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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 5 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

SwalecliffeEagle Swalecliffe 01 Apr 16 3.58am
Originally posted by NickinOX You need to read a decent history of the war. The French provided help by assisting Britain in stopping Argentina getting more exocet missiles. However, a French technical team stayed in Argentina during the war and was instrumental in making sure the Argentinian's launching equipment worked, and they actually fixed three exocet launchers for the Argentinians. So, the French did help. The US, on the other hand, angered Thatcher at first by trying to be even-handed (and Jeanne Kirkpatrik (US ambassador to UN) was actively pro-Argentinian). However, once the peace plan failed and Reagan asserted himself, the US provided the UK with Sidewinder AIM9Ls which proved critical in the air fight. They also offered the loan of a large amphibious task ship to replace any carrier losses, provided access to Ascension Island (which they did not have to under the terms of their deal), refueled the task force when the British were unable to provide sufficient stocks, and they provided intelligence support. But apart from that they did nothing... The supposition upon which my original post was based is that we in Britain should be able to expect better from the Americans than we can from others, least of all the French. My argument, obviously, is that when it comes down to it this is often not the case. True, the French did what you say they did - I still don't see what your point is though? The help the French dished out to us in terms of understanding exocet guidance systems and loaning physical hardware far, far outweighed any support they offered to the Argies. We had no clue how Argentine systems operated, and since they were almost entirely French-made it helped us somewhat to have French assistance. They also went out of their way to prevent certain arms from reaching Argentina, a massive advantage for us. Edited by SwalecliffeEagle (01 Apr 2016 5.43am)
Alert a moderator to this post

SwalecliffeEagle

Swalecliffe 01 Apr 16 3.58am

Send a Private Message to SwalecliffeEagle

Originally posted by NickinOX

You need to read a decent history of the war.

The French provided help by assisting Britain in stopping Argentina getting more exocet missiles. However, a French technical team stayed in Argentina during the war and was instrumental in making sure the Argentinian's launching equipment worked, and they actually fixed three exocet launchers for the Argentinians. So, the French did help.

The US, on the other hand, angered Thatcher at first by trying to be even-handed (and Jeanne Kirkpatrik (US ambassador to UN) was actively pro-Argentinian). However, once the peace plan failed and Reagan asserted himself, the US provided the UK with Sidewinder AIM9Ls which proved critical in the air fight. They also offered the loan of a large amphibious task ship to replace any carrier losses, provided access to Ascension Island (which they did not have to under the terms of their deal), refueled the task force when the British were unable to provide sufficient stocks, and they provided intelligence support. But apart from that they did nothing...

The supposition upon which my original post was based is that we in Britain should be able to expect better from the Americans than we can from others, least of all the French. My argument, obviously, is that when it comes down to it this is often not the case.

True, the French did what you say they did - I still don't see what your point is though? The help the French dished out to us in terms of understanding exocet guidance systems and loaning physical hardware far, far outweighed any support they offered to the Argies. We had no clue how Argentine systems operated, and since they were almost entirely French-made it helped us somewhat to have French assistance. They also went out of their way to prevent certain arms from reaching Argentina, a massive advantage for us.

Edited by SwalecliffeEagle (01 Apr 2016 5.43am)

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 01 Apr 16 8.14am
I think a pre emotive nuclear strike on Buenos Aires, followed by carpet bombing of the entire country, followed by napalming the entire country, followed by the forced introduction of monkey germs into the gene pool of the any survivors is the only course of action open us. We need to give a show of strength or the Argentines will take the piss. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 01 Apr 16 8.14am

I think a pre emotive nuclear strike on Buenos Aires, followed by carpet bombing of the entire country, followed by napalming the entire country, followed by the forced introduction of monkey germs into the gene pool of the any survivors is the only course of action open us.

We need to give a show of strength or the Argentines will take the piss.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Catfish Burgess Hill 01 Apr 16 8.29am
Originally posted by Bert the Head Presumably the Maggie who took the credit for getting it back at the expense of soldiers and not the Maggie who lost it in the first pace because of monetarism. True. They got an easy ride over that because of Kinnock's inability to hit an empty net. When Jim Callaghan was PM he got wind of the fact that Argentina were threatening the Falklands and made sure that a RN sub was known to be in the area. Crisis averted. Thatcher's govt takes away the only RN vessel in the area, prompts an invasion and then gets credit for sorting out the mess. Who was the better PM? Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial
Alert a moderator to this post

Catfish

Burgess Hill 01 Apr 16 8.29am

Originally posted by Bert the Head

Presumably the Maggie who took the credit for getting it back at the expense of soldiers and not the Maggie who lost it in the first pace because of monetarism.

True. They got an easy ride over that because of Kinnock's inability to hit an empty net. When Jim Callaghan was PM he got wind of the fact that Argentina were threatening the Falklands and made sure that a RN sub was known to be in the area. Crisis averted. Thatcher's govt takes away the only RN vessel in the area, prompts an invasion and then gets credit for sorting out the mess. Who was the better PM?

Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Apr 16 11.41am
Originally posted by matt_himself I think a pre emotive nuclear strike on Buenos Aires, followed by carpet bombing of the entire country, followed by napalming the entire country, followed by the forced introduction of monkey germs into the gene pool of the any survivors is the only course of action open us. We need to give a show of strength or the Argentines will take the piss. Best stockpile some corned beef first, that's going to raise the price.... "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 01 Apr 16 11.41am

Originally posted by matt_himself

We need to give a show of strength or the Argentines will take the piss.

Best stockpile some corned beef first, that's going to raise the price....

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

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 01 Apr 16 11.45am
Should have outright ignored the UN recommendation and not even responded to it.
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

01 Apr 16 11.45am

Should have outright ignored the UN recommendation and not even responded to it.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Apr 16 11.46am
Originally posted by Superfly See you Shelia by the way g'day, throw another shrimp in the fryer d'ya ken fair dinkum by the way Jimmy. Think you're mixing your nations up a bit Maybe you were thinking of the equally exellent (sic) Take the high road? Or Oor Wullie? I'm referring to the band, see below, who do muster the rock. I'd forgotten about the TV soap I'd see when I was off sick from school or hollibobs.. [Link] I include this link as this is what I assume Scotland is like "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 01 Apr 16 11.46am

Originally posted by Superfly

See you Shelia by the way g'day, throw another shrimp in the fryer d'ya ken fair dinkum by the way Jimmy.

Think you're mixing your nations up a bit Maybe you were thinking of the equally exellent (sic) Take the high road? Or Oor Wullie?

I'm referring to the band, see below, who do muster the rock. I'd forgotten about the TV soap I'd see when I was off sick from school or hollibobs..

[Link]

I include this link as this is what I assume Scotland is like

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

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 01 Apr 16 12.08pm
Total non-story. St Lawrence island (off Alaska) is much closer that that to Russia - doesn't mean it's suddenly going to be Russian. Being within range of territorial waters just does not apply when we are talking different sovereign nations (look at all the islands around Taiwan etc)
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 01 Apr 16 12.08pm

Total non-story.

St Lawrence island (off Alaska) is much closer that that to Russia - doesn't mean it's suddenly going to be Russian. Being within range of territorial waters just does not apply when we are talking different sovereign nations (look at all the islands around Taiwan etc)

Alert a moderator to this post

NickinOX Sailing country. 01 Apr 16 12.10pm
Originally posted by SwalecliffeEagle The supposition upon which my original post was based is that we in Britain should be able to expect better from the Americans than we can from others, least of all the French. My argument, obviously, is that when it comes down to it this is often not the case. True, the French did what you say they did - I still don't see what your point is though? The help the French dished out to us in terms of understanding exocet guidance systems and loaning physical hardware far, far outweighed any support they offered to the Argies. We had no clue how Argentine systems operated, and since they were almost entirely French-made it helped us somewhat to have French assistance. They also went out of their way to prevent certain arms from reaching Argentina, a massive advantage for us. Edited by SwalecliffeEagle (01 Apr 2016 5.43am) Well, as has already been shown, the US did do more than others. So, what is your problem? As for the Exocet missiles themselves: Britain used them and was fully aware of the missile's capabilities prior to the conflict. Thus, I am not sure what French help was essential there. As for the rest of their kit being French: more nonsense I'm afraid. Their navy was a mix of relatively modern British ships, some French ships, and a bunch of used WW2 US surplus shipping. They had one modern German submarine. Their air force was a mix of modern French, and older US aircraft, all of which Britain was familiar with. As for tactics, the army was copied on the US which had problems given the conscript nature of the force, and the Air Force and navy was largely British or American trained. Again, hardly unfamiliar. As for the French helping the Argentinians fix three broken missile launchers and make sure the missiles were ready to fire, that speaks volumes as a supposedly friendly neutral. I would hate to think what they would do if they were simply claiming neutrality. Again, much of this is easily find-able in a decent a history of the war. Perhaps you should try reading. Edited by NickinOX (01 Apr 2016 4.06pm) If you come to a fork in the road, take it.
Alert a moderator to this post

NickinOX

Sailing country. 01 Apr 16 12.10pm

Originally posted by SwalecliffeEagle

Edited by SwalecliffeEagle (01 Apr 2016 5.43am)

Well, as has already been shown, the US did do more than others. So, what is your problem?

As for the Exocet missiles themselves: Britain used them and was fully aware of the missile's capabilities prior to the conflict. Thus, I am not sure what French help was essential there.

As for the rest of their kit being French: more nonsense I'm afraid. Their navy was a mix of relatively modern British ships, some French ships, and a bunch of used WW2 US surplus shipping. They had one modern German submarine.

Their air force was a mix of modern French, and older US aircraft, all of which Britain was familiar with.

As for tactics, the army was copied on the US which had problems given the conscript nature of the force, and the Air Force and navy was largely British or American trained. Again, hardly unfamiliar.

As for the French helping the Argentinians fix three broken missile launchers and make sure the missiles were ready to fire, that speaks volumes as a supposedly friendly neutral. I would hate to think what they would do if they were simply claiming neutrality.

Again, much of this is easily find-able in a decent a history of the war. Perhaps you should try reading.

Edited by NickinOX (01 Apr 2016 4.06pm)

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 01 Apr 16 12.37pm
Originally posted by npn Total non-story. St Lawrence island (off Alaska) is much closer that that to Russia - doesn't mean it's suddenly going to be Russian. Being within range of territorial waters just does not apply when we are talking different sovereign nations (look at all the islands around Taiwan etc) Unless you're China in the South China Sea and you threaten every other neighbouring country and ignore the UN, and just bitch a bit when the USA fly over or sail through. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 01 Apr 16 12.37pm

Originally posted by npn

Total non-story.

Unless you're China in the South China Sea and you threaten every other neighbouring country and ignore the UN, and just bitch a bit when the USA fly over or sail through.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Mr Palaceman 01 Apr 16 6.56pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Lefty professor talking BS just like you here. 'trying to get rid of'.....What ideas lefties in the diplomatic service play around with isn't official governmental policy. Looking at options is a million miles away from 'trying to get rid of'. You can't speak for other people. It was never decided that the Falklands would be given away without consultation with the people and hence these islands were never in any real danger of going. Edited by Stirlingsays (31 Mar 2016 3.55pm) "Vernon Bogdanor CBE is Emeritus Gresham Professor of Law, current Visiting Gresham Professor of Political History, Research Professor at King's College London, a Fellow of the British Academy and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. Prior to 2010, Professor Bogdanor Fellow of Brasenose College, is Professor of Government at Oxford University. He has been an adviser to a number of governments, including those of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Kosovo, Israel and Slovakia. His books include The People and the Party System, Multi-Party Politics and the Constitution, Power and the People, and Devolution in the United Kingdom. He is a frequent contributor to TV, radio and the press and is a sometime special advisor to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities (1982-83), and the House of Commons Public Service Committee. Most recently he was awarded the Sir Isaiah Berlin prize for Lifetime Contribution to Political Studies by the Political Studies Association". I don't know whether he is a "leftie" or a "Righty" and I don't really care. I do however think that it's safe to say that he is an authority on Multi-Party Politics. I thought it was a good lecture, which is why I posted the link. Lots in there that I didn't know. "You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead" Stan Laurel
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr Palaceman

01 Apr 16 6.56pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Lefty professor talking BS just like you here.

'trying to get rid of'.....What ideas lefties in the diplomatic service play around with isn't official governmental policy. Looking at options is a million miles away from 'trying to get rid of'.

You can't speak for other people. It was never decided that the Falklands would be given away without consultation with the people and hence these islands were never in any real danger of going.

Edited by Stirlingsays (31 Mar 2016 3.55pm)

"Vernon Bogdanor CBE is Emeritus Gresham Professor of Law, current Visiting Gresham Professor of Political History, Research Professor at King's College London, a Fellow of the British Academy and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. Prior to 2010, Professor Bogdanor Fellow of Brasenose College, is Professor of Government at Oxford University.

He has been an adviser to a number of governments, including those of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Kosovo, Israel and Slovakia. His books include The People and the Party System, Multi-Party Politics and the Constitution, Power and the People, and Devolution in the United Kingdom. He is a frequent contributor to TV, radio and the press and is a sometime special advisor to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities (1982-83), and the House of Commons Public Service Committee. Most recently he was awarded the Sir Isaiah Berlin prize for Lifetime Contribution to Political Studies by the Political Studies Association".

I don't know whether he is a "leftie" or a "Righty" and I don't really care.

I do however think that it's safe to say that he is an authority on Multi-Party Politics.

I thought it was a good lecture, which is why I posted the link. Lots in there that I didn't know.

"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Stan Laurel

Alert a moderator to this post

NickinOX Sailing country. 01 Apr 16 7.05pm
Originally posted by Mr Palaceman "Vernon Bogdanor CBE is Emeritus Gresham Professor of Law, current Visiting Gresham Professor of Political History, Research Professor at King's College London, a Fellow of the British Academy and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. Prior to 2010, Professor Bogdanor Fellow of Brasenose College, is Professor of Government at Oxford University. He has been an adviser to a number of governments, including those of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Kosovo, Israel and Slovakia. His books include The People and the Party System, Multi-Party Politics and the Constitution, Power and the People, and Devolution in the United Kingdom. He is a frequent contributor to TV, radio and the press and is a sometime special advisor to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities (1982-83), and the House of Commons Public Service Committee. Most recently he was awarded the Sir Isaiah Berlin prize for Lifetime Contribution to Political Studies by the Political Studies Association". I don't know whether he is a "leftie" or a "Righty" and I don't really care. I do however think that it's safe to say that he is an authority on Multi-Party Politics. I thought it was a good lecture, which is why I posted the link. Lots in there that I didn't know. Most of the stuff I have read on the conflict indicates that the UK would probably have negotiated dual sovereignty of the islands had Argentinia not invaded. As for his claims about Britain giving up sovereignty once the conflict got going, it seems unlikely on its face given the political situation in both countries, and the many books on the topic don't seem to agree with him. If you come to a fork in the road, take it.
Alert a moderator to this post

NickinOX

Sailing country. 01 Apr 16 7.05pm

Originally posted by Mr Palaceman

I don't know whether he is a "leftie" or a "Righty" and I don't really care.

I do however think that it's safe to say that he is an authority on Multi-Party Politics.

I thought it was a good lecture, which is why I posted the link. Lots in there that I didn't know.

Most of the stuff I have read on the conflict indicates that the UK would probably have negotiated dual sovereignty of the islands had Argentinia not invaded. As for his claims about Britain giving up sovereignty once the conflict got going, it seems unlikely on its face given the political situation in both countries, and the many books on the topic don't seem to agree with him.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Mr Palaceman 01 Apr 16 7.30pm
Originally posted by NickinOX Most of the stuff I have read on the conflict indicates that the UK would probably have negotiated dual sovereignty of the islands had Argentinia not invaded. As for his claims about Britain giving up sovereignty once the conflict got going, it seems unlikely on its face given the political situation in both countries, and the many books on the topic don't seem to agree with him. I have not read much on the Falklands conflict to be honest. The point in the lecture that was of most interest to me was how the language and red line demands the government were making changed even as the task force was approaching and how sovereignty was an issue for negotiation. With splits in the government, it was remarkable that the campaign was successful. You can't ask more of your armed forces. "You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead" Stan Laurel
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr Palaceman

01 Apr 16 7.30pm

Originally posted by NickinOX

I have not read much on the Falklands conflict to be honest.

The point in the lecture that was of most interest to me was how the language and red line demands the government were making changed even as the task force was approaching and how sovereignty was an issue for negotiation.

With splits in the government, it was remarkable that the campaign was successful. You can't ask more of your armed forces.

"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Stan Laurel

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 8 < 1 2 3 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