Presumably you are including Nick Barker, Captain of the Endurance in that description then?

Yes. He was the Captain of a ship, not a member of the government nor an expert on international relations.

Of course he is entitled to his opinion and I dare say that his is perhaps a more learned one than that of you and I but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Removing a ship from the seas surrounding a sovereign territory is not, as far as I’m aware, the green light for other countries to take possession of that territory under international law and I don’t believe its been an acceptable practice since the 18th century. Its the sort of behaviour a less than civilised country might use and luckily the UN agreed.

the Argentine government attacked sovereign territory of the United Kingdom, put poorly trained and equipped conscripts into a position where they would face some of the best trained and motivated military forces in the world

Rubbish. The Argentine air force and elements of the Argentine ground forces were extremely skilled and brave and distinguished themselves in battle. You discredit both them and our own forces by claiming otherwise.

Trailmonkey – Some of the Argentine forces were very well trained but they were very much in the minority.

The ARA General Belgrano, the constantly dragged out ‘illegally sunk warship’ was itself crewed with many hundreds of conscripts, boys with little experience put up against a professional volunteer navy.

Aside from the Argentine Marines and specialist elements of their air force and army the majority of the 10,000 troops deployed by Argentine to the Falklands were conscripts. Boys sent to fight men.

Yep and they bloody nigh beat us too.

Sooty, stop wriggling.
Which of G’s posted FACTS are you disputing?
And why discredit the Endurance’s captain?

Well actually I was responding initially to what you posted before ‘G’, so fight your own battles.

Oh and I didn’t discredit the HMS Endurance’s captain, as I said he is entitled to his opinion but is purely that.

Well actually I was responding initially to what you posted before ‘G’, so fight your own battles

Same points worded differently, so again I’ll ask which of those facts are you disputing?

PS: Moses didn’t mention Iraq either.

At the end of the Falklands we had on average 7 rounds of 7.62mm ammo per weapon left. Thats not a lot, the reserve stores having gone down with the choppers and tents on the Atlantic Conveyor. G is right was a damn close run thing but then they usually are. Argentina a nation of racing drivers and polo players, no surprise they had/have a **** excellent airforce.

Basically we winged it and got away with it. Doesnt matter what negotiations were going on in back rooms, who said what to whome. British territory had been invaded by a foreign dictatorship, there was no option but to take it back.

As for Thatch just to say all this screaming about here being the most evil unspeakable creature is a bit silly. Some people (like me) honestly think it better for everyone that we have small govnt, low taxes and a generally liberal attitude towards individual conduct and responsibility. The 80s was a pretty ugly decade but I’m just about old enough to remember the state of this country in the 1970s. Things aint perfect now but we’re doing OK and a lot of that is down to old Maggie. Miners? Who the hell would want to be a bloody coal miner anyway?

Haven’t read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned Pinochet yet? 😛

Aside from the Argentine Marines and specialist elements of their air force and army the majority of the 10,000 troops deployed by Argentine to the Falklands were conscripts. Boys sent to fight men.

The notion that the Argentine fighting forces consisted of poorly trained conscripts is a myth. The regiments deployed in the strategicly vital parts of the islands, in other words the regiments that did the fighting, were highly trained. The 7th IR that fought on Mount Longdon had recieved 1 year of specialist training before hand and 1 in 5 had recieved commando training. The 4th IR that fought on Mount Harriet were not only highly trained, high class troops but were also better equipped than the British. On Tumbledown the Argentines deployed their Marines.
I won’t dispute that many of the total Argentine force were lower grade troops but many were in Stanley and the elements that our forces came in to contact with were well trained and highly motivated. Our losses in the entire battle reflect a conflict with an enemy that new what it was doing, not some rag tag assortment of conscripts that the popular press of the time were all too eager to portray. I think our veterans deserve that people know that they faced a dangerous, motivated enemy and still prevailed.

FWIW, I don’t think that our troops should have been put in that position in the first place and Thatcher should have resigned in disgrace for her incompitence in allowing the invasion to happen.

Haven’t read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned Pinochet yet?

Yep

Things aint perfect now but we’re doing OK and a lot of that is down to old Maggie. Miners? Who the hell would want to be a bloody coal miner anyway?

Could you eloborate on which bit exactly of the current situation you are outting down to Maggie, I’m a bit confused by what you mean.#

Re miners : In answer to your question, probably those people whose lives and communities were devastated, and all to frequently still are by Thatchers actions.

Thatcher had more balls than every PM we’ve had since put together.

For that alone I tip my cap to the old girl

Well the talks with Argentine, started by Callaghan, were stalled at the time the Argentinians completely unprovoked decided to attack the Falklands. The reason for them having stalled are many and various but a significant one being the fact the people who actually lived on the islands that were be discussed were not included in the initial talks when they were set-up by Callaghan and understandably they were unhappy with this. Inclusion of the Falkland Islanders in future talks was being blocked by the Argentine government and hence it was one (though probably the most significant for those that lived on the islands) of a few impasses that had caused the talks to stall.

I added the Iraq bit as a bit of proved and factual counter to the made-up bollo*ks spouted by those who hate Thatcher and have constantly (and seemingly in a more veracious manner of late) tried to turn the rightful defence of part of the United Kingdom into her version of the Labour governments recent ‘lie, lie and lie again just so long as war for oil results’ forays in the middle east.

I have no love for Thatcher, generations of carpentry in my family will die with my father as her policies and those of Thatcherites that followed killed the industry in which my father worked his life and hence he told me to look elsewhere for work. What I detest though is those that hate Thatcher attempting cheapen the efforts of so many brave me by trying to turn the rightful defence of our lands against an unprovoked aggressor nation into Dr David Kelly, 45 minute warnings and a war for oil.

G – I lost my job, was unemployed for a year, finally got one in January. People get laid off fast in a downturn in the UK but the flipside is firms do hire when things look like they are picking up again. I do give Mrs T the credit for having left us a flexible workforce.

That bit about the miners sounded heartless. Those communities were devastated but they were still led right up the garden path by Scargill and co, even Kinnock knew that and said so at the time. But I stand by my point, lets not shed a tear for the mining industry per se.

Oh goody, we’re doing the Falklands again

I never said Callaghan was pm in 74, not sure where you got that from.

Probably from

I was pointing out that the 3 day week came in Heaths government, and by the logic he was using that the next government was responsible for sorting the mess out, that would be Callaghans government

Given the 3 day week ended in ’74. You do know who was PM after Heath?

S & J + mcboo

I’m neither an apologist for Brown or Thatcher. What really boils my piss is that people are very quick to forget what actually happened, and frequently as in this thread twist it to suit theor own arguments.

Not one word of what I said regarding the Falklands is untrue, not even slightly, neither did I raise the issue, all I said was that these things happened, and therefore it wasn’t her finest hour, however, much people like to paint it so.

Regarding mcboo’s flexible work force, you’re not wrong there fella, she took us from a situation where people tended to have a job for life, to one where the average person might expect to have to change direction on numerous occasions in their lives. Whether that is good or bad is debateable, and very much depends on your point of view. All I will say is that its no real surprise that people wanted to fight it, and I’m willing to bet money I could have handled it better, in fact I reckon my old mum bless her, could have done too while she was alive. Thatcher on the other hand was deliberately provocative and absolutely would not allow the thing to be done peaceably.

My view is that the Government should be the servant of the people, and therefore if by their actions they are doing things which are not in the best interests of the majority of the people, then that is wrong. Neither of the main parties appear able to grasp that simple concept.

It’s pretty good reading this lot, makes you wonder how people read recent history. When we are close to it there is our own political in our interpretation of what we read but when it’s some distance of we don’t have the same interest in making the facts fit our views, though this does happen. I don’t want to get into the arguement but I should point out that for some years other nations have seen the reduction of the British Navy in a given area as one of the signs that they maybe able to invade a country. A good example would be Japans invation of Manchuria in the 1930’s, this due to the reduction of the Navy presence in the far east. The list is endless really and is not just applied to sea power. It’s what you get for being at the very tail end of being a world power (pax Britannica and all that). Once a former regional power (country/empire/tribe whatever) shows weakness then another always takes up the void left behind, this not always done by war but often is. It’s a human nature thing I supose but I’m sure there a people on here who could expand on our human frailties. Hope this has not been boring but the toing and froing of this thread got me thinking (dangerous for work levels).

Sooty – the forces did their job well – no doubt. What the issue is is that fighting might have been avoided but Thatcher made sure any peace efforts were in vain. Its all surmise and conjecture now but my view is that she didn’t give any peace efforts any chance

As a slight aside – do you remember the “victory parade” where the wounded maimed and disfigured british servicemen where not allowed to march – shameful episode that was.

aracer – Member

Given the 3 day week ended in ’74. You do know who was PM after Heath?

Yep certainly do, lived through it a complete and utter **** up it was too, what with Lib/Lab pacts and all that tooing and froing over who was actually in control. Hows this then,

Choice 1 : “Sorting the mess out was done by Wilson in his second term”

Or

Choice 2 : One of a number of messes sorted out by the Callaghan government after the relatively short and ineffective Wilson government.

So apologies, you are of course factually correct, but I think you will find that my original statement was in fact the correct interpretation of events.

What did Wilson or Callaghan actually do to sort out the mess of the 3 day week then? Whatever it was they obviously acted quickly, as it ended 4 days after Wilson moved into no 10.

I really don’t want a job for life. Especially not as a coal miner.

Was a school leaver (therefore looking for a job) during Thatch’s reign. Also got family members who have never spoken to each other since and because of the miners strike and a school friend killed in the Falklands. I too have a bottle on ice ready for when she does go, also think her grave will have to be a full size dance floor to fill the demand when the time comes. We have alot to blame her (policies) for. Not least her clone Blair, who history will, rightly, judge even more harshly IMO.

Wouldn’t wish dimentea on anyone though and if it wasn’t for her we possibly wouldn’t have the excellent trails on the former mines at Glyncorrwg so every cloud etc…

aracer – Member
What did Wilson or Callaghan actually do to sort out the mess of the 3 day week then? Whatever it was they obviously acted quickly, as it ended 4 days after Wilson moved into no 10.

with respect, I never said they did, what I said in response to the resolution being attributed to Thatcher was that by that logic, it should be attributed to Wilson/Callaghan who actually were the government in after Heaths tory government, which in fact presided over the 3 day week.

Not the same thing, however, if pushed I would say that the Unions had a right old pop at Heath, but it wasn’t then relevant to continue with that strategy with a Labour government in power. The Wilson Government, if you can call it that in fact had very little power and didn’t achieve much, as some very minor parties held the balance of power. Accordingly not much happened until Callaghan come to power.

mcboo – Member
I really don’t want a job for life. Especially not as a coal miner.

I wouldn’t be a hundred miles behind you in that, but then I’m not facing the prospect of the pit or benefits being the only choice in town, and I suspect neither are you.

That’s true for 45yr old miners circa 1985 but not for their kids who were free to, and many did, stick in at school and go do something else with their lives.

I used to go out with a girl from a pit town near Wakefield on the 90s. she was pretty, the town was not. Her and her pals all left for Leeds or London and nothing wrong with that.

Like it or not, we are all Thatcher’s children.
Most here seem to have forgotten just how bad the UK was in the 1970’s, she started the changes that have given us all considerable prosperity today.
Change can be difficult deal with, but it has to happen.

[/quote]Most here seem to have forgotten just how bad the UK was in the 1970’s, she started the changes that have given us all considerable prosperity today.

I’m actually missing this whole prosperity thing…… do you mean debt/living beyond our means, in which case you have my whole hearted agreement.

What did Wilson or Callaghan actually do to sort out the mess of the 3 day week then? Whatever it was they obviously acted quickly, as it ended 4 days after Wilson moved into no 10.

The Winter of discontent was strangely the winter just before Maggie won power?

The Winter of discontent was strangely the winter just before Maggie won power?

The Poll tax
The criminal justice bill
The miners strike (and the way it was policed at her orders)
The early ’90s recession
The selling off of public housing
The Falklands war
The Libyan air strike (launched from UK)
The privatisation of national industries
Etc, etc…
Strangely all while she was in power

The selling off of public housing- Giving people the chance to own their own house rather than living off the tax payer for cheap?

The privatisation of national industries
– Seen Labour go into hyper-driver over this? They’d love to privatise royal mail if it wasnt for Labour rebels etc?

Think this has already been done. Most of the ex council houses (certainly in my area) are owned by private landlords often with more than one property who rent them to tenants who’s rent usually through no fault of their own is paid for by the local council. (i.e the taxpayer)

Agree, in part, with the Royal Mail though but then new labour are just Thatcherites anyway so your argument is self defeating.

The Wilson Government, if you can call it that in fact had very little power and didn’t achieve much, as some very minor parties held the balance of power. Accordingly not much happened until Callaghan come to power.

Strangely, Wilson had just as big a majority as Callaghan did…

Though I now understand why it is you were suggesting Callaghan had something to do with ending the 3 day week, despite not becoming PM until over 2 years later.

if pushed I would say that the Unions had a right old pop at Heath, but it wasn’t then relevant to continue with that strategy with a Labour government in power.

At least not for another 4.5 years!

Hardly surprising really that Thatcher decided she wasn’t going to suffer the same fate as her predecessors (I can’t believe Tony or Gordon were/are too upset either that they’re not likely to be held to ransom in the same way).

We’re all missing the point. They are all the best of the worst (Politicians). The difference in a democracy is we dont overthrow and shoot our leaders regularly. Thats the only difference. The life cycle usually ends with them in a grave, in the western world though they end up enriched and alive…. unless they are Croats/Serbs. Everywhere else in Europe, murdering Politicians get away with…well murder as its a just political cause….hmmmm name one good British PM. Just one in the last century who didnt leave office enriched and a terrible apart from Atlee?

hora, I don’t know what on Earth you’re trying to say. I don’t think you know either.

Wonder if anyone commenting about Thatcher sending the “green light” through her actions is aware of the 1976 occupation and of South Thule with an Argentinian research base, nicely covered up by Gentleman Jims government, and seen by the Junta as proof of the likelihood that the British government would accede to the later 1982 invasions?

Nope, thought not!

The selling off of public housing- Giving people the chance to own their own house rather than living off the tax payer for cheap?

Giving people the chance to own their own house and stealing from the tax payer in order to do so…so she could gain some votes for one election.

Come on Hora, what about everybody with the misfortune to be adult afterwards? Two days now and you’re still avoiding the question…

hora – Member
The selling off of public housing- Giving people the chance to own their own house rather than living off the tax payer for cheap?

1) Is that the same as saying being left with limited options other than to take on a mortgage that you can’t afford, thus culiminating in a credit/toxic debt crisis some years down the line?

2) Is that agreeing that one mans tax cut is anothers standard of living being shagged, or essentail service being cut?

The Winter of discontent was strangely the winter just before Maggie won power?

and do you know what? strangely it was caused by something very similar to the current economic crisis, which incidentally has little or nothing to do with the incumbent government either, beyond their attempts to sort it out with minimal impact on the population, see here the real reason for recession? Contrast that with Thatchers blitzkreig methods, which before anyone shouts were not particualrly successful.

So if we are agreeing then thats a nice change for once Hora, but if not as I frankly expect, then you are looking at Thatchers government through rose tinted spectacles.

Could you start using the quote symbols properly dude?

Giving people the chance to own their own house and stealing from the tax payer in order to do so…so she could gain some votes for one election.

Someone doing this isnt suddenly going to be a middle-class family overnight are they? It takes time to go from working-class to a proud to Tory. Stealing from the Taxpayer? Thats what a narrow-minded Tory would say.

Redistribution of wealth- Jeez I now sound like rudeboy without the 5,000 word-essay individual posts on this point.

Are you a real Doctor or one of those-love Doctor-web-sorts?

FWIW I think the biggest issue with the wholesale sell off of council housing is the lack of availability to anyone but the poorest cases. Seriously, how many kids can afford their first home nowadays? With the council house stock now greatly reduced peoples only option is to throw themselves on the mercy of private landlords!!

I blame Sarah Beeney!!!

Like I have said all along, I’m neither an apologist for one side or t’other. However, my parents lived in an old bus in a field with 3 kids before I was born. Getting given a council house was a huge leg up to them, and my father moved heaven and earth to move on from there to his own property.

I see nothing wrong with a society that helps those that need help for reasons beyond their own control. I do beleive that that help should not be an automatic bottomless pit, and that it should be an earned privilige, rather than a right.

Selling those properties off upset me deeply for this reason, and that along with flogging off all of our public bodies and various other less obvious, but equally insidious policies to fund tax cuts for her cronies were not frankly worth the price paid by this country in the long run.

Come on Hora, even you know this is my own work;

Giving people the chance to own their own house and stealing from the tax payer in order to do so…so she could gain some votes for one election.

So what about everybody since that one off vote grasping short term event that has had serious negative repercussions for the country she was supposed to give a shit about?