The Falklands

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The Falklands

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 8 of 8 << First < 4 5 6 7 8

jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Apr 16 4.20pm
Originally posted by Stuk A lack or armed forces doesn't mean it's your fault when someone else invades or tries to. If he shouldn't have been there in the first place, who should of been to provide said protection? Do you really rabidly believe people start or go to war to sell newspaper advertising? There is nothing symbolic about the State protecting its citizens from an oppressive regime, who's domestic political policy included the murder of dissenters and their friends and relatives. In no way could the UK ever have surrendered the Falklands to the Argentine Military Junta and the moment they attacked the Island, there could be no other response. As a western democratic nation, to not act to protect an attack not just on a free nation, but one that was under our protection, would have been impossible. The only option really was for the Argentine forces to withdraw, surrender or defeat the UK. I might not like Thatcher, but she was definitely right to respond militarily. Any government that surrenders its national sovereignty and citizens to a foreign sovereign power has no business in government. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 04 Apr 16 4.20pm

Originally posted by Stuk

A lack or armed forces doesn't mean it's your fault when someone else invades or tries to.

If he shouldn't have been there in the first place, who should of been to provide said protection?

Do you really rabidly believe people start or go to war to sell newspaper advertising?

There is nothing symbolic about the State protecting its citizens from an oppressive regime, who's domestic political policy included the murder of dissenters and their friends and relatives. In no way could the UK ever have surrendered the Falklands to the Argentine Military Junta and the moment they attacked the Island, there could be no other response.

As a western democratic nation, to not act to protect an attack not just on a free nation, but one that was under our protection, would have been impossible. The only option really was for the Argentine forces to withdraw, surrender or defeat the UK.

I might not like Thatcher, but she was definitely right to respond militarily. Any government that surrenders its national sovereignty and citizens to a foreign sovereign power has no business in government.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 04 Apr 16 4.38pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 There is nothing symbolic about the State protecting its citizens from an oppressive regime, who's domestic political policy included the murder of dissenters and their friends and relatives. In no way could the UK ever have surrendered the Falklands to the Argentine Military Junta and the moment they attacked the Island, there could be no other response. As a western democratic nation, to not act to protect an attack not just on a free nation, but one that was under our protection, would have been impossible. The only option really was for the Argentine forces to withdraw, surrender or defeat the UK. I might not like Thatcher, but she was definitely right to respond militarily. Any government that surrenders its national sovereignty and citizens to a foreign sovereign power has no business in government. Indeed. To use the Falklands argument to kick the then government of the day simply doesn't work. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 04 Apr 16 4.38pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Indeed. To use the Falklands argument to kick the then government of the day simply doesn't work.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Apr 16 5.05pm
Originally posted by Stuk Indeed. To use the Falklands argument to kick the then government of the day simply doesn't work. Especially given they could very well have lost. I think they knew, setting out, that if they established a beach head they'd win. But we lost a lot of ships and got a bit lucky doing so. There was a lot that could have gone wrong. The harrier could have performed as well as expected (as opposed to surpassing everyone's expectation), the Argentines might not have bought the Coventry Decoy. The British capacity for AA-Fire along with the Harriers scared the Argentine pilots into low level bombing runs, which mean 13 direct hits that were duds. There was nothing wrong with the fuses, only that they'd failed to detonate due to being dropped from too low an altitude. I suspect we got off a lot lighter than we'd expected to, and that whilst there was reasonable confidence that the UK forces would prevail, there was no real certainty either. Fortunately, the Argentine navy also lacked any submarines, as predicted. Then again the same intelligence said they lacked any real air to sea missile capacity.... "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 04 Apr 16 5.05pm

Originally posted by Stuk

Indeed. To use the Falklands argument to kick the then government of the day simply doesn't work.

Especially given they could very well have lost. I think they knew, setting out, that if they established a beach head they'd win. But we lost a lot of ships and got a bit lucky doing so.

There was a lot that could have gone wrong. The harrier could have performed as well as expected (as opposed to surpassing everyone's expectation), the Argentines might not have bought the Coventry Decoy. The British capacity for AA-Fire along with the Harriers scared the Argentine pilots into low level bombing runs, which mean 13 direct hits that were duds.

There was nothing wrong with the fuses, only that they'd failed to detonate due to being dropped from too low an altitude.

I suspect we got off a lot lighter than we'd expected to, and that whilst there was reasonable confidence that the UK forces would prevail, there was no real certainty either.

Fortunately, the Argentine navy also lacked any submarines, as predicted. Then again the same intelligence said they lacked any real air to sea missile capacity....

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 04 Apr 16 10.06pm
Originally posted by Bert the Head I don't think it is "Nuff said." I think the whole point is that you should not have been out there if the islands had been protected as they should have been in the first place. They weren't because of the Tory short term cuts. Thatcher went on to gain credit for getting an island back that she lost in the first place. The press don't question why we lost the island in the first place in the same way they didn't question the Iraq dodgy dossier. Because war sells paper and gets dosh from advertising. Rich people make money; and because the press are incompetent at doing what a free press in a democratic society should do, because they are owned by very rich people and have no interest in that roll. I am not an armchair military tactician but I know that Thatcher has left us with island that is now far more symbolically important than strategically important. We could subsidize a lot of steel production for the cost of protecting sparsely populated far away island. How did we end up in this is all I'm saying. What a load of bollocks. What has strategy got to do with it? They are British subjects and want to stay so. Are you suggesting we cut them adrift? the dignified don't even enter in the game
Alert a moderator to this post

Y Ddraig Goch

In The Crowd 04 Apr 16 10.06pm

Originally posted by Bert the Head

I don't think it is "Nuff said."

I think the whole point is that you should not have been out there if the islands had been protected as they should have been in the first place. They weren't because of the Tory short term cuts. Thatcher went on to gain credit for getting an island back that she lost in the first place.

The press don't question why we lost the island in the first place in the same way they didn't question the Iraq dodgy dossier. Because war sells paper and gets dosh from advertising. Rich people make money; and because the press are incompetent at doing what a free press in a democratic society should do, because they are owned by very rich people and have no interest in that roll.

I am not an armchair military tactician but I know that Thatcher has left us with island that is now far more symbolically important than strategically important. We could subsidize a lot of steel production for the cost of protecting sparsely populated far away island.

How did we end up in this is all I'm saying.

What a load of bollocks. What has strategy got to do with it? They are British subjects and want to stay so.

Are you suggesting we cut them adrift?

the dignified don't even enter in the game

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 04 Apr 16 10.44pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 That's unfair, she benefitted, but British citizens abroad on British Territory had essentially been 'occupied', by a foreign power. Sovrignity had been violated and the citizens rights directly violated, by a 'fascist' Junta with a history of human rights violations and murder. Thatcher was definitely right to take military action. True, it essentially won her a great boost in the election, but had it failed, the conservatives would have lost by a landslide. Prior to the Argentinian invasion, Falkland Islanders had had full British citizenship stripped from them. If anyone from there wanted to move to mainland Britain, they needed to apply for full citizenship. This was one of the reasons Galtieri et al thought they could get away with taking over the islands; they thought we didn't care about them (they were right). These things don't happen in a vacuum though and, under different circumstances, the UK government may have negotiated a settlement to avoid an expensive military conflict. However, the UK government's crushing unpopularity at that point meant that the opportunity to prosecute a "righteous" war was not going to be passed up in favor of bloodless pragmatism. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 04 Apr 16 10.44pm

Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

That's unfair, she benefitted, but British citizens abroad on British Territory had essentially been 'occupied', by a foreign power. Sovrignity had been violated and the citizens rights directly violated, by a 'fascist' Junta with a history of human rights violations and murder.

Thatcher was definitely right to take military action. True, it essentially won her a great boost in the election, but had it failed, the conservatives would have lost by a landslide.

Prior to the Argentinian invasion, Falkland Islanders had had full British citizenship stripped from them. If anyone from there wanted to move to mainland Britain, they needed to apply for full citizenship. This was one of the reasons Galtieri et al thought they could get away with taking over the islands; they thought we didn't care about them (they were right).

These things don't happen in a vacuum though and, under different circumstances, the UK government may have negotiated a settlement to avoid an expensive military conflict. However, the UK government's crushing unpopularity at that point meant that the opportunity to prosecute a "righteous" war was not going to be passed up in favor of bloodless pragmatism.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 04 Apr 16 10.55pm
Originally posted by pefwin The boots on the ground did but the logistical and strategic planning etc. was extremely naïve and cost lives. It was a damn close run thing. Ironically, it was the literal boots on the ground that almost cost us the victory. Standard issue DMS boots were about as waterproof as a teabag (a problem to which I can attest personally), and a majority of the British ground forces were suffering from foot trouble ranging from trench foot (yes, that trench foot) up to frost bite. Edited by Ray in Houston (04 Apr 2016 11.05pm) We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 04 Apr 16 10.55pm

Originally posted by pefwin

The boots on the ground did but the logistical and strategic planning etc. was extremely naïve and cost lives.

It was a damn close run thing.

Ironically, it was the literal boots on the ground that almost cost us the victory. Standard issue DMS boots were about as waterproof as a teabag (a problem to which I can attest personally), and a majority of the British ground forces were suffering from foot trouble ranging from trench foot (yes, that trench foot) up to frost bite.

Edited by Ray in Houston (04 Apr 2016 11.05pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Apr 16 9.42am
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Prior to the Argentinian invasion, Falkland Islanders had had full British citizenship stripped from them. If anyone from there wanted to move to mainland Britain, they needed to apply for full citizenship. This was one of the reasons Galtieri et al thought they could get away with taking over the islands; they thought we didn't care about them (they were right). These things don't happen in a vacuum though and, under different circumstances, the UK government may have negotiated a settlement to avoid an expensive military conflict. However, the UK government's crushing unpopularity at that point meant that the opportunity to prosecute a "righteous" war was not going to be passed up in favor of bloodless pragmatism. They were British Territory Dependent Citizens, under the 1981 act, and British citizens if they had either a British parent or grand parent. To suggest that this was aimed at the Falklands in particular is a misnomer, as it applied to all British and Commonwealth citizens, and was more to do with removing the automatic qualification rights of other territories - likely Hong Kong, and the automatic right of anyone born in the UK to British Citizenship. Its also notable that straight after the Falklands war, the 1983 act established the government of the times intentions regarding the Falkland Islanders, as it bestowed full citizenship to the Falkland Islands. This applied retroactively. Whilst I intensely disliked Thatcher and her governments, they were absolutely right to respond militarily to an invasion. The right to decide the sovereignty of the Falklands, belongs with the citizens, not foreign powers - and certainly not Fascist Military Juntas, who maintained their authority through terror, murder, torture and intimidation. We never should have returned Hong Kong to China either. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Apr 16 9.42am

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

They were British Territory Dependent Citizens, under the 1981 act, and British citizens if they had either a British parent or grand parent. To suggest that this was aimed at the Falklands in particular is a misnomer, as it applied to all British and Commonwealth citizens, and was more to do with removing the automatic qualification rights of other territories - likely Hong Kong, and the automatic right of anyone born in the UK to British Citizenship.

Its also notable that straight after the Falklands war, the 1983 act established the government of the times intentions regarding the Falkland Islanders, as it bestowed full citizenship to the Falkland Islands. This applied retroactively.

Whilst I intensely disliked Thatcher and her governments, they were absolutely right to respond militarily to an invasion. The right to decide the sovereignty of the Falklands, belongs with the citizens, not foreign powers - and certainly not Fascist Military Juntas, who maintained their authority through terror, murder, torture and intimidation.

We never should have returned Hong Kong to China either.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Apr 16 9.54am
Originally posted by Stuk A lack or armed forces doesn't mean it's your fault when someone else invades or tries to. If he shouldn't have been there in the first place, who should of been to provide said protection? Do you really rabidly believe people start or go to war to sell newspaper advertising? Quite right, and the British had other more pressing commitments, through NATO, with the cold war. There was small force of British troops on the Islands as well, who were also attacked. Its also worth noting that the UN supported the British response, with only Panama voting against the action (resolution 502). The EEC and Commonwealth also overwhelmingly supported the British response. Of interest is how Norway 'stole' satellite coverage from Soviet satellites covering the South Atlantic, despite never being able to hack them before or afterwards (basically the Soviets provided intelligence vital to the war, as it was the only entity with satellite coverage of the area). So its not like the UK was a lone voice of Thatcher, even the UK's cold war opposition seems to have secretly provided support. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Apr 16 9.54am

Originally posted by Stuk

A lack or armed forces doesn't mean it's your fault when someone else invades or tries to.

If he shouldn't have been there in the first place, who should of been to provide said protection?

Do you really rabidly believe people start or go to war to sell newspaper advertising?

Quite right, and the British had other more pressing commitments, through NATO, with the cold war. There was small force of British troops on the Islands as well, who were also attacked.

Its also worth noting that the UN supported the British response, with only Panama voting against the action (resolution 502). The EEC and Commonwealth also overwhelmingly supported the British response.

Of interest is how Norway 'stole' satellite coverage from Soviet satellites covering the South Atlantic, despite never being able to hack them before or afterwards (basically the Soviets provided intelligence vital to the war, as it was the only entity with satellite coverage of the area).

So its not like the UK was a lone voice of Thatcher, even the UK's cold war opposition seems to have secretly provided support.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 05 Apr 16 8.26pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 They were British Territory Dependent Citizens, under the 1981 act, and British citizens if they had either a British parent or grand parent. To suggest that this was aimed at the Falklands in particular is a misnomer, as it applied to all British and Commonwealth citizens, and was more to do with removing the automatic qualification rights of other territories - likely Hong Kong, and the automatic right of anyone born in the UK to British Citizenship. Its also notable that straight after the Falklands war, the 1983 act established the government of the times intentions regarding the Falkland Islanders, as it bestowed full citizenship to the Falkland Islands. This applied retroactively. Whilst I intensely disliked Thatcher and her governments, they were absolutely right to respond militarily to an invasion. The right to decide the sovereignty of the Falklands, belongs with the citizens, not foreign powers - and certainly not Fascist Military Juntas, who maintained their authority through terror, murder, torture and intimidation. We never should have returned Hong Kong to China either. Agreed and I have said that many times before to different people. You got that one spot on Jamie. Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.
Alert a moderator to this post

susmik

PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 05 Apr 16 8.26pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

We never should have returned Hong Kong to China either.

Agreed and I have said that many times before to different people. You got that one spot on Jamie.

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 06 Apr 16 6.50pm
Originally posted by NickinOX Britain did last time. Errrrrmmm no "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 06 Apr 16 6.50pm

Originally posted by NickinOX

Britain did last time.

Errrrrmmm no

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

NickinOX Sailing country. 06 Apr 16 6.55pm
Originally posted by dannyh Errrrrmmm no Errrrrrmmm yes. If you come to a fork in the road, take it.
Alert a moderator to this post

NickinOX

Sailing country. 06 Apr 16 6.55pm

Originally posted by dannyh

Errrrrmmm no

Errrrrrmmm yes.

If you come to a fork in the road, take it.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 06 Apr 16 7.04pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 They were British Territory Dependent Citizens, under the 1981 act, and British citizens if they had either a British parent or grand parent. To suggest that this was aimed at the Falklands in particular is a misnomer, as it applied to all British and Commonwealth citizens, and was more to do with removing the automatic qualification rights of other territories - likely Hong Kong, and the automatic right of anyone born in the UK to British Citizenship. Its also notable that straight after the Falklands war, the 1983 act established the government of the times intentions regarding the Falkland Islanders, as it bestowed full citizenship to the Falkland Islands. This applied retroactively. Whilst I intensely disliked Thatcher and her governments, they were absolutely right to respond militarily to an invasion. The right to decide the sovereignty of the Falklands, belongs with the citizens, not foreign powers - and certainly not Fascist Military Juntas, who maintained their authority through terror, murder, torture and intimidation. We never should have returned Hong Kong to China either. I think there can be two separate issues which can get bound up together. The first is the situation post the invasion.I would agree with you the invasion was inappropriate and that a military response was justified in the circumstances. The second is the question of the Thatcher government's culpability for sending the wrong signals to the Junta so it thought it could walk in unopposed.These included reducing the Royal Navy presence and actively promoting a plan for handing over sovereignty in response for a lease back for a limited term. In the circumstances,the utilisation of the military success in 1982 by that formerly deeply unpopular Thatcher government for political ends,does them no credit, as does their inappropriate and disastrous policy pre 1982 which contributed to bringing about the events of Spring 1982. In relation to Hong Kong,the situation was different.We had a lease only from China of the bulk of the territory (The New Territories),expiring in 1997.The sovereign smaller part of the territory was not sustainable in the absence of the other larger part without China's cooperation.To paraphrase Maggie,"there was no alternative".
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

06 Apr 16 7.04pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

We never should have returned Hong Kong to China either.

I think there can be two separate issues which can get bound up together.

The first is the situation post the invasion.I would agree with you the invasion was inappropriate and that a military response was justified in the circumstances.

The second is the question of the Thatcher government's culpability for sending the wrong signals to the Junta so it thought it could walk in unopposed.These included reducing the Royal Navy presence and actively promoting a plan for handing over sovereignty in response for a lease back for a limited term.

In the circumstances,the utilisation of the military success in 1982 by that formerly deeply unpopular Thatcher government for political ends,does them no credit, as does their inappropriate and disastrous policy pre 1982 which contributed to bringing about the events of Spring 1982.

In relation to Hong Kong,the situation was different.We had a lease only from China of the bulk of the territory (The New Territories),expiring in 1997.The sovereign smaller part of the territory was not sustainable in the absence of the other larger part without China's cooperation.To paraphrase Maggie,"there was no alternative".

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 8 of 8 << First < 4 5 6 7 8

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Falklands

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors