At least one Ukr MP is not interested in a peace deal:
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 2h Ukrainian MP Kira Rudik tells Julia she "does not believe in the result of the peace talks" because Putin cannot be trusted and will "break the peace".
"It is our country, our land and our cities. There is no question to defend it or not."
The Kremlin has stated that an Austrian/Swedish neutrality model for Ukrainian, preserving their own Army but without foreign military bases, could be seen as a compromise - Interfax.
That must mean that Russia is fine with EU membership, right?
Especially when the EU develops its own version of NATO's Article 5 commitment to support any member invaded.....
Plus "their own army" means "can we have our tanks back, please?"
Plus - what is this Swedish neutrality model when they join NATO?
I can't see Putin being happy with EU membership for Ukr. They should put that on the back burner. He wont be around forever.
From my Russian relatives who are dealing with ex-friends etc in Russia - The current Russian view is that EU/NATO is all one big thing - they see it as like Warsaw Pact/COMECON.
They would be very, very unhappy with Ukrainian membership of either
I would say they are right. The distinction between the EU and NATO in Europe is getting very blurred. Most democratic European nations are members of both, where the EU provides the main forum for consensus building. Senior US Office holders will typically drop into both the EU and NATO offices on their trips to Brussels.
Zelinskiy has an idea of a Europe centred on the EU that he thinks is Ukraine's destiny that I believe he would be very reluctant to give up. I would expect difficult negotiations on this point.
I wasted a tenner following TSE onto the Pakistan game. Its gone from 369-4 with 22 left to 382-4 with 14 left and they're not even trying to run singles anymore.
Ball went past the wicket keeper and three quarters of the way to the boundary rope and they didn't even try and run any byes.
The run rate was never realistic, it'll be a draw.
To summarise, he will be asking for increased oil production, and will be asked for help with increased security in the Gulf region. UK is increasingly a key broker in the region, after a cooling in their relationship with the US in the past decade under Obama and Trump.
Will help with increased security mean more of this?
For some reason, many Western leftists see the Saudis as the aggressors here, rather than the defenders of the legitimate Yemeni government.
I could go on about this all day, but the long and short of the war in Yemen, is that it’s simply the latest incarnation of the centuries-old battle between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
If I understand correctly - which I may not - it’s essentially a proxy war between Iran and Saud, with the Yemeni people caught in the middle.
That is somewhat different from the situation in Ukraine, which is a war of conquest launched by a man who has clearly lost his marbles.
Although I can imagine for those actually living there it’s a distinction without a difference.
The war in Ukraine is clearly very different, with Russia simply rolling tanks over the border because Putin felt like it.
The Right will continue to tell themselves things like this but the fact is that both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are involved in very murky dealings.
As I assume you know, Qatar's strong association with the Wahabi sect of Islam is a source of considerable irritation and fury in other parts of the Middle East, hence why Saudi boycotted Qatar and why Qatar airways were blockaded from flying over the UAE.
The geopolitics of the region is dark with many complex strands and multiple human rights abuses.
We will be doing business with more evil. Classic tories.
Diddums that the West is diversifying its hydrocarbon supplies away from your dear leader
If by 'my dear leader' you mean Putin, unlike you I believe we should stand up militarily to Putin.
You are a coward.
We’ve been through this. The wide ranging sanctions and military relief to Ukraine are working.
Are they though? Really?
I see a country getting pulverised and slowly, inexorably, Russian forces creep forward. I don't think Putin will particularly care if this takes 3 months if in the process Ukraine is reduced to rubble.
We tell ourselves that our actions are working because we need to tell ourselves it. We can't stand the idea that Putin has got away with this. But he has, hasn't he?
If we had courage we would stand up to him and do what Zelensky asked: install a No Fly Zone. Yes it might risk all out nuclear war.
So what?
I'm prepared to die for Ukraine and freedom. Aren't you?
No.
Especially not in an "all out nuclear war" who's going to have "freedom" after that? the Ukrainian cockroaches?
Exactly. Assuming humans survive (not a certainty) the world will be ruled by petty warlords and thugs for 100s if not 1000s of years.
@Heathener has definitely lost it. If he/she? is not a Russian troll I hope he/she is getting help.
(PS We could really do with a neutral personal singular pronoun.)
They.
No, no, no, no, no. 'They' is plural. I can't abide words which were doing a perfectly good job being co-opted for some other purpose. See also 'disinterested' being used as a synonym for 'uninterested'. My first thought when I hear some attention-starved individual declare that henceforth they wish to be known as 'they' is not that the individual in question is taking some creative approach to gender identity but that the individual in question now believes that there are several of it. And of course, I mentally re-calibrate, and know what the person means, but still. Once upon a time we had a third-person gender-non-specific: he. It meant a male person or a person without specific gender. Admittedly that was also a less than ideal situation.
'They is plural' ?!? Didn't them teach you anything at school @Cookie? They are plural! ;-)
(PS The rest of your post is a bit obnoxious tbh. Back to school for some diversity lessons please.)
I think you have your tongue in your cheek here - but I think in this sense They is plural is correct! As to the obnoxious bit, if that's how I come across then I sincerely apologise. There is a lot of heat and noise on the gender identity debate, but this post wasn't meant to be part of it - my point is entirely linguistic: about the mental discomfort of hearing a single person referred to as 'they'. An agreement that it is a pity there is a non-specific word - not just for those few individuals like RochdalePioneers 's eldest who are genuinely uncomfortable with he or she but also for those countless occasions when the English language forces us to use 'he or she'.
How do other countries like France manage this, when absolutely everything is gendered, including job titles – and to do otherwise is grammatically murderous? Are there thousands of professeuses demanding to be called professeurs (or vice versa)? Do people complain that traditionally boyish geeks passions like trains and aeroplanes are male?
Like you, I'm baffled. And also like you, it's a linguistic point rather than another entry in the gender-identity debate.
“Iel” is not a paragon of “le wokisme” – an increasingly common word in France which is not yet in the dictionary itself, and is a direct import of the English “woke” with a suffix allowing it to be Frenchified (the famous “-isme”). It’s interesting to note in this context that the most fierce opponents of this maligned pronoun accuse it of being an anglicism, all the while invoking “wokisme”.
I wasted a tenner following TSE onto the Pakistan game. Its gone from 369-4 with 22 left to 382-4 with 14 left and they're not even trying to run singles anymore.
Ball went past the wicket keeper and three quarters of the way to the boundary rope and they didn't even try and run any byes.
Well, if you will bet on Pakistan to win, when there’s a lot of history that says the players on the field don’t always try…
At last, we now know who’s REALLY to blame for WWIII.
10/ Lord Frost says "In appeasing Greta Thunberg, we very nearly gave a free pass to Vladimir Putin." What can I say? The level of geopolitical analysis of a pub bore.
At least one Ukr MP is not interested in a peace deal:
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 2h Ukrainian MP Kira Rudik tells Julia she "does not believe in the result of the peace talks" because Putin cannot be trusted and will "break the peace".
"It is our country, our land and our cities. There is no question to defend it or not."
In a nutshell that is the problem. How can you trust a word that Putin or Lavrov says? You can't negotiate in good faith with gangsters. Whatever the outcome western sanctions must stay on Russia until Ukraine gets proper security guarantees.
The Commons has published a very succint Reason for disagreeing with the Lords wrecking amendment: Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate that the dissolution of Parliament should be subject to a vote in the Commons. Which in my view rather begs the question, but there you go.
It goes back to the Lords on Tuesday where (as previously mentioned) I expect the Lords won't insist on the amendment. So maybe FTPA will be off the statute book by the end of next week.
At least one Ukr MP is not interested in a peace deal:
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 2h Ukrainian MP Kira Rudik tells Julia she "does not believe in the result of the peace talks" because Putin cannot be trusted and will "break the peace".
"It is our country, our land and our cities. There is no question to defend it or not."
To anyone who thinks that the Russians will be able to march through Kiev, take a look at how many ordinary citizens have armed themselves and are training to defend their city.
I wasted a tenner following TSE onto the Pakistan game. Its gone from 369-4 with 22 left to 382-4 with 14 left and they're not even trying to run singles anymore.
Ball went past the wicket keeper and three quarters of the way to the boundary rope and they didn't even try and run any byes.
Well, if you will bet on Pakistan to win, when there’s a lot of history that says the players on the field don’t always try…
Yep, never again. When they're not even running, bah.
Two wickets in two balls now, though I don't think that's deliberate. The guy who fell for 196 looked absolutely gutted as you would be.
The Kremlin has stated that an Austrian/Swedish neutrality model for Ukrainian, preserving their own Army but without foreign military bases, could be seen as a compromise - Interfax.
That must mean that Russia is fine with EU membership, right?
Especially when the EU develops its own version of NATO's Article 5 commitment to support any member invaded.....
Plus "their own army" means "can we have our tanks back, please?"
Plus - what is this Swedish neutrality model when they join NATO?
I can't see Putin being happy with EU membership for Ukr. They should put that on the back burner. He wont be around forever.
It’s not up to Putin. It’s up to Ukranians and their government how they wish to conduct themselves.
It is disgusting than anyone accepts or approves of Russia exerting some sort of veto over what Ukraine might want to do.
I understand Ukraine's objective is to get the Russians out of Ukraine. They will still be a larger malevolent neighbour. This is reality. Ukraine will hope to concede on things on things it will do anyway or doesn't care about - eg equal status for the Russian language.
Does anyone else have friends or fam who think THIS REALLY IS IT?
I do. They’re literally prepping for the Endtimes. Quite disconcerting. Especially as it’s the 2nd time in 3 years
There are peace talks taking place.
Indeed
I’m just saying it is unnerving when sane friends/relatives say “yes I reckon there will be all-out nuclear war and I’m making preparations”
I’ve learned in the last half a year that it’s useful to have emergency provision for heating water, cooking, lighting and communications. Because I’ve been without all and it’s no fun. And that it’s better to fill up the petrol tank when it’s half full rather than the light is on. It’s also useful to have real cash for supplies in an emergency. And covid teaches us you should have enough food in your cupboard to survive a few weeks without a shop. I’ve now made those preparations. But I don’t understand how anyone thinks they’re going to prepare for nuclear war. At best you might have supplies to stay indoors for a few days if there was a Chernobyl type incident but that’s it.
Incidentally, it must have been unnerving for people when you, I and others began saying to them “yes I think the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the best explanation for the data and video released by the US military”. Mind you, I’ve done nothing at all having come to that conclusion. Like nuclear war, what can you do but calm your mind to things you cannot control?
So relieved that Zaghari-Ratcliffe is finally on her way home. What a failure of Government that it took this long.
What wonderful news. So happy for her and her family. We'll done Liz Truss for succeeding where her predecessors failed (or barely tried).
Or in the case of one recent one, actually made things worse.
The only people who made it worse were the Iranian hostage takers, but generous of you to give them excuses for their hostage taking.
If I blamed the police for their low clear up rate for complaints of rape, would your reaction be that the only people who made it worse were the rapists, but generous of you to give them excuses for their rapes?
Utterly false comparison, the Police have the jurisdiction and power to arrest rapists.
Do you think we could arrest the Iranian hostage takers?
Not the point
OK try this: X wishes to murder Y. Z knowing this tells X where to find Y. Is X the only person to blame for the murder?
All this talk of X and Y and you have lost me.
I was never very good at calculus.
Algebra
I was OK with algebra for O level, but differential calculus, applied maths and physics, whoa- tough.
If there is a by-election in Wakefield it would be against a backdrop of a legal conviction for a pretty awful crime. That alone would make it difficult for the holder to retain the seat and could well amplify the swing.
Not necessarily, Labour held Peterborough in a June 2019 by election despite the by election being forced by recall after the existing Labour MP had faced trial over trying to pervert the course of justice over a driving speeding offence.
Yet the Tories did win the seat in December 2019 when they were doing better in the national polls.
On current polls though Labour should win Wakefield regardless of the MP's circumstances
Speeding v sexual offence against a minor. Get real.
Teresa Gorman held Billericay in 1987 with a 1.2% increase in the Tory voteshare. This was despite the conviction of the previous Tory MP for the seat, Harvey Proctor, for gross indecency and having sex with 17 and 19 year old male prostitutes the previous month when the then age of consent for same sex sexual relations was 21
I wasted a tenner following TSE onto the Pakistan game. Its gone from 369-4 with 22 left to 382-4 with 14 left and they're not even trying to run singles anymore.
Ball went past the wicket keeper and three quarters of the way to the boundary rope and they didn't even try and run any byes.
Well, if you will bet on Pakistan to win, when there’s a lot of history that says the players on the field don’t always try…
Getting a draw from where they were will be a massive accomplishment, batting out 172 or more overs to get a draw has only ever been done once before.
Does anyone else have friends or fam who think THIS REALLY IS IT?
I do. They’re literally prepping for the Endtimes. Quite disconcerting. Especially as it’s the 2nd time in 3 years
There are peace talks taking place.
Indeed
I’m just saying it is unnerving when sane friends/relatives say “yes I reckon there will be all-out nuclear war and I’m making preparations”
I’ve learned in the last half a year that it’s useful to have emergency provision for heating water, cooking, lighting and communications. Because I’ve been without all and it’s no fun. And that it’s better to fill up the petrol tank when it’s half full rather than the light is on. It’s also useful to have real cash for supplies in an emergency. And covid teaches us you should have enough food in your cupboard to survive a few weeks without a shop. I’ve now made those preparations. But I don’t understand how anyone thinks they’re going to prepare for nuclear war. At best you might have supplies to stay indoors for a few days if there was a Chernobyl type incident but that’s it.
Incidentally, it must have been unnerving for people when you, I and others began saying to them “yes I think the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the best explanation for the data and video released by the US military”. Mind you, I’ve done nothing at all having come to that conclusion. Like nuclear war, what can you do but calm your mind to things you cannot control?
To prepare for a nuclear war, moving to South America seems optimal.*
* Unless HYUFD has taken control of our South Atlantic fleet!
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)
At least one Ukr MP is not interested in a peace deal:
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 2h Ukrainian MP Kira Rudik tells Julia she "does not believe in the result of the peace talks" because Putin cannot be trusted and will "break the peace".
"It is our country, our land and our cities. There is no question to defend it or not."
In a nutshell that is the problem. How can you trust a word that Putin or Lavrov says? You can't negotiate in good faith with gangsters. Whatever the outcome western sanctions must stay on Russia until Ukraine gets proper security guarantees.
Ukraine can't trust a word that Putin or a potential replacement says. What they can do, and may already have done, is make it so costly for Russia to invade that it will never pull a stunt like this again.
If there is a by-election in Wakefield it would be against a backdrop of a legal conviction for a pretty awful crime. That alone would make it difficult for the holder to retain the seat and could well amplify the swing.
Not necessarily, Labour held Peterborough in a June 2019 by election despite the by election being forced by recall after the existing Labour MP had faced trial over trying to pervert the course of justice over a driving speeding offence.
Yet the Tories did win the seat in December 2019 when they were doing better in the national polls.
On current polls though Labour should win Wakefield regardless of the MP's circumstances
Speeding v sexual offence against a minor. Get real.
Teresa Gorman held Billericay in 1987 with a 1.2% increase in the Tory voteshare, despite the conviction of the previous Tory MP Harvey Proctor for gross indecency and having sex with 17 and 19 year old male prostitutes the previous month when the then age of consent for same sex sexual relations was 21
IIRC, and I was active in the area at the time, she had quite a lot of favourable publicity. Bouncy, opinionated but quite likeable person, who could be surprisingly modest at times. Met her a few times, and quite liked her.
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 conscripts even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
I’m visualising Thatcher, eye glued to the periscope eyepiece, cap on backwards at a rakish angle and all sweaty in best Das Boot style, shouting ‘Fire one..’
There’s a free fantasy to add to your collection, chaps.
The Belgrano was, of course, effectively shot in the back, although it was later conceded to be a justifiable act of war.
It's long been my theory that the commander of Conqueror sank the Belgrano based on the message that Woodward put on the communication satellite for relay. Which ordered the sinking - which wasn't actually his to order.
I think that the commander saw the message, knew that it would be withdrawn when the Admiralty saw it (which it was) and decided not to "forbear to chase {Belgrano}, being an enemy then flying."
Does anyone else have friends or fam who think THIS REALLY IS IT?
I do. They’re literally prepping for the Endtimes. Quite disconcerting. Especially as it’s the 2nd time in 3 years
There are peace talks taking place.
Indeed
I’m just saying it is unnerving when sane friends/relatives say “yes I reckon there will be all-out nuclear war and I’m making preparations”
I’ve learned in the last half a year that it’s useful to have emergency provision for heating water, cooking, lighting and communications. Because I’ve been without all and it’s no fun. And that it’s better to fill up the petrol tank when it’s half full rather than the light is on. It’s also useful to have real cash for supplies in an emergency. And covid teaches us you should have enough food in your cupboard to survive a few weeks without a shop. I’ve now made those preparations. But I don’t understand how anyone thinks they’re going to prepare for nuclear war. At best you might have supplies to stay indoors for a few days if there was a Chernobyl type incident but that’s it.
Incidentally, it must have been unnerving for people when you, I and others began saying to them “yes I think the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the best explanation for the data and video released by the US military”. Mind you, I’ve done nothing at all having come to that conclusion. Like nuclear war, what can you do but calm your mind to things you cannot control?
To prepare for a nuclear war, moving to South America seems optimal.
Two things determine your survival odds in nuclear war.
i. Geopolitical importance of your nation, the lower the better. ii. Distance from key targets within that nation.
Zelensky can get away with no NATO membership but on joining the EU that would be very difficult to rule out as there’s a huge majority of Ukrainians in favour of that.
I wasted a tenner following TSE onto the Pakistan game. Its gone from 369-4 with 22 left to 382-4 with 14 left and they're not even trying to run singles anymore.
Ball went past the wicket keeper and three quarters of the way to the boundary rope and they didn't even try and run any byes.
Well, if you will bet on Pakistan to win, when there’s a lot of history that says the players on the field don’t always try…
Getting a draw from where they were will be a massive accomplishment, batting out 172 or more overs to get a draw has only ever been done once before.
Eagles was betting on them making the runs!
Getting out for 196 must be gutting though, even if it’s your highest Test score.
At least one Ukr MP is not interested in a peace deal:
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 2h Ukrainian MP Kira Rudik tells Julia she "does not believe in the result of the peace talks" because Putin cannot be trusted and will "break the peace".
"It is our country, our land and our cities. There is no question to defend it or not."
In a nutshell that is the problem. How can you trust a word that Putin or Lavrov says? You can't negotiate in good faith with gangsters. Whatever the outcome western sanctions must stay on Russia until Ukraine gets proper security guarantees.
Ukraine can't trust a word that Putin or a potential replacement says. What they can do, and may already have done, is make it so costly for Russia to invade that it will never pull a stunt like this again.
Preventing large scale Russian forces near the border would be a start.
Does anyone else have friends or fam who think THIS REALLY IS IT?
I do. They’re literally prepping for the Endtimes. Quite disconcerting. Especially as it’s the 2nd time in 3 years
There are peace talks taking place.
Indeed
I’m just saying it is unnerving when sane friends/relatives say “yes I reckon there will be all-out nuclear war and I’m making preparations”
Not that it is any consolation but this was normal in the 60s, although the preparation were pretty pointless. There were even public service broadcasts. That was when we were not worrying about the oil that was about to run out.
I wasted a tenner following TSE onto the Pakistan game. Its gone from 369-4 with 22 left to 382-4 with 14 left and they're not even trying to run singles anymore.
Ball went past the wicket keeper and three quarters of the way to the boundary rope and they didn't even try and run any byes.
Well, if you will bet on Pakistan to win, when there’s a lot of history that says the players on the field don’t always try…
Getting a draw from where they were will be a massive accomplishment, batting out 172 or more overs to get a draw has only ever been done once before.
Eagles was betting on them making the runs!
Getting out for 196 must be gutting though, even if it’s your highest Test score.
They're so not even trying to run that its almost amusing.
Batsman just hit the ball that stopped about an inch before the boundary rope - with nobody by the rope so someone had to chase all the way to get it, in a normal Test you'd think maybe three runs for that? Nope, they actually ran a single for that one.
If there is a by-election in Wakefield it would be against a backdrop of a legal conviction for a pretty awful crime. That alone would make it difficult for the holder to retain the seat and could well amplify the swing.
Not necessarily, Labour held Peterborough in a June 2019 by election despite the by election being forced by recall after the existing Labour MP had faced trial over trying to pervert the course of justice over a driving speeding offence.
Yet the Tories did win the seat in December 2019 when they were doing better in the national polls.
On current polls though Labour should win Wakefield regardless of the MP's circumstances
Speeding v sexual offence against a minor. Get real.
Teresa Gorman held Billericay in 1987 with a 1.2% increase in the Tory voteshare, despite the conviction of the previous Tory MP Harvey Proctor for gross indecency and having sex with 17 and 19 year old male prostitutes the previous month when the then age of consent for same sex sexual relations was 21
IIRC, and I was active in the area at the time, she had quite a lot of favourable publicity. Bouncy, opinionated but quite likeable person, who could be surprisingly modest at times. Met her a few times, and quite liked her.
Teresa Gorman walks off Channel 4's After Dark programme on the day after the 1987 election.
What did we learn from Day 1? Remember that steely look on Jessica Ennis face in competition? Edwardstone and Honeysuckle showed a festival win is not simply all about style and class, but true bloody minded grit that makes a winner. Riviere D'etel lead with one to jump in the arkle, and clearly came off worse from collision with Edwardstone who I don’t even think noticed. That’s what we need to find in todays selections - grit and determination that makes winners.
These are horses I am on today, and analysis why.
14:10 L'Homme Presse I’ll be upfront about this, Bravemansgame has won over 3m, twice, L'Homme Presse yet to race this far, and merely looks might go 3m. But the L'Homme Presse I have watched ride away from horses I was cheering for, has led me to believe its got the x factor every bit as much Constitution Hill. Yes L'Homme Presse is not proven over 3m as Bravemansgame, but I’have seen enough to believe it has what it takes to break boundaries and be the best, so I tip L'Homme Presse to beat Bravemansgame.
14:50 Ashdale Bob We will need to back grit and determination here. Big field and sure to be a tough run in. Bob has a bit of form, likes the distance, and performs on far worse going. I recommend this as an each way bet.
15:30 Energumene This is another race that’s basically between the two of them, another big Britain v Ireland clash. I watched the first match up between Shishkin and Energumene, and although the former came around it’s rival that day I felt at the time that might not always be the case in all their coming matchups. To me this is a closer match than the SP and race hype suggests - it would not surprise me if front running Energumene starts up the hill with an advantage and holds on in this first rematch. There’s less yards in the race this time, could that make a difference?
16:10 Shady Operator Now we come to true grit and determination - you have heard of Iron Man contest, welcome to Iron Horse. Very tricky bet to call, for the only preparation for a 3m6f Cross Country race can be a 3m6f Cross Country race, so if they have run a 2m4f hurdle what can we glean of their form for this? Hurdle racing to this is like golf to boulder throwing. It might even rain just on this race so that it has everything. I have thoroughly analysed it and have fine each way bet for you. Nothing shady about this operator - hear the opening tones of Strauss Zarathustra, but from the cave comes not a man, but emerges a horse. Thus Nickered Zarathustra.
It’s going to be big bold and emotional viewing today. I’m glad I have 10 digits to peer out through. I have stack of Spicy Chicken Pizza and a box of fruity red wine to accompany me through it.
However you follow it, skin in all races or not, may you have the best of days. 🙂
At least one Ukr MP is not interested in a peace deal:
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 2h Ukrainian MP Kira Rudik tells Julia she "does not believe in the result of the peace talks" because Putin cannot be trusted and will "break the peace".
"It is our country, our land and our cities. There is no question to defend it or not."
In a nutshell that is the problem. How can you trust a word that Putin or Lavrov says? You can't negotiate in good faith with gangsters. Whatever the outcome western sanctions must stay on Russia until Ukraine gets proper security guarantees.
Ukraine can't trust a word that Putin or a potential replacement says. What they can do, and may already have done, is make it so costly for Russia to invade that it will never pull a stunt like this again.
We may have seen the last ‘traditional’ ground invasion of a developed country. The modern anti-tank and anti-air systems make it too difficult without complete air superiority.
I suspect we will now see the development of drone swarms as remote attack/defence systems to try and overcome infantry equipment and prepared defences.
Does anyone else have friends or fam who think THIS REALLY IS IT?
I do. They’re literally prepping for the Endtimes. Quite disconcerting. Especially as it’s the 2nd time in 3 years
There are peace talks taking place.
Indeed
I’m just saying it is unnerving when sane friends/relatives say “yes I reckon there will be all-out nuclear war and I’m making preparations”
I’ve learned in the last half a year that it’s useful to have emergency provision for heating water, cooking, lighting and communications. Because I’ve been without all and it’s no fun. And that it’s better to fill up the petrol tank when it’s half full rather than the light is on. It’s also useful to have real cash for supplies in an emergency. And covid teaches us you should have enough food in your cupboard to survive a few weeks without a shop. I’ve now made those preparations. But I don’t understand how anyone thinks they’re going to prepare for nuclear war. At best you might have supplies to stay indoors for a few days if there was a Chernobyl type incident but that’s it.
Incidentally, it must have been unnerving for people when you, I and others began saying to them “yes I think the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the best explanation for the data and video released by the US military”. Mind you, I’ve done nothing at all having come to that conclusion. Like nuclear war, what can you do but calm your mind to things you cannot control?
To prepare for a nuclear war, moving to South America seems optimal.
Two things determine your survival odds in nuclear war.
i. Geopolitical importance of your nation, the lower the better. ii. Distance from key targets within that nation.
On both counts the UK is absolubtely screwed.
Santiago, Chile - Not so much.
Until last week, I was hoping being a few miles from Stamford Bridge was good enough to save me from the Russian nukes!
Does anyone else have friends or fam who think THIS REALLY IS IT?
I do. They’re literally prepping for the Endtimes. Quite disconcerting. Especially as it’s the 2nd time in 3 years
There are peace talks taking place.
Indeed
I’m just saying it is unnerving when sane friends/relatives say “yes I reckon there will be all-out nuclear war and I’m making preparations”
I’ve learned in the last half a year that it’s useful to have emergency provision for heating water, cooking, lighting and communications. Because I’ve been without all and it’s no fun. And that it’s better to fill up the petrol tank when it’s half full rather than the light is on. It’s also useful to have real cash for supplies in an emergency. And covid teaches us you should have enough food in your cupboard to survive a few weeks without a shop. I’ve now made those preparations. But I don’t understand how anyone thinks they’re going to prepare for nuclear war. At best you might have supplies to stay indoors for a few days if there was a Chernobyl type incident but that’s it.
Incidentally, it must have been unnerving for people when you, I and others began saying to them “yes I think the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the best explanation for the data and video released by the US military”. Mind you, I’ve done nothing at all having come to that conclusion. Like nuclear war, what can you do but calm your mind to things you cannot control?
Right now, I don’t believe ET is the best explanation for the leaked data out of the Pentagon. I detailed my views a few days ago, but in short I reckon the most parsimonious explanation is a mix of over-reaction to ambiguous data combined with plaguetime hysteria AND an attempt, by some, to freak the Chinese
But I don’t rule out ET, either. It’s a serious hypothesis which should be taken seriously. It might still be right
As for nuclear war, it surely depends where you live. One of my prepping relatives is down in Cornwall. She has a detached house with a big garden. A defensible space.
The nearest nuke would probably hit Devonport. No nearer. If the wind blows west to east, as it normally does, she would likely avoid any fall out, so she would survive all out war, at least initially
Therefore it is rational for her to prep for a war which she expects to happen and expects to survive
I’m fucked. Central London. One bed flat. Can’t even store water. I’ll be vaporised in the first hour
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)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
Does anyone else have friends or fam who think THIS REALLY IS IT?
I do. They’re literally prepping for the Endtimes. Quite disconcerting. Especially as it’s the 2nd time in 3 years
There are peace talks taking place.
Indeed
I’m just saying it is unnerving when sane friends/relatives say “yes I reckon there will be all-out nuclear war and I’m making preparations”
I’ve learned in the last half a year that it’s useful to have emergency provision for heating water, cooking, lighting and communications. Because I’ve been without all and it’s no fun. And that it’s better to fill up the petrol tank when it’s half full rather than the light is on. It’s also useful to have real cash for supplies in an emergency. And covid teaches us you should have enough food in your cupboard to survive a few weeks without a shop. I’ve now made those preparations. But I don’t understand how anyone thinks they’re going to prepare for nuclear war. At best you might have supplies to stay indoors for a few days if there was a Chernobyl type incident but that’s it.
Incidentally, it must have been unnerving for people when you, I and others began saying to them “yes I think the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the best explanation for the data and video released by the US military”. Mind you, I’ve done nothing at all having come to that conclusion. Like nuclear war, what can you do but calm your mind to things you cannot control?
To prepare for a nuclear war, moving to South America seems optimal.
Two things determine your survival odds in nuclear war.
i. Geopolitical importance of your nation, the lower the better. ii. Distance from key targets within that nation.
On both counts the UK is absolubtely screwed.
Santiago, Chile - Not so much.
Until last week, I was hoping being a few miles from Stamford Bridge was good enough to save me from the Russian nukes!
Chelsea supporters are almost as dangerous, though.
Zelensky can get away with no NATO membership but on joining the EU that would be very difficult to rule out as there’s a huge majority of Ukrainians in favour of that.
Neither would be happening any time soon. For EU membership, you already hear the comments from some governments in western Europe that it's going to take time.
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
Zelensky can get away with no NATO membership but on joining the EU that would be very difficult to rule out as there’s a huge majority of Ukrainians in favour of that.
Neither would be happening any time soon. For EU membership, you already hear the comments from some governments in western Europe that it's going to take time.
Ukraine is vast and poor and will need much rebuilding (IF there is peace now, a big IF). EU membership is 10-20 years away; or more
At least one Ukr MP is not interested in a peace deal:
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 2h Ukrainian MP Kira Rudik tells Julia she "does not believe in the result of the peace talks" because Putin cannot be trusted and will "break the peace".
"It is our country, our land and our cities. There is no question to defend it or not."
In a nutshell that is the problem. How can you trust a word that Putin or Lavrov says? You can't negotiate in good faith with gangsters. Whatever the outcome western sanctions must stay on Russia until Ukraine gets proper security guarantees.
Ukraine can't trust a word that Putin or a potential replacement says. What they can do, and may already have done, is make it so costly for Russia to invade that it will never pull a stunt like this again.
We may have seen the last ‘traditional’ ground invasion of a developed country. The modern anti-tank and anti-air systems make it too difficult without complete air superiority.
I suspect we will now see the development of drone swarms as remote attack/defence systems to try and overcome infantry equipment and prepared defences.
I think this is likely right. Russia having failed totally in its war aims seems to be opting for a Plan B of reducing Ukraine to a failed state. It would no doubt continue to challenge Ukraine short of outright invasion.
It is essential in my view to do whatever we can to help Ukraine be a successful and prosperous country, or at least less failed than Russia. It is also the humanitarian thing to do.
I suspect we will now see the development of drone swarms as remote attack/defence systems to try and overcome infantry equipment and prepared defences.
Russia is screwed then as they don't have competive technology, and with no money and a brain drain it is only going to get worse for them.
What did we learn from Day 1? Remember that steely look on Jessica Ennis face in competition? Edwardstone and Honeysuckle showed a festival win is not simply all about style and class, but true bloody minded grit that makes a winner. Riviere D'etel lead with one to jump in the arkle, and clearly came off worse from collision with Edwardstone who I don’t even think noticed. That’s what we need to find in todays selections - grit and determination that makes winners.
These are horses I am on today, and analysis why.
14:10 L'Homme Presse I’ll be upfront about this, Bravemansgame has won over 3m, twice, L'Homme Presse yet to race this far, and merely looks might go 3m. But the L'Homme Presse I have watched ride away from horses I was cheering for, has led me to believe its got the x factor every bit as much Constitution Hill. Yes L'Homme Presse is not proven over 3m as Bravemansgame, but I’have seen enough to believe it has what it takes to break boundaries and be the best, so I tip L'Homme Presse to beat Bravemansgame.
14:50 Ashdale Bob We will need to back grit and determination here. Big field and sure to be a tough run in. Bob has a bit of form, likes the distance, and performs on far worse going. I recommend this as an each way bet.
15:30 Energumene This is another race that’s basically between the two of them, another big Britain v Ireland clash. I watched the first match up between Shishkin and Energumene, and although the former came around it’s rival that day I felt at the time that might not always be the case in all their coming matchups. To me this is a closer match than the SP and race hype suggests - it would not surprise me if front running Energumene starts up the hill with an advantage and holds on in this first rematch. There’s less yards in the race this time, could that make a difference?
16:10 Shady Operator Now we come to true grit and determination - you have heard of Iron Man contest, welcome to Iron Horse. Very tricky bet to call, for the only preparation for a 3m6f Cross Country race can be a 3m6f Cross Country race, so if they have run a 2m4f hurdle what can we glean of their form for this? Hurdle racing to this is like golf to boulder throwing. It might even rain just on this race so that it has everything. I have thoroughly analysed it and have fine each way bet for you. Nothing shady about this operator - hear the opening tones of Strauss Zarathustra, but from the cave comes not a man, but emerges a horse. Thus Nickered Zarathustra.
It’s going to be big bold and emotional viewing today. I’m glad I have 10 digits to peer out through. I have stack of Spicy Chicken Pizza and a box of fruity red wine to accompany me through it.
However you follow it, skin in all races or not, may you have the best of days. 🙂
I’ve followed you in on L’Homme Presse and Energumene and added Sir Gerhard to make a 40/1 accumulator.
I see that Liz Truss's leadership campaign is back on track.
Should we expect Sunak to cancel the NI increase in response?
He might cut if before the next election not now, especially as the Treasury and NHS need the money and as Boris is not going anywhere so there will be no leadership election
Eugh, the poor woman has been through enough, don't make her fly home with the man who did SFA to help her, and may have even prolonged her torment via typically ill thought out blether.
I see that Liz Truss's leadership campaign is back on track.
Should we expect Sunak to cancel the NI increase in response?
But this is fucking ludicrous. We want iran oil and a new nuclear deal with them, so we pay them off and get nzr as a mere by product. It's a cave in dictated by Pig Dog, not a deal negotiated by Instaliz. If anyone's chances of leading the tory party are increased by this, it should be Vladimir Putin.
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
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
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)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
It is bemusing how many people here simultaneously seem to think that it is reasonable for the Iranians to hold hostages until an entirely unrelated debt gets settled, and that somehow what a British Minister said in response to their hostage taking is the reason the hostages were being held.
The only people responsible for the Iranians taking hostages are the Iranians.
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
That was not the original point at all. You are just making stuff up now. The original point was you said it was easy to win the Falklands back. That is what got me and others annoyed. I even quoted a few posts ago your specific quotes from these posts.
You later got umpteen things wrong, not least 4 aircraft carriers
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
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
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
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
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)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
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
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
Angela Rayner demonstrating in PMQs why LAB are not necessarily nailed on to win the next GE 👍
Well, "not necessarily nailed on" is a vast improvement from the "Labour has no chance of winning the GE" that I was reading from most Tories just six months ago.
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
That was not the original point at all. You are just making stuff up now. The original point was you said it was easy to win the Falklands back. That is what got me and others annoyed. I even quoted a few posts ago your specific quotes from these posts.
You later got umpteen things wrong, not least 4 aircraft carriers
No it was the original point I made to Heatherner if you got off your rant and actually went back to it
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
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
1) Now, with the garrison and the current state of Argentina, is indeed very different. Then, they were a very serious threat, especially at that distance. Read up on it or speak to people.
2) We would NEVER have used nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed country. That’s disgusting. Have a word with yourself.
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
Pre revolution (1979) we were selling the Shah 1500 tanks. We delivered a couple of hundred. The cash is the balance.
After the revolution Iran was all "Death to the West!" - so the money sat in a bank account. Then there was Salman Rushdie and a bunch of financing terrorism around the world.
There is/was a similar situation with the US having a similar debt.
The speaker's not got that wrong: Salisbury was not 12 years ago, and is relevant.
For those not watching, context?
I'd have to re-watch it to accurately get the context. With that caveat: the DPM was answering a question from Rayner, and he mentioned Labour's reaction to the Salisbury attack (*). The speaker then said that events 12 years before were irrelevant. Hope that was right...
(*) As we saw on ehre the other day, some Labourites are in denial over Corbyn's actions.
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
It’s easy to defend. It’s realpolitik
Sadly, before Ukraine, the British hostages suffered because we had a grievance with Iran which was deemed more important than 2 people. Now the grievance seems way more trivial, as the world needs Iranian oil
The west gets non-Russian oil. Iran gets its £400m. Russia loses leverage. Two hostages are released. Pressure in the MENA eases, at least slightly
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)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
Angela Rayner demonstrating in PMQs why LAB are not necessarily nailed on to win the next GE 👍
Well, "not necessarily nailed on" is a vast improvement from the "Labour has no chance of winning the GE" that I was reading from most Tories just six months ago.
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
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
1) Now, with the garrison and the current state of Argentina, is indeed very different. Then, they were a very serious threat, especially at that distance. Read up on it or speak to people.
2) We would NEVER have used nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed country. That’s disgusting. Have a word with yourself.
2) We may well have done. Any UK PM who rules out the use of our nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the UK or British territory if invaded and defence by conventional forces fails is not tough enough for the job.
Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
The speaker's not got that wrong: Salisbury was not 12 years ago, and is relevant.
For those not watching, context?
@Theuniondivvie 's Corbyn Klaxon has been pretty noisy since Ange stood up. Raab has mentioned her support for the member for Islington North in most of his answers to her.
It is bemusing how many people here simultaneously seem to think that it is reasonable for the Iranians to hold hostages until an entirely unrelated debt gets settled, and that somehow what a British Minister said in response to their hostage taking is the reason the hostages were being held.
The only people responsible for the Iranians taking hostages are the Iranians.
Some people can handle nuance shocker. An aggressive desire to shut down what are incorrectly perceived to be "unpatriotic" opinions is a rare downside of this site.
The following can all be true.
Iran is responsible for taking hostages. Boris was irresponsible for his words. The UKs withholding Irans cash is not clear cut, or at least has not been throughout its 40+ year history.
Posters mentioning the second two points should be allowed to do so, without being accused of denying the first.
Zelensky can get away with no NATO membership but on joining the EU that would be very difficult to rule out as there’s a huge majority of Ukrainians in favour of that.
Neither would be happening any time soon. For EU membership, you already hear the comments from some governments in western Europe that it's going to take time.
Ukraine is vast and poor and will need much rebuilding (IF there is peace now, a big IF). EU membership is 10-20 years away; or more
Russia should do it. You break it, you pay for it.
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
Pre revolution (1979) we were selling the Shah 1500 tanks. We delivered a couple of hundred. The cash is the balance.
After the revolution Iran was all "Death to the West!" - so the money sat in a bank account. Then there was Salman Rushdie and a bunch of financing terrorism around the world.
There is/was a similar situation with the US having a similar debt.
It’s even worse isn’t it, from their perspective? We took the tanks and got Challenger out of it. To them, we pocketed them cash and then merrily used their own tanks. Of course from our perspective, as you say, we couldn’t go paying them with how they were acting.
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
We shouldn't have withheld their money in the first place.
The speaker's not got that wrong: Salisbury was not 12 years ago, and is relevant.
For those not watching, context?
@Theuniondivvie 's Corbyn Klaxon has been pretty noisy since Ange stood up. Raab has mentioned her support for the member for Islington North in most of his answers to her.
Therefore a big 'Is that's all he's got' klaxon from the balding dimwit.
Does anyone else have friends or fam who think THIS REALLY IS IT?
I do. They’re literally prepping for the Endtimes. Quite disconcerting. Especially as it’s the 2nd time in 3 years
There are peace talks taking place.
Indeed
I’m just saying it is unnerving when sane friends/relatives say “yes I reckon there will be all-out nuclear war and I’m making preparations”
I’ve learned in the last half a year that it’s useful to have emergency provision for heating water, cooking, lighting and communications. Because I’ve been without all and it’s no fun. And that it’s better to fill up the petrol tank when it’s half full rather than the light is on. It’s also useful to have real cash for supplies in an emergency. And covid teaches us you should have enough food in your cupboard to survive a few weeks without a shop. I’ve now made those preparations. But I don’t understand how anyone thinks they’re going to prepare for nuclear war. At best you might have supplies to stay indoors for a few days if there was a Chernobyl type incident but that’s it.
Incidentally, it must have been unnerving for people when you, I and others began saying to them “yes I think the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the best explanation for the data and video released by the US military”. Mind you, I’ve done nothing at all having come to that conclusion. Like nuclear war, what can you do but calm your mind to things you cannot control?
Right now, I don’t believe ET is the best explanation for the leaked data out of the Pentagon. I detailed my views a few days ago, but in short I reckon the most parsimonious explanation is a mix of over-reaction to ambiguous data combined with plaguetime hysteria AND an attempt, by some, to freak the Chinese
But I don’t rule out ET, either. It’s a serious hypothesis which should be taken seriously. It might still be right
As for nuclear war, it surely depends where you live. One of my prepping relatives is down in Cornwall. She has a detached house with a big garden. A defensible space.
The nearest nuke would probably hit Devonport. No nearer. If the wind blows west to east, as it normally does, she would likely avoid any fall out, so she would survive all out war, at least initially
Therefore it is rational for her to prep for a war which she expects to happen and expects to survive
I’m fucked. Central London. One bed flat. Can’t even store water. I’ll be vaporised in the first hour
What are the chances that Russia's nuclear weapons don't work properly? Must be more than 0%.
The speaker's not got that wrong: Salisbury was not 12 years ago, and is relevant.
For those not watching, context?
I'd have to re-watch it to accurately get the context. With that caveat: the DPM was answering a question from Rayner, and he mentioned Labour's reaction to the Salisbury attack (*). The speaker then said that events 12 years before were irrelevant. Hope that was right...
(*) As we saw on ehre the other day, some Labourites are in denial over Corbyn's actions.
From this Labourite:
1) Corbyn's response to the Salisbury attack was dreadful, we all know that. 2) Bringing up Corbyn in response to today's issues about Ukraine, Iran and so forth is a complete red herring, and smacks of desperation. Starmer is leader now, and he's clearly very different.
The speaker's not got that wrong: Salisbury was not 12 years ago, and is relevant.
For those not watching, context?
I'd have to re-watch it to accurately get the context. With that caveat: the DPM was answering a question from Rayner, and he mentioned Labour's reaction to the Salisbury attack (*). The speaker then said that events 12 years before were irrelevant. Hope that was right...
(*) As we saw on ehre the other day, some Labourites are in denial over Corbyn's actions.
Yes I saw it and that's my interpretation. The Speaker normally gets it right but was wrong in this case.
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
It’s easy to defend. It’s realpolitik
Sadly, before Ukraine, the British hostages suffered because we had a grievance with Iran which was deemed more important than 2 people. Now the grievance seems way more trivial, as the world needs Iranian oil
The west gets non-Russian oil. Iran gets its £400m. Russia loses leverage. Two hostages are released. Pressure in the MENA eases, at least slightly
Win win win win win. So it happened
If you describe it as realpolitik and so easy to defend like that yes, Leon, that is a true description of what is happening, the point is Malmesbury wasn’t, he was saying, like Jeremy Hunt has been saying, it’s just an honest late paid bill no strings attached, certainly not a ransom.
So you and I agree, it can’t be described as Malmesbury did because it sounds laughable in the face of the realpolitik? Agreed?
Now to take your ludicrous realpolitik win win win win nonsense apart. The strongest maxim to follow for a truly ethical foreign policy is, if you are friend of the bastard doing bad things, then you are the bastard doing bad things too.
So what to do when you need the oil, yet oil supplies are in the hands of the bastards? As the Iranians said in their communique to Putin, we have new friends, and our new friends say hard cheese to you.
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)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
Small carriers still require an escort.
Ever since aircraft carriers were first invented, every study about them has shown that bigger is more efficient.
In addition it is easier to protect against/survive damage in a larger ship.
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
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
1) Now, with the garrison and the current state of Argentina, is indeed very different. Then, they were a very serious threat, especially at that distance. Read up on it or speak to people.
2) We would NEVER have used nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed country. That’s disgusting. Have a word with yourself.
2) We may well have done. Any UK PM who rules out the use of our nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the UK or British territory if invaded and defence by conventional forces fails is not tough enough for the job.
Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
She wouldn't have been PM any more, after the kind of conventional defeat that she was risking.
At least one Ukr MP is not interested in a peace deal:
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 2h Ukrainian MP Kira Rudik tells Julia she "does not believe in the result of the peace talks" because Putin cannot be trusted and will "break the peace".
"It is our country, our land and our cities. There is no question to defend it or not."
No one in the Ukraine government trusts Putin. That is why any deal will need guarantees from the west rather stronger than the ones we gave when they abandoned their nuclear weapons.
The speaker's not got that wrong: Salisbury was not 12 years ago, and is relevant.
For those not watching, context?
@Theuniondivvie 's Corbyn Klaxon has been pretty noisy since Ange stood up. Raab has mentioned her support for the member for Islington North in most of his answers to her.
As opposed to Emily Thornberry, for whom it was Corbyn providing the support?
It is bemusing how many people here simultaneously seem to think that it is reasonable for the Iranians to hold hostages until an entirely unrelated debt gets settled, and that somehow what a British Minister said in response to their hostage taking is the reason the hostages were being held.
The only people responsible for the Iranians taking hostages are the Iranians.
The key word there is "simultaneously." What bemuses you is the ability to think about more than one thing at once, or assign more than one cause to a given effect.
At least one Ukr MP is not interested in a peace deal:
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 2h Ukrainian MP Kira Rudik tells Julia she "does not believe in the result of the peace talks" because Putin cannot be trusted and will "break the peace".
"It is our country, our land and our cities. There is no question to defend it or not."
No one in the Ukraine government trusts Putin. That is why any deal will need guarantees from the west rather stronger than the ones we gave when they abandoned their nuclear weapons.
That doesn't mean a deal isn't at least possible.
Which peace treaties were signed with all parties trusting each other?
Comments
talkRADIO
@talkRADIO
·
2h
Ukrainian MP Kira Rudik tells Julia she "does not believe in the result of the peace talks" because Putin cannot be trusted and will "break the peace".
"It is our country, our land and our cities. There is no question to defend it or not."
@JuliaHB1
|
@kiraincongress
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1504017929490292738
Zelinskiy has an idea of a Europe centred on the EU that he thinks is Ukraine's destiny that I believe he would be very reluctant to give up. I would expect difficult negotiations on this point.
“Iel” is not a paragon of “le wokisme” – an increasingly common word in France which is not yet in the dictionary itself, and is a direct import of the English “woke” with a suffix allowing it to be Frenchified (the famous “-isme”). It’s interesting to note in this context that the most fierce opponents of this maligned pronoun accuse it of being an anglicism, all the while invoking “wokisme”.
She’d be a good replacement for Boris
10/ Lord Frost says "In appeasing Greta Thunberg, we very nearly gave a free pass to Vladimir Putin." What can I say? The level of geopolitical analysis of a pub bore.
https://twitter.com/stevepeers/status/1503900998590504961?s=21
The Commons has published a very succint Reason for disagreeing with the Lords wrecking amendment: Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate that the dissolution of Parliament should be subject to a vote in the Commons. Which in my view rather begs the question, but there you go.
It goes back to the Lords on Tuesday where (as previously mentioned) I expect the Lords won't insist on the amendment. So maybe FTPA will be off the statute book by the end of next week.
To anyone who thinks that the Russians will be able to march through Kiev, take a look at how many ordinary citizens have armed themselves and are training to defend their city.
Two wickets in two balls now, though I don't think that's deliberate. The guy who fell for 196 looked absolutely gutted as you would be.
Incidentally, it must have been unnerving for people when you, I and others began saying to them “yes I think the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the best explanation for the data and video released by the US military”. Mind you, I’ve done nothing at all having come to that conclusion. Like nuclear war, what can you do but calm your mind to things you cannot control?
* Unless HYUFD has taken control of our South Atlantic fleet!
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)
Pick axes.
Met her a few times, and quite liked her.
I think that the commander saw the message, knew that it would be withdrawn when the Admiralty saw it (which it was) and decided not to "forbear to chase {Belgrano}, being an enemy then flying."
For reasons, see the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_Goeben_and_Breslau
which caused
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Coronel
which caused
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands
all of which caused Harwood to charge at the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Admiral_Graf_Spee#Battle_of_the_River_Plate
and the example of the Battle of the Falklands led Langsdorff to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Admiral_Graf_Spee#Scuttling
i. Geopolitical importance of your nation, the lower the better.
ii. Distance from key targets within that nation.
On both counts the UK is absolubtely screwed.
Santiago, Chile - Not so much.
Getting out for 196 must be gutting though, even if it’s your highest Test score.
Batsman just hit the ball that stopped about an inch before the boundary rope - with nobody by the rope so someone had to chase all the way to get it, in a normal Test you'd think maybe three runs for that? Nope, they actually ran a single for that one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=223G3acbm8I
Should we expect Sunak to cancel the NI increase in response?
Just do it all again. Why not? 😄
What did we learn from Day 1? Remember that steely look on Jessica Ennis face in competition? Edwardstone and Honeysuckle showed a festival win is not simply all about style and class, but true bloody minded grit that makes a winner. Riviere D'etel lead with one to jump in the arkle, and clearly came off worse from collision with Edwardstone who I don’t even think noticed. That’s what we need to find in todays selections - grit and determination that makes winners.
These are horses I am on today, and analysis why.
14:10 L'Homme Presse
I’ll be upfront about this, Bravemansgame has won over 3m, twice, L'Homme Presse yet to race this far, and merely looks might go 3m. But the L'Homme Presse I have watched ride away from horses I was cheering for, has led me to believe its got the x factor every bit as much Constitution Hill. Yes L'Homme Presse is not proven over 3m as Bravemansgame, but I’have seen enough to believe it has what it takes to break boundaries and be the best, so I tip L'Homme Presse to beat Bravemansgame.
14:50 Ashdale Bob
We will need to back grit and determination here. Big field and sure to be a tough run in. Bob has a bit of form, likes the distance, and performs on far worse going. I recommend this as an each way bet.
15:30 Energumene
This is another race that’s basically between the two of them, another big Britain v Ireland clash. I watched the first match up between Shishkin and Energumene, and although the former came around it’s rival that day I felt at the time that might not always be the case in all their coming matchups. To me this is a closer match than the SP and race hype suggests - it would not surprise me if front running Energumene starts up the hill with an advantage and holds on in this first rematch. There’s less yards in the race this time, could that make a difference?
16:10 Shady Operator
Now we come to true grit and determination - you have heard of Iron Man contest, welcome to Iron Horse.
Very tricky bet to call, for the only preparation for a 3m6f Cross Country race can be a 3m6f Cross Country race, so if they have run a 2m4f hurdle what can we glean of their form for this? Hurdle racing to this is like golf to boulder throwing. It might even rain just on this race so that it has everything.
I have thoroughly analysed it and have fine each way bet for you. Nothing shady about this operator - hear the opening tones of Strauss Zarathustra, but from the cave comes not a man, but emerges a horse. Thus Nickered Zarathustra.
It’s going to be big bold and emotional viewing today. I’m glad I have 10 digits to peer out through. I have stack of Spicy Chicken Pizza and a box of fruity red wine to accompany me through it.
However you follow it, skin in all races or not, may you have the best of days. 🙂
I suspect we will now see the development of drone swarms as remote attack/defence systems to try and overcome infantry equipment and prepared defences.
But I don’t rule out ET, either. It’s a serious hypothesis which should be taken seriously. It might still be right
As for nuclear war, it surely depends where you live. One of my prepping relatives is down in Cornwall. She has a detached house with a big garden. A defensible space.
The nearest nuke would probably hit Devonport. No nearer. If the wind blows west to east, as it normally does, she would likely avoid any fall out, so she would survive all out war, at least initially
Therefore it is rational for her to prep for a war which she expects to happen and expects to survive
I’m fucked. Central London. One bed flat. Can’t even store water. I’ll be vaporised in the first hour
https://twitter.com/IlyaMatveev_/status/1503789373069877248
"All in all, no other economy in the world has experienced anything like this – extreme de-globalization in a matter of days."
"...the elimination of at least half of the middle class."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck
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
It is essential in my view to do whatever we can to help Ukraine be a successful and prosperous country, or at least less failed than Russia. It is also the humanitarian thing to do.
Cheers for the tips! Good luck all.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2022/03/16/uk-prime-minister-boris-johnson-in-abu-dhabi-to-discuss-ukraine-war-and-energy-crisis/
He absolutely would do it that way.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
The last time I mentioned this, someone mentioned these Japanese ones, which look awesome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo-class_multi-purpose_destroyer
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
The only people responsible for the Iranians taking hostages are the Iranians.
You later got umpteen things wrong, not least 4 aircraft carriers
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
https://twitter.com/AnneliseBorges/status/1504068684284837889
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
And other times, like this one, I love it. Thanks.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
Follow the money.
2) We would NEVER have used nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed country. That’s disgusting. Have a word with yourself.
After the revolution Iran was all "Death to the West!" - so the money sat in a bank account. Then there was Salman Rushdie and a bunch of financing terrorism around the world.
There is/was a similar situation with the US having a similar debt.
(*) As we saw on ehre the other day, some Labourites are in denial over Corbyn's actions.
Sadly, before Ukraine, the British hostages suffered because we had a grievance with Iran which was deemed more important than 2 people. Now the grievance seems way more trivial, as the world needs Iranian oil
The west gets non-Russian oil. Iran gets its £400m. Russia loses leverage. Two hostages are released. Pressure in the MENA eases, at least slightly
Win win win win win. So it happened
Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
The following can all be true.
Iran is responsible for taking hostages.
Boris was irresponsible for his words.
The UKs withholding Irans cash is not clear cut, or at least has not been throughout its 40+ year history.
Posters mentioning the second two points should be allowed to do so, without being accused of denying the first.
1) Corbyn's response to the Salisbury attack was dreadful, we all know that.
2) Bringing up Corbyn in response to today's issues about Ukraine, Iran and so forth is a complete red herring, and smacks of desperation. Starmer is leader now, and he's clearly very different.
So you and I agree, it can’t be described as Malmesbury did because it sounds laughable in the face of the realpolitik? Agreed?
Now to take your ludicrous realpolitik win win win win nonsense apart. The strongest maxim to follow for a truly ethical foreign policy is, if you are friend of the bastard doing bad things, then you are the bastard doing bad things too.
So what to do when you need the oil, yet oil supplies are in the hands of the bastards? As the Iranians said in their communique to Putin, we have new friends, and our new friends say hard cheese to you.
Ever since aircraft carriers were first invented, every study about them has shown that bigger is more efficient.
In addition it is easier to protect against/survive damage in a larger ship.
That is why any deal will need guarantees from the west rather stronger than the ones we gave when they abandoned their nuclear weapons.
That doesn't mean a deal isn't at least possible.
She has been more interested in using the crising to promote herself and her ambition.
She has come out of it very poorly. I cannot see her as PM or leadership material.
As @RochdalePioneers put it. She's a Thatcher Cosplayer.
Ben Wallace, on the other hand, has done well.