidence for this?

 

No - but if you use your head, it's not hard to figure out why that was the case

 

Only we have to provide evidence to Martin, never the other way round

 

lol!! Haa!

 

True, If we present him with something and he tries to disprove it (as he normally does) isn't it up to him to find the evidence?

After all it's him that is usually trying to prove someone wrong?

He is practically saying I want to prove you wrong but I want you to give me the evidence to prove you wrong?

I think hes a regular crack user, he would need to be on some sort of drugs considering the crap he comes out with?

 

Problem is you're both being daft again.

If there is no evidence that the UK was planning to nuke Argentina, then there is no evidence. What do you want, me to make stuff up?

 

Just because you or I can't find any evidence doesn't mean there isn't any!

 

Agreed, but in the absence of any evidence, try applying some logic

 

Oh I'm not saying there is anything to it, just playing devil's advocate to your sweeping statements!

 

It wasn't a sweeping statement

It's a logical, a wholly rational statement, based on the facts as we know them

 

You said 'it certainly wasn't remotely an option' which is not the same as 'we don't have the evidence to say it was an option but that doesn't mena there isn't any'

 

You are an insufferable pillock sometimes.

You know full well what this means, and the fact that it's a completely accurate statement

 

It was you who dismissively stated something as fact that you can not know to be fact..... and yet you think I am the pillock

 

Here we go, in the absence of evidence we just apply a bit of logic.

 

Unless my suggestion as to his identity is correct, of course....

 

What facts? We don't have the facts because you didn't provide us with the evidence...

 

That just leaves you with logic and rational thought then...

...no wonder you are struggling to understand

 

Ya know i'm beginning to wonder if you're secretly F1_fan in disguise. He's just used a very similar argument in the 'flood defence' thread.

 

Good point, not without its flaws mind :lo1l:

 

Busted

 

Do you realise you have just lost a large part of your argument against anything with this comment, the next time you ever ask to be presented with evidence of anything you will be told to apply logic.

Well done for shooting yourself in the foot. Lol

 

Well regardless of the tittle tattle above, I'd have to question what the next move would have been should our invasion of failed, our ships sunk, our aircraft shot down and most/all of our men killed. I really can't believe Maggie would have said, "oh well, we tried but failed, so lets all move on and forget about it"

So what was Plan B?

 

So I have to prove a negative - could be tricky.

If there is no evidence that the UK were considering / threatening the use of Nukes, then somehow I have to prove there is no evidence?...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE

 

There would probably of been some kind of UN negotiated settlement. Of course we'd would of been negotiating from a position of weakness in those circumstances

 

Edited for accuracy.

 

Can't see it myself. Neither side was backing down and all diplomacy attempts failed. So assuming Argentina refused to budge, I really don't see how Maggie would have given up.

I guess a blockade of their shipping would have been an option, sinking anything that moves, but that could have gone on for months/years.

 

I don't understand the hate toward Martin here? He is perfectly correct, if one claims something to be true, it is down to that person to prove it ideally with facts, not for the other person to refute it.

 

With him it's pretty much self inflicted.

This is an interesting one now, I would say the opposite. If I called you a liar surely it would be down to me to prove you were one?