I see. Thanks!
carnivorousplant:
Better than an abstract Christ, isn’t it?
I dunno, I gave that up about sixteen years ago. 
In case anyone missed it, Sean Penn attempted to explain himself in a piece for The Guardian. In the comments hilarity ensued.
It’s pretty rare for an issue to unite pretty much all of the British left and right, doubly so if the issue could involve military action. Sean Penn, however, somehow managed to stumble upon one such issue.
You’re assuming they can get airborne. They’ve very vulnerable on the ground. If Argentina were to drop off some commandos by submarine or fishing boat, they’d be toast. And then where’s your air cover?
And then there’s your big qualifier ‘given enough ammunition stockpiles’: the MOD is renowned for its parsimony.
I wonder if a ‘round the world publicity tour’ by a Trident sub would do the trick. How does Faslane to Ascension island to Port Stanley to Hawaii to Diego Garcia to St Helena and back to Faslane sound to you?
After all, the Argentines are claiming we’ve already got one down there, so why disappoint them?
To me this is the primary factor. There can be various arguments made back and forth about who had a claim centuries ago. But the people who have been and are living on the islands overwhelmingly want to remain British not Argentinian and that, to me, trumps any vague historical claim.
There’s zero chance of a Vanguard class doing that. In the super-unlikely event of a nuke being deployed they could hit Argentina from home port. Or did you mean a Trafalgar class? There’s almost certainly a Trafalgar down there, mind. The first in the new Astute class is still in trials.
No, I meant a Trident. The Argentines have been saying that we have a Trident down there. Telegraph article. BBC article. So why disappoint them?
And it’s far better to have one fire from down there - not that we expect to have to do it - so as to not start WW3. The point would be to send a very blunt message. And by going to Diego Garcia we also remind the Iranians. Hawaii, of course, would be R&R for the sailors.
Ah right, see what you’re getting at. The Argentinian Foreign Minister doesn’t seem too bright, does he?
I don’t think I’m stupid, but frankly I have a lot of trouble understanding what Penn is trying to write here. It’s rambling, nearly incoherent, and lacks a clear thesis.
Sean Penn was really good in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High.”
Glad it wasn’t just me. What on earth does this mean?
I believe chemicals were involved.
Well I’ve read it again carefully and I think what he is trying to say is
Plus I think he is pretty much stuck in the eighties, pre-1982 if anything. That would explain his disregard of the Argentinian invasion and his sporting of a Midge Ure “Vienna special” tache. Well Sean, your article certainly means nothing to me.
I think his point is that the United Kingdom should re-open diplomatic talks with Argentina over the islands. He seems to feel the reason why the talks were abandoned was because the United Kingdom doesn’t like left-wing governments (although that seems a little strained considering the war was fought between the Argentinian junta and Margaret Thatcher).
And he seems to blame the press for not understanding his position. But based on his linked post, the press has my sympathy on this issue.
I hope this isn’t too much of a hijack, but since we and the UK are best buds, why wouldn’t we, at a minimum, fire off a couple of cruise missiles to stop any Argentine mischief? Why didn’t we help the last time?
Is it that pesky Monroe Doctrine?
My recollection had also been that the U.S. had been sort of neutral (the British are our best buds, but the Reagan Administration had cozy relations with right-wing regimes all over Latin America on account of anti-Communism); however, this State Department document indicates we were pretty clearly pro-British:
There was a certain amount of low key help. From memory America supplyed the latest version of Sidewinder. Satellite pictures, that sort of thing.
As to why America didn’t do more, guess.
If you said “It was the 80’s and the mass-murdering Argentinian Dictatorship was reliably anti-communist” then you win the prize, the prize of sadness.
Did France quit selling those Exocet missiles to Argentina?
They accounted for a few British ships.
I believe the United States also provided the British with a lot of logistic support.