I certainly haven’t underestimated the significance of the MoD’s remarks; I haven’t estimated anything about them. It’s a pity you can’t say the same.
The MoD has not admitted that it “deployed nuclear weapons in the Falklands”, it has denied that it deployed nuclear weapons in the Falklands. Do you see the difference?
The fact of The Guardian’s involvement in this matter does not depend on conjecture, but your theory of Mr Kirchner’s involvement depends on nothing else. Why don’t you step us through the “agile diplomacy” from him that has got us to this stage? I don’t have any axe to grind over this, but I’m not prepared to accept your wild guesses as a substitute for evidence. The fact that the Argentinian government and press have asked the UK to make statements is not disputed, what you have to demonstrate is that their requests made any difference.
As for your back-pedalling over the issue of Mr Kirchner’s apology demand, it’s difficult to imagine anything much more embarrassing. It’s plain to anyone who has read this thread that you have doubted that any such demand took place at all and also suggested that, if it was made, it was unconnected to the matter of nuclear weapons. There is no ambiguity among the sources that confirm an apology was demanded.
Still stuck for an answer? All out of bullshit? For the record, then…
In addition to the usual process of interrogation of government by the press, The Guardian has employed considerable leverage against the MoD under the Open Government Code. The MoD’s statements have also been examined (and criticised in certain respects) by an Ombudsman, and that report is also part of the public record in the UK.
However, the Argentinian government and press have no such tools available to them. It is beyond question that they have asked for information for years, but it is also obvious that they have got nowhere with those requests. If you want to believe that Mr Kirchner is in any way responsible for the latest disclosure then that’s your prerogative, in the same way as you apparently believe that “denial” and “admission” are the same thing, or maybe that the moon is made of cheese. But I’d prefer to rely on facts, and you don’t have any. Time and again your worthless arguments have melted away like salted slugs.
If you really are a reporter and this is the standard of your work, you’re in the wrong job. I wouldn’t trust you to deliver newspapers let alone write for one.
But since Mr. B has been seen off, it may be worth adding this:
Without knowing the precise route that the ships took into international water it’s conceivable that France or Ireland might still be entitled to more information. If the ships sailed too close to the Canary Islands, Madeira or the Azores with nukes still on board then that would concern Spain or Portugal, but if the MoD statement is truthful – that the weapons never reached South American water – then what entitlement does Argentina have for an apology? Answer: none.