She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
I QUOTED YOUR ORIGINAL POINT!
So has everyone else. We can see the words on the screen. They're right there!
You are not coming across as strong, or knowledgeable, or firm - this flailing about makes you look simultaneously weak, ignorant, and pretending to expertise you don't have.
Seriously, a simple: "Oh, sorry - I had been under the impression it was fairly easy with our capability; you live and learn," would have made you look far better.
You also seem to have a view of Thatcher that actually doesn't make her look good at all. The fact she went to war when it looked immensely challenging is FAR more to her credit than going to war when we could easily flatten an opponent. The belief she would deliberately carry out a crime against humanity is not only wrong, it would not remotely be a good thing if it were true. It's not strong, or brave, or noble to carry out a first strike of strategic nuclear weapons against a civilian population.
Glossing over the recapture of the Falklands against an embedded and prepared enemy when our centre of gravity was half a world away with "easy" REALLY denigrates those who pulled off something extraordinarily difficult.
Those are the things you keep refusing to face. And it doesn't make you look strong, or right.
No you didn't at all, my original point stands absolutely as to why we could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina but cannot take action and impose a no fly zone against Russia in Ukraine.
You also do not know what Thatcher would have done had the war in the Falklands not been a relatively swift win won in under 3 months.
If Thatcher was prepared to defend our territory and our people no matter what the cost then that shows her up to be the strong, decisive leader she was. Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands rather than using all means necessary to retake them no matter what the cost, Thatcher would not
One of the two of us spent seventeen years in the military. The other didn't.
One of us understands the realities of warfare, the relevant laws, and what leadership actually is. The other doesn't.
One of us can read what was written earlier. The other can, but doesn't like it and keeps trying to wriggle around.
God preserve us from you ever getting more power than Epping Forest Parish Council.
P.S. You probably don't realise just how fucking insulting you are saying "Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands" when I signed up to stand between you and danger, when I was posted all around the world, when I moved my family hither and yon time and time again (my autistic son was living in his fifth house before his fifth birthday)... just because I'm pointing out that Thatcher WOULD NOT HAVE DELIBERATELY INCINERATED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN.
I could not care less if you were Admiral of the Fleet or a Field Marshall.
You do not know and cannot know what Thatcher would have done to have won a war and liberated the Falklands, which needed to be achieved no matter what the cost. And she knew it.
Had we lost the Falklands and never recovered it and been unable to defend ourselves even against Argentina not only would it have abandoned our people on the Falklands and humiliated and weakened us internationally and ended her premiership. It would also have given a big boost to the USSR at our expense
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
I QUOTED YOUR ORIGINAL POINT!
So has everyone else. We can see the words on the screen. They're right there!
You are not coming across as strong, or knowledgeable, or firm - this flailing about makes you look simultaneously weak, ignorant, and pretending to expertise you don't have.
Seriously, a simple: "Oh, sorry - I had been under the impression it was fairly easy with our capability; you live and learn," would have made you look far better.
You also seem to have a view of Thatcher that actually doesn't make her look good at all. The fact she went to war when it looked immensely challenging is FAR more to her credit than going to war when we could easily flatten an opponent. The belief she would deliberately carry out a crime against humanity is not only wrong, it would not remotely be a good thing if it were true. It's not strong, or brave, or noble to carry out a first strike of strategic nuclear weapons against a civilian population.
Glossing over the recapture of the Falklands against an embedded and prepared enemy when our centre of gravity was half a world away with "easy" REALLY denigrates those who pulled off something extraordinarily difficult.
Those are the things you keep refusing to face. And it doesn't make you look strong, or right.
No you didn't at all, my original point stands absolutely as to why we could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina but cannot take action and impose a no fly zone against Russia in Ukraine.
You also do not know what Thatcher would have done had the war in the Falklands not been a relatively swift win won in under 3 months.
If Thatcher was prepared to defend our territory and our people no matter what the cost then that shows her up to be the strong, decisive leader she was. Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands rather than using all means necessary to retake them no matter what the cost, Thatcher would not
One of the two of us spent seventeen years in the military. The other didn't.
One of us understands the realities of warfare, the relevant laws, and what leadership actually is. The other doesn't.
One of us can read what was written earlier. The other can, but doesn't like it and keeps trying to wriggle around.
God preserve us from you ever getting more power than Epping Forest Parish Council.
P.S. You probably don't realise just how fucking insulting you are saying "Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands" when I signed up to stand between you and danger, when I was posted all around the world, when I moved my family hither and yon time and time again (my autistic son was living in his fifth house before his fifth birthday)... just because I'm pointing out that Thatcher WOULD NOT HAVE DELIBERATELY INCINERATED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN.
I could not care less if you were Admiral of the Fleet or a Field Marshall.
You do not know and cannot know what Thatcher would have done to have won a war and liberated the Falklands, which needed to be achieved no matter what the cost. And she knew it.
Had we lost the Falklands and never recovered it and been unable to defend ourselves even against Argentina not only would it have abandoned our people on the Falklands and humiliated and weakened us internationally and ended her premiership. It would also have given a big boost to the USSR at our expense
I should know better: never argue with a weak man, or a fool. Neither can understand when they are wrong.
Of all the lame 'woke' stuff people whinge about here, people getting called 'they' as a pronoun is the lamest of them all.
'They' is a perfectly acceptable singular person pronoun to use and it has been for centuries already, it is not just a plural pronoun, in the same way as 'you' is both a singular and plural pronoun.
They gets used as a singular person pronoun all the time in everyday life already, it is not some made up word.
There is a significant history of singular they - but only for an unknown person. So for example upthread we have "I've got a new boss - what are they like?" and "we've been burgled - there's an open window - that's how they got in". Neither seems linguistically wrong.
But as a pronoun for a specific, known, identified person, it doesn't sound right. "This is Chris - they are your new assistant". Nah. There's only one of him or her.
Since they is a singular as well as a plural word, they works perfectly fine even if there's only one of him or her.
"My boss called me in for a meeting today, they said that the company will be undergoing some reforms" - I know the gender of my boss I had a meeting with, but there is no need to say it and they works fine in that sentence.
That only really works if the sex of your boss is unknown by the person you're speaking to, though.
why, of what importance is the sex of the boss to the topic
In any case. the sentence is useless as it is fundamentally ambiguous. The number of people at the meeting is unknown. It could have been boss + head of HR who told the speaker about the reforms. That is why I loathe the uise of 'they' as singular when it leads to such a mess. I delete every case I come across in documents I am editing. The documents have ot be rewritten to lose the ambiguity.
Edit: obvs doesn't apply iuf there is no ambiguity.
What do you do about "you"? Do you delete all occurrences of "you" and list the people concerned again to remove that ambiguity?
Otherwise you are making nonsense work for yourself with "they".
I don’t see what the fuss is about, tbh!
“They” is a very serviceable word in the singular (I often use it to mask the identity of a source). Words evolve over time, so what’s the issue with stretching its meaning to include some/all people who are gender fluid?
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Thatcher was the elected PM with a majority. She made the final decision, no one else.
Had conventional forces been unable to retake the Falklands, ending her premiership and leaving the UK a pathetically week and humiliated nation unable to defeat even a relatively minor nation like Argentina when it invaded British territory then it would have been a complete disaster, especially with the Soviet threat and Thatcher knew that.
So no, it cannot be ruled out that Thatcher would not have given the Argentines 48 hours to withdraw from the Falklands or ordered a Polaris nuclear missile to be launched on Argentina. She would have known full well the Argentines had no nukes to respond with had conventional British forces been unable to liberate the islands.
Cold, hard realpolitik but the Argentines took that risk when they invaded. Anyone who refused to implement it could have been removed and replaced by the next in command
Did you know Thatcher?
I’m happy to confirm that she would never have launched a nuke at a civilian population
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
A Corbyn govt would have most likely been a coalition or tiny majority which would have fallen very early on.
So if we were offered a shit sandwich for a few months or a shit sandwich for several years.......
Weak government with a single issue mandate to cancel Brexit. But then the pandemic would have hit almost straightaway. God knows how it would all have panned out!
In fact I think the result was probably for the best because it broke the paralysis. But BJ a better PM than JC? - NFW. And I say that in the knowledge he would likely have struggled.
Sadly you are among the significant group of people who downplay or somehow cannot face the reality of Corbyn's fanatical and delusional world-view.
It's not that. It's that I cannot bear having a person as PM with no integrity or sense of public service. For me this is more important than policies or 'world views'. They're ten a penny.
Come off it! Johnson is a thoroughly reprehensible character but a principled moralist with an extreme authoritarian ideology is much more dangerous and will cause a lot more suffering. Pol Pot, Lenin and some of the Nazis to use justifiable Godwinism...
No, I do mean it. Obviously there are outlier extremes - eg those mentioned - but within the usual confines of democratic British politics it's more important to me that we're led by somebody with integrity and a sense of public service than it is what their policies or world view is. Preferred policies and world views are just matters of opinion. I have mine, you have yours, we can argue all day about that and not get anywhere. But the absence in a leader of integrity, honesty, sense of public service, this is a disaster regardless. It's fact, not opinion. It kind of strips away the self-respect of a country to be in that position. I probably wouldn't have been talking this way a few years ago, I'd have a more trad view that it's all about policies, but I think what's changed this is Trump, first and foremost, and then Johnson. I've become *desperate* now for a PM I can respect.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
I QUOTED YOUR ORIGINAL POINT!
So has everyone else. We can see the words on the screen. They're right there!
You are not coming across as strong, or knowledgeable, or firm - this flailing about makes you look simultaneously weak, ignorant, and pretending to expertise you don't have.
Seriously, a simple: "Oh, sorry - I had been under the impression it was fairly easy with our capability; you live and learn," would have made you look far better.
You also seem to have a view of Thatcher that actually doesn't make her look good at all. The fact she went to war when it looked immensely challenging is FAR more to her credit than going to war when we could easily flatten an opponent. The belief she would deliberately carry out a crime against humanity is not only wrong, it would not remotely be a good thing if it were true. It's not strong, or brave, or noble to carry out a first strike of strategic nuclear weapons against a civilian population.
Glossing over the recapture of the Falklands against an embedded and prepared enemy when our centre of gravity was half a world away with "easy" REALLY denigrates those who pulled off something extraordinarily difficult.
Those are the things you keep refusing to face. And it doesn't make you look strong, or right.
No you didn't at all, my original point stands absolutely as to why we could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina but cannot take action and impose a no fly zone against Russia in Ukraine.
You also do not know what Thatcher would have done had the war in the Falklands not been a relatively swift win won in under 3 months.
If Thatcher was prepared to defend our territory and our people no matter what the cost then that shows her up to be the strong, decisive leader she was. Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands rather than using all means necessary to retake them no matter what the cost, Thatcher would not
One of the two of us spent seventeen years in the military. The other didn't.
One of us understands the realities of warfare, the relevant laws, and what leadership actually is. The other doesn't.
One of us can read what was written earlier. The other can, but doesn't like it and keeps trying to wriggle around.
God preserve us from you ever getting more power than Epping Forest Parish Council.
P.S. You probably don't realise just how fucking insulting you are saying "Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands" when I signed up to stand between you and danger, when I was posted all around the world, when I moved my family hither and yon time and time again (my autistic son was living in his fifth house before his fifth birthday)... just because I'm pointing out that Thatcher WOULD NOT HAVE DELIBERATELY INCINERATED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN.
I could not care less if you were Admiral of the Fleet or a Field Marshall.
You do not know and cannot know what Thatcher would have done to have won a war and liberated the Falklands, which needed to be achieved no matter what the cost. And she knew it.
Had we lost the Falklands and never recovered it and been unable to defend ourselves even against Argentina not only would it have abandoned our people on the Falklands and humiliated and weakened us internationally and ended her premiership. It would also have given a big boost to the USSR at our expense
I should know better: never argue with a weak man, or a fool. Neither can understand when they are wrong.
I honestly haven’t met anyone before who’d entertain the use of nuclear weapons in the way he suggests. I thought they didn’t exist.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
I QUOTED YOUR ORIGINAL POINT!
So has everyone else. We can see the words on the screen. They're right there!
You are not coming across as strong, or knowledgeable, or firm - this flailing about makes you look simultaneously weak, ignorant, and pretending to expertise you don't have.
Seriously, a simple: "Oh, sorry - I had been under the impression it was fairly easy with our capability; you live and learn," would have made you look far better.
You also seem to have a view of Thatcher that actually doesn't make her look good at all. The fact she went to war when it looked immensely challenging is FAR more to her credit than going to war when we could easily flatten an opponent. The belief she would deliberately carry out a crime against humanity is not only wrong, it would not remotely be a good thing if it were true. It's not strong, or brave, or noble to carry out a first strike of strategic nuclear weapons against a civilian population.
Glossing over the recapture of the Falklands against an embedded and prepared enemy when our centre of gravity was half a world away with "easy" REALLY denigrates those who pulled off something extraordinarily difficult.
Those are the things you keep refusing to face. And it doesn't make you look strong, or right.
No you didn't at all, my original point stands absolutely as to why we could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina but cannot take action and impose a no fly zone against Russia in Ukraine.
You also do not know what Thatcher would have done had the war in the Falklands not been a relatively swift win won in under 3 months.
If Thatcher was prepared to defend our territory and our people no matter what the cost then that shows her up to be the strong, decisive leader she was. Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands rather than using all means necessary to retake them no matter what the cost, Thatcher would not
One of the two of us spent seventeen years in the military. The other didn't.
One of us understands the realities of warfare, the relevant laws, and what leadership actually is. The other doesn't.
One of us can read what was written earlier. The other can, but doesn't like it and keeps trying to wriggle around.
God preserve us from you ever getting more power than Epping Forest Parish Council.
P.S. You probably don't realise just how fucking insulting you are saying "Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands" when I signed up to stand between you and danger, when I was posted all around the world, when I moved my family hither and yon time and time again (my autistic son was living in his fifth house before his fifth birthday)... just because I'm pointing out that Thatcher WOULD NOT HAVE DELIBERATELY INCINERATED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN.
I could not care less if you were Admiral of the Fleet or a Field Marshall.
You do not know and cannot know what Thatcher would have done to have won a war and liberated the Falklands, which needed to be achieved no matter what the cost. And she knew it.
Had we lost the Falklands and never recovered it and been unable to defend ourselves even against Argentina not only would it have abandoned our people on the Falklands and humiliated and weakened us internationally and ended her premiership. It would also have given a big boost to the USSR at our expense
I should know better: never argue with a weak man, or a fool. Neither can understand when they are wrong.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
But that is not what we are responding to. We are responding to you saying it was 'easy' and similar comments, which is truly an absolutely insulting comment that is offending people as well as being completely untrue.
Relatively my original comment was correct in response to Heathener.
We could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina alone, that was not an option against nuclear armed China and Russia with bigger militaries than Argentina too whether over Hong Kong had we not respected the handover agreement or Ukraine now.
Well I agree, but seeing as I and others, didn't actually argue with you on that point what the hell are you on about?
We are all arguing about the fact that you said taking the Falklands was easy. It wasn't. You are wrong and you are insulting people by saying so in the most spectacular way.
You then came out with a lot of other tosh about 4 carriers and nuking Argentina.
On top of that you managed to insult Mrs Thatcher, your hero, as well, by making her sound like Dr. Strangelove. Well done. Excellent day's work.
That was my original point and it still stands now as when I originally made it.
Retaking the Falklands was easy in comparison to fighting Russia in Ukraine for Thatcher would have been. That stands still
It may have been an insult to Thatcher from a liberal like you who is not prepared to do whatever necessary to defend our people and territory. It was certainly not an insult for a conservative like me
OK Let's take this para by para:
Para 1. Try this example: You say dogs have 4 legs and dogs are blue. I say dogs aren't blue and your response is my original point that dogs have 4 legs is correct. True but your 2nd point is still wrong which is all we complained about
Para 2. Try this example: Eating 5 hot chillis is easier than eating 10 hot chillis. Still eating 5 hot chillis is not easy. You said it was. We pointed out it wasn't
Para 3. I point out that a person made a considered difficult decision. You state they did not make any considered judgement at all, but just went for it. If I was Mrs T I know who I would think was making a flattering comment and who was insulting me.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
I QUOTED YOUR ORIGINAL POINT!
So has everyone else. We can see the words on the screen. They're right there!
You are not coming across as strong, or knowledgeable, or firm - this flailing about makes you look simultaneously weak, ignorant, and pretending to expertise you don't have.
Seriously, a simple: "Oh, sorry - I had been under the impression it was fairly easy with our capability; you live and learn," would have made you look far better.
You also seem to have a view of Thatcher that actually doesn't make her look good at all. The fact she went to war when it looked immensely challenging is FAR more to her credit than going to war when we could easily flatten an opponent. The belief she would deliberately carry out a crime against humanity is not only wrong, it would not remotely be a good thing if it were true. It's not strong, or brave, or noble to carry out a first strike of strategic nuclear weapons against a civilian population.
Glossing over the recapture of the Falklands against an embedded and prepared enemy when our centre of gravity was half a world away with "easy" REALLY denigrates those who pulled off something extraordinarily difficult.
Those are the things you keep refusing to face. And it doesn't make you look strong, or right.
No you didn't at all, my original point stands absolutely as to why we could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina but cannot take action and impose a no fly zone against Russia in Ukraine.
You also do not know what Thatcher would have done had the war in the Falklands not been a relatively swift win won in under 3 months.
If Thatcher was prepared to defend our territory and our people no matter what the cost then that shows her up to be the strong, decisive leader she was. Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands rather than using all means necessary to retake them no matter what the cost, Thatcher would not
One of the two of us spent seventeen years in the military. The other didn't.
One of us understands the realities of warfare, the relevant laws, and what leadership actually is. The other doesn't.
One of us can read what was written earlier. The other can, but doesn't like it and keeps trying to wriggle around.
God preserve us from you ever getting more power than Epping Forest Parish Council.
P.S. You probably don't realise just how fucking insulting you are saying "Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands" when I signed up to stand between you and danger, when I was posted all around the world, when I moved my family hither and yon time and time again (my autistic son was living in his fifth house before his fifth birthday)... just because I'm pointing out that Thatcher WOULD NOT HAVE DELIBERATELY INCINERATED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN.
I could not care less if you were Admiral of the Fleet or a Field Marshall.
You do not know and cannot know what Thatcher would have done to have won a war and liberated the Falklands, which needed to be achieved no matter what the cost. And she knew it.
Had we lost the Falklands and never recovered it and been unable to defend ourselves even against Argentina not only would it have abandoned our people on the Falklands and humiliated and weakened us internationally and ended her premiership. It would also have given a big boost to the USSR at our expense
I should know better: never argue with a weak man, or a fool. Neither can understand when they are wrong.
I honestly haven’t met anyone before who’d entertain the use of nuclear weapons in the way he suggests. I thought they didn’t exist.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
But that is not what we are responding to. We are responding to you saying it was 'easy' and similar comments, which is truly an absolutely insulting comment that is offending people as well as being completely untrue.
Relatively my original comment was correct in response to Heathener.
We could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina alone, that was not an option against nuclear armed China and Russia with bigger militaries than Argentina too whether over Hong Kong had we not respected the handover agreement or Ukraine now.
Well I agree, but seeing as I and others, didn't actually argue with you on that point what the hell are you on about?
We are all arguing about the fact that you said taking the Falklands was easy. It wasn't. You are wrong and you are insulting people by saying so in the most spectacular way.
You then came out with a lot of other tosh about 4 carriers and nuking Argentina.
On top of that you managed to insult Mrs Thatcher, your hero, as well, by making her sound like Dr. Strangelove. Well done. Excellent day's work.
That was my original point and it still stands now as when I originally made it.
Retaking the Falklands was easy in comparison to fighting Russia in Ukraine for Thatcher would have been. That stands still
It may have been an insult to Thatcher from a liberal like you who is not prepared to do whatever necessary to defend our people and territory. It was certainly not an insult for a conservative like me
"To do whatever necessary to defend our people and territory"... so long as they are a UK protectorate or in NATO?
At least the Channel Islands would have been safe from the Nazis if had you been Churchill.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
I QUOTED YOUR ORIGINAL POINT!
So has everyone else. We can see the words on the screen. They're right there!
You are not coming across as strong, or knowledgeable, or firm - this flailing about makes you look simultaneously weak, ignorant, and pretending to expertise you don't have.
Seriously, a simple: "Oh, sorry - I had been under the impression it was fairly easy with our capability; you live and learn," would have made you look far better.
You also seem to have a view of Thatcher that actually doesn't make her look good at all. The fact she went to war when it looked immensely challenging is FAR more to her credit than going to war when we could easily flatten an opponent. The belief she would deliberately carry out a crime against humanity is not only wrong, it would not remotely be a good thing if it were true. It's not strong, or brave, or noble to carry out a first strike of strategic nuclear weapons against a civilian population.
Glossing over the recapture of the Falklands against an embedded and prepared enemy when our centre of gravity was half a world away with "easy" REALLY denigrates those who pulled off something extraordinarily difficult.
Those are the things you keep refusing to face. And it doesn't make you look strong, or right.
No you didn't at all, my original point stands absolutely as to why we could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina but cannot take action and impose a no fly zone against Russia in Ukraine.
You also do not know what Thatcher would have done had the war in the Falklands not been a relatively swift win won in under 3 months.
If Thatcher was prepared to defend our territory and our people no matter what the cost then that shows her up to be the strong, decisive leader she was. Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands rather than using all means necessary to retake them no matter what the cost, Thatcher would not
One of the two of us spent seventeen years in the military. The other didn't.
One of us understands the realities of warfare, the relevant laws, and what leadership actually is. The other doesn't.
One of us can read what was written earlier. The other can, but doesn't like it and keeps trying to wriggle around.
God preserve us from you ever getting more power than Epping Forest Parish Council.
P.S. You probably don't realise just how fucking insulting you are saying "Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands" when I signed up to stand between you and danger, when I was posted all around the world, when I moved my family hither and yon time and time again (my autistic son was living in his fifth house before his fifth birthday)... just because I'm pointing out that Thatcher WOULD NOT HAVE DELIBERATELY INCINERATED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN.
I could not care less if you were Admiral of the Fleet or a Field Marshall.
You do not know and cannot know what Thatcher would have done to have won a war and liberated the Falklands, which needed to be achieved no matter what the cost. And she knew it.
Had we lost the Falklands and never recovered it and been unable to defend ourselves even against Argentina not only would it have abandoned our people on the Falklands and humiliated and weakened us internationally and ended her premiership. It would also have given a big boost to the USSR at our expense
I should know better: never argue with a weak man, or a fool. Neither can understand when they are wrong.
I honestly haven’t met anyone before who’d entertain the use of nuclear weapons in the way he suggests. I thought they didn’t exist.
I've met a couple of the FatcherWasTrueEvil types who believe that she would have done a nuclear strike against Argentina. But even there you could see it was a bit forced - "got to get more evil and hate in there, somehow".
EDIT: It's worth pointing out this would be an action that General Power specifically ruled out, in connection with Vietnam. That's the guy that General Curtis Le May thought was nuke happy, to an interesting degree....
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Thatcher was the elected PM with a majority. She made the final decision, no one else.
Had conventional forces been unable to retake the Falklands, ending her premiership and leaving the UK a pathetically week and humiliated nation unable to defeat even a relatively minor nation like Argentina when it invaded British territory then it would have been a complete disaster, especially with the Soviet threat and Thatcher knew that.
So no, it cannot be ruled out that Thatcher would not have given the Argentines 48 hours to withdraw from the Falklands or ordered a Polaris nuclear missile to be launched on Argentina. She would have known full well the Argentines had no nukes to respond with had conventional British forces been unable to liberate the islands.
Cold, hard realpolitik but the Argentines took that risk when they invaded. Anyone who refused to implement it could have been removed and replaced by the next in command
Did you know Thatcher?
I’m happy to confirm that she would never have launched a nuke at a civilian population
It would arguably have been launched in self defence given it was Argentina who invaded the Falklands and as a last resort if the Argentines had not been removed by British conventional forces and refused to remove.
It did not have to be launched at an Argentine city, it could have been launched at an Argentine military base if the Argentines did not comply with Thatcher's ultimatum to withdraw.
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
A Corbyn govt would have most likely been a coalition or tiny majority which would have fallen very early on.
So if we were offered a shit sandwich for a few months or a shit sandwich for several years.......
Weak government with a single issue mandate to cancel Brexit. But then the pandemic would have hit almost straightaway. God knows how it would all have panned out!
In fact I think the result was probably for the best because it broke the paralysis. But BJ a better PM than JC? - NFW. And I say that in the knowledge he would likely have struggled.
Sadly you are among the significant group of people who downplay or somehow cannot face the reality of Corbyn's fanatical and delusional world-view.
It's not that. It's that I cannot bear having a person as PM with no integrity or sense of public service. For me this is more important than policies or 'world views'. They're ten a penny.
Come off it! Johnson is a thoroughly reprehensible character but a principled moralist with an extreme authoritarian ideology is much more dangerous and will cause a lot more suffering. Pol Pot, Lenin and some of the Nazis to use justifiable Godwinism...
No, I do mean it. Obviously there are outlier extremes - eg those mentioned - but within the usual confines of democratic British politics it's more important to me that we're led by somebody with integrity and a sense of public service than it is what their policies or world view is. Preferred policies and world views are just matters of opinion. I have mine, you have yours, we can argue all day about that and not get anywhere. But the absence in a leader of integrity, honesty, sense of public service, this is a disaster regardless. It's fact, not opinion. It kind of strips away the self-respect of a country to be in that position. I probably wouldn't have been talking this way a few years ago, I'd have a more trad view that it's all about policies, but I think what's changed this is Trump, first and foremost, and then Johnson. I've become *desperate* now for a PM I can respect.
I do have sympathy with that view. Johnson is a remarkable character to have risen to the top because he is a total bullshitter, reflex liar and a sort of Mr Toad from Wind in the Willows. Nonetheless I believe Corbyn was way outside the envelope of British politics ideologically and also highly principled and rigid. We were faced with a choice between arguably the two worst PM candidates in recent history but Corbyn was by far the worst choice.
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
She also went to war with Argentina when they invaded the Falklands when some of the wetter elements of the establishment were sceptical and saw the war through to a successful conclusion.
She was not going to let Argentina win it no matter what the cost
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
Better than the disgrace of a human being that we have, yes. Not even close.
This is why - even after all of BJ's mistakes it remains a huge gamble to trust the Labour party under the leadership of someone who served under Corbyn and failed to speak up for Jewish Labour MPs when they were under the cosh.
Hardly a huge gamble when Corbyn and his legacy have been so thoroughly repudiated by Starmer. It's his party now. You know what you're getting and there's not a trace of his predecessor. If you're able to tolerate Johnson - which I know many can although I can't - you can just take a view based on the policy platforms. See which appeals the most. That's what I'd do if I were you.
How has it been so thoroughly repudiated? Has he removed from the party the people who thought it appropriate to serve in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet, even after everything came to light regarding how inappropriate he was?
Oh, no, he'd have to purge himself.
Until Labour is led by someone who wasn't in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and who unabashedly repudiates that time, they're not fit for office.
But considering you still think he'd be a better PM, you have no judgement to speak on this matter.
But you voted for somebody palpably unfit to be PM. And that's after previously voting for Nigel Farage. You're horribly tainted by those actions, I'm afraid. It'll take quite a while to live them down. At least 10 years.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
A Corbyn govt would have most likely been a coalition or tiny majority which would have fallen very early on.
So if we were offered a shit sandwich for a few months or a shit sandwich for several years.......
Weak government with a single issue mandate to cancel Brexit. But then the pandemic would have hit almost straightaway. God knows how it would all have panned out!
In fact I think the result was probably for the best because it broke the paralysis. But BJ a better PM than JC? - NFW. And I say that in the knowledge he would likely have struggled.
Sadly you are among the significant group of people who downplay or somehow cannot face the reality of Corbyn's fanatical and delusional world-view.
It's not that. It's that I cannot bear having a person as PM with no integrity or sense of public service. For me this is more important than policies or 'world views'. They're ten a penny.
Come off it! Johnson is a thoroughly reprehensible character but a principled moralist with an extreme authoritarian ideology is much more dangerous and will cause a lot more suffering. Pol Pot, Lenin and some of the Nazis to use justifiable Godwinism...
Kinda interested in how principled moralism manifested itself in the Nazis.
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
He’s also clearly never met anyone in the military and has no sense of their moral standards.
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Thatcher was the elected PM with a majority. She made the final decision, no one else.
Had conventional forces been unable to retake the Falklands, ending her premiership and leaving the UK a pathetically week and humiliated nation unable to defeat even a relatively minor nation like Argentina when it invaded British territory then it would have been a complete disaster, especially with the Soviet threat and Thatcher knew that.
So no, it cannot be ruled out that Thatcher would not have given the Argentines 48 hours to withdraw from the Falklands or ordered a Polaris nuclear missile to be launched on Argentina. She would have known full well the Argentines had no nukes to respond with had conventional British forces been unable to liberate the islands.
Cold, hard realpolitik but the Argentines took that risk when they invaded. Anyone who refused to implement it could have been removed and replaced by the next in command
Did you know Thatcher?
I’m happy to confirm that she would never have launched a nuke at a civilian population
It would arguably have been launched in self defence given it was Argentina who invaded the Falklands and as a last resort if the Argentines had not been removed by British conventional forces and refused to remove.
It did not have to be launched at an Argentine city, it could have been launched at an Argentine military base if the Argentines did not comply with Thatcher's ultimatum to withdraw.
I don't know who is operating your account today, but they are far more of a nuclear hawk than the dove operating it last week was, who was adamant that there should be no NFZ over Ukraine because that would escalate Russia into a nuclear WW3.
Anyway, I've done sod all work today and several report summaries to write before I leave for home. I've enjoyed the banter today HY. Stay safe and nuclear free!
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
A Corbyn govt would have most likely been a coalition or tiny majority which would have fallen very early on.
So if we were offered a shit sandwich for a few months or a shit sandwich for several years.......
Weak government with a single issue mandate to cancel Brexit. But then the pandemic would have hit almost straightaway. God knows how it would all have panned out!
In fact I think the result was probably for the best because it broke the paralysis. But BJ a better PM than JC? - NFW. And I say that in the knowledge he would likely have struggled.
Sadly you are among the significant group of people who downplay or somehow cannot face the reality of Corbyn's fanatical and delusional world-view.
It's not that. It's that I cannot bear having a person as PM with no integrity or sense of public service. For me this is more important than policies or 'world views'. They're ten a penny.
Come off it! Johnson is a thoroughly reprehensible character but a principled moralist with an extreme authoritarian ideology is much more dangerous and will cause a lot more suffering. Pol Pot, Lenin and some of the Nazis to use justifiable Godwinism...
Kinda interested in how principled moralism manifested itself in the Nazis.
I always like the example of what the Japanese militarists managed with Buddhism, as an example of how you can *really have some fun* with moral principles, if you try.
Pretty sure almost every PB Tory aside from HYUFD has said on here over the last few months that BJ has to go. I sense from the current worrabout Corby spasms that they're girding their loins for the morally compromised long haul with the FLSOJ. Best of luck with that!
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
She also went to war with Argentina when they invaded the Falklands when some of the wetter elements of the establishment were sceptical and saw the war through to a successful conclusion.
She was not going to let Argentina win it no matter what the cost
She very nearly did. In fact, many on the inside thought we were losing right up to the point we found out we'd won. Why, therefore, hadn't she already launched a first strike? Cos, for all her faults,.she wasn't stark raving bonkers. That's why.
Taking people hostage, even for a so-called "legitimate debt", is evil, hostage-taking and blackmail.
Do you think we should simply give in to hostage taking every time people take hostages?
We clearly had some reason not to have repaid the debt for decades, though whether they were good or bad reasons I don't know.
To change our mind on those reasons because of hostage-taking wouldn't have been wise, though perhaps there's an argument the debt should have been repaid long before so the whole situation would not have arisen.
Believe it was a timing issue
They ordered and paid for a bunch of tanks.
The Iran Iraq war then started & arms sales were banned pre delivery
Don’t know why the funds weren’t returned (?sanctions)
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
She also went to war with Argentina when they invaded the Falklands when some of the wetter elements of the establishment were sceptical and saw the war through to a successful conclusion.
She was not going to let Argentina win it no matter what the cost
I do not believe that she would have used nuclear weapons against someone unless they had used them on us first - and even then possibly not.
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Thatcher was the elected PM with a majority. She made the final decision, no one else.
Had conventional forces been unable to retake the Falklands, ending her premiership and leaving the UK a pathetically week and humiliated nation unable to defeat even a relatively minor nation like Argentina when it invaded British territory then it would have been a complete disaster, especially with the Soviet threat and Thatcher knew that.
So no, it cannot be ruled out that Thatcher would not have given the Argentines 48 hours to withdraw from the Falklands or ordered a Polaris nuclear missile to be launched on Argentina. She would have known full well the Argentines had no nukes to respond with had conventional British forces been unable to liberate the islands.
Cold, hard realpolitik but the Argentines took that risk when they invaded. Anyone who refused to implement it could have been removed and replaced by the next in command
Did you know Thatcher?
I’m happy to confirm that she would never have launched a nuke at a civilian population
It would arguably have been launched in self defence given it was Argentina who invaded the Falklands and as a last resort if the Argentines had not been removed by British conventional forces and refused to remove.
It did not have to be launched at an Argentine city, it could have been launched at an Argentine military base if the Argentines did not comply with Thatcher's ultimatum to withdraw.
I don't know who is operating your account today, but they are far more of a nuclear hawk than the dove operating it last week was, who was adamant that there should be no NFZ over Ukraine because that would escalate Russia into a nuclear WW3.
Anyway, I've done sod all work today and several report summaries to write before I leave for home. I've enjoyed the banter today HY. Stay safe and nuclear free!
I think it is a wind up and it has damn well worked on me.
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
He’s also clearly never met anyone in the military and has no sense of their moral standards.
My grandfather for one was in the military. However at the end of the day it is the PM who orders our troops into war, the military just implement their orders
Taking people hostage, even for a so-called "legitimate debt", is evil, hostage-taking and blackmail.
Do you think we should simply give in to hostage taking every time people take hostages?
We clearly had some reason not to have repaid the debt for decades, though whether they were good or bad reasons I don't know.
To change our mind on those reasons because of hostage-taking wouldn't have been wise, though perhaps there's an argument the debt should have been repaid long before so the whole situation would not have arisen.
Believe it was a timing issue
They ordered and paid for a bunch of tanks.
The Iran Iraq war then started & arms sales were banned pre delivery
Don’t know why the funds weren’t returned (?sanctions)
Wasn't the Iran -Iraq.War. I believe it was the overthrow of the Shah.
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Thatcher was the elected PM with a majority. She made the final decision, no one else.
Had conventional forces been unable to retake the Falklands, ending her premiership and leaving the UK a pathetically week and humiliated nation unable to defeat even a relatively minor nation like Argentina when it invaded British territory then it would have been a complete disaster, especially with the Soviet threat and Thatcher knew that.
So no, it cannot be ruled out that Thatcher would not have given the Argentines 48 hours to withdraw from the Falklands or ordered a Polaris nuclear missile to be launched on Argentina. She would have known full well the Argentines had no nukes to respond with had conventional British forces been unable to liberate the islands.
Cold, hard realpolitik but the Argentines took that risk when they invaded. Anyone who refused to implement it could have been removed and replaced by the next in command
Did you know Thatcher?
I’m happy to confirm that she would never have launched a nuke at a civilian population
It would arguably have been launched in self defence given it was Argentina who invaded the Falklands and as a last resort if the Argentines had not been removed by British conventional forces and refused to remove.
It did not have to be launched at an Argentine city, it could have been launched at an Argentine military base if the Argentines did not comply with Thatcher's ultimatum to withdraw.
I don't know who is operating your account today, but they are far more of a nuclear hawk than the dove operating it last week was, who was adamant that there should be no NFZ over Ukraine because that would escalate Russia into a nuclear WW3.
Anyway, I've done sod all work today and several report summaries to write before I leave for home. I've enjoyed the banter today HY. Stay safe and nuclear free!
That goes back to my very original point.
Thatcher could take on Argentina in 1982 with less risk than taking on Russia over Ukraine today.
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Thatcher was the elected PM with a majority. She made the final decision, no one else.
Had conventional forces been unable to retake the Falklands, ending her premiership and leaving the UK a pathetically week and humiliated nation unable to defeat even a relatively minor nation like Argentina when it invaded British territory then it would have been a complete disaster, especially with the Soviet threat and Thatcher knew that.
So no, it cannot be ruled out that Thatcher would not have given the Argentines 48 hours to withdraw from the Falklands or ordered a Polaris nuclear missile to be launched on Argentina. She would have known full well the Argentines had no nukes to respond with had conventional British forces been unable to liberate the islands.
Cold, hard realpolitik but the Argentines took that risk when they invaded. Anyone who refused to implement it could have been removed and replaced by the next in command
Did you know Thatcher?
I’m happy to confirm that she would never have launched a nuke at a civilian population
It would arguably have been launched in self defence given it was Argentina who invaded the Falklands and as a last resort if the Argentines had not been removed by British conventional forces and refused to remove.
It did not have to be launched at an Argentine city, it could have been launched at an Argentine military base if the Argentines did not comply with Thatcher's ultimatum to withdraw.
I’m happy to confirm that Margaret Thatcher would never have launched a nuke whether it was “arguably… self defence” or not.
She was an intelligent, sophisticated and thoughtful woman. She understood right and wrong.
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
She also went to war with Argentina when they invaded the Falklands when some of the wetter elements of the establishment were sceptical and saw the war through to a successful conclusion.
She was not going to let Argentina win it no matter what the cost
I do not believe that she would have used nuclear weapons against someone unless they had used them on us first - and even then possibly not.
She didn't relish or enjoy War one little bit. Certainly was no Churchill on that score. Achingly Green for her time too. Almost a proto-Greta.
Taking people hostage, even for a so-called "legitimate debt", is evil, hostage-taking and blackmail.
Do you think we should simply give in to hostage taking every time people take hostages?
We clearly had some reason not to have repaid the debt for decades, though whether they were good or bad reasons I don't know.
To change our mind on those reasons because of hostage-taking wouldn't have been wise, though perhaps there's an argument the debt should have been repaid long before so the whole situation would not have arisen.
Believe it was a timing issue
They ordered and paid for a bunch of tanks.
The Iran Iraq war then started & arms sales were banned pre delivery
Don’t know why the funds weren’t returned (?sanctions)
Wasn't the Iran -Iraq.War. I believe it was the overthrow of the Shah.
Possible - or the hostages. That’s a detail though
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
She also went to war with Argentina when they invaded the Falklands when some of the wetter elements of the establishment were sceptical and saw the war through to a successful conclusion.
She was not going to let Argentina win it no matter what the cost
I do not believe that she would have used nuclear weapons against someone unless they had used them on us first - and even then possibly not.
On that grounds then the USSR or Russia today could in theory send conventional forces right into the UK and occupy us knowing we would never use the weapon of last resort unless nuked first.
Some PMs might well never have used them in those circumstances even after we were invaded or at imminent threat of invasion, maybe most. Thatcher however was tougher than most No 10 residents and was prepared to go to all lengths to defend the UK and our territory
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
He’s also clearly never met anyone in the military and has no sense of their moral standards.
My grandfather for one was in the military. However at the end of the day it is the PM who orders our troops into war, the military just implement their orders
You should be aware that when you keep flailing about when caught talking crap and refuse to admit it, it ends up leading people to the default assessment that you're talking crap no matter what the subject. It ends up eroding your credibility across the piece, not just on subjects where you're ignorant.
Loudly asserting your alignment with a given identity (eg "conservative") in perceived opposition to whomever you're arguing with also does not either increase credibility or make those with whom you claim to identify very grateful.
In all seriousness, HYUFD - if you take those points on board, you will become considerably more credible as a debater or discusser.
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
She also went to war with Argentina when they invaded the Falklands when some of the wetter elements of the establishment were sceptical and saw the war through to a successful conclusion.
She was not going to let Argentina win it no matter what the cost
I do not believe that she would have used nuclear weapons against someone unless they had used them on us first - and even then possibly not.
On that grounds then the USSR or Russia today could in theory send conventional forces right into the UK and occupy us knowing we would never use the weapon of last resort unless nuked first.
Some PMs might well never have used them in those circumstances even after we were invaded or at imminent threat of invasion, maybe most. Thatcher however was tougher than most No 10 residents and was prepared to go to all lengths to defend the UK and our territory
You nuke if you want to. The Lady is not for nuking!
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
She also went to war with Argentina when they invaded the Falklands when some of the wetter elements of the establishment were sceptical and saw the war through to a successful conclusion.
She was not going to let Argentina win it no matter what the cost
I do not believe that she would have used nuclear weapons against someone unless they had used them on us first - and even then possibly not.
On that grounds then the USSR or Russia today could in theory send conventional forces right into the UK and occupy us knowing we would never use the weapon of last resort unless nuked first.
Some PMs might well never have used them in those circumstances even after we were invaded or at imminent threat of invasion, maybe most. Thatcher however was tougher than most No 10 residents and was prepared to go to all lengths to defend the UK and our territory
This strange Thatcher you have constructed bears little relationship with the woman I spent my formative years being governed by. Even as an opponent of hers, she was a darn sight less gung ho on foreign affairs than you seem to imply. Have her orders to submarine commanders been revealed yet? I'd be surprised if they were the most hard-line of all our PM's.
Comes to summat when I'm spending a rainy Wednesday afternoon in my dotage defending Margaret Thatcher. Only @HYUFD can do that. It's ethereal and uncanny.
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
She also went to war with Argentina when they invaded the Falklands when some of the wetter elements of the establishment were sceptical and saw the war through to a successful conclusion.
She was not going to let Argentina win it no matter what the cost
I do not believe that she would have used nuclear weapons against someone unless they had used them on us first - and even then possibly not.
On that grounds then the USSR or Russia today could in theory send conventional forces right into the UK and occupy us knowing we would never use the weapon of last resort unless nuked first.
Some PMs might well never have used them in those circumstances even after we were invaded or at imminent threat of invasion, maybe most. Thatcher however was tougher than most No 10 residents and was prepared to go to all lengths to defend the UK and our territory
This strange Thatcher you have constructed bears little relationship with the woman I spent my formative years being governed by. Even as an opponent of hers, she was a darn sight less gung ho on foreign affairs than you seem to imply. Have her orders to submarine commanders been revealed yet? I'd be surprised if they were the most hard-line of all our PM's.
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
He’s also clearly never met anyone in the military and has no sense of their moral standards.
My grandfather for one was in the military. However at the end of the day it is the PM who orders our troops into war, the military just implement their orders
You should be aware that when you keep flailing about when caught talking crap and refuse to admit it, it ends up leading people to the default assessment that you're talking crap no matter what the subject. It ends up eroding your credibility across the piece, not just on subjects where you're ignorant.
Loudly asserting your alignment with a given identity (eg "conservative") in perceived opposition to whomever you're arguing with also does not either increase credibility or make those with whom you claim to identify very grateful.
In all seriousness, HYUFD - if you take those points on board, you will become considerably more credible as a debater or discusser.
I don't come here because I care what others on here think of me or what I say but to say what I think.
The fact that @HYUFD didn't live through Thatcher as an adult explains much. Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
He’s also clearly never met anyone in the military and has no sense of their moral standards.
My grandfather for one was in the military. However at the end of the day it is the PM who orders our troops into war, the military just implement their orders
You should be aware that when you keep flailing about when caught talking crap and refuse to admit it, it ends up leading people to the default assessment that you're talking crap no matter what the subject. It ends up eroding your credibility across the piece, not just on subjects where you're ignorant.
Loudly asserting your alignment with a given identity (eg "conservative") in perceived opposition to whomever you're arguing with also does not either increase credibility or make those with whom you claim to identify very grateful.
In all seriousness, HYUFD - if you take those points on board, you will become considerably more credible as a debater or discusser.
I don't come here because I care what others on here think of me or what I say but to say what I think.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
A Corbyn govt would have most likely been a coalition or tiny majority which would have fallen very early on.
So if we were offered a shit sandwich for a few months or a shit sandwich for several years.......
Weak government with a single issue mandate to cancel Brexit. But then the pandemic would have hit almost straightaway. God knows how it would all have panned out!
In fact I think the result was probably for the best because it broke the paralysis. But BJ a better PM than JC? - NFW. And I say that in the knowledge he would likely have struggled.
Sadly you are among the significant group of people who downplay or somehow cannot face the reality of Corbyn's fanatical and delusional world-view.
It's not that. It's that I cannot bear having a person as PM with no integrity or sense of public service. For me this is more important than policies or 'world views'. They're ten a penny.
Come off it! Johnson is a thoroughly reprehensible character but a principled moralist with an extreme authoritarian ideology is much more dangerous and will cause a lot more suffering. Pol Pot, Lenin and some of the Nazis to use justifiable Godwinism...
Kinda interested in how principled moralism manifested itself in the Nazis.
They were mainly a combination of gangsterism with fanatical nationalism and racism and loats of personal aggrandisement and corruption but the SS were often true fanatics had a very strict code of "honour" and "high standards" for personal behaviour in a totally perverted form of course. For instance anyone stealing from fellow SS or being corrupt in their definition would be treated harshly and probably expected to commit suicide even before a court case.
Comments
You do not know and cannot know what Thatcher would have done to have won a war and liberated the Falklands, which needed to be achieved no matter what the cost. And she knew it.
Had we lost the Falklands and never recovered it and been unable to defend ourselves even against Argentina not only would it have abandoned our people on the Falklands and humiliated and weakened us internationally and ended her premiership. It would also have given a big boost to the USSR at our expense
“They” is a very serviceable word in the singular (I often use it to mask the identity of a source). Words evolve over time, so what’s the issue with stretching its meaning to include some/all people who are gender fluid?
I’m happy to confirm that she would never have launched a nuke at a civilian population
Para 1. Try this example: You say dogs have 4 legs and dogs are blue. I say dogs aren't blue and your response is my original point that dogs have 4 legs is correct. True but your 2nd point is still wrong which is all we complained about
Para 2. Try this example: Eating 5 hot chillis is easier than eating 10 hot chillis. Still eating 5 hot chillis is not easy. You said it was. We pointed out it wasn't
Para 3. I point out that a person made a considered difficult decision. You state they did not make any considered judgement at all, but just went for it. If I was Mrs T I know who I would think was making a flattering comment and who was insulting me.
At least the Channel Islands would have been safe from the Nazis if had you been Churchill.
EDIT: It's worth pointing out this would be an action that General Power specifically ruled out, in connection with Vietnam. That's the guy that General Curtis Le May thought was nuke happy, to an interesting degree....
It did not have to be launched at an Argentine city, it could have been launched at an Argentine military base if the Argentines did not comply with Thatcher's ultimatum to withdraw.
Far more nuanced a figure than her detractors or hagiographers appreciate.
She was not going to let Argentina win it no matter what the cost
. .
Anyway, I've done sod all work today and several report summaries to write before I leave for home. I've enjoyed the banter today HY. Stay safe and nuclear free!
Why, therefore, hadn't she already launched a first strike?
Cos, for all her faults,.she wasn't stark raving bonkers. That's why.
They ordered and paid for a bunch of tanks.
The Iran Iraq war then started & arms sales were banned pre delivery
Don’t know why the funds weren’t returned (?sanctions)
I believe it was the overthrow of the Shah.
Thatcher could take on Argentina in 1982 with less risk than taking on Russia over Ukraine today.
She was an intelligent, sophisticated and thoughtful woman. She understood right and wrong.
Certainly was no Churchill on that score.
Achingly Green for her time too. Almost a proto-Greta.
Some PMs might well never have used them in those circumstances even after we were invaded or at imminent threat of invasion, maybe most. Thatcher however was tougher than most No 10 residents and was prepared to go to all lengths to defend the UK and our territory
Another fantastic tip from @MoonRabbit
Long odds, too
You’re on fire!
Loudly asserting your alignment with a given identity (eg "conservative") in perceived opposition to whomever you're arguing with also does not either increase credibility or make those with whom you claim to identify very grateful.
In all seriousness, HYUFD - if you take those points on board, you will become considerably more credible as a debater or discusser.
Even as an opponent of hers, she was a darn sight less gung ho on foreign affairs than you seem to imply.
Have her orders to submarine commanders been revealed yet?
I'd be surprised if they were the most hard-line of all our PM's.
Only @HYUFD can do that.
It's ethereal and uncanny.
Happy days.
Even if sometimes that puts me in a minority of 1
Is this thread still out on the circuit? 🙂