This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Falklands
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 matt_himself  Matataland 03 Apr 16 2.46pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by pefwin
Oddly enough before the war they were not considered British Subjects. As for conflating steel production??? with the issue, don't the likes of the USA apply a 164% (ish) tariff on Chinese steel......The UK is a free market dumping ground in a non free globalised oligopoly. Again, I fail to understand the point of your argument. Did the Islanders want to be part of Argentina or not before the illegal invasion? Your anti establishment rhetoric is irrelevant to the points being made.
"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 |
  |
| elgrande bedford 03 Apr 16 5.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by pefwin
Oddly enough before the war they were not considered British Subjects. As for conflating steel production??? with the issue, don't the likes of the USA apply a 164% (ish) tariff on Chinese steel......The UK is a free market dumping ground in a non free globalised oligopoly. I think you will find the EU will not let us do that. Edited by elgrande (03 Apr 2016 5.03pm)
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
pefwin  Where you have to have an English ... 03 Apr 16 6.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by elgrande
I think you will find the EU will not let us do that. Edited by elgrande (03 Apr 2016 5.03pm) Off topic, but a bit like the Germans don't.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 03 Apr 16 7.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Again, I fail to understand the point of your argument. Did the Islanders want to be part of Argentina or not before the illegal invasion? Your anti establishment rhetoric is irrelevant to the points being made. Troll, Just check a history book on every point I have made on this thread. The most contentious thing I have said is that it was a damn close run thing, and if you have an issue with the history books read some of the memoires published by senior politicians and military men. If you carry on in wallowing in your ignorance and ill manners; I will, unlike your past behaviour, I intend solely to report rather than react to trolling. I am afraid that your uninformed comments or quips, on what happened demean ALL those who died in the conflict, and for that I sincerely apologise to all other posters.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 03 Apr 16 8.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by pefwin
Troll, Just check a history book on every point I have made on this thread. The most contentious thing I have said is that it was a damn close run thing, and if you have an issue with the history books read some of the memoires published by senior politicians and military men. If you carry on in wallowing in your ignorance and ill manners; I will, unlike your past behaviour, I intend solely to report rather than react to trolling. I am afraid that your uninformed comments or quips, on what happened demean ALL those who died in the conflict, and for that I sincerely apologise to all other posters. The fact is that the British forces retook the islands within two months of the intention to recapture was declared by the cabinet War committee. It was an incredible logistical operation and a stunning military operation. To describe it as 'close run' is wrong. The Argentinian forces were ill prepared, ill equipped and not able to fight against the superior British forces. They were not able to repell the land invasion, with the notable exception of the Mount Longdon defence, and the strength of the Paras and Royal Marines overwhelmed them. The Argentines did not have military thinkers and doers as capable as Thompson, Fieldhouse and Woodward. If there can be criticism of commanders, then really only the loss of Galahad can really be criticised. Whilst the sinking of Belgrano is often sited as a military blunder, I don't agree with this and side with Max Hastings when he says that militarily, the sinking of the Belgrano was a necessary act of war. The lies regarding which way it was sailing was a political failing and the public at the time should have been told the reason why the military took the decision to sink the Belgrano. May I suggest that you read Max Hastings history of the conflict. It is, in my opinion, a very fair and objective view ofwhat happened.
"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 |
|
Kosowski  Standing at the top of B Block 03 Apr 16 8.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
If they try it on again, get the SAS to kidnap Messi and start cutting off a toe for each day of occupation - preferably on live TV in a Noel's House party type format. You wouldn't have to send any taskforce.
Block B comment of 2011/2012 Season: "That's better Palace, better...but still fucking shit!" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dann to Much, Much to Yong. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 03 Apr 16 9.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
That Galtieri was an evil b@stard. Sent thousands of conscripted 18 and 19 year olds in to do his dirty work. Can't have been anything other than very unpleasant and nasty for both sides. And the war didn't end for some in 1982. The conflict did but many hundreds of suicides over the years since tell another story of what perhaps went on after.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Apr 16 12.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
The fact is that the British forces retook the islands within two months of the intention to recapture was declared by the cabinet War committee. It was an incredible logistical operation and a stunning military operation. To describe it as 'close run' is wrong. The Argentinian forces were ill prepared, ill equipped and not able to fight against the superior British forces. They were not able to repell the land invasion, with the notable exception of the Mount Longdon defence, and the strength of the Paras and Royal Marines overwhelmed them. The Argentines did not have military thinkers and doers as capable as Thompson, Fieldhouse and Woodward. If there can be criticism of commanders, then really only the loss of Galahad can really be criticised. Whilst the sinking of Belgrano is often sited as a military blunder, I don't agree with this and side with Max Hastings when he says that militarily, the sinking of the Belgrano was a necessary act of war. The lies regarding which way it was sailing was a political failing and the public at the time should have been told the reason why the military took the decision to sink the Belgrano. May I suggest that you read Max Hastings history of the conflict. It is, in my opinion, a very fair and objective view ofwhat happened. The key point was the landing at San Carlos. Once successful, it was then largely going to be a land conflict between the 'best of a professional army' and an army of conscripts. What tends to get under played is the sheer size of the balls of the Navy in the landing (Coventry and Broadsword were decoys to protect the landing from air attacks, resulting in the loss of the Coventry). By drawing the Argentine air force off the landings, they essentially secured the real possibility of success. The navy took heavy losses during this period of the war. Also the Argentines managed to drop 13 dud bombs that hit British ships during the landings, due to their pilots inexperience. Had half of those gone off, the outcome could have been different, had all 13 gone off, the British would have been unable to maintain the landings, or protect the fleet. Once the landings were established, it was effectively a land war, and the UK weren't likely to lose provided they could maintain logistics. The military didn't take the decision to sink the Belgrano, it was Margret Thatcher and the Cabinet - who approved a change to the rules of engagement, at the request of the admiralty. It was probably the right military decision but the legality of that action is questionable legally, and never been tested. It could possibly be a crime, but as it was never proven to be a crime either. Certainly the Argentine navy considered it a legitimate act of war. But ultimately its a futile argument, as its more about political view points, than legal ones.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Apr 16 12.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
That Galtieri was an evil b@stard. Sent thousands of conscripted 18 and 19 year olds in to do his dirty work. Can't have been anything other than very unpleasant and nasty for both sides. And the war didn't end for some in 1982. The conflict did but many hundreds of suicides over the years since tell another story of what perhaps went on after. If I remember rightly from the stats, more ex-Falklands service men died of suicide than from the Argentine military. British Mental Health coverage, for civilians and service men, was brutally cut during the 80s. Whilst the military's provision to provide support to ex-service men was terrible during this period of history, its not really all that different to that of society in general. The Care in the Community was probably one of the most damaging decisions the Conservatives took - Largely because it was taken 'too far' to provide financial cost savings.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 04 Apr 16 1.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The key point was the landing at San Carlos. Once successful, it was then largely going to be a land conflict between the 'best of a professional army' and an army of conscripts. What tends to get under played is the sheer size of the balls of the Navy in the landing (Coventry and Broadsword were decoys to protect the landing from air attacks, resulting in the loss of the Coventry). By drawing the Argentine air force off the landings, they essentially secured the real possibility of success. The navy took heavy losses during this period of the war. Also the Argentines managed to drop 13 dud bombs that hit British ships during the landings, due to their pilots inexperience. Had half of those gone off, the outcome could have been different, had all 13 gone off, the British would have been unable to maintain the landings, or protect the fleet. Once the landings were established, it was effectively a land war, and the UK weren't likely to lose provided they could maintain logistics. The military didn't take the decision to sink the Belgrano, it was Margret Thatcher and the Cabinet - who approved a change to the rules of engagement, at the request of the admiralty. It was probably the right military decision but the legality of that action is questionable legally, and never been tested. It could possibly be a crime, but as it was never proven to be a crime either. Certainly the Argentine navy considered it a legitimate act of war. But ultimately its a futile argument, as its more about political view points, than legal ones. The legality of the sinking of Belgrano has been gone over millions of times. Those who agree with the government of the time say it's legal, those who hate Thatcher claim it is illegal. The fact is that the British Government told the Argentines via the Swiss that they no longer deemed the exclusion zone as a restriction to British forces attacking Argentine ships. The Argentines recognised that this meant the whole of the South Atlantic was a war zone. Even the Argentine Navy recognises the fact that the sinking was an act of war, not a war crime. Only that f***ing arsehole Cristina de Kirchner, during her attempt to cover up her scandalous destruction of the Argentine economy and judiciary, labelled it a 'war crime'. Whilst you are correct that the cabinet signed off on the decision to sink the Belgrano, it was after Admiral Lewin last babied hard for a change in the rules regarding the exclusion zone. He knew that if the Belgrano was sunk, then the Argentine Navy would return to base, leaving Britian controlling the South Atlantic. He was right.
"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 |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Apr 16 1.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
The legality of the sinking of Belgrano has been gone over millions of times. Those who agree with the government of the time say it's legal, those who hate Thatcher claim it is illegal. The fact is that the British Government told the Argentines via the Swiss that they no longer deemed the exclusion zone as a restriction to British forces attacking Argentine ships. The Argentines recognised that this meant the whole of the South Atlantic was a war zone. Even the Argentine Navy recognises the fact that the sinking was an act of war, not a war crime. Only that f***ing arsehole Cristina de Kirchner, during her attempt to cover up her scandalous destruction of the Argentine economy and judiciary, labelled it a 'war crime'. Whilst you are correct that the cabinet signed off on the decision to sink the Belgrano, it was after Admiral Lewin last babied hard for a change in the rules regarding the exclusion zone. He knew that if the Belgrano was sunk, then the Argentine Navy would return to base, leaving Britian controlling the South Atlantic. He was right. This would be what I would question, if that is the case, the surely its a state of war, and a declaration of war should be issued. The question of legality would, I feel, come down to whether or not you can, as a country 'have it both ways' (and exclusion zone and the right to sink ships outside if you feel like it). Obviously any warship is a threat. I don't think that ultimately its down to the British or the Argentine Military (who had murdered 80,000 odd Argentine civilians by this point) to determine whether an action is lawful, but the International Criminal Court. If the Argentine Navy had turned out to have submarine fleets, I suspect there would have been massive outcry had they attacked the Task force when it set out.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 04 Apr 16 2.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Bert the Head
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. 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?
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.