[Closed] Anyone remember how the Falklands began?

of course there is all that oil stuff too.........

I don't subscribe to the theory that the various signs that the Argentinians took as a green light to invade were deliberate at all - I believe that was ignorance, stupidity and cockup

I am however certain that the chance to go to war was seized gleefully with both hands and that any chances for a peaceful negotiated settlement were deliberately spurned. The sinking of the Belgrano being one such act to ensure that the Peruvian proposals did not work

bravohotel8er - Member

the myth that we as a country had an effective fighting force.

Except that it wasn't a myth, we did have 'an effective fighting force'

The only thing world class brought to bear in that episode was the rhetoric and the air to air missiles that the Americans gave us.

So, not the incredible feat of arms involved in fighting many thousands of miles from your country/nearest air/naval bases (but within range of your enemy's air bases) and triumphing in spite of frequently reversing the commonly held adage that a 3:1 numerical advantage is required in order to ensure victory against a well entrenched opponent?

I can not dispute the resolve and tenacity of the men who were on the ground. many were still in when I took the Queens Shilling. As ever the equipment and support was not there:
Ships with hulls of tin foil
DMS boots for arctic conditions
Rifle unable to fire fully auto to save on rounds spent
no effective air to air missiles
carriers brought back from the brink of scrapping

The sad fact is nothing changes. thirty years late there is not enough desert gear for Iraq or Afghanistan. No body armour to go round. not enough helicopter transport. vehicles you could fire an air rifle through never mind a roadside IED.

Lets just say we were very,very lucky in the Falklands.

You have somewhat oversimplified my point with your option 1 - so much shorter and less well expanded than option 2. i dont doubt for a second that option 2 also occurred- perhpas it was even the main reason who knows. i simply stated that it is naive to think it did not cross the mind of a serving politician [very unpopular at the time] as to what the electoral consequnces for their action may be. They are after all trying to win the next election ,even thatcher, and IMHO this is easier to do by doing popular than unpopular things.
The politicians might just think like this as well even if you dont.

i just cant see any other reason why cameron & hague seem to be pushing so hard for intervention, perhaps some misguided arrogant blairesque belief in their own righteousness?
of course there is all that oil stuff too.....

TBH, joking aside, I reckon the British public have become war-weary. The climate at the time of the Falklands War was quite different. Britain hadn't been engaged in a proper full scale successful war - with air force, navy, and army, since the end of WW2. The thought of military victories in foreign lands seemed reasonably exciting. Things are different now.

If the present government decides to opt for new military adventures in the Middle East, then the overriding consideration imo is Libyan high grade oil.

Things have gone very badly for the West in the Middle East recently. The situation in Libya (which is undoubtedly being stoked up by the West) provides an excellent opportunity to achieve something which the West has long desired, but had in recent years given up all hope of achieving - a pro-Western regime in Tripoli.

I very risky game imo. There are no guarantees who would replace Gaddafi. Al-Qaeda is strong in that region, and being Sunni, Libya would be a natural target/home for them. Libya would indeed be a huge prize for them - far greater than the mountains of Afghanistan, And far more realistic a prize than Shiite Iraq.

As I've said, I very risky game - and certainly we have had a very recent example of British intelligence's complete miscalculation of the political situation in Libya. And there isn't any real guarantee that a more secular new regime would be much more pro-Western than Gaddafi either.

All in all, the West has not had a very good track record of supporting the right people and right foreign policies in recent decades. I fail to be convinced that Libya would necessarily be different.

Lets just say we were very,very lucky in the Falklands.

My dad (an MO) had left a few years previous... and he would get [i]very[/i] angry at the sight of triumphantly crowing politicians.

So, not the incredible feat of arms involved in fighting many thousands of miles from your country/nearest air/naval bases (but within range of your enemy's air bases) and triumphing in spite of frequently reversing the commonly held adage that a 3:1 numerical advantage is required in order to ensure victory against a well entrenched opponent?

Yep, the very forces that the Tories were about to cut, including the carriers and assault ships. Even with those forces, it was touch and go. Shows the professionalism of our armed forces even when their political masters were attempting to cut their balls off.

Cut to today(literally) and the lessons of that conflict seemed to have been forgotten and here we are with History repeating...

The fact that this also happened at the height of the Cold War was no small factor either. What on earth do you think the Soviet Union would have made of it if the second most powerful country in NATO hadn't bothered to defend it's own territory against a third rate Latin American state?

The most Powerful country in Nato Turned tail and ran from Vietnam to what could be classed as a Third rate far eastern state. I didn't see the Soviet hordes piling over the Bering sea to invade the US unless of course you believed Red Dawn was a documentary.

it was on the telly , with airplanes coming of boats! maggie ! long grey boats. rubbush TV's with fake wood pannelling. Floral carpeting. argentinia a word used a lot.

that's what I remember.

rubbush TV's with fake wood pannelling

Radio Rentals. 😀

I can remember talking about this with significant politicos at what was actually quite a fun Christmas Party in December 96 and the general opinion was that the savage beginnings of the Chicago School economic theories had encouraged the Junta to go for it and that without the miniwar the Tories would definitely have lost the upcoming election.
What is really sad is that the Falklands miniwar exposed the substantial shortcoming in British military planning and short termism in political leadership which, TBH, is just as demonstrable today.
It was a totally avoidable event, the sole outcome of which was to re-elect the Tories in the next GE. And look where that got us.
On another note - Che G - must be time for another beer.

nope

The thought of military victories in foreign lands seemed reasonably exciting. Things are different now

you have the context in reverse

The Falklands war was due to the invasion of British Terroritory by a foriegn country

compare and contrast with the invasion of Iraq

Thatcher would have know that

a. the british public wouldn't have re-elected a PM who lost the Falklands (imagine the stories of islanders "disappearing" etc)

b. she wouldn't survive if we lost

c. that any operations were high risk and the likelihood was high that we would have another Suez

The hatred of a single personnality seems to forget the context and blind those who do not want to see

the post-war jingoism of those who were not there is used to argue for the "conspiracy theory" that the govenment wanted a war to gain popularity

classic example

I am however certain that the chance to go to war was seized [b]gleefully with both hands[/b] and that any chances for a peaceful negotiated settlement were deliberately spurned.

What I remember is a TV play in which this took place. It was screened in Oz about a year before the actual invasion.

The Oz press did not expect the British to win.

Regardless of the whys and wherefores, an enemy invaded British soil. The only sensible reaction was to go and get it back. The overseas credibility of the British military rose substantially after that.

As for the Belgrano, I'm sure if they had got close enough, it wouldn't have been flowers they were sending over, so tough titty.

Thatcher would have know that

a. the british public wouldn't have re-elected a PM who lost the Falklands (imagine the stories of islanders "disappearing" etc)

b. she wouldn't survive if we lost

Yes, but more important than that........Thatcher would have known for certain that she would lose the next general election unless she could somehow pull a rabbit out of the hat - the Argentine invasion of the the Falklands gave her a unique opportunity. And she took it.

There was no risk involved for her at all. The only "risk" for her was that Britain might win and that would save her political skin.

.

The hatred of a single personnality seems to forget the context and blind those who do not want to see

the post-war jingoism of those who were not there is used to argue for the "conspiracy theory" that the govenment wanted a war to gain popularity

classic example

[b]I am however certain that the chance to go to war was seized gleefully with both hands and that any chances for a peaceful negotiated settlement were deliberately spurned[/b].

But TJ completely denies that there was "conspiracy". He simply states that Thatcher seized an opportunity which presented itself to her. So how does that give you a "classic example" of a "conspiracy theory" ? 😕

On the contrary, I fear that it is the deep admiration for "a single personality" which leaves some blind to the facts which led to the Falkland's War.

So getting back to the OP's original question : how did the Falklands begin ?

Check the following quotes :

[i]"Captain Nick Barker RN , captain of HMS Endurance during the Falklands War, tells a convincing and enraging story of the wilful stupidity of intellectually arrogant diplomats, civil-service mandarins, admirals and politicians, and of [b]the needless conflict and loss of life that resulted[/b].

Among these was the Falklands `guardship', the Endurance, an adapted Danish Baltic trader armed with 16 AS 12 air-to surface missiles and equipped with sophisticated electronic listening gear. Nott announced that she would be withdrawn in 1982 and not replaced. This would leave the Falkland Isles (with its population of British stock) and other British dependencies in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic to be defended by a few lightly armed Royal Marines. [b]A clearer signal of British abdication of interest in this region could not have been sent to the Argentinians, notoriously obsessed with recovering "the Malvinas"[/b].

Thus no firm British response was made to the opening Argentinian moves, such as the landing of a military party on South Georgia under cover of a phoney scrapcollecting operation. [b]On a previous occasion under the Labour Government a nuclear attack submarine had been ostentatiously despatched to the South Atlantic to cool Argentinian heads. But in 1982 the Conservative Government failed to make any such deterrent gesture".[/b] [/i]

The source of these quotes ? An anti-Thatcher left-winger maybe ?

No ! the Spectator ! .......that Tory "Daily Telegraph owned" magazine which takes an unashamedly pro-British line in foreign affairs.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_199705/ai_n8781734/

On another note - Che G - must be time for another beer.

Yup 🙂

the british public wouldn't have re-elected a PM who lost the Falklands (imagine the stories of islanders "disappearing" etc)

b. she wouldn't survive if we lost

The Falklands war was caused by a dictator from a foriegn country invading the islands

the fact he thought he could get away with it is likely to stem from (the failure of) British and American (anti communism) foriegn policy at the time

it's a war that shouldn't have happened and the casualties on both sides is a tragedy

the fact that in UK politics Labour were in disaray with Michael Foot and his donkey jacket leading them and the SDP/ liberals taking a large share of the vote (but not seats)at the 1983 election. A half decent opposition would have been able to point out that the war should not have happened and the cost in "blood and treasure" never paid. Thatchers government should have been unelectable, the reality was that labour were unelectable and with the rise of Militant at the time thank goodness.

You can (and probably will ad nausiam)continue to insist that the only reason that shots were fired after the marines were evicted was to get her re-elected in 1983.

As for the spectator quote I defer to Yes Minister "the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think they should run the country". It also reinforces my point which is that failures by the government of the day were part of the chain of events that led to the invasion. The Junta still were to blame, they invaded, we should have made sure they didn't think they could before it happened.

You can (and probably will ad nausiam[sic])continue to insist that the only reason that shots were fired after the marines were evicted was to get her re-elected in 1983.

PP are you claiming thatcher was so politically naive that it did not cross her mind that it might just make her popular if she had a war

you accept she considered the political implications on your own posts - do you want me to quote you or can you at least recall your own posts? yet you still want to argue for some reason

re the war my view was clearly stated as

i dont doubt for a second that option 2 [considered debate of the options and conequences]also occurred- perhpas it was even the main reason who knows. i simply stated that it is naive to think it did not cross the mind of a serving politician [very unpopular at the time] as to what the electoral consequnces for their action may be.

Labour were in disaray with Michael Foot and his donkey jacket.......the rise of Militant

WTF you on about ?

How has Michael Foot and his donkey jacket, or the rise of Militant, got anything to do with "how the Falklands War begun" ?

You don't want to blame Thatcher for the Falklands War, but you want to blame Michael Foot's donkey jacket ?

I have no idea whether you're big, but you are obviously daft.

And well done for trying to pin some of the blame for the Falklands War on the yanks btw.

Anyone remember how the Falklands began?

Well, after several million years of evolution when the earth had cooled and oceans developed, the great land mass called Gondwanaland began to split apart, whilst......

Oh.

For those who have actually looked back further than 1979 into the causes of the Falklands conflict, they would know that the single biggest factor in the Falklands was the strong embarrassment within the foreign office over the status of the islands, and that this had gone on for a number of years, under governments of both flavour's.

The problem is, that the Falklands are seen as a colonial possession, and the UK was bound under international law to dispose of colonies, at the same time, international law also guaranteed and respected the right of the islanders to self determination, and they were utterly opposed to any plans that would surrender the UK sovereignty (understandably, given the Argentinean threat)

The foreign office had been pushing behind the scenes strongly to solve the problem, as the ongoing colonial problem and the "Malvinas question" was causing embarrassing problems over trade agreements with various South American countries - other Sections of the government saw the disposal of the islands against the will of the residents as an unacceptable outcome.

The "hand wringing" within the civil service had led to a great many mixed messages, both upwards to the higher levels of government, downward to the islanders, and sideways to the Argentineans - there were discussions over possible independence, discussions over sovereignty and leaseback, and all these discussions through the seventies led to some very dangerous speculation and extrapolation in Buenos Aries...

So, the Falklands war, like so many others, had its true origins in post colonialism.

Yeah, someone did that joke about the sixth post on the thread Woppit.

Still never mind - it was probably worth another punt.

Not reading all that; I assume that this has now become a "discussion" between perhaps four of our most prolific,who have rather different political views.

Still; reaching out and touching the Argentinians with Vulcans was damn impressive.

Doesn't make up for the poll tax or my wee brothers milk.

Seems to me that the point that everyone is missing is if you want to dip your bread in someone elses soup you need to have the resources to back your actions up. So the moral of the story is if you want to be one of the worlds playground bullies buy the kit. If you don't want to buy the kit shut up before you make yourself look stupid.

ernie_lynch - Member

[i]Labour were in disaray with Michael Foot and his donkey jacket.......the rise of Militant[/i]

WTF you on about ?

How has Michael Foot and his donkey jacket, or the rise of Militant, got anything to do with "how the Falklands War begun" ?

You don't want to blame Thatcher for the Falklands War, but you want to blame Michael Foot's donkey jacket ?

the donkey jacket had nothing to do with the war and lots to do with her re-election after it. read the post

A half decent opposition would have been able to point out that the war should not have happened and the cost in "blood and treasure" never paid. Thatchers government should have been unelectable, the reality was that labour were unelectable and with the rise of Militant at the time thank goodness.

or is Micheal Foot one of your heroes?

your argument and others is that political consideration in terms of getting reelected dominated the thinking prior to the shooting war started

Thatcher would have known for certain that she would lose the next general election unless she could somehow pull a rabbit out of the hat - the Argentine invasion of the the Falklands gave her a unique opportunity. And she took it.

There was no risk involved for her at all. The only "risk" for her was that Britain might win and that would save her political skin.

I disagree, lots of risk as discussed earlier

You don't want to blame Thatcher for the Falklands War

and finally

And well done for trying to pin some of the blame for the Falklands War on the yanks btw

in the context of Uncle Sam's back yard and the americans political position during the war, not including them as a player would be ignoring the facts of the time (again)

Indeed - Big N Daft makes a fair point - its outstandingly lazy to blame Thatchers victory in the '83 Election on the Falklands, without paying credit to Foot's contribution with the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_longest_suicide_note_in_history ]Longest Suicide Note in History[/url]

[i]your argument and others is that political consideration in terms of getting reelected dominated the thinking prior to the shooting war started[/i]

I'm all for reasoned debate but are you actually reading what other people are saying ? If you are you seem to be reading through blue tinted glasses.

I don't think people are saying it dominated the thinking (except for Project) but i still believe it played a significant part. That is not the same as saying it "dominated" the thinking.

What is so hard to accept about that. Thatcher was a politcian and leader of the country. She was in a dire situation with the electorate. Presented with this opportunity (which i accept she didn't engineer) can you really not see that it was an opportunity for her and her govt ?

I'm sure the Falklands conflict had certain Tory strategists thinking along the lines that a victory will help turn around the fortunes of the most unpopular Prime minister in British history...that and Micheal foot.

Every little helps. Nothing is going to save the current lot however.

thirty years late there is not enough desert gear for Iraq or Afghanistan. No body armour to go round. not enough helicopter transport. vehicles you could fire an air rifle through never mind a roadside IED.

Apart from being factually mostly wrong, there isn't much wrong with that statement.

It's amusing to see the "left" still frothing at the mouth about the sainted Margaret. Poor lambs. I think they will always be in denial about the actions of the union "leaders" of the time, Michael Foot (in mouth) and their fellow travellers who made her election inevitable.

The Falkland Islanders had no wish to live under the jackboot of an ugly military dictatorship and were saved from doing so by heroes.

The rest of it is just a bunch of fannies arguing about nothing.

[i]Poor lambs. I think they will always be in denial about the actions of the union "leaders" of the time, Michael Foot (in mouth) and their fellow travellers who made her election inevitable.[/i]

Not sure whether i qualify as left in your eyes but i suspect i do 🙂

I'm not in denial about the above at all. The conservatives stayed in power so long precisely because of the inept leadership and actions of the labour party.

How else do you explain John Major 😯

I think they will always be in denial about the actions of the union "leaders" of the time,

It wasn't the Union leaders that lead the Falkland Islanders to be placed under the jackboot of an ugly military dictatorship, it was the upcoming defence cuts under Thatcher that "encouraged" the desperate Junta. I wonder what a sycophant like yourself would call that other ugly military dictatorship in the region at the time: Chile. Your Friends?

Poor lambs

Which is what everyone in this country is becoming without Unions.

It's amusing to see the "left" still frothing at the mouth about the sainted Margaret

who made her election inevitable

big_n_daft - Member

the donkey jacket had nothing to do with the war and lots to do with her re-election after it. read the post

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Indeed - Big N Daft makes a fair point - its outstandingly lazy to blame Thatchers victory in the '83 Election on the Falklands

Oh I see, the Falklands War wasn't the reason why Thatcher won the election in '83 .......it was Michael Foot's "donkey jacket" wot done it ?

The problem with that theory is that it is completely at odds with "actual facts".

[b]In every single MORI poll from the general election in 79, until the outbreak of the Falklands War in April '82, Labour was in the lead[/b]

Including in '81, the period in which the "donkey jacket incident" took place.

Check it out for yourself :

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=103

The Labour Party did not lose support because Michael Foot owned a donkey jacket.

After years of incessantly trailing Labour in the polls, support for the Tories suddenly increased and overtook Labour in the week the Falklands War started.

Only someone who is either deluding themselves, or too lazy to seek out the facts, would suggest that the Falklands War wasn't the reason for the Tories sudden and unexpected turn of fortunes.

There will always be a small minority of people who are sufficiently impressed by a scoundrel's last refuge, to tip the delicate political balance.

.

Mr Woppit - Member

It's amusing to see the "left" still frothing at the mouth about the sainted Margaret.

Of course if you didn't reduce everything to a tribal left-right conflict Woppit, and you saw beyond your narrow sectarian blinkered and desperately ill-informed perspective, you would have seen that my quote which refers to the Falklands War as a [i]"needless conflict and loss of life"[/i] had come not from "the left", but from the Spectator. That's the Spectator magazine - which is written by Tories, edited by Tories, and read by Tories.

But then doing anything [i]more[/i] than simply reducing everything to left vs right, is far too intellectually challenging for someone with as little political acumen as you. So don't let me down, and carry on with your ill-informed nonsense.

you would have seen that my quote which refers to the Falklands War as

Sorry ernie, I didn't read any of your posts, so I don't know what you're talking about.

VERY attractive high horse you have, though. Bet you can see a long way from up there...

Yes, the view is indeed quite pleasant.

So basically Woppit, you are passing judgement that those who suggest the Falklands War was a [i]"needless conflict"[/i] are 'the frothing left' ........despite not having acquainted yourself with the facts ?

So presumably Captain Nick Barker RN , captain of HMS Endurance, who made the above allegation was just a 'frothing leftie' ?

And let me get this right ....... you are surprised that I might feel a sense of moral superiority over someone who spouts ill-informed nonsense ?

The Labour Party did not lose support because Michael Foot owned a donkey jacket.

No, Wenie - as I said, [u]they lost because of the fact that the policies laid out in their 1983 manifesto made them completely unelectable[/u] - the longest suicide note in history!

No, as I have already pointed out, the Tories had trailed Labour [i]for years[/i] in the polls, since the '79 election in fact. All that changed the week the Falklands War started. It did not coincide with the week the Labour Manifesto was launched - by then the Tories had a well established lead.

Check for yourself, it's all here in black and white :

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=103

And as for your 'funny-ha-ha' comment that the '83 Labour Manifesto was the longest suicide note in history, I'll remind you that one of the central policies in the Manifesto was the policy of nationalising the banks, on the grounds that they couldn't be trusted to do what was best for Britain.

Today in Britain and the US, much of banking have been nationalised [i]precisely[/i] because the private banks proved to be untrustworthy. A central policy in '83 Labour Manifesto has been proved to have been absolutely correct. And the subsequent New Labour policy of unregulated private banks has been proved to have been "suicidal".

The other central policy in '83 Labour Manifesto was withdrawal from the EEC. That is [u]precisely the same policy as your political guru[/u] Dan Hannan.....would you call it "suicidal" ? Well, would you Zulu-Eleven ? Is UKIP a "suicidal" party ? Are Tory right-wingers "suicidal" ?

Today Britain, imo, would be a much better place if we had a government committed to the policies which were in the '83 Labour Manifesto.

BTW, impressive deviation tactics ..... top marks mate.

Oh I see, the Falklands War wasn't the reason why Thatcher won the election in '83 .......it was Michael Foot's "donkey jacket" wot done it ?

The problem with that theory is that it is completely at odds with "actual facts".

In every single MORI poll from the general election in 79, until the outbreak of the Falklands War in April '82, Labour was in the lead

Including in '81, the period in which the "donkey jacket incident" took place.

funnily enough the great man seemed to hold a different view

On Labour's 1983 election defeat
[Explaining Labour's 1983 election defeat when he was leader.] We had not the armour, the strength, the quickness in manoeuvre, yes, the leadership. (Another Heart and Other Pulses, 1984)

Check it out for yourself :

and he seemed to understand the complexity and pressure of the situation

"I can well understand the anxieties and pressures that must have been upon you during this weeks and I can understand that, at this moment, these pressures and these anxieties may be relieved and I congratulate you." To Margaret Thatcher after the retaking of the Falklands in 1982.

big_n_daft - Don't bother, he's utterly indoctrinated.

Is this the same Thatcher that was earlier trying to sell the Falklands to the Argentinians?

After the deal fell through, blocked by the right wing of her own party, the Argentinians invaded and Thatcher developed a patriotic streak.

Or did I miss something?

i) Polls is not Elections, if you believed polls then the conservatives would have lost in 1992
ii) Not my "funny Ha-Ha comment, Gerald Kaufmans, you know, Labour MP, former Labour govt member - lets also look at the comment by Dennis Healey: [i]The reason we were defeated in so far as defence played a role is that people believe we were in favour of unilaterally disarming ourselves. It wasn't the confusion. It was the unilateralism that was the damaging thing.[/i]
iii) Hannan proposes no such thing, he proposes withdrawal from the EU, the EU is NOT the same as the EEC!
iv) Yes, very different, we'd be living in totalitarian marxist state, though I'm sure that thought makes you do a little sex wee!
v) You brought it up!

Interesting but completely irrelevant points big_n_daft.

So he said "We had not the armour, the strength, the quickness in manoeuvre, yes, the leadership" and ? .......does that statement claim that the Falklands War didn't save Thatcher's political skin ?

And the second quote is even more irrelevant. Michael Foot fully supported Thatcher's decision to send the task force to the Falklands.......so why wouldn't he congratulate Thatcher after the retaking of the Falklands in 1982 ....eh?

None of that detracts from the fact that firstly, the war was avoidable, and secondly, Thatcher benefited enormously from the Falklands War. Indeed it saved her bacon at a time when her political career was about to nose-dive..

To summarise then, almost 30 years on and Teh Toriezz are back in power, ernie still hasn't recovered from the Thatcher years and creams himself nightly over a laminated copy of Clause 4.

So basically Woppit, you are passing judgement that those who suggest the Falklands War was a "needless conflict" are 'the frothing left' .

Am I?

Am I?

Don't worry, classic Ernie tactics, putting words into other people's mouths.

[Cue lots of [i]quotes[/i], [u]underlined [/u] [b]bold [/b]points, questions and the odd CAPS thrown in]

Polls is not Elections

When every single poll, over several years, says exactly the same thing, then they are extremely precise in gauging public opinion. And they all said one thing - that labour was in the lead. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Tories would have lost the election had it occurred before the Falklands War. No opinion polls have ever been so consistently wrong over several years - otherwise no one would bother with them. To suggest otherwise is dishonest nonsense.

Hannan proposes no such thing, he proposes withdrawal from the EU, the EU is NOT the same as the EEC!

Pedantic nonsense.

Yes, very different, we'd be living in totalitarian marxist state

[i]"The '83 Labour Manifesto would have led to a totalitarian marxist state"[/i] = more breathtakingly infantile nonsense from Zulu-Eleven. And with that, I don't think I can be arsed anymore. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for once and decided to enter a debate with you, but true to form, you end coming out with the usual puerile bollocks. I guess you can't help yourself.

Am I?

As allthepies suggests don't worry about it. If you didn't say it, then it must be me putting words into your mouth.

None of that detracts from the fact that firstly, the war was avoidable

no-one debating that in the context of 20:20 hindsight

, and secondly, Thatcher benefited enormously from the Falklands War. Indeed it saved her bacon at a time when her political career was about to nose-dive..

sorry I thought you said

Thatcher would have known for certain that she would lose the next general election unless she could somehow pull a rabbit out of the hat - the Argentine invasion of the the Falklands gave her a unique opportunity. And she took it.

so was it "events" or a deliberate plan to retake the Falklands (with support from Michael Foot) in order to get re-elected.

I just want to be clear seeing as I am so "daft"

So lets have a war with Libya, or just organise one and let the french fight it.

So the Argie bargies invade the Falkands inhabited by British subjects and the Uk Government decided to defend and retake the island, hmmmm don't know what the fuss is about.

Lol @ ernie_lynch what a ranting nutter.

No, it was all an evil plan by Thatch to aid her re-election chances. Any phool can see that.

flippinheckler - Member
So the Argie bargies invade the Falkands inhabited by British subjects and the Uk Government decided to defend and retake the island, hmmmm don't know what the fuss is about.

Posted 6 minutes ago # Report-Post

and quite a few squaddies sadly get killed,or injured, we then have to pay out millions to build an airport and infrastructure, and keeep 1000 troops there to defend a few puffins and a load of burnt out vehicles, oh and it allowed thatcher to win an election, while destroying the miners and steel workers with a good helping hand to the car industry along the way to destroy it as well.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHEAPER TO JUST PUT ALL THE conservative VOTERS ON A BOAT AND LET THEM DEFEND THE DAMM ISLAND, AND LET PEOPLE WHO CARE RUN THE COUNTRY.

So easy in hindsight,

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHEAPER TO JUST PUT ALL THE[s] conservative VOTERS[/s] miners ON A BOAT AND LET THEM DEFEND THE DAMM ISLAND, AND LET PEOPLE WHO CARE RUN THE COUNTRY.

FTFY

and secondly, Thatcher benefited enormously from the Falklands War. Indeed it saved her bacon at a time when her political career was about to nose-dive..

[b]"sorry I thought you said"[/b]

Thatcher would have known for certain that she would lose the next general election unless she could somehow pull a rabbit out of the hat - the Argentine invasion of the the Falklands gave her a unique opportunity. And she took it.

No need to apologise, I did say both things ......is there a problem ?

so was it "events" or a deliberate plan to retake the Falklands (with support from Michael Foot) in order to get re-elected.

I just want to be clear seeing as I am so "daft"

Eh ? I'm sorry, maybe [i]I'm[/i] going daft now ..... I don't know what your saying/asking.

But if it helps though - I'll reaffirm what I believe.

Firstly, I reckon that, as the article in the Spectator points out, the Falklands War was a [i]"needless conflict".[/i] It was due to gross incompetence by the Thatcher government. Again as the Spectator points out, [i]"A clearer signal of British abdication of interest in this region could not have been sent to the Argentinians, notoriously obsessed with recovering "the Malvinas". On a previous occasion under the Labour Government a nuclear attack submarine had been ostentatiously despatched to the South Atlantic to cool Argentinian heads. But in 1982 the Conservative Government failed to make any such deterrent gesture".[/i]

The reason for this gross incompetence ? ....penny-pinching by Thatcher, simple as. Of course ironically, the Falklands War ended up costing an absolute fortune.

Secondly, I believe that Thatcher saw a possible Falklands War as the perfect opportunity to save her political skin and therefore scuppered all attempts to find a peaceful solution to the crises.

And thirdly, I believe that her calculations were correct, and that she did indeed benefit hugely from the Falklands War.......lucky girl.

HTH

project - Member

and quite a few squaddies sadly get killed,or injured, we then have to pay out millions to build an airport and infrastructure, and keeep 1000 troops there to defend a few puffins and a load of burnt out vehicles, oh and it allowed thatcher to win an election, while destroying the miners and steel workers with a good helping hand to the car industry along the way to destroy it as well.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHEAPER TO JUST PUT ALL THE conservative VOTERS ON A BOAT AND LET THEM DEFEND THE DAMM ISLAND, AND LET PEOPLE WHO CARE RUN THE COUNTRY.

So easy in hindsight,

Listen, there are people who can help you.

Your post brings to mind a Tory decision that genuinely was a mistake, Care in the Community.

😯

why do all those that oppose this want to simplify the opposing view?
Thatcher removed the ship defending the island and sent mixed messages to the argentinina leaders - not in dispute
They invaded - not in dispute
Winning wars is popular- not in dispute
Thatcher thought about the electoral consequences - not in dispute - though Bign daft objects when I say this but not when he does
Thatcher was unpopular and not likely to win the election prior to the inavsion /recapture- not in dispute Z-11 aside from what ernie says
You may conclude what you want from this but it seems reasonable to assume she did not launch the task force unaware of the electoral implcations of this and that she would not have won without this. Calling ernie a nutter is hardly a reasoned argument. When you disagree perhaps try articulating your argument without over simplyfying the alternative view or those making it?

Hmmmmmmm and who sent us into Iraq & Afghanistan? Thatcher & Conservatives, NO Blair and NEW Labour far more damaging than the Falklands war.

Dobbo - Member

Lol @ ernie_lynch what a ranting nutter.

Gosh, I'm in the company of kids !

Having established that I'm a "ranting nutter" Dobbo, have you got anything constructive to say on the topic which was : "Anyone remember how the Falklands began?"

Go on ........ don't be shy ...... say something 😀

but it seems reasonable to assume she did not launch the task force unaware of the electoral implcations of this and that she would not have won without this.

Reasonable to whom ?

You know, this is one of the things I love about STW...

I have considerable reservations about Cameron and the current Tory/Lib coalition government, but reading ernie's posts reminds me why I never have and never will be able to vote Labour.

penny-pinching by Thatcher

Ahhh - the perpetual personification of politics - I do love the way you do that after all this time. Let it go. That sort of vitriol can make a man sound bitter and stuck in the past.

oh.

to defend a few puffins and a load of burnt out vehicles,

Not really interested in joining in, but having just read through the whole thread that has developed since I posted last night, I have noticed two main things :-

1) The point I was making which is the similarities between the start of the Falklands war, ie having to recommission and buy back scrapped and sold kit is spookily like whats now going on with the Nimrods, and that seems to have passed everyone by.
2) How rude, ill informed and belligerant the Thatcherites seem to be. simply abusing or belittling isn't really an argument guys. It is entirely possible that it is what Public School teaches you, but its not an argument.

Night night

flippinheckler - Member
Hmmmmmmm and who sent us into Iraq & Afghanistan? Thatcher & Conservatives, NO Blair and NEW Labour far more damaging than the Falklands war.

Posted 1 minute ago # Report-Post

Actually it was the bike riding american, and not Lance A , Bliar just did what he was told just like a subservient puppy dog.

???????
Blair made a conscious decision to send british troops to these theatres of war.

Actually it was the bike riding american, and not Lance A , Bliar just did what he was told just like a subservient puppy dog

Oh so thats okay then, typical Labour wasn't me Gov!

TooTall - Member

penny-pinching by Thatcher

Ahhh - the perpetual personification of politics - I do love the way you do that after all this time. Let it go. That sort of vitriol can make a man sound bitter and stuck in the past.

oh.

I was simply quoting the Tory publication The Spectator !

And do you think Captain Nick Barker RN captain of HMS Endurance during the Falklands War was a vitriolic bitter man ? 😀

This is what according to the Spectator he had to say :

[i]"His starting point is the 1981 Defence Review by John Nott, the then Secretary of State for Defence, which sought drastically to cut defence costs. The aim was reasonable enough, for in 1981 Britain was still carrying a proportionately much heavier defence burden than her commercial rivals, such as Germany and Japan. Nott wished to put greater emphasis on the Nato defence of Europe at the expense of `out of area' commitments. Of the three services, the Royal Navy was the least involved with Continental Europe and the most involved in global reach. It therefore seemed to Nott that it was the Navy that could most readily be shrunk. Hence his proposal to sell one of the Navy's only three carriers to Australia, as well as to cut the numbers of other types of ship.

Among these was the Falklands `guardship', the Endurance, an adapted Danish Baltic trader armed with 16 AS 12 air-tosurface missiles and equipped with sophisticated electronic listening gear. Nott announced that she would be withdrawn in 1982 and not replaced. This would leave the Falkland Isles (with its population of British stock) and other British dependencies in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic to be defended by a few lightly armed Royal Marines. A clearer signal of British abdication of interest in this region could not have been sent to the Argentinians, notoriously obsessed with recovering "the Malvinas". [/i]

So yes, Tory spending cuts were behind the events which led to the Falklands War.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_199705/ai_n8781734/ <

[i]I have considerable reservations about Cameron and the current Tory/Lib coalition government, but reading ernie's posts reminds me why I never have and never will be able to vote Labour.[/i]

Why, can't you make up your own mind 🙂

Reasonable to whom ?

So yes, Tory spending cuts were behind the events which led to the Falklands War.

In your Opinion!

mancjon - Member

Why, can't you make up your own mind

Commiserations on your piss poor reading and comprehension.

[i]Hmmmmmmm and who sent us into Iraq & Afghanistan? Thatcher & Conservatives, NO Blair and NEW Labour far more damaging than the Falklands war. [/i]

What has that go to do with anything. I agree with what you say but the thread is about Falklands after all.

[i]Commiserations on your piss poor reading and comprehension.[/i]

Youv'e lost me on that one. I was simply trying to point out (badly it seems), that Ernie does not necessarily represent what Labour represent and that to rely on one persons interpretation of events to colour your political choice is not really very sensible.

Sorry i didn't explain it very well in the first place.

BTW, this made me chuckle

bravohotel8er - Member

I have considerable reservations about Cameron and the current Tory/Lib coalition government, but reading ernie's posts reminds me why I never have and never will be able to vote Labour.

Result ! 😀

I don't vote Labour and wouldn't recommend that anyone did !

I voted LibDem in '97, 2001, and 2005. And Green in 2010.

Ernie - would the Invasion have occurred in '82 if Jim Callaghan (Labour foreign Secretary under Wilson administration) had not proposed a lease back deal to the Argentinians in 1976?

In your Opinion!

A clearer signal of British abdication of interest in this region could not have been sent to the Argentinians, notoriously obsessed with recovering "the Malvinas".

What has that go to do with anything

Whilst I cannot deny the Tories have made some pi$$ poor decisions rightly or wrongly depending on your point of view Thatcher and her government are getting a right bashing over the Falklands, I was just trying to remind everyone that Labour have made far worse decisions in more recent years.

Have you got big fingers junkyard? 😀