Anyone remember how the Falklands began?

I was just trying to remind everyone that Labour have made far worse decisions in more recent years.

As far as Iraq is concerned i totally agree.

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Ernie…..

No mate……you’ve blown it with me for a while.

Your suggestion that Labour winning in ’83 would have resulted in a totalitarian marxist state, with presumably Michael Foot as a dictator, reminded me why I generally can’t be bothered exchanging pleasantries with you. Sorry.

no crap typing skills – second dig tonight both deserved
I corrected before seeing your comment so thought it only fair to fess up.

Only a joke though mate. No offence intended.

But where’s Dobbo ? ……. I was hoping that he might contribute something more …. is he shy ?
or just limited in his vocabulary ?

Maybe he posted the “ernie-bellend” tag and that’s his “contribution” ?

none taken it is a fair comment

I don’t think you’re a bellend but that is a funny tag. I saw someone called a “fukdik” recently and I found that funny too. I’m just childish.

ZuluXI defeats Ernie again 😆

So Erne – you’re not denying in any way that the approach made by the Labour government in the ’70’s acted as a major point in suggesting to the Argentinian government that the British were willing to cede sovereignty of the islands, and, directly or indirectly, to the events of 1982?

Every time allthepies.

Yep backhander – childish. And seen some a tad more humorous than that.

C’mon Ernie

You’ve been keen to repeatedly emphasise the effect of withdrawing Endurance

What was the effect of the Callaghan lease back offer in the ’70’s?

Indeed, there is no doubt whatsoever that it was the Callaghan approach and discussion of possible leaseback which led to the landing on Southern Thule, leading to the op. Journeyman, sending down a Sub and two Frigates in ’77.

Now, if we then look at the continuing failure to eject the military occupation of Southern Thule, which despite the flotilla in ’77 was allowed to remain there by, now Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, who ruled out sending in the Royal Marines to end the occupation, preferring diplomacy.

Now, lets get this straight – Argentinian military forces were on Southern Thule, unopposed, from November 1976, throughout this time no attempt was made to expel them – c’mon Ernie, what message was that sending to the Argentinians?

This unwillingness to project force, plus the British Government’s intention to cut back the British military presence in the Antarctic for financial reasons, led the Argentine Government to believe that they could successfully occupy and annex the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, which they attempted in April 1982, sparking the Falklands War – however you cannot ignore the run up events, primarily the proposals laid down by Callaghan, followed by his inaction in the face of the occupation of Southern Thule, and what effect his approach had in laying grounds for the events of ’82

Tell you what – which government decommissioned the Ark Royal in 1978, our last remaining conventional catapult and arrested-landing aircraft carrier? How useful would that have been in ’82?

And how about the Gannet Airborne Early warning aircraft that flew off it? how useful would they have been in ’82 – yet they were retired in ’78 by Labour – how many lives would they have saved, if the RN had had an effective airborne radar screen in the Falklands?

You see Ernie – you want to pick and choose your arguments, well, here’s what comes of Labour ineptitude, once again, in ’82, the Tories had to clear up your **** big mess!

allthepies – Member

ZuluXI defeats Ernie again

You mean more zulu bollox. 🙄

well, here’s what comes of Labour ineptitude, once again, in ’82, the Tories had to clear up your **** big mess!

what a joke. A mess of the tories own making. To accuse the Callaghan Government of ineptitude while supporting the following Government is hypocrisy on a grand scale.

What was the effect of the Callaghan lease back offer in the ’70’s?

You mean the non-event? To quote the evening standard:

Plans for a lease back deal were shelved by the Labour government. They were briefly resurrected under the Conservatives before the 1982 conflict by Nicholas Ridley, then a junior minister at the Foreign Office, but were roundly rejected.

Now, lets get this straight – Argentinian military forces were on Southern Thule, unopposed, from November 1976, throughout this time no attempt was made to expel them – c’mon Ernie, what message was that sending to the Argentinians?

leading to the op. Journeyman, sending down a Sub and two Frigates in ’77.

See that was easy, you answered your own question. And to quote from the Daily Telegraph or what you call Marxist times in your world z-11:

They show a Ministry of Defence eager to counter Argentine aggression but restrained by international law and the need to observe the law of the sea.

The secret deployment coincided with talks in New York between Britain and Argentina that reduced tension. Once the talks had started, the Argentines were allowed to learn of the existence of the naval force and soon afterwards the 50 Argentines on South Thule left and the status quo was restored.

See, job done and no one had to die. But again quoting the “Marxist times”:

But five years later, after a military coup in Buenos Aires, the invasion took place and there was no similar naval presence.

however you cannot ignore the run up events, primarily the proposals laid down by Callaghan, followed by his inaction in the face of the occupation of Southern Thule, and what effect his approach had in laying grounds for the events of ’82

So sending a Nuclear sub, two frigates and using the diplomatic channels was inaction? And once again, no one had to die.

Tell you what – which government decommissioned the Ark Royal in 1978, our last remaining conventional catapult and arrested-landing aircraft carrier? How useful would that have been in ’82?

It would have been very useful, but the Navy was getting replacements and were confident about them and the aircraft to do the job they were intended to do: Hunt submarines in the North Atlantic as the Nato arm of the ASW fleet to counter the build up of Soviet forces, not operate “out of area”. And HMS Endurance was going to be on station.

So come 1981, HMS Invincible, one of the replacements is possibly going to be sold to Australia? HMS Hermes, the Commando carrier decommissioned? HMS Endurance withdrawn? The rest of the amphib fleet decommissioned? ALL without replacement?

how many lives would they have saved, if the RN had had an effective airborne radar screen in the Falklands?

How many lives would have been saved if the above deterrents hadn’t been for the chop?

It’s a shame that HMS Ark royal was decommissioned, It reminded me of something else…Oh yes HMS Ark Royal being decommissioned.

History repeating.

No aircraft, no replacement for at least nine years, I’m sure no one in the World will get up to anything that would require the likes of HMS Cumberland, the Frigate that is to be decommissioned next month due to defence cuts having to rescue British citizens from Libya, or those Nimrods which apparently we could do without suddenly becoming useful again, albeit only a couple of the older versions are still around.

I’m sure you and your Tory boy friends here will bitch about Labour and the mess they left behind etc and I don’t disagree, but ultimately this country is still on the world stage and needs to have a proper insurance policy, which is the right gear to do the job or deter others from doing unto you.

This Government knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Question is, will we end up paying the price for these cuts?

I thought this government has no money. Well that’s what the note said.

I’m also waiting for someone to post the Green Party manifesto commitments on defence from the last election.

All the references to Libya miss the point, we shouldn’t be leading anything when there are plenty of NATO airforces a lot closer than ours.

[Quote] but ultimately this country is still on the world stage and needs to have a proper insurance policy, which is the right gear to do the job or deter others from doing unto you.[/quote]

Why do we need to be on the world stage?

Do the people want to be on the world stage?

This Government knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Question is, will we end up paying the price for these cuts?

Quite right, but maybe we should look at the reason why the cuts are needed. I don’t blame it all on the bankers; spend, spend, spend seriously f***ed us up as well as RBS etc. The warning signs were there (selling the gold reserves at an all time low etc).
Blair, brown, cameron; all the same type of **** wearing different colour ties IMO.

El-Bent – only one problem, your version of events is bollocks!

Quite specifically, your claim that:

soon afterwards the 50 Argentines on South Thule left and the status quo was restored.

the Argentinian force that landed on Thule in 76 was not removed – South Thule remained under occupation until 1982

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1978/may/12/southern-thule#S5CV0949P0_19780512_CWA_17

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1978/jul/05/falkland-islands#S5CV0953P0_19780705_HOC_542

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1979/nov/28/falkland-islands#S5CV0974P0_19791128_CWA_189

In addition, it was the Labour govt who refused to enact the recommendations of the 1976 Shackleton report!

The complete failure to act for many years, and a repeated disinterest by the UK government, along with discussions offering up the sovereignty of the Islands convinced the Argentinian govt that the UK would not oppose an invasion, and directly paved the way for the events of ’82

El-Bent – only one problem, your version of events is bollocks!

It’s the Telegraphs version of events, not mine. I should know better than to trust a tory paper with facts.

The complete failure to act for many years, and a repeated disinterest by the UK government, along with discussions offering up the sovereignty of the Islands convinced the Argentinian govt that the UK would not oppose an invasion, and directly paved the way for the events of ’82

Which continued under the Thatcher Government. Once again Blaming the Callaghan Government while conveniently ignoring what the Thatcher Government didn’t do. I mean they could have sorted this problem out, they had been in power for a few years up to the invasion, but chose to continue down the previous governments route.

I don’t expect any admittance from yourself that your beloved PM and her Government were just as complicit.

All the references to Libya miss the point, we shouldn’t be leading anything when there are plenty of NATO airforces a lot closer than ours.

quite right. Oh hang on, we’re part of Nato…

Why do we need to be on the world stage? Do the people want to be on the world stage?

As Sh*t as the country seems at the moment, yes. We need to protect our interests abroad, it has made us one of the most powerul economies in the world. Personally, I wouldn’t mind us being a bit like the Nordic countries when it comes to this sort of thing. Quite a bit less capitalistic than we currently are, a better lifestyle.

Blair, brown, cameron; all the same type of **** wearing different colour ties IMO.

These are the type of persons that get into power when the public lose interest in politics. Problem is these types of people have literally sown up the selection processes for candidates of their parties preventing mr ave joe from ever rising from the street to downing street.

Which continued under the Thatcher Government. Once again Blaming the Callaghan Government while conveniently ignoring what the Thatcher Government didn’t do. I mean they could have sorted this problem out, they had been in power for a few years up to the invasion, but chose to continue down the previous governments route.

I don’t expect any admittance from yourself that your beloved PM and her Government were just as complicit.

No, you’ve missed my point completely, I said in my first post that the actions of the foreign office under successive governments were at fault in the messages they had sent to the Argentinians.

My issue was with Ernie quite clearly suggesting that the critical point was Endurance, and I quote:

Well it was a combination of Thatcher ordering that HMS Endurance, the only Royal Naval presence in the South Atlantic, be withdrawn, plus the 1981 Nationality Act which stripped the Falkland Islander’s of their British citizenship, that convinced the Junta that Britain was no longer interested in the Falklands. And which they saw as a nod and a wink/green light.

Which is to ignore the completely entire history of events prior to 1979 – The withdrawal of Endurance was one event in a long chain of interrelated events that led to the ’82 invasion.

Without the back history of the initial approach placing sovereignty on the cards in secret negotiations during the seventies by Labour, and without the failure to eject the Argentinians on Southern Thule, the withdrawal of Endurance by and of itself would not have had the importance it did – and that Ernie cannot blame the complex chain of events, mixed messages and failure of leadership that took place on one government or person, there was a long chain of events under Labour leadership that led to the later failures under Thatcher’s premiership which resulted in the invasion, the entirety of which led to the war.

One final point for Ernie – its interesting that you are so offended by the prospect of Foot leading us down the road of a Marxist state – are you denying that Michael Foot regularly met with the KGB and was paid money by them for information and services rendered?

One final point for Ernie – its interesting that you are so offended by the prospect of Foot leading us down the road of a Marxist state – are you denying that Michael Foot regularly met with the KGB and was paid money by them for information and services rendered?

Not argumenative, but can you back that up? I’d be interested to see the supporting evidence to that claim. I know there has been some issues in that respect, but mostly from Oxbridge types like Anthony Blunt. I was not aware of anything which was illegal or underhand with Foot, who despite being rabidly attacked, was in fact universally respected as a man of strong conviction, high moral standards and hugely intelligent amongst his peers of all political persuasions. A man whose opportunity came at a time when style was the victor over substance regretably.

Foot was paid by KGB

An interesting thread in that remembering what heavily biased media reported at the time is in this case less accurate than doing a bit of digging with Google today.

I was in France at the time and mainly remember getting flak from the locals about the OTT military response. That perhaps colours my own attitude which is that defence of the islands was legitimate (unlike the invasion of Iraq) but the methods used inappropriate and based mainly on a desire by the government of the day to impress the British/world population and justify increased spending with their mates in the arms business.

The problem with the Telegraph article is that Charles Moore essentially gave Gordievsky a platform to rehash accusations that he had made back in 1992 and which resulted in the Sunday Times paying substantial damages to Foot because they were untrue and defamatory. The S Times carried accusations which were not contained within Gordievsky’s book (because his publisher’s lawyers did not clear them for publication?). At that time, Gordievsky claimed not to have any further revelations about the Labour Party – and yet right after Foot’s death, Gordievsky gave what he claimed was additional detail on the same accusations to Charles Moore, who got them published in the Telegraph. There was no explanation of why he hadn’t remembered anything of this in the previous years or why he didn’t mention it at the time the S Times was being sued. The fact that Foot’s death meant that Gordievsky could say what he wanted without any legal consequence (the dead can’t sue for defamation) is no coincidence.

Gordievsky is down an alley and his stock-in-trade is consultancy to the misled and gullible (my old boss was involved in a project in Russia on which the client had chosen to engage Gordievsky as an advisor – some of the things he was coming out with were “remarkable”) spiced up with the occasional spicy leak/revelation/commentary.

What’s more, it’s not surprising that Gordievsky and Moore have a relationship when they both have a mutual interest: propagating the view in the pages of the Telegraph that the BBC is a nefarious political plot. Moore was fined for not paying his TV licence because he said the BBC propagated “weird ideology”, while Gordievsky says that the BBC is both a crypto-Communist and pro-Kremlin organisation (a pretty remarkable combination…).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/3618799/The-Daily-Telegraph-letters.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/4176998/Letters-The-cold-snap-was-a-dose-of-reality-like-the-recession-after-the-shirtsleeve-years.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7709065/The-BBCs-worst-scandal-lies-in-our-courts.html

You only hav e to compare what the BBC reports with other European channels to know the Beeb does indeed have a “weird ideology”. That ideology includes grosly misleading reporting by omission and by giving crdibility to sources they really shouldn’t if they are being as objective as they claim to be.

The lead up to the Iraq war was a case in point; TF1 and Eins Extra, the channels I watch most, were giving lots of time and credibility to Hans Blix while the Beeb was dishing out Blair’s lies. Dissenting voices were portrayed as cranks or pacifist ramblings.

Socialist and communist parties, and union movements throughtout Europe had close relations with communist Russia trhoughout the cold war. The communist model was still seen as a viable alternative and my English teacher wore a red tie. At Longbridge where I worked briefly they spoke a language that I can only describe as “commie speak” where the comrades were so intent on breaking the capitalist machine they felt slaves to that they lost sight of the fact it also fed them.

The unions had lost sight of their role as means to create economic distortions in their favour and simply become pawns to political dogma. The unions funded Labour and the likes of Foot abused the power the unions gave them to further political ideals rather than the well being of the workers.

I have to admit Edukator, I was quite interested in what you had to say when I read this ……..

You only hav e to compare what the BBC reports with other European channels to know the Beeb does indeed have a “weird ideology”. That ideology includes grosly misleading reporting by omission and by giving crdibility to sources they really shouldn’t if they are being as objective as they claim to be

But then I read this……………….

Socialist and communist parties, and union movements throughtout Europe had close relations with communist Russia trhoughout the cold war. The communist model was still seen as a viable alternative and my English teacher wore a red tie. At Longbridge where I worked briefly they spoke a language that I can only describe as “commie speak” where the comrades were so intent on breaking the capitalist machine they felt slaves to that they lost sight of the fact it also fed them.

And realised that the weird ideology, grossly misleading reporting by omission and the failure to be objective were something that you seem to specialise in yourself.

Really, I’m going to keep an eye out for all red tie wearing Bolsheviks from now on. Commie swines.

where the comrades were so intent on breaking the capitalist machine they felt slaves to that they lost sight of the fact it also fed them

slave owners fed their slaves as well should they have been grateful for teh system ?The sole reason for doing this is it is much harder to exploit the labour of a corpse than a living being iirc.
PS I own a red bike

Socialist and communist parties, and union movements throughtout Europe had close relations with communist Russia trhoughout the cold war.

What a load of Daily Telegraph inspired bollox !

So Michael Foot was a KGB spy because the Labour Party had close links with the Kremlin ?
Presumably all Labour governments were pro-Soviet then ?

It reminds me of how the Murdoch media in the US tries to seriously encourage the hopelessly gullible, that their President Barack Obama is actually a Marxist/Commie.

But wait :

“The communist model was still seen as a viable alternative and my English teacher wore a red tie.”

“My English teacher wore a red tie” ? Ahhh I get it now…..you’re just having a laugh !

You really got me going there…..Ho Ho Ho …….very good

You only have to compare what the BBC reports with other European channels to know the Beeb does indeed have a “weird ideology”. That ideology includes grosly misleading reporting by omission and by giving crdibility to sources they really shouldn’t if they are being as objective as they claim to be.

The lead up to the Iraq war was a case in point; TF1 and Eins Extra, the channels I watch most, were giving lots of time and credibility to Hans Blix while the Beeb was dishing out Blair’s lies.
It certainly is a weird ideology the BBC has if you think it involves being pro-Blair, anti-UN, pro-Communist and pro-Kremlin all at the same time.

It wasn’t just the tie, Ernie Lynch.

Some of you should learn to read what is typed rather than assume you know what I (and others) am (are) thinking:

I stated that Hans Blix was given more air time and taken more seriously by euro channels than the BBC. You, Konabunny, distort that as me saying the BBC is anti-UN. I was using it as an example of the BBC being sparing with information that doesn’t fit its (and its masters) agenda.

Where the BBC being pro-Kremlin and pro-commmunist came from I have no idea but it wasn’t me.

Where the BBC being pro-Kremlin and pro-commmunist came from I have no idea but it wasn’t me.

Moore was fined for not paying his TV licence because he said the BBC propagated “weird ideology”, while Gordievsky says that the BBC is both a crypto-Communist and pro-Kremlin organisation (a pretty remarkable combination…).

You only have to compare what the BBC reports with other European channels to know the Beeb does indeed have a “weird ideology”.

Socialist and communist parties, and union movements throughtout Europe had close relations with communist Russia trhoughout the cold war.

What a load of Daily Telegraph inspired bollox !

So Michael Foot was a KGB spy because the Labour Party had close links with the Kremlin ?
Presumably all Labour governments were pro-Soviet then ?

Ernie – I suggest that before coming out with your defence of the Labour party, you should sit down and read this book:

Might open your eyes to the threat of “The Enemy Within”

Couple of names for you to ponder over:

Will Owen
John Stonehouse
Jack Jones
Ron Hayward

Now, what was it old Footy infamously said? “Dear Comrade Brezhnev”

The middle quote isn’t mine, Konabunny, as in I didn’t write it, as in somebody else wrote it and another somebody else posted it.

The BBC has a weird ideology which icludes lots of things but even Moore who used the words “weird ideology” wasn’t the one to accuse the BBC of being pro-Kremlin, that was Gordievsky.

there was a long chain of events under Labour leadership that led to the later failures under Thatcher’s premiership which resulted in the invasion, the entirety of which led to the war.

So still trying to blame the previous Government for the inaction of the one that succeeded it, a Government that had almost three years to rectify the problem and did nothing but further exacerbate the problem.

Edukator, you have the wrong name.

Edukator – Member

It wasn’t just the tie, Ernie Lynch.

No, of course not……but the red tie was obviously a very important factor in identifying him as a communist – otherwise why the need to mention it in your short post ?

It has to be said, it wasn’t very clever of your teacher to give himself away like that by wearing a red tie. I take it that he wasn’t “openly communist” otherwise you would have mentioned that, rather than the colour of his tie. Some teachers really are a bit thick eh ?

Yep – it was indeed very slack of him. Still, an eagle-eyed pupil managed to identify the undercover commie in his school.

And which of course all this goes to prove, that Michael Foot was a KGB agent who as Zulu-Eleven pointed out, wanted to establish a, quote : “totalitarian marxist state” in 1983.

And someone called me a “nutter” ! 😀

I have to say, the entertainment value of STW sometimes really is stunning !

The btw Edukator, are you really a teacher ?

.

Zulu-Eleven – yes of course I’m going to sit and read your book on “The Enemy Within”. Just as soon as I’ve finish reading all the stuff about how the US president is in fact a commie.

I am a qualified teacher Ernie but I don’t teach at the moment. An edukator is something quite different. Manche Menschen ändern sich nie!

Michael Foot was a KGB agent who as Zulu-Eleven pointed out, wanted to establish a, quote : “totalitarian marxist state” in 1983

There is of course little to connect the British Labour party with Marxism, its roots lying in the liberal radical tradition of English politics and in trade union affiliation.
Is Z11 suggesting that after 80 years of parliamentary activity and reformist policy, the Labour party suddenly decided that revoloution was the way forward after all ?

Barking.

The middle quote isn’t mine, Konabunny, as in I didn’t write it, as in somebody else wrote it and another somebody else posted it.

Yeah, I know – the person who wrote it was me and the person who posted it was me – in the same post! You were confused about where the pro-Communist, pro-Kremlin idea came from – it was the line right after the “weird ideology” bit…

Meanwhile, an obvious Communist yesterday:

Is Z11 suggesting that after 80 years of parliamentary activity and reformist policy, the Labour party suddenly decided that revoloution was the way forward after all ?

Barking.

Yeah, there was no movement within the Labour party in the early eighties that would have taken it in that direction, was there? I mean, the Labour party beneath him was not in any way split horizontally and vertically, was it? Foot was’t fighting to suppress any form of dissent in the party, was he? You know, if Labour had won an election in the Eighties, it would clearly have remained a benign, centrist-left party in government…

I suggest you may want to learn your party history!

that is trully awful spelling above. You have inadvertently put the letters ommis in the word you meant to say when describng that picture

Yeah, there was no movement within the Labour party in the early eighties that would have taken it in that direction, was there?

I don’t remember there being a significant number of Labour candidates in any 80’s election that were overtly radical (sadly), so why you’re assuming that a revoloution was round the corner I don’t know. Murdoch press maybe ?

Foot was’t fighting to suppress any form of dissent in the party, was he?

Hang on, you can’t have it both ways. You’re saying that Foot wanted a Marxist dictatorship but was at the same time fighting against a (possibly Marxist, i don’t remember ) militant faction in the party ?

I suggest you may want to learn your party history

I’m not and never have been a member of the Labour party.

You’re saying that Foot wanted a Marxist dictatorship

Where the **** did I say that? I said it would have led us into becoming one, not the same thing! (for example, if he had won in ’83, Militant would have used their dominance of the NEC, assured through the process of entrism, to take over the party and take us down that road) – thats not the same as saying that Foot would have directly led us there, but at the same time, there is no doubting that Foot and his cronies were heavily influenced by the Soviet union, and that they received funding, directly and/or indirectly, from them, and from the KGB, in an attempt by the Soviets to influence the direction of British Politics

To use the words of Kaufman, who was there at the time:

It is clear that key elements in the Labour party structure were determined to ingratiate themselves with Moscow — regardless of any adverse electoral impact in Britain.

Let us take Ron Hayward, who was Labour’s general secretary for most of the previous ten years. He was the worst… his aspiration was not a Labour government implementing beneficial policies for the electorate but a National Executive Committee, elected partly by trade union block votes and partly by hard-left constituency parties. Hayward envisaged an annual Labour party conference controlled by trade union block votes, dominating the parliamentary leadership, whose electoral fate he regarded as irrelevant.

I am particularly nauseated by the boot-licking relationship of these clowns with Viktor Kubeikin, who was the chief KGB spy in London. Poor, innocent Foot had dealings with Kubeikin in complete ignorance of his being a KGB high-up.

The thing about you Lefties – is that you’re unable to see beyond simplistic black/white child-like arguments, so when I say “The approach by Callaghan to the Argentinians played a critical part in forming the complex chain of events which led us down the road to the ’82 invasion” you’re unable to actually read that without interpreting it as me saying “the Falklands war was nothing to do with Thatcher”

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t blame you entirely for this failure, its part of the inherent naiveté on which socialist idealism is founded 🙄

there is no doubting that Foot and his cronies were heavily influenced by the Soviet union,

Were they giving him advice on how to fight Militant ? You seem confused as to whether Foot welcomed the far left or he didn’t.

And you still haven’t demonstrated how Labour intended to lead us into a Marxist dictatorship. If there was a distinct lack of radical parliamentary candidates are you seriously suggesting that after 80 years as a parliamentary party, Labour was suddenly going to become the revoloutionary communist party ?