MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
hope nothing kicks off too soon as ive got to go down there for work in june for 4 months!!
deep joy!! 🙁
Dust the Vulcan off chaps its got a job to do.
yeah id like to see the american reaction if we started drilling in the carribean!
What you mean like the oil developments that have being going on in Trinidad since the 19th Century?
What tyres for the Falklands ? 😀
imgine if there was a potentially oil rich island off our coast owned by a foreign power that was based in another hemisphere
there cant be that many of these imperial anachronisms left in the world, we will have to give it back one day
Crap. It has nothing to do with Imperialism. You can't hand back something that was never theirs in the first place. The Falklands were recorded by a Spanish ship, but the first landing and possesion was by a British ship. The only country that could possibly lay a claim would be Spain. Argentina, as a former Spanish colony, is really getting ideas above it's station if it thinks it can lay claim to somewhere that had just been marked on a chart by it's former owner. Also, one of the problems that faced our taskforce was a lack of an airborne early warning system to detect the Exocet carrying Skyhawks. That was solved by jury-rigging a radome onto the side of Seaking helicopters and sending them out in advance of the picket line. We did have a superb AEW plane, the Gannet, which could stooge around for fourteen hours with a highly effective radar system, but it had been scrapped.
Oh yes, it was Tony Benn, as Minister of Defense for the previous Labour Party that removed a sophisticated and highly effective carrier-borne system that would have prevented the loss of a number of our ships, like my brother's ship, the Coventry.
We did have a superb AEW plane, the Gannet, which could stooge around for fourteen hours with a highly effective radar system, but it had been scrapped.
Needed a full size carrier anyway, which we didn't have in '82.
Edit to the above re: Falklands ownership.
Although first sighted by an English navigator in 1592, the first landing (English) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (French) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to Spain two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between Britain and Spain, then between Britain and Argentina. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in 1833. Argentina invaded the islands on 2 April 1982. The British responded with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and after fierce fighting forced an Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982.
Noted about the carriers, but Gannets had folding wings, could easily have been carried down by ship, then flown from the airfield. Fantastically tough airplane, I put together a book about it years ago, and there was a photograph of one that had lost both outer folding wing-tips in flight, but still stayed in the air and plane and crew made it safely back to base. I think it was something like a metre of wing missing each side. Lovely plane.
El-bent, if it wasn't so obvious you know bugger all about the RAF and airpower in general, I'd object to you calling me a dick.
But it is and I don't. Go do your homework.
All this 'we'll give them another bloody nose,bring it on ect ect.
Hey people!
[i] Skin of our teeth [/i] on the last run if you know anything about it.
Catalogue of disasters beginning to end and pure bloody luck at the end.
Another conflict would be far worse casualty wise,both sides have learned about fighting on the Falklands terrain,so its likely the'd be well dug in at height.Ship bombardment cant be used as the place is full of civvies,
Air cover is difficult too with only one or two carriers,and Argentina have aircraft with flight ranges that include to Falklands from their own bases.
I wont go into the design flaws our carriers have 😆
.
Cos i cant 😉
so its likely the'd be well dug in at height
If they got there this time...
Catalogue of disasters beginning to end and pure bloody luck at the end.
I wouldn't say pure luck at all.
I agree there were numerous mistakes and there were alot of ire aimed firmly at a certain Admiral over his leadership etc (especially from Harrier Pilots).
Don't forget, the majority of the servicemen who went down there had never seen action before.
Yes just like then there were years of budget cuts but the Argies today have no prior battle experience whereeas our lads...
I worked for that admiral a few years later (I think he was CINCNAVHOME at the time) and you also have to bear in mind that his hands were tied to some extent by the politicians. For example the Super Entendards that were eventually used from land (after the Argentinian fleet returned to port post-Belgrano), and their Exocets, were at sea on the carrier but permission wasn't given for one of the subs (for which the Argentinian Navy had no counter) to try and sink it.
epicsteve, read this book 'Forgotten Voices of the Falklands Conflict'. Various officers are scathing of that Admirals conduct.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/may/05/featuresreviews.guardianreview5
ocrider - MemberAlready have.
You ever been to the Dordogne? English is the first spoken language in some villages.
Which villages are those then?
I didn't find any!
Hora - less than half the argentine bombs that hit british ships exploded IIRC - if they all had the outcome would have been very different. Wrong fuses or something.
No doubt it was a big chunk of luck / circumstances that tipped the balance.
1000 men died for oil and vanity. There was no need for an armed conflict at all. It could have been easily solved but Thatcher wanted to kick some dago arse and made sure that there was no chance of a non military solution.
"Oh ye hypocrites
Are these your pranks
To murder men
And gie god thanks
Desist for same!
proceed no further:
God won't accept your thanks for Murther"
Oh yes, it was Tony Benn, as Minister of Defense for the previous Labour Party that removed a sophisticated and highly effective carrier-borne system that would have prevented the loss of a number of our ships, like my brother's ship, the Coventry.
im sure i learnt from andrew marrs history of britain that maggie was poised to dissmantle the navy and the falklnads conflict saved it
the mash article is right too many people getting nostalgic over a just war and from all the military groupies here spunking over getting to mention exocetts and aew systems it seems that its not just sun readers
its also very depressing to see hague using this as a political issue, whipping it up even further-something that will feedback into the sunreaders and get everyone up for some argie bashing
argentina dont want a war- they want some revenue so IF theres a big field found they can whack a tax on the pipeline that would be needed
The Argentinians are sabre wrattling because they know UK finances are battered and that we are overcommitted elsewhere.
The global sized oil fields is what this conflict is all about.
If it does kick off, I wonder if the Americans will support our cause with the same enthusiasm we have towards theirs? (or was the UK's arm twisted?)
I'm still perplexed as to why our boys are still getting shot up and we are spending mountains of tax payers' cash in Afghanistan. The vast majority of the people there are struggling to feed themselves, so i am lost as to why out people think they may be some sort of threat to our security. Conversely, our presence there will undoubtedly be aggitating groups much closer to home who are sympathetic to the Afghan's plight, those outside Afghanistan who [u]do[/u] have the wherewithall to inflict harm upon us.
If Brown does roll over and gives away billions and billions of dollars worth of Falklands oil reserves, I won't be surprized. Afterall, Gordon's quest is clear: Bankrupt the UK!
Spongebob - Member
The Argentinians are sabre wrattling because they know UK finances are battered and that we are overcommitted elsewhere.
Actually, I think there's a bigger parallel to the last time here. Kirchner is facing real troubles at home, both on a political and personal level. A little sabre rattling over the Falklands plays to a very simple popular cause in Argentina.
In the broadest nutshell (the politics were complex). The UK had initial support but there was a planned resolution for joint ownership, there were also elements of the US administration who were pro-Argentina etc etc.
Plus TJ- imagine a country invades your land and you are told to forget it/rollover. We just couldnt ignore what happened. Sad as it may seemed.
Famously Regan pledged 100% support but whilst he was asleep the US Secretary of State went against orders in a UN vote and voted AGAINST the UK. It could have meant Britain would have been FORCED to let Argentina stay on the Falklands.
People talked about 'more negotiations' ..They had already invaded. Britain had said 'leave'. Argentina refused. It would have weakened our position globally.
What would you suggest we had done?
Yes hora, we did the right thing defending our own territory, although I have heard it said many a time that Thatcher allowed the invasion to happen to boost her flagging support at home. Bit like the Argentinian position right now I guess (assuming CaptainFlasheart is correct). I blame women for this! They should never be allowed to have too much power 😆
Hora - go and read up some stuff on this. You are so wrong.
A negotiated solution was clearly possible and there were negotiations still going on when the Belgrano was sunk which ended any chance of a negotiated settlement.
1000 lives for vanity and oil. Its not worth one life
I don't believe Thatcher let the invasion happen deliberately but I am certain she refused to consider anything but a military solution for electoral gain.
TJ - Invasion started on April the 2nd.
Belgrano hit on May the 2nd.
See that month there? That's a month of an enemy force invading British territory. Negotiations can go hang at that point. If France invaded the Isle of Wight, would we spend a month sitting around desks, or would be ship off some chaps from Salisbury Plain to kick some gluteus maximus? I think I know the answer.
The Argentinian special forces blew up the Garrisons barracks expecting to surprise the Marines in their bunks.
You attack someones soil. What do you expect back? 'Oh please leave, pretty-please'.
No way Britain would go to war again to take them back this time...We would ask if they could print road signs in English as well as Spanish.Brown would then try and find "common ground" and "open dialogue" with the Argentinian Government.
On the bright side does this mean Tevez will be put in an Internment camp?
CFH - At that point there had been virtually no deaths. 1000 men died in total. I would go a long way to avoid 1000 deaths.
A negotiated settlement that would have avoided 1000 deaths was still possible ( if not probable) up to the point the belgrano was sunk. I think 1000 dead men is a good reason to try for one. But then I don't do macho posturing.
I'm surprised that Brown hasnt flown down yet to Buenos Aires.
A negotiated peace? TJ, the Argentinians were not leaving. They had set up administration etc etc. So what would you have done if they stayed against your wishes?
Ban their beef imports forever?
Bad mouth them at the UN?
Call them names?
They werent leaving TJ. Nothing would have made them leave.
It was a catch-22 position for any Leader. A painful one too. to be seen as a weak and ineffective leader on the world stage. It wasnt vanity, it was about protecting the prestige of Britain globally.
The deaths on the Belgrano? Two British warships had been attacked by then.
There was no need for an armed conflict at all.
Indeed, unfortunately the Argentinians chose otherwise when [b]they[/b] decided to invade crown dependency soil with a military force, from that point on the only possible outcome was military action to retake the islands - the Rubicon was crossed when the Argentinians opened fire.
It could have been easily solved but Thatcher wanted to kick some dago arse and made sure that there was no chance of a non military solution.
If it could have been "easily solved" how come Haig got nowhere? Have you actually read what Haig said about it? It was clear that for there to be a negotiated settlement, Argentina had to remove their military forces first, they refused repeatedly, they refused to consider anything less than complete sovereignty of the islands - this was entirely an Argentinian choice to invade a (pretty much) defenceless series of islands, against the will of the islanders, with a large military force, and to try and keep it - what negotiation was there to be had with a fascist military junta that had no regard for even its own citizens, choosing to 'disappear' anyone who challenged them?
I'm afraid you're fallen back into your old trap of reciting the socialist worker editorial version of events!
What impressed me though was the bravery (and to a degree) skill of the Argentinian pilots.
I'm in Argentina right now, cycling the length of the Andes... it's front page news in all the papers here... pretending to be anything other than English 😉
When thinking about the Falklands I am often left thinking "What would Tam say?"[*]
Tam (Dayell)spent the rest of his political career trying to demand an enquiry into the sinking of the Belgrano.
Nice deep water ports on Argentina's coastline.They get a refinery and much needed oil dollars.We get allowed/ignored while we drill for oil.That is how it will end up
I'm in Argentina right now, cycling the length of the Andes... it's front page news in all the papers here... pretending to be anything other than English 😉
chillipepper - MemberI'm in Argentina right now, cycling the length of the Andes... it's front page news in all the papers here... pretending to be anything other than English
Whats the vibe!?
One of my mates was a sub crewman fresh out of training in 82, his first deployment was to be the South Atlantic when it finished. He is quite ashamed these days that he got hugely drunk and feted as a hero when he never saw any action. Like he says it would be far worse to be out in AFG or Iraq as a ground pounder these when you have no idea who your OpFor is.
As a complete outsider it does seem odd that a large country gets soo excited over a tiny crop of desolute islands.
Is it that dull in Argentina/nothing to look forward to in politics there?!
re the vibe, the younger folk don't care, they're all very friendly, as for the man in the street.. fine really, have only felt a cold shoulder very occasionally, almost without exception the Argentines are a terrific bunch of people 🙂
the government just likes to stir things up every now and then, from chatting with the locals the present government isn't brilliantly popular.... bit like back home, lol
Hora - its all about the oil and patriotism.
I love the military fanboys on here. Of course a negotiated settlement was [b]possible[/b] Perhaps not likely but worth pursuing to save those 1000 lives.
You cannot say that the Arentines would not have left without the killings. We simply do not know and any chance of avoiding 1000 deaths is worth it IMO
This is the gist of the peruvian peace proposals which just might have worked if the belgrano had notr been sunk
Draft Interim Agreement on the Falkland / Malvinas Islands:-
(1) An immediate ceasefire, concurrent with:-
(2) Mutual withdrawal and non-reintroduction of forces, according to a schedule to be established by the Contact Group;
(3) The immediate introduction of a Contact Group composed of Brazil, Peru, The Federal Republic of Germany and the United States into the Falkland Islands, on a temporary basis pending agreement on a definitive settlement. The Contact Group will assume responsibility for (A) Verification of the withdrawal; (B) Ensuring that no actions are taken in the Islands, by the local administration, which would contravene this interim agreement; and (C) Ensuring that all other provisions of the agreement are respected
(4) Britain and Argentina acknowledge the existence of differing and conflicting views regarding the status of the Falkland Islands;
(5) The two Governments acknowledge that the aspirations and interests of the Islanders will be included in the definitive settlement of the status of the Islands;
(6) The Contact Group will have responsibility for ensuring that the two Governments reach a definitive agreement prior to 30 April 1983.
You're thirsty. You go into a fine public house and buy a pint of your favorite thirst quenching beverage and sit down.
A bloke wanders over and picks up your pint and announces that it's now his.
Do you;
A) Tell him to put it down sharpish or you'll snot him on the nose?
B) Agree that he now has possession and so it is now his?
C) Offer to go halves as a "compromise"?
BTW, the argies won't try anything. They stir up a fuss about the "malvinas" every other year or so to gain political support. They ain't got it in 'em.
Correct, she'd just cut their budgets like buggery and as a result had to get one aircraft carrier back from the knackers yard and the other from the Australian Navy who she'd just sold it to. Apart from that your point is factually correct Cap'n
Maybe if you're going to complain about factual correctness you should try some yourself. Hermes was due to go to the knackers yard, but wasn't there yet so didn't have to be got back - was replaced by Illustrious which was actually due to come into service before that went, so no gap in service as you imply. Meanwhile Invincible hadn't been sold to Australia, was just due to be. Hence Hermes and Invincible were immediately available wihout the scratching around you suggest.
A) Tell him to put it down sharpish or you'll snot him on the nose?
B) Agree that he now has possession and so it is now his?
C) Offer to go halves as a "compromise"?
I'd probably go with D - find another solution. I hope I'm not so insecure that I'd assault someone over a pint of beer.
Some people hate Thatcher so much they'ed support a murderous goverment.
Backhander. or D) - he puts the pint down while and independent 3rd party sorts it out?
Nothing justifies the deaths of 1000 men without attempting all possible avenues to avoid it and clearly this was not done
[i]You're thirsty. You go into a fine public house and buy a pint of your favorite thirst quenching beverage and sit down.
A bloke wanders over and picks up your pint and announces that it's now his.
Do you;
A) Tell him to put it down sharpish or you'll snot him on the nose?
B) Agree that he now has possession and so it is now his?
C) Offer to go halves as a "compromise"?[/i]
Great comparison...... 🙄
OK, while the third parties are deciding what to do, the bloke has commenced drinking. He looks like he's enjoying it.
On another note; what dialogue was opened with the Taliban by Blair?
boz, you're welcome to come up with a better one. I like pubs and beer 😀
I preferred my Kitkat comparison a few pages back. 😉
mt - MemberSome people hate Thatcher so much they'ed support a murderous goverment.
The murderous government of Thatcher who was responsible for the sinking of a ship that was no threat and was heading for home? Some people are so jingoistic they will support murder so long as its only dagos that are being murdered
backhander - MemberOn another note; what dialogue was opened with the Taliban by Blair?
Non - which is why its doomed to failure.
Your pint analogy is completly flawed as waiting another week or two would have made no difference as the islands were not being used up nor the people on them killed.
Hmmm, maybe but the longer they remained in argie control, the more difficult (politically and militarily) it would be to kick em off. So time was definately a consideration. Also, the bootnecks were held prisoner I believe.
Some people hate Thatcher so much they'ed support a murderous goverment.
Over 100,000 civilians dead and counting in Iraq since 2003.
Why dont people 'hate' Blair and Brown like they hate Thatcher? Wierd.
Backhander - its all "if" "but" and "and"
However if the Belgrano had been shadowed back to port and only sunk if it was a threat then those hundreds of lives would not have been lost and another week or two we would have known if the peruvian peace proposals would have worked.
for the sinking of a ship that was no threat and was heading for home?
Not factually true.
The argentines accepted that the sinking was a legal act of war and that
"...that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, that it was holding off for tactical reasons, and that being outside of the exclusion zone was unimportant as it was a warship on tactical mission.."
The Belgrano was zig-zagging with her escort ships to avoid presenting a target to submarines. She wasnt 'heading home'.
Clearly TandemJeremy attended the idealistical 1930's school of politics and internataional diplomacy.
It's a dog eat dog world, always has been and always will be. The Chilean proposal would not have worked, at least not to the Islanders or UK advantage and I very much doubt it would have been a sorted deal by 1983 - just look at Cyprus and countless other parts of the world where compromise deals have been reached. Hatred and hostilities is ever present bubbling just under the surface.
The fact that the Belgrano was sailing away from the exclusion zone really means very little, she was a potential danger. The fact that after she was sunk the Veinticinco de Mayo, her escorts and fighter bomber aircraft returned to port and stayed there speaks volumes the effect of the Belgrano's sinking had on the Argentine navy.
This is the gist of the peruvian peace proposals which just might have worked if the belgrano had notr been sunk
Ah, the infamous Peruvian plan, that was pretty much identical to Haig 2, which was rejected by the Argentinian's a couple of days before, and was not presented to Britain till after the sinking.
Your pint analogy is completly flawed as waiting another week or two would have made no difference as the islands
However, there was an imminent tread to the task force from the expected pincer movement of the carrier fleet (location at the time unknown) and the Belgrano, who was about to go into waters where the Conqueror could not follow her, So, there was imminent time pressure, RN ships had been attacked by enemy aircraft the day before, there had been sightings of Argentinian aircraft the day of the sinking - it was believed that an attempted attack on the task force was imminent, the task force could not stay at sea indefinitely.
As for Belgrano "heading for home" - utter, utter bollocks, her Captain, Hector Bonzo said:
"Our mission ... wasn't just to cruise around on patrol but to attack,''..."When they gave us the authorisation to use our weapons, if necessary, we had to be prepared to attack. Our people were completely trained. I would say we were anxious to pull the trigger.''
Like I said TJ - you're reciting the revisionist leftie editorial, rather than a critical analysis of the facts!
nice to see the armchair generals are in full flow.
As I recall the government of Argentina was happily killing it's own, the failure to keep the Falklands brought down the Generals, thus paving the way to democracy. Result for Thatcher and the anti facist world. Supose that's what's eating at you really.
Elected leader stands ground against facists dictatorship. You could try looking at it that way?
Maybe if you're going to complain about factual correctness you should try some yourself
Do you know what? I actually wrote that from what I remember of the events at the time and if I was only wrong by that margin after 28 years I'll take that as a win. Ta
That apart there is a great quote on the BBC News Website to day that pretty much confirms the Maggie let it happen argument :-
One of the things that went wrong in the 1980s is that the Argentines thought we weren't really committed to the Falkland IslandsShadow foreign secretary William Hague
I suspect that this will result in his knackers being firmly squeezed by one of the Grandees once they realise what a gaff it is. Expect a retraction sometime soon.
TJ, you have a point (I agree that all avenues should be exhausted before lives are risked) but I just cannot get vexed about the FI war in 82 considering what our politicians have got our servicemen doing right now. Hora has a very good point;
Why dont people 'hate' Blair and Brown like they hate Thatcher?
I do! I hate them all!
The beer/pub story was to try to illustrate that sometimes violence is going to be the only outcome when two sides cannot compromise when one is aggressive rather than an analogy to the FI.
Hora - thatcher is hated for the deliberate destruction of working class communities and industries in the name of ideology - the damage from which is still obvious today in the sink estates of our cities and for the wasting of north sea oil money to support this.
TJ, from Wiki; (So, as usual, there are source issues, but it's a good precis)
Legal situation
The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands. However, exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate (as did the Argentine government in 1994)
I actually wrote that from what I remember of the events at the time and if I was only wrong by that margin after 28 years I'll take that as a win.
Not bad really, I was 5!
You old bastards! 😛
hora - MemberSome people hate Thatcher so much they'ed support a murderous goverment.
Over 100,000 civilians dead and counting in Iraq since 2003.
Why dont people 'hate' Blair and Brown like they hate Thatcher? Wierd.
At least Thatcher didn't lie about the reasons for going to war. Blair was far worse imho.
[i]A negotiated settlement that would have avoided 1000 deaths was still possible ( if not probable) up to the point the belgrano was sunk. I think 1000 dead men is a good reason to try for one.[/i]
Possibly, but the war also brought to demise the miltary junta in Argentina. A junta responsible for the 'dissapearence' of maybe 30,000 people.
thatcher is hated for the deliberate destruction of working class communities and industries in the name of ideology - the damage from which is still obvious today in the sink estates of our cities and for the wasting of north sea oil money to support this.
So, TJ - really thats what grips you, and you cannot see past that to take an impartial look at the facts of the situation in the Falklands, you just see the word "Thatcher" and start foaming at the mouth, unable to accept that anything she [u]ever[/u] did was good, right or proper!
Hit the nail on the head.
Zulu - try learning to read and read my posts.
What was wrong IMO over the flaklands was two things - 1) refusing to look for any negotiated solution which could have avoided the 1000 deaths
2) the glorifying of the conflict despite the 1000 deaths.
Nothing to do with the fact I hate Thatcher, everything do do with my hatred of killing and the fact I am a moral person.
You old bastards!
Whoa! Steady on there son....... you're not too old to go over my knee yer know! 😉
I actually wrote that from what I remember of the events at the time and if I was only wrong by that margin after 28 years I'll take that as a win.
So you'll take being factually incorrect on all significant points and the implication of them as a win? Your point being that Thatcher's defence policies had a significant affect on the ease of putting a task force together when in fact they didn't at all. Well if that's your definition of a win I'm glad you weren't in charge of winning the Falklands war - maybe you had more involvement in the our more recent "wins" in the middle east?
1) refusing to look for any negotiated solution which could have avoided the 1000 deaths
Though you fail to consider the likely possibility that wasting time on a doomed negotiation (I mean even you admit it wasn't likely) would have resulted in even more deaths than that. After all when not if the negotiations had failed we'd still have had to go to war, we'd still have had to sink an aggresive Argentinian warship, the only difference being that the war would have been more protracted and bloody since the Argentinans would have had a much stronger position.
Isn't it wonderful having hindsight?
In Argentina itself there are various monuments to "Las Malvinas", often outside military bases.
Veterans of the conflict still demonstrate outside the presidential palace (I was a bit concerned when I saw it -until I realised that they weren't shouting "Death to Britain") about their treatment by their government and 'the people' appear to view it as a last-gasp attempt at popularity by Galtieri that failed.
Can I just mention (in passing) that the people who live on the Falkland Islands are British citizens, and do not want to be Argentinian citizens. They were very pleased, apparently, to be protected from Argentinian Dictatorship during the original conflict.
I assume they still feel that way?
Sorry to interrupt - back to arguing about "Thatcher" and "Blair" and slagging each other off...
argument solved......
[img] 
[/img]
How could a person who hates so much use the word moral?
Can I just mention (in passing) that the people who live on the Falkland Islands are British citizens, and do not want to be Argentinian citizens. They were very pleased, apparently, to be protected from Argentinian Dictatorship during the original conflict.
Compare and contrast the treatment of the people of [url= http://www.infoplease.com/spot/dg.html ]Diego Garcia[/url]
[i]A British Territory, Leased to the United States
Forced Removal of the Indigenous Inhabitants
Although Diego Garcia once had a small native population, the inhabitants, known as the Ilois, or the Chagossians, were forced to relocate (1967–1973) so that the island could be turned into the U.S. military base. Most of the roughly 1,500 displaced Chagossians were agricultural workers and fisherman. Uprooted and robbed of their livelihood, the Chagossians now live in poverty in Mauritius's urban slums, more than 1,000 miles from their homeland. A smaller number were deported to the Seychelles. About 850 islanders forced off Diego Garcia are alive today, and another 4,300 Chagossians have been born in exile. A 2003 60 Minutes segment and a 2004 documentary by Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, Stealing a Nation, have done much to publicize the little-known plight of the islanders.[/i]
A [url=
little war[/url]. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I remember my dad (then not long out of the Army) being utterly enraged at the triumphant crowing of number 10. Even today, the political grandstanding (and the fuggin' armchair strategising) often stands in sharp contrast to the attitude of those who were [url= http://www.forachange.co.uk/features/3266.html ]actually there[/url].
Well we did - Hermes, which had carried Gannets. The issue being one of fit rather than size as presumably the refit to take Harriers meant the catapults and arrestors needed had gone (it's all rather academic since the Gannets had been scrapped). You've got to get these things into perspective anyway, you didn't need a US size carrier to take those - Hermes is only 10% longer than our current carriers, and the Austalian navy operated them off HMAS Melbourne which is much the same length as Invincible.Needed a full size carrier anyway, which we didn't have in '82.
Do I need to point out that Gannets were scrapped under a Labour government?
Nowadays of course you could just base E-3Ds at Ascension to provide AEW coverage over there (not really within the capabilities of a Shackleton!)
So TJ - at what point does negotiation fail?
In the grand scheme, I'd say negotiation failed when an Argentine military force invaded the islands and started shooting at people.
How long do you go on negitiating? Till the Vincezo de Mayo has tracked down the task force and carried out a coupe de main air attack, sinking Hermes? Do you really wait until thats happened, at the cost of hundreds of lives of our own troops?
At some point you have to accept that a judgement to attack has to take into account the potential ramifications of not attacking - had the Belgrano been lost then the ramifications of a pincer attack on the fleet, given the fact that the Argentine forces had already attacked British ships and were, ultimately, the aggressor in this war, are too horrific to consider!
At a big tangent here, but am I the only one who sees a lot of TJ in one of the characters in this little clip?
[url=
quiche a chance....![/url]
😉
Zulu - I'd have given it another week - perhaps two. NO longer for the reasons you suggest. Given that it had been 4 or 5 wks already I think that would have been reasonable..
The Peruvian proposals looked like a possibility worth exploring. This was not given a chance as Thatcher had already decided that the military option was the only one she would consider
Negotiation was a valid activity whislt the Task Force was being assembled and in transit to the S Atlantic. However, chances of succesful negotiations were always low with an occupying force on the islands, and nil after arrival of the TF. The sinking of [i]any[/i] of the warships did not scupper the negotiations - just confirmed that there was no-where for them to go.
With the Argentinian military unlikely to back down it was inevitable that military action would follow soon after the arrival of the TF - if for no other reason that the Argentinians would have to supply / reinforce their garrison in contravention of the exclusion zone.
What wasn't inevitable was the invasion in the first place - succesive UK governments had signalled low interest in the islands, and Thatcher's run down of the Navy, diplomatic position, and finally, the proposed withdrawal of the ice patrol ship HMS Endurance (1981 defence Review) confirmed to the Argentinians that they would not be opposed militarily.
I can't comment about the land campaign, but from the Navy perspective I know many thought that they were bloody lucky. The Falklands was a lash up. Once ashore things were more certain, but the Navy / amphibious operations were far from certain.
Oh, and FWIW, the Navy personnel that I new and were down in the Falklands came home with a burning hatred of Thatcher. For having to do a job that they shouldn't have had to, and for the 1981 Defence Review and not having the kit to do the job.