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.
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.
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Our troops are curently working alongside argentinian troops. That could become akward.
PMSL !
Committee for the Liberation of Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into? Society
is TJ a member?
TandemJerry,tandemJerry;are you Chamberlain is disguise? Are you Chamberlain in disguise?
The Argentinians has already taken down the British street signs, they had also advertised for a Spanish teacher for the Islands,with a start date of September,hardly suggesting they would be willing to retreat while the situation was resolved.Thankfully a diplomatic solution was not sought on this occasion.
So TJ - at what point does negotiation fail?
I'm guessing at about the time you blow your opponents second hand 40 year old antiquated Battleship out of the water with a nuclear submarine several hundred miles away from anywhere it could do any damage, (presuming of course that it had the capability to in fact get close enough to the task force to do any harm, which it couldn't self evidently)
Leave TJ alone! 'Hes doing a Hitler'. We need to keep him online as hes doing the Social Worker cause such a disservice by arguing the way he does 😉
Hora WTF?
Berm bandit - or alternatively when his carrier fleet launches a wing of skyhawks carrying Exocet, and wipes out a couple of troop ships.... which do you let happen first? 🙄
Malvenas to Argentina? Hmmmm
This group could do with some new members? 🙄
Dont they anything at home of note to follow or feel proud of? Some of these photo links are ridiculous. Dont they know the Junta 'disapeared' alot of their compatriots etc?!
Zulu-Eleven - Member
Berm bandit - or alternatively when his carrier fleet launches a wing of skyhawks carrying Exocet, and wipes out a couple of troop ships.... which do you let happen first?
Isn't that an argument for sinking a carrier rather than a battleship??
Some of the thinking on that facebook group.
Basically:
'You only won because the Canadians, US, Chile and NATO fought Argentina who fought alone'
Propoganda spoonfed to make the youth think it was a heroic lone-battle? Is that the Latin-American thinking?
There's an excellent book by Max Hastings on the Falklands War that covers the politic stage as well as the actual conflict (wartime) command decisions.
I believe that Argentina had two capital ships, the RN was looking for both. When the Belgrano was attacked it was in an area that meant it was not a threat, however within a matter of hours it could be. One of the effects of ssinking it was to ensure that the aircraft carrier stayed well within Argentine Waters which meant that for practical purposes it was out of range of the Task Force & especially the Troop Ships.
ps didnt the French fight with the Argentines, or did the just sell weaponry under the counter?
BB That presumes you know where the carrier is... As already pointed out, the effect of the Belgrano incident was that the Veinticinco de Mayo was immediately recalled to port, the lack of a sea borne platform reduced the Argentine air forces effective loiter time over San Carlos and could well have saved hundreds of British lives...
Gee-Jay - Memberps didnt the French fight with the Argentines, or did the just sell weaponry under the counter?
Quite legitamatly sold them arms before the conflict. Refused to sell more during the conflict.
Dubious morality of international arms sales aside of course but IMO hypocritical.
What have I missed? 😆
Buenos Aires - Macc Lads
There was a load of bloody fairies in Buenos bloody Aires
With greasy hair and sweaty bums, they'd never heard of Boddington's
A different culture and a different race, - no chippies in the f*****g place,
You can keep that poof Ardiles, we're going to have your Malvinas
Eh Up!
They got our backs up without a doubt, time to sort those Argies out
Costa Mendez lives in fear of real men who can hold their beer
Eh! Eh! Eh! The lads are on their way,
With bayonets and tommy guns and bellies full of Boddington's
Eh Up!
Fray Bentos and cheap red wine is all they eat in the Argentine
But after a scrap with the English Navy, they'll ask for the recipe for chips 'n' gravy
etc
ps didnt the French fight with the Argentines, or did the just sell weaponry under the counter?
They didnt 'fight' they sold equipment legitimately before the conflict. There were backroom diplomacy missions to stop private companies from selling further Exocets through grey channels to Argentina.
Basically capitalism. When someone realised that Exocets were in huge demand they bought with the idea of selling them onto a desperate party for a high-price.
for the precursor to the full conflict watch
An Ungentlmanly Act - an excellent film and apparently has held quite well to the truth of what happened when the Argies first invaded.
The French sold the Exocets to them. before the war. and promised tehm more. however some back room manouevering prevented further sales.
(to which the RN undoubtedly said THANK F***)
The Belgrano sinking was a political and military statement. Had it not occured the Argies fleet would have been out and many more vessels would have been sunk, ours and theres, meaning many more lives lost.
ps didnt the French fight with the Argentines, or did the just sell weaponry under the counter?
No, as posted they sold the Argentinians weapons systems, white flags etc.
No, as they sold the Argentinians white flags etc.
😆