Last Flight Sea Harrier(10) - SHAR_Last_Flight_10.JPG

Alan Erskine wrote:

"alf blume" wrote in message
k...

"Paul Elliot" skrev i en meddelelse
t...

Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
it.

I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .

Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?

C'mon.




I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its own...

JT

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

Alan Erskine wrote:

"alf blume" wrote in message
.dk...

"Paul Elliot" skrev i en meddelelse
.net...

Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
it.


I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .

Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?

C'mon.





I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its own...

JT

To recapitualte:
Never underestimate British pride.
--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

"Paul Elliot" skrev i en meddelelse
t...
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral.

The US would have a hard time maintaining NATO if a member could be attacked
and not recieve help from the USA.

Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
own...

Agree - but why search for common logic (other than geopolitics) in politics
;-)

To recapitualte:
Never underestimate British pride.

Right!

"Paul Elliot" skrev i en meddelelse
t...
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral.

The US would have a hard time maintaining NATO if a member could be attacked
and not recieve help from the USA.

Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
own...

Agree - but why search for common logic (other than geopolitics) in politics
;-)

To recapitualte:
Never underestimate British pride.

Right!

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

Alan Erskine wrote:

"alf blume" wrote in message
.dk...

"Paul Elliot" skrev i en meddelelse
.net...

Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
it.


I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .

Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?

C'mon.





I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its own...

JT

To recapitualte:
Never underestimate British pride.
--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote in message
...


I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
own...


See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

"NoJags Neil" wrote in message
...
See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).


--
Alan Erskine

Alan Erskine wrote:

"NoJags Neil" wrote in message
...
See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).




I think that the real truth is that there's much more oil to be
discovered than is admitted.

What riles me is the failure of the politicos to recognize that it is
time to employ technology to replace fossil fuels. Something comparable
to JFK's "Going to the Moon" effort. There just is not a good supply of
leaders with testicular fortitude to do what is right...

JT

(Who thinks fossil fuels could be passé within ten years if...)

Alan Erskine wrote:

"NoJags Neil" wrote in message
...
See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).




I think that the real truth is that there's much more oil to be
discovered than is admitted.

What riles me is the failure of the politicos to recognize that it is
time to employ technology to replace fossil fuels. Something comparable
to JFK's "Going to the Moon" effort. There just is not a good supply of
leaders with testicular fortitude to do what is right...

JT

(Who thinks fossil fuels could be passé within ten years if...)

"NoJags Neil" wrote in message
...
See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).


--
Alan Erskine