The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
A Corbyn govt would have most likely been a coalition or tiny majority which would have fallen very early on.
So if we were offered a shit sandwich for a few months or a shit sandwich for several years.......
Weak government with a single issue mandate to cancel Brexit. But then the pandemic would have hit almost straightaway. God knows how it would all have panned out!
In fact I think the result was probably for the best because it broke the paralysis. But BJ a better PM than JC? - NFW. And I say that in the knowledge he would likely have struggled.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Hardly equivalent! Thatcher was in power for 11 years, Corbyn for not a single day. Also Thatcher held considerable sway over the Tory Party for long after she'd gone. Corbyn and its associated 'ism' has been utterly cancelled by Starmer's Labour.
Your party was led by a literal traitor at the LAST ELECTION. A man who supported Irish terrorists killing british citizens. An anti-Semitic communist with a fondness for jihad
And we’re just supposed to forget this? Yeah, right
And the current leader meekly worked in his Shadow Cabinet....
Fundamentally, it is about the parties' messaging at the next election.
Labour's message will be: Labour has changed. Labour is ready for government The Cons' message will be: Labour hasn't really changed. Behind the leader it is still the same bunch of Britain-hating, London-based cranks and weirdos who don't share your values
The message from Labour will be; you have defaulted on your mortgage and the bailiffs are scheduled for Monday at 0700 hours. Your Land Rover Discovery Sport's Lease has been terminated, your car repossessed and you will now have to move all your belongings to your in-laws home in a £200 2006 Vectra. For those of you who have managed to keep your head above water, inflation is at 10% and your mortgage rate is significantly higher than when you took out your mortgage, and all this happened on the Conservatives watch.
The message from the Conservatives will be; Jeremy Corbyn looks like a pro-Soviet traitor who failed to condemn the execution of Dawn Sturgess in Salisbury. Boris Johnson, on the other hand defeated Vladimir Putin after his illegal attempt to annex Ukraine, just after he defeated Covid19 and "did Brexit".
Which message gains most traction? I don't know, but I can guess.
Actually, after the global pandemic, followed by war in Europe, and with the Brexit fiasco in the background ongoing, all evidence suggests that voters will be looking for someone who can credibly map out a brighter future. Something with which the Tories have often struggled, being happier with negative campaigning.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Hardly equivalent! Thatcher was in power for 11 years, Corbyn for not a single day. Also Thatcher held considerable sway over the Tory Party for long after she'd gone. Corbyn and its associated 'ism' has been utterly cancelled by Starmer's Labour.
Your party was led by a literal traitor at the LAST ELECTION. A man who supported Irish terrorists killing british citizens. An anti-Semitic communist with a fondness for jihad
And we’re just supposed to forget this? Yeah, right
And the current leader meekly worked in his Shadow Cabinet....
Fundamentally, it is about the parties' messaging at the next election.
Labour's message will be: Labour has changed. Labour is ready for government The Cons' message will be: Labour hasn't really changed. Behind the leader it is still the same bunch of Britain-hating, London-based cranks and weirdos who don't share your values
The message from Labour will be; you have defaulted on your mortgage and the bailiffs are scheduled for Monday at 0700 hours. Your Land Rover Discovery Sport's Lease has been terminated, your car repossessed and you will now have to move all your belongings to your in-laws home in a £200 2006 Vectra. For those of you who have managed to keep your head above water, inflation is at 10% and your mortgage rate is significantly higher than when you took out your mortgage, and all this happened on the Conservatives watch.
The message from the Conservatives will be; Jeremy Corbyn looks like a pro-Soviet traitor who failed to condemn the execution of Dawn Sturgess in Salisbury. Boris Johnson, on the other hand defeated Vladimir Putin after his illegal attempt to annex Ukraine, just after he defeated Covid19 and "did Brexit".
Which message gains most traction? I don't know, but I can guess.
As long as Johnson is still PM at the next election I doubt very much if the 'Long Corbyn' issue will gain any traction at all. 'Long Johnson' will afflict the Tories for many many years to come.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Hardly equivalent! Thatcher was in power for 11 years, Corbyn for not a single day. Also Thatcher held considerable sway over the Tory Party for long after she'd gone. Corbyn and its associated 'ism' has been utterly cancelled by Starmer's Labour.
Starmer thought it was appropriate to serve in Corbyn's government, only the public stopped that from happening.
If you want Corbyn and associations cancelled, then those who felt it appropriate to serve in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet should retire from politics. That would be a good start.
It was appropriate. We have elections, Labour stands, if they win the leader becomes PM.
Perhaps a refresher on how our democracy works is in order when you have a minute?
Democracy is appropriate.
People standing for inappropriate things is not.
Would you be so laid back about someone who served as one of Trump's closest advisors, who served in Trump's Cabinet, running for the GOP in 2024?
Decent GOP people, like decent Labour people, said that Trump/Corbyn was inappropriate and refused to serve with them. The current Labour Leader and Deputy Leader are not in their number.
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
Oh god, you really mean it.
Thankfully, actual British policy on the use of the deterrent is very different.
No it isn't. We have nuclear weapons to defend the UK and British territory as a last resort, the Falkland Islands are and were British overseas territory
You’re never going to be allowed anywhere near a decision making role. However if someone mad enough did that take view in Government, and threatened to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, then large parts of MOD and the FCO would resign in protest rather than act on those orders. I’m far from sure a sub captain would obey the order to launch.
If we launched, or went around threatening to, then he US and NATO would drop us, and we’d (rightly) be an international pariah.
Actually every PM writes a letter of last resort already (which could including wiping out as much of the country which has attacked us using our nuclear weapons).
The PM has the authority to take the final decision to defend our nation and its territories, if some civil servants are too wet and weak to do that fine, they can be replaced.
Sub captains also have no alternative but to obey the orders of the PM and government of the day or be dismissed and replaced by the next in command.
The US and NATO alliance is ultimately there to defend us, if they are unwilling to support us in defence of our overseas territories then the alliance is ended anyway
Have you never come across the principle of proportional response in war ? It is both a principle of international law, and of the church whose teachings you claim to follow.
Such an order, unless in response to a nuclear strike, would be both illegal and immoral. If a PM wants tactical nukes, he or she would need to get such a proposal through Parliament. The chance of that happening is nil.
Proportionate to defend our territory yes, if no alternative left.
We have and had nuclear weapons to be used as a last resort if the UK our our territory was attacked, the Falklands was our territory.
What is tactical or not is a matter of debate, in either case they could still be used as a last resort to force the Argentines out of the Falklands by the PM of the day, no Parliamentary debate needed (though of course Thatcher had a clear Tory majority at the time anyway).
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)
You do realise that everyone can read this thread and see your original posts where you comment on it being easy don't you? Trying to twist and turn by changing the subject is obvious to everyone.
We were never going to use nukes. We didn't even attack Argentina other than sabotage attempts on planes. We also restricted attacks on shipping to the exclusion zone, hence the issues that arise over the Belgrano.
We had one objective to win back the Falklands, nothing else and your comments saying it was easy and not difficult (see above) is ignorant and insulting to the service men involved. The fact you can not bring yourself to apologize for this is appalling. I would like to see you say that to their face.
Yes, my original post (which you have still not bothered to find) made at 8 32 am this morning.
'No she wouldn't, Thatcher was a realist about what the UK could do militarily.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. However she never threatened the USSR militarily and she agreed to stick to the Hong Kong handover to China as she knew we could not beat them militarily either'
How do you know we were never going to use nukes? You were not Thatcher, you were a wet SDP Liberal I expect at the time.
We never needed to try as we won the war with conventional forces and without going too far beyond the Falklands and surrounding area.
Had we not won the war with conventional forces anything would have been on the table to defend British territory and that has zero to do with the sacrifices of our forces in the war
How do I know we wouldn't, because we made a big point of restricting our activity to the Falklands, even in a conventional sense. We did not attack Argentina on a larger scale even though we could. We could have sunk all her shipping, but we didn't. It was a very deliberate policy of the British Govt to have a vert tightly focused campaign. I also know we wouldn't because unlike you our Govt were not barking mad.
Re original point, what are you on about? I responded initially to some quotes you made and nothing else which I have gone back and found and repeated here previously. I will do so again, but anyone can see those original quotes by using 'show previous quotes' and see your original comments which were:
'We could easily beat them'
and
'We very easily beat them'
and
'It was not that difficult'
It was that, and nothing else I objected to because it is utter nonsense and an insult to the memory of those who fought and died. You are an absolute disgrace for your disregard for human life. How you can call yourself a Christian I don't know.
Also you have made several attempts to imply I did not support the war. Well you are wrong and as an adult at the time I knew people who went to the Falklands. I'm pretty sure I know what they would think of your views in diminishing their bravery.
We did not need to have sunk all Argentina's shipping, had we started to lose the war then obviously we would have needed to start doing that.
You can go on with your handwringing, wet liberalism and handed over Falklands to Argentina with barely a whimper had the war not always gone our way. Thatcher however would have been prepared to fight no matter what the cost until the goal of liberating the Falklands was achieved. That is why you are a wet lettuce Liberal and I am a red meat Tory.
If you read the Old Testament you would have seen the Jews backed by God went to some pretty brutal lengths to defend themselves, as Pharoah's troops for example found out.
You have also again ignored my point to Heathener that Thatcher was realistic in how far she could go to war ie with Argentina but not alone v the USSR and China
Re the last point. Yes I have because that was not what I was complaining about. I was, I REPEAT, only complaining about your comments about the Falkland's war being easy. NOTHING ELSE. And you are so very wrong because it really wasn't and if you were around at the time you would have known as we got the daily reports of ships being hit, etc.
See you ignored everything else I said - pot/kettle.
Again you attack my liberalism as if I was anti the war and I repeat again I wasn't. You also do Mrs. T a complete dis-service in your analysis of her. It wasn't a gung-ho action on our part. It was considered and limited and a huge risk and a delicate decision. You do her no credit by your assumption that she would do anything. And this came to the fore when the Belgrano was sunk. In an all out war this would have been an obvious decision, but this wasn't all out war and she came under huge criticism at home for that decision. A very difficult decision that is argued over today.
If the sinking of the Belgrano was a difficult decision, launching an ICBM is just is just in whole different league.
I hear Corbyn mentioned quite frequently when people - of all stripes - talk politics.
If you voted in the last General Election - and that’s 32m people - you consciously voted for or against Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader
The idea that we’re all gonna suddenly forget this is wistful dreamcasting by Labourites
Corbyn was awful but Johnson was awfuller. It was a terrible choice but Corbyn was still the lesser of two evils.
No. No no no no no
And that’s why you went down to historic defeat. And this is why the Tories, for all their many many faults, are right to mention Corbyn. Too many lefties still think Corbyn was the better choice. We have several on here today
Agreed. You can even agree with much of what Corbyn said and still come to the conclusion that he'd be a once in a generation disaster for both the country and the Labour party.
I do think there is a lot of similarity between Corbyn and Johnson in the damage they would have done/are doing to institutions and norms of honest discourse, all of which is predicted in a firm belief in their own rightness.
We had a choice between two evils. That is the deeper problem, and deciding which is worse is a counterfactual with little value when it comes to dealing with it
+1
If you’re deep in one pile of sh*t, as we are, it serves little purpose to be arguing about whether or not the other pile that you were offered didn’t smell quite so bad.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Hardly equivalent! Thatcher was in power for 11 years, Corbyn for not a single day. Also Thatcher held considerable sway over the Tory Party for long after she'd gone. Corbyn and its associated 'ism' has been utterly cancelled by Starmer's Labour.
Starmer thought it was appropriate to serve in Corbyn's government, only the public stopped that from happening.
If you want Corbyn and associations cancelled, then those who felt it appropriate to serve in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet should retire from politics. That would be a good start.
It was appropriate. We have elections, Labour stands, if they win the leader becomes PM.
Perhaps a refresher on how our democracy works is in order when you have a minute?
Democracy is appropriate.
People standing for inappropriate things is not.
Would you be so laid back about someone who served as one of Trump's closest advisors, who served in Trump's Cabinet, running for the GOP in 2024?
Decent GOP people, like decent Labour people, said that Trump/Corbyn was inappropriate and refused to serve with them. The current Labour Leader and Deputy Leader are not in their number.
Who? Haley and Pompeo both served Trump and if anything they are the moderate candidates for the GOP nomination in 2024.
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Hardly equivalent! Thatcher was in power for 11 years, Corbyn for not a single day. Also Thatcher held considerable sway over the Tory Party for long after she'd gone. Corbyn and its associated 'ism' has been utterly cancelled by Starmer's Labour.
Your party was led by a literal traitor at the LAST ELECTION. A man who supported Irish terrorists killing british citizens. An anti-Semitic communist with a fondness for jihad
And we’re just supposed to forget this? Yeah, right
And the current leader meekly worked in his Shadow Cabinet....
Fundamentally, it is about the parties' messaging at the next election.
Labour's message will be: Labour has changed. Labour is ready for government The Cons' message will be: Labour hasn't really changed. Behind the leader it is still the same bunch of Britain-hating, London-based cranks and weirdos who don't share your values
The message from Labour will be; you have defaulted on your mortgage and the bailiffs are scheduled for Monday at 0700 hours. Your Land Rover Discovery Sport's Lease has been terminated, your car repossessed and you will now have to move all your belongings to your in-laws home in a £200 2006 Vectra. For those of you who have managed to keep your head above water, inflation is at 10% and your mortgage rate is significantly higher than when you took out your mortgage, and all this happened on the Conservatives watch.
The message from the Conservatives will be; Jeremy Corbyn looks like a pro-Soviet traitor who failed to condemn the execution of Dawn Sturgess in Salisbury. Boris Johnson, on the other hand defeated Vladimir Putin after his illegal attempt to annex Ukraine, just after he defeated Covid19 and "did Brexit".
Which message gains most traction? I don't know, but I can guess.
As long as Johnson is still PM at the next election I doubt very much if the 'Long Corbyn' issue will gain any traction at all. 'Long Johnson' will afflict the Tories for many many years to come.
I thought that when it comes to Johnsons it is girth not length that counts?
Of all the lame 'woke' stuff people whinge about here, people getting called 'they' as a pronoun is the lamest of them all.
'They' is a perfectly acceptable singular person pronoun to use and it has been for centuries already, it is not just a plural pronoun, in the same way as 'you' is both a singular and plural pronoun.
They gets used as a singular person pronoun all the time in everyday life already, it is not some made up word.
There is a significant history of singular they - but only for an unknown person. So for example upthread we have "I've got a new boss - what are they like?" and "we've been burgled - there's an open window - that's how they got in". Neither seems linguistically wrong.
But as a pronoun for a specific, known, identified person, it doesn't sound right. "This is Chris - they are your new assistant". Nah. There's only one of him or her.
Since they is a singular as well as a plural word, they works perfectly fine even if there's only one of him or her.
"My boss called me in for a meeting today, they said that the company will be undergoing some reforms" - I know the gender of my boss I had a meeting with, but there is no need to say it and they works fine in that sentence.
That only really works if the sex of your boss is unknown by the person you're speaking to, though.
why, of what importance is the sex of the boss to the topic
In any case. the sentence is useless as it is fundamentally ambiguous. The number of people at the meeting is unknown. It could have been boss + head of HR who told the speaker about the reforms. That is why I loathe the uise of 'they' as singular when it leads to such a mess. I delete every case I come across in documents I am editing. The documents have ot be rewritten to lose the ambiguity.
Edit: obvs doesn't apply iuf there is no ambiguity.
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."
What very significant effect did the sinking of the Belgrano have on the air war?
Put their carrier in port didn’t it?
Put most of their navy in port.
The usefulness of the carrier without the catapults is still debated.
There is an urban legend that the catapults are still in a warehouse somewhere in the UK - they were here, being refurbished when the war came. Seized by the Government...
The sinking also boosted the career of Tam Dalyell, who always maintained the blessed lady Margaret (PBUH) had been disingenuous about it in the commons.
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
Oh god, you really mean it.
Thankfully, actual British policy on the use of the deterrent is very different.
No it isn't. We have nuclear weapons to defend the UK and British territory as a last resort, the Falkland Islands are and were British overseas territory
You’re never going to be allowed anywhere near a decision making role. However if someone mad enough did that take view in Government, and threatened to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, then large parts of MOD and the FCO would resign in protest rather than act on those orders. I’m far from sure a sub captain would obey the order to launch.
If we launched, or went around threatening to, then he US and NATO would drop us, and we’d (rightly) be an international pariah.
Actually every PM writes a letter of last resort already (which could including wiping out as much of the country which has attacked us using our nuclear weapons).
The PM has the authority to take the final decision to defend our nation and its territories, if some civil servants are too wet and weak to do that fine, they can be replaced.
Sub captains also have no alternative but to obey the orders of the PM and government of the day or be dismissed and replaced by the next in command.
The US and NATO alliance is ultimately there to defend us, if they are unwilling to support us in defence of our overseas territories then the alliance is ended anyway
Have you never come across the principle of proportional response in war ? It is both a principle of international law, and of the church whose teachings you claim to follow.
Such an order, unless in response to a nuclear strike, would be both illegal and immoral. If a PM wants tactical nukes, he or she would need to get such a proposal through Parliament. The chance of that happening is nil.
Proportionate to defend our territory yes, if no alternative left.
We have and had nuclear weapons to be used as a last resort if the UK our our territory was attacked, the Falklands was our territory.
What is tactical or not is a matter of debate, in either case they could still be used as a last resort to force the Argentines out of the Falklands by the PM of the day, no Parliamentary debate needed (though of course Thatcher had a clear Tory majority at the time anyway).
You are both a fool and in this, morally bankrupt.
I hear Corbyn mentioned quite frequently when people - of all stripes - talk politics.
If you voted in the last General Election - and that’s 32m people - you consciously voted for or against Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader
The idea that we’re all gonna suddenly forget this is wistful dreamcasting by Labourites
Corbyn was awful but Johnson was awfuller. It was a terrible choice but Corbyn was still the lesser of two evils.
No. No no no no no
And that’s why you went down to historic defeat. And this is why the Tories, for all their many many faults, are right to mention Corbyn. Too many lefties still think Corbyn was the better choice. We have several on here today
We lost because Corbyn was shit. I still think Johnson was more shit. The public thought otherwise, as is their prerogative. I would have dearly loved for Corbyn not to have been our leader and did everything I could to prevent and stop him being our leader, and was far from surprised that he turned out to be such a fucking disaster, but the policy platform of Labour even under his appallingly flawed leadership was closer to my own views than that of the Tories, so I still voted Labour. You can have all the vapours you like about that choice but I stand by it completely, sorry.
No, don't be sorry. This pleases me. It means you will lose again
And it reminds wavering types like me why you must ALWAYS be defeated
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Hardly equivalent! Thatcher was in power for 11 years, Corbyn for not a single day. Also Thatcher held considerable sway over the Tory Party for long after she'd gone. Corbyn and its associated 'ism' has been utterly cancelled by Starmer's Labour.
Your party was led by a literal traitor at the LAST ELECTION. A man who supported Irish terrorists killing british citizens. An anti-Semitic communist with a fondness for jihad
And we’re just supposed to forget this? Yeah, right
And the current leader meekly worked in his Shadow Cabinet....
Fundamentally, it is about the parties' messaging at the next election.
Labour's message will be: Labour has changed. Labour is ready for government The Cons' message will be: Labour hasn't really changed. Behind the leader it is still the same bunch of Britain-hating, London-based cranks and weirdos who don't share your values
The message from Labour will be; you have defaulted on your mortgage and the bailiffs are scheduled for Monday at 0700 hours. Your Land Rover Discovery Sport's Lease has been terminated, your car repossessed and you will now have to move all your belongings to your in-laws home in a £200 2006 Vectra. For those of you who have managed to keep your head above water, inflation is at 10% and your mortgage rate is significantly higher than when you took out your mortgage, and all this happened on the Conservatives watch.
The message from the Conservatives will be; Jeremy Corbyn looks like a pro-Soviet traitor who failed to condemn the execution of Dawn Sturgess in Salisbury. Boris Johnson, on the other hand defeated Vladimir Putin after his illegal attempt to annex Ukraine, just after he defeated Covid19 and "did Brexit".
Which message gains most traction? I don't know, but I can guess.
As long as Johnson is still PM at the next election I doubt very much if the 'Long Corbyn' issue will gain any traction at all. 'Long Johnson' will afflict the Tories for many many years to come.
I thought that when it comes to Johnsons it is girth not length that counts?
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
A Corbyn govt would have most likely been a coalition or tiny majority which would have fallen very early on.
So if we were offered a shit sandwich for a few months or a shit sandwich for several years.......
Weak government with a single issue mandate to cancel Brexit. But then the pandemic would have hit almost straightaway. God knows how it would all have panned out!
In fact I think the result was probably for the best because it broke the paralysis. But BJ a better PM than JC? - NFW. And I say that in the knowledge he would likely have struggled.
Sadly you are among the significant group of people who downplay or somehow cannot face the reality of Corbyn's fanatical and delusional world-view.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
There used to be a place at the top of Cockburn Street in Edinburgh that did amazing Vegetarian Haggis samosas. Perhaps it still does, I've not been there for a while.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Hardly equivalent! Thatcher was in power for 11 years, Corbyn for not a single day. Also Thatcher held considerable sway over the Tory Party for long after she'd gone. Corbyn and its associated 'ism' has been utterly cancelled by Starmer's Labour.
Your party was led by a literal traitor at the LAST ELECTION. A man who supported Irish terrorists killing british citizens. An anti-Semitic communist with a fondness for jihad
And we’re just supposed to forget this? Yeah, right
And the current leader meekly worked in his Shadow Cabinet....
Fundamentally, it is about the parties' messaging at the next election.
Labour's message will be: Labour has changed. Labour is ready for government The Cons' message will be: Labour hasn't really changed. Behind the leader it is still the same bunch of Britain-hating, London-based cranks and weirdos who don't share your values
The message from Labour will be; you have defaulted on your mortgage and the bailiffs are scheduled for Monday at 0700 hours. Your Land Rover Discovery Sport's Lease has been terminated, your car repossessed and you will now have to move all your belongings to your in-laws home in a £200 2006 Vectra. For those of you who have managed to keep your head above water, inflation is at 10% and your mortgage rate is significantly higher than when you took out your mortgage, and all this happened on the Conservatives watch.
The message from the Conservatives will be; Jeremy Corbyn looks like a pro-Soviet traitor who failed to condemn the execution of Dawn Sturgess in Salisbury. Boris Johnson, on the other hand defeated Vladimir Putin after his illegal attempt to annex Ukraine, just after he defeated Covid19 and "did Brexit".
Which message gains most traction? I don't know, but I can guess.
As long as Johnson is still PM at the next election I doubt very much if the 'Long Corbyn' issue will gain any traction at all. 'Long Johnson' will afflict the Tories for many many years to come.
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."
What very significant effect did the sinking of the Belgrano have on the air war?
Put their carrier in port didn’t it?
Put most of their navy in port.
The usefulness of the carrier without the catapults is still debated.
There is an urban legend that the catapults are still in a warehouse somewhere in the UK - they were here, being refurbished when the war came. Seized by the Government...
The sinking also boosted the career of Tam Dalyell, who always maintained the blessed lady Margaret (PBUH) had been disingenuous about it in the commons.
..who conspicuously failed to realise the significance of it being the logs of HMS Conqueror that went missing, not the signal log at Northwood.
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
Oh god, you really mean it.
Thankfully, actual British policy on the use of the deterrent is very different.
No it isn't. We have nuclear weapons to defend the UK and British territory as a last resort, the Falkland Islands are and were British overseas territory
You’re never going to be allowed anywhere near a decision making role. However if someone mad enough did that take view in Government, and threatened to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, then large parts of MOD and the FCO would resign in protest rather than act on those orders. I’m far from sure a sub captain would obey the order to launch.
If we launched, or went around threatening to, then he US and NATO would drop us, and we’d (rightly) be an international pariah.
Actually every PM writes a letter of last resort already (which could including wiping out as much of the country which has attacked us using our nuclear weapons).
The PM has the authority to take the final decision to defend our nation and its territories, if some civil servants are too wet and weak to do that fine, they can be replaced.
Sub captains also have no alternative but to obey the orders of the PM and government of the day or be dismissed and replaced by the next in command.
The US and NATO alliance is ultimately there to defend us, if they are unwilling to support us in defence of our overseas territories then the alliance is ended anyway
Have you never come across the principle of proportional response in war ? It is both a principle of international law, and of the church whose teachings you claim to follow.
Such an order, unless in response to a nuclear strike, would be both illegal and immoral. If a PM wants tactical nukes, he or she would need to get such a proposal through Parliament. The chance of that happening is nil.
HYUFD thinks it is proportionate to use the military to stop people voting. I am not surprised he extends this attitude to other debates.
I hear Corbyn mentioned quite frequently when people - of all stripes - talk politics.
If you voted in the last General Election - and that’s 32m people - you consciously voted for or against Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader
The idea that we’re all gonna suddenly forget this is wistful dreamcasting by Labourites
Corbyn was awful but Johnson was awfuller. It was a terrible choice but Corbyn was still the lesser of two evils.
No. No no no no no
And that’s why you went down to historic defeat. And this is why the Tories, for all their many many faults, are right to mention Corbyn. Too many lefties still think Corbyn was the better choice. We have several on here today
We lost because Corbyn was shit. I still think Johnson was more shit. The public thought otherwise, as is their prerogative. I would have dearly loved for Corbyn not to have been our leader and did everything I could to prevent and stop him being our leader, and was far from surprised that he turned out to be such a fucking disaster, but the policy platform of Labour even under his appallingly flawed leadership was closer to my own views than that of the Tories, so I still voted Labour. You can have all the vapours you like about that choice but I stand by it completely, sorry.
No, don't be sorry. This pleases me. It means you will lose again
And it reminds wavering types like me why you must ALWAYS be defeated
There used to be a place at the top of Cockburn Street in Edinburgh that did amazing Vegetarian Haggis samosas. Perhaps it still does, I've not been there for a while.
Was that the place on the opposite side of the road from the Scotsmans Lounge?
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
A chastened Corbyn minority would have been horrific, particularly under current circumstances, but a Johnson landslide often seems marginally worse.
To go all HYUFD. The Corbyn alliance with the Labour Centrists and SNP would have collapsed over his ambivalence towards the invasion of Ukraine, and Sunak would be about to celebrate his landslide. The Labour Party would have split into two and an invigorated Conservative Party would be looking at a generation in Government.
Can’t believe just how emotional I feel seeing that pic . I’m close to tears . After so much horrid news recently it’s wonderful to see some happy news .
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."
What very significant effect did the sinking of the Belgrano have on the air war?
Put their carrier in port didn’t it?
Spot on.
There were two major sources of risk for conceding air superiority: long range fighters from the closest air bases on the mainland, and the aircraft off the Cinqueceinto de Mayo (God knows if I've spelled that correctly).
The first was dealt with by Black Buck (signalling that a V-bomber could carry out a (reasonably accurate) precision bombing run at that sort of range scared the Junta and they pulled the newer, better aircraft back to cover Buenos Aires.
The second was dealt with by the sinking of the Belgrano. The Cinqu... Cin... 25th de Mayo instantly turned around and steamed back to port.
There used to be a place at the top of Cockburn Street in Edinburgh that did amazing Vegetarian Haggis samosas. Perhaps it still does, I've not been there for a while.
Quite common that sort of thing. A local shop did haggis pies before someone bought the freehold for another shop - like Scots mutton pies (water crust pastry) but topped with haggis, then neeps, then mashed tatties. Both meat and herbivorous haggis as wished.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
Nice post. Far more clarity than my multiple ramblings posted in anger.
Of all the lame 'woke' stuff people whinge about here, people getting called 'they' as a pronoun is the lamest of them all.
'They' is a perfectly acceptable singular person pronoun to use and it has been for centuries already, it is not just a plural pronoun, in the same way as 'you' is both a singular and plural pronoun.
They gets used as a singular person pronoun all the time in everyday life already, it is not some made up word.
There is a significant history of singular they - but only for an unknown person. So for example upthread we have "I've got a new boss - what are they like?" and "we've been burgled - there's an open window - that's how they got in". Neither seems linguistically wrong.
But as a pronoun for a specific, known, identified person, it doesn't sound right. "This is Chris - they are your new assistant". Nah. There's only one of him or her.
Since they is a singular as well as a plural word, they works perfectly fine even if there's only one of him or her.
"My boss called me in for a meeting today, they said that the company will be undergoing some reforms" - I know the gender of my boss I had a meeting with, but there is no need to say it and they works fine in that sentence.
That only really works if the sex of your boss is unknown by the person you're speaking to, though.
why, of what importance is the sex of the boss to the topic
In any case. the sentence is useless as it is fundamentally ambiguous. The number of people at the meeting is unknown. It could have been boss + head of HR who told the speaker about the reforms. That is why I loathe the uise of 'they' as singular when it leads to such a mess. I delete every case I come across in documents I am editing. The documents have ot be rewritten to lose the ambiguity.
Edit: obvs doesn't apply iuf there is no ambiguity.
What do you do about "you"? Do you delete all occurrences of "you" and list the people concerned again to remove that ambiguity?
Otherwise you are making nonsense work for yourself with "they".
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
Why on earth would she go to war with China over Hong Kong? Hong Kong was returned to China as part of a formal agreement at the end of the lease on the New Territories. It was done with the agreement of both parties and was a simple contractual arrangement. There is no comparison between the two situations.
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Thatcher was the elected PM with a majority. She made the final decision, no one else.
Had conventional forces been unable to retake the Falklands, ending her premiership and leaving the UK a pathetically week and humiliated nation unable to defeat even a relatively minor nation like Argentina when it invaded British territory then it would have been a complete disaster, especially with the Soviet threat and Thatcher knew that.
So no, it cannot be ruled out that Thatcher would not have given the Argentines 48 hours to withdraw from the Falklands or ordered a Polaris nuclear missile to be launched on Argentina. She would have known full well the Argentines had no nukes to respond with had conventional British forces been unable to liberate the islands.
Cold, hard realpolitik but the Argentines took that risk when they invaded. Anyone who refused to implement it could have been removed and replaced by the next in command
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
Oh god, you really mean it.
Thankfully, actual British policy on the use of the deterrent is very different.
No it isn't. We have nuclear weapons to defend the UK and British territory as a last resort, the Falkland Islands are and were British overseas territory
You’re never going to be allowed anywhere near a decision making role. However if someone mad enough did that take view in Government, and threatened to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, then large parts of MOD and the FCO would resign in protest rather than act on those orders. I’m far from sure a sub captain would obey the order to launch.
If we launched, or went around threatening to, then he US and NATO would drop us, and we’d (rightly) be an international pariah.
Actually every PM writes a letter of last resort already (which could including wiping out as much of the country which has attacked us using our nuclear weapons).
The PM has the authority to take the final decision to defend our nation and its territories, if some civil servants are too wet and weak to do that fine, they can be replaced.
Sub captains also have no alternative but to obey the orders of the PM and government of the day or be dismissed and replaced by the next in command.
The US and NATO alliance is ultimately there to defend us, if they are unwilling to support us in defence of our overseas territories then the alliance is ended anyway
Have you never come across the principle of proportional response in war ? It is both a principle of international law, and of the church whose teachings you claim to follow.
Such an order, unless in response to a nuclear strike, would be both illegal and immoral. If a PM wants tactical nukes, he or she would need to get such a proposal through Parliament. The chance of that happening is nil.
HYUFD thinks it is proportionate to use the military to stop people voting. I am not surprised he extends this attitude to other debates.
One has visions of what is left of the Army smashing down the door of any Epping pizza parlours that still use pineapple as a topping, and doing a MLRS strike on the nearest Dissenting congregation which has a debate on the disestablishment of the C of E.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
Better than the disgrace of a human being that we have, yes. Not even close.
He would certainly have cured you of that feeling you occasionally confess to of having too much money and not paying enough tax on it
Very true. I wonder if I'd have paid up cheerfully or gone in for some devious avoidance? I do so hope I wouldn't have disappointed myself!
Of all the lame 'woke' stuff people whinge about here, people getting called 'they' as a pronoun is the lamest of them all.
'They' is a perfectly acceptable singular person pronoun to use and it has been for centuries already, it is not just a plural pronoun, in the same way as 'you' is both a singular and plural pronoun.
They gets used as a singular person pronoun all the time in everyday life already, it is not some made up word.
There is a significant history of singular they - but only for an unknown person. So for example upthread we have "I've got a new boss - what are they like?" and "we've been burgled - there's an open window - that's how they got in". Neither seems linguistically wrong.
But as a pronoun for a specific, known, identified person, it doesn't sound right. "This is Chris - they are your new assistant". Nah. There's only one of him or her.
Since they is a singular as well as a plural word, they works perfectly fine even if there's only one of him or her.
"My boss called me in for a meeting today, they said that the company will be undergoing some reforms" - I know the gender of my boss I had a meeting with, but there is no need to say it and they works fine in that sentence.
That only really works if the sex of your boss is unknown by the person you're speaking to, though.
why, of what importance is the sex of the boss to the topic
In any case. the sentence is useless as it is fundamentally ambiguous. The number of people at the meeting is unknown. It could have been boss + head of HR who told the speaker about the reforms. That is why I loathe the uise of 'they' as singular when it leads to such a mess. I delete every case I come across in documents I am editing. The documents have ot be rewritten to lose the ambiguity.
Edit: obvs doesn't apply iuf there is no ambiguity.
What do you do about "you"? Do you delete all occurrences of "you" and list the people concerned again to remove that ambiguity?
Otherwise you are making nonsense work for yourself with "they".
It's the context. What one doesn't do is write a sentence that leaves the reader going round and round trying to work out what is said.
There used to be a place at the top of Cockburn Street in Edinburgh that did amazing Vegetarian Haggis samosas. Perhaps it still does, I've not been there for a while.
I think haggis samosas and pakora are quite common on menus now (veg maybe less so), you can even get the latter precooked in Morrisons and ASDA! Properly done they are manna from heaven but murder for the old heartburn.
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Thatcher was the elected PM with a majority. She made the final decision, no one else.
Had conventional forces been unable to retake the Falklands, ending her premiership and leaving the UK a pathetically week and humiliated nation unable to defeat even a relatively minor nation like Argentina when it invaded British territory then it would have been a complete disaster, especially with the Soviet threat and Thatcher knew that.
So no, it cannot be ruled out that Thatcher would not have given the Argentines 48 hours to withdraw from the Falklands or ordered a Polaris nuclear missile to be launched on Argentina. She would have known full well the Argentines had no nukes to respond with had conventional British forces been unable to liberate the islands.
Cold, hard realpolitik but the Argentines took that risk when they invaded. Anyone who refused to implement it could have been removed and replaced by the next in command
Can’t believe just how emotional I feel seeing that pic . I’m close to tears . After so much horrid news recently it’s wonderful to see some happy news .
Tulip Siddiq deserves a lot of credit. She has campaigned tirelessly for her constituent's release, both with the FO and Iran. I can't say how much impact her campaigning has had, but I think at the very least she's helped to keep the story in the news.
Twitter is pointing out that the sky is yellow. Twitter is right
It's grey where I am.
Twitter is now claiming that the yellowness is due to "Saharan sand"
No idea if this is true, but the sky over London definitely has a queasy yellow tinge
Edit: turns out to be true
Saharan dust cloud moving across Europe could hit UK by afternoon Met Office says dust may fall during showers in southern Britain and potentially most visible at sunset
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Another cracking post Andy. I think I should just stop my efforts.
Re the insulting bit, I have told @HYUFD multiple time now how offensive his post are to those who served and those who know people who served. He just does not care. Christian? I don't think do.
There used to be a place at the top of Cockburn Street in Edinburgh that did amazing Vegetarian Haggis samosas. Perhaps it still does, I've not been there for a while.
Was that the place on the opposite side of the road from the Scotsmans Lounge?
Maybe, on the corner on the right as you walk up from Waverley.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
Better than the disgrace of a human being that we have, yes. Not even close.
This is why - even after all of BJ's mistakes it remains a huge gamble to trust the Labour party under the leadership of someone who served under Corbyn and failed to speak up for Jewish Labour MPs when they were under the cosh.
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.
Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.
Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
Could sortie rates be improved by part two of my cunning plan, to bring back the Harriers?
*Gets coat*
The Harrier's shortcomings are one of the reasons the QE class is so ludicrously big.
On Invincible we could generate another 8-10 sorties per day usually constrained by technical availability of aircraft which was quite poor. Meanwhile a Nimitz could enerate 120 sorties in 12 hours and that stung. In order to be taken seriously by the USN the RN specified an absolutely ludicrous 150/day sortie rate for the QE class. This is the reason they are so fucking big and expensive.
However it quickly became obvious that there would never be enough aircraft bought to hit that sortie rate so we've ended up with ships that are completely over-sized for the available aviation assets.
As always any attempt to evaluate the QE class in terms of military capability is pointless. That's not what they are for; they serve chiefly as a totem of national virility.
We have useless nukes as a totem of national virility, now two useless aircraft carriers as symobols of national virility. Can a fleet of tumescent airships be far away?
Why does the RAF have both Eurofighter Typhoons and American F-35 Lightnings?
Is that because its never a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket?
You couldn't put Eurofighter on a carrier, for a start. Any carrier.
If defence spending gets increased, then a simple method of increasing air power will be continuing the F-35 buy.
I see. Also the UK has the Tempest program coming, about which there is much hype. Let's hope its not the Crossrail of righter plane world.
What’s wrong with Crossrail, other than being late and over budget? I don’t know much about it…
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
Two leaders both compromised regarding Russia - why do you think it would have made much difference? Public opinion, the views of his party and the geopolitical realities have forced Johnson to cut loose from his previous connections with dodgy Russian money, with a fair bit of foot-dragging along the way; doubtless Corbyn would have been in the same position.
Corbyn is a conviction man which makes him way more dangerous than a self regarding crook like Boris. He would, for instance, never have had any truck with big pharma over vaccines, and we would have got the russian or Chinese variety.
Yes, but on the other hand:
- the political realities were such that Corbyn wasn't going to get elected with a majority of eighty. If he'd made it to PM he'd most likely have had to rely on either the LibDems or SNP, which would, along with his far more moderate parliamentary party, have constrained most of his nonsense from the getgo, and;
- those around Corbyn, his MPs and party members, are as if not more concerned with doing what they believe is right than in simply winning elections, and would have exercised more influence (in a more collective set up to begin with) than Tory MPs, who all knew that Johnson was an appalling man from the beginning, but put him there and have proved utterly supine (with a few noble exceptions) in response to all his transgressions subsequently.
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Another cracking post Andy. I think I should just stop my efforts.
Re the insulting bit, I have told @HYUFD multiple time now how offensive his post are to those who served and those who know people who served. He just does not care. Christian? I don't think do.
Read the Old Testament to see how far God was prepared to go to defend his chosen people, the Jews against their enemies.
It is not insulting to point out the realpolitik, we could go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands on our own and win it, we could not go to war to defend Hong Kong against China alone. No matter how many died or gave their lives in the Falklands (and they should be saluted) that is the reality
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
I QUOTED YOUR ORIGINAL POINT!
So has everyone else. We can see the words on the screen. They're right there!
You are not coming across as strong, or knowledgeable, or firm - this flailing about makes you look simultaneously weak, ignorant, and pretending to expertise you don't have.
Seriously, a simple: "Oh, sorry - I had been under the impression it was fairly easy with our capability; you live and learn," would have made you look far better.
You also seem to have a view of Thatcher that actually doesn't make her look good at all. The fact she went to war when it looked immensely challenging is FAR more to her credit than going to war when we could easily flatten an opponent. The belief she would deliberately carry out a crime against humanity is not only wrong, it would not remotely be a good thing if it were true. It's not strong, or brave, or noble to carry out a first strike of strategic nuclear weapons against a civilian population.
Glossing over the recapture of the Falklands against an embedded and prepared enemy when our centre of gravity was half a world away with "easy" REALLY denigrates those who pulled off something extraordinarily difficult.
Those are the things you keep refusing to face. And it doesn't make you look strong, or right.
I hear Corbyn mentioned quite frequently when people - of all stripes - talk politics.
If you voted in the last General Election - and that’s 32m people - you consciously voted for or against Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader
The idea that we’re all gonna suddenly forget this is wistful dreamcasting by Labourites
Corbyn was awful but Johnson was awfuller. It was a terrible choice but Corbyn was still the lesser of two evils.
No. No no no no no
And that’s why you went down to historic defeat. And this is why the Tories, for all their many many faults, are right to mention Corbyn. Too many lefties still think Corbyn was the better choice. We have several on here today
We lost because Corbyn was shit. I still think Johnson was more shit. The public thought otherwise, as is their prerogative. I would have dearly loved for Corbyn not to have been our leader and did everything I could to prevent and stop him being our leader, and was far from surprised that he turned out to be such a fucking disaster, but the policy platform of Labour even under his appallingly flawed leadership was closer to my own views than that of the Tories, so I still voted Labour. You can have all the vapours you like about that choice but I stand by it completely, sorry.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
But that is not what we are responding to. We are responding to you saying it was 'easy' and similar comments, which is truly an absolutely insulting comment that is offending people as well as being completely untrue.
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Another cracking post Andy. I think I should just stop my efforts.
Re the insulting bit, I have told @HYUFD multiple time now how offensive his post are to those who served and those who know people who served. He just does not care. Christian? I don't think do.
Read the Old Testament to see how far God was prepared to go to defend his chosen people, the Jews against their enemies.
It is not insulting to point out the realpolitik, we could go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands on our own and win it, we could not go to war to defend Hong Kong against China alone. No matter how many died or gave their lives in the Falklands (and they should be saluted) that is the reality
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
I QUOTED YOUR ORIGINAL POINT!
So has everyone else. We can see the words on the screen. They're right there!
You are not coming across as strong, or knowledgeable, or firm - this flailing about makes you look simultaneously weak, ignorant, and pretending to expertise you don't have.
Seriously, a simple: "Oh, sorry - I had been under the impression it was fairly easy with our capability; you live and learn," would have made you look far better.
You also seem to have a view of Thatcher that actually doesn't make her look good at all. The fact she went to war when it looked immensely challenging is FAR more to her credit than going to war when we could easily flatten an opponent. The belief she would deliberately carry out a crime against humanity is not only wrong, it would not remotely be a good thing if it were true. It's not strong, or brave, or noble to carry out a first strike of strategic nuclear weapons against a civilian population.
Glossing over the recapture of the Falklands against an embedded and prepared enemy when our centre of gravity was half a world away with "easy" REALLY denigrates those who pulled off something extraordinarily difficult.
Those are the things you keep refusing to face. And it doesn't make you look strong, or right.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
A Corbyn govt would have most likely been a coalition or tiny majority which would have fallen very early on.
So if we were offered a shit sandwich for a few months or a shit sandwich for several years.......
Weak government with a single issue mandate to cancel Brexit. But then the pandemic would have hit almost straightaway. God knows how it would all have panned out!
In fact I think the result was probably for the best because it broke the paralysis. But BJ a better PM than JC? - NFW. And I say that in the knowledge he would likely have struggled.
Sadly you are among the significant group of people who downplay or somehow cannot face the reality of Corbyn's fanatical and delusional world-view.
It's not that. It's that I cannot bear having a person as PM with no integrity or sense of public service. For me this is more important than policies or 'world views'. They're ten a penny.
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Thatcher was the elected PM with a majority. She made the final decision, no one else.
Had conventional forces been unable to retake the Falklands, ending her premiership and leaving the UK a pathetically week and humiliated nation unable to defeat even a relatively minor nation like Argentina when it invaded British territory then it would have been a complete disaster, especially with the Soviet threat and Thatcher knew that.
So no, it cannot be ruled out that Thatcher would not have given the Argentines 48 hours to withdraw from the Falklands or ordered a Polaris nuclear missile to be launched on Argentina. She would have known full well the Argentines had no nukes to respond with had conventional British forces been unable to liberate the islands.
Cold, hard realpolitik but the Argentines took that risk when they invaded. Anyone who refused to implement it could have been removed and replaced by the next in command
You are genuinely deranged.
Either that, or just a touch loopy but prefers playing the genuinely deranged to saying "sorry, got this one wrong".
Taking people hostage, even for a so-called "legitimate debt", is evil, hostage-taking and blackmail.
Do you think we should simply give in to hostage taking every time people take hostages?
We clearly had some reason not to have repaid the debt for decades, though whether they were good or bad reasons I don't know.
To change our mind on those reasons because of hostage-taking wouldn't have been wise, though perhaps there's an argument the debt should have been repaid long before so the whole situation would not have arisen.
Taking people hostage, even for a so-called "legitimate debt", is evil, hostage-taking and blackmail.
Do you think we should simply give in to hostage taking every time people take hostages?
Again, this points back to Johnson's incompetence, laziness and loose tongue when he was FS, FFS.
In reality the poor woman has served not only her full original sentence but the extra year she was gratuitously given on top, and is returning after all of this has been completed. That we've settled the tank debt hasn't reduced her sentence at all; just maybe it prevented them giving her a third one.
Twitter is pointing out that the sky is yellow. Twitter is right
It's grey where I am.
Twitter is now claiming that the yellowness is due to "Saharan sand"
No idea if this is true, but the sky over London definitely has a queasy yellow tinge
Edit: turns out to be true
Saharan dust cloud moving across Europe could hit UK by afternoon Met Office says dust may fall during showers in southern Britain and potentially most visible at sunset
We've had orange skies for the past 2 days - now raining dirt - all my patios covered in it and the pool is a murky brown - a Bowie song comes to mind for some unconnected reason..
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Another cracking post Andy. I think I should just stop my efforts.
Re the insulting bit, I have told @HYUFD multiple time now how offensive his post are to those who served and those who know people who served. He just does not care. Christian? I don't think do.
Read the Old Testament to see how far God was prepared to go to defend his chosen people, the Jews against their enemies.
It is not insulting to point out the realpolitik, we could go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands on our own and win it, we could not go to war to defend Hong Kong against China alone. No matter how many died or gave their lives in the Falklands (and they should be saluted) that is the reality
It is insulting to Mrs T and her cabinet who made those hard decisions and insulting to the service personnel who carried them out to suggest she didn't have difficult heart wrenching decisions to make and that our forces had an easy war.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
People overdo both (and the creepy Tory obsession with Thatcher too, though it may be my imagination but it feels like people are starting to dial both down), but Corbyn was Leader only 2 and a bit years ago - it doesn't mean Tories don't fallback on the 'But Corbyn' line too often as a distraction, they clearly do, but it is more likely to be relevant from time to time at least.
I've never understood the hatred for Corbyn particularly from Labour centrists even though I don't have an issue with people that merely dislike him/don't care for him which is their right. I haven't seen much evidence that Corbyn is directly shilling for Russia, although it would have been more sensible if he had directly called out Russia at the same time as McDonnell had done.
I think there has been a lot of silly comment on Russia and also 'crying wolf' with regard to Syria and 'Russiagate' which hasn't been helpful to the overall discourse and understanding of Russia's military ambitions as well as smearing the left on any issues to with NATO even though the vast majority of the left has recognised Putin as the aggressor in this conflict overall.
A good post.
As a centrist, my deep hatred of Corbyn is down to his desire that non- Conservative politics is best served by a student debating society interest group, rather than a party winning power and operating a fairer social democratic agenda. So much so, that he will do his utmost to undermine social democracy because of it's tainted purity. He hates pink Tories more than blue Tories.
Corbyn in particular is a faux intellectual who has mistakenly viewed armed struggle by underdogs to be good and righteous whatever the circumstances, hence his regular photo opportunities with terrorists and gangsters who claim to be freedom fighters. He confuses Jewish Labour MPs with Likud expansionist tendencies. He cannot differentiate the Soviet Union with Putin's Russia. The man is an utter disgrace.
My dislike of Johnson is less complicated. He switched sides in the Brexit debate simply to undermine Cameron and become PM. He put himself before the nation.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
But that is not what we are responding to. We are responding to you saying it was 'easy' and similar comments, which is truly an absolutely insulting comment that is offending people as well as being completely untrue.
Relatively my original comment was correct in response to Heathener.
We could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina alone, that was not an option against nuclear armed China and Russia with bigger militaries than Argentina too whether over Hong Kong had we not respected the handover agreement or Ukraine now.
Twitter is pointing out that the sky is yellow. Twitter is right
It's grey where I am.
Twitter is now claiming that the yellowness is due to "Saharan sand"
No idea if this is true, but the sky over London definitely has a queasy yellow tinge
Edit: turns out to be true
Saharan dust cloud moving across Europe could hit UK by afternoon Met Office says dust may fall during showers in southern Britain and potentially most visible at sunset
That's odd, because when I was putting out the rubbish this morning I noticed that all three of my wheelie bins were covered in muddy specks, and I assumed that a lorry heading to the building site up the road must have been spilling sand or somesuch; but it isn't particularly windy here today. So perhaps the dust cloud has had landfall on the island already?
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
Better than the disgrace of a human being that we have, yes. Not even close.
This is why - even after all of BJ's mistakes it remains a huge gamble to trust the Labour party under the leadership of someone who served under Corbyn and failed to speak up for Jewish Labour MPs when they were under the cosh.
Hardly a huge gamble when Corbyn and his legacy have been so thoroughly repudiated by Starmer. It's his party now. You know what you're getting and there's not a trace of his predecessor. If you're able to tolerate Johnson - which I know many can although I can't - you can just take a view based on the policy platforms. See which appeals the most. That's what I'd do if I were you.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
A Corbyn govt would have most likely been a coalition or tiny majority which would have fallen very early on.
So if we were offered a shit sandwich for a few months or a shit sandwich for several years.......
Weak government with a single issue mandate to cancel Brexit. But then the pandemic would have hit almost straightaway. God knows how it would all have panned out!
In fact I think the result was probably for the best because it broke the paralysis. But BJ a better PM than JC? - NFW. And I say that in the knowledge he would likely have struggled.
Sadly you are among the significant group of people who downplay or somehow cannot face the reality of Corbyn's fanatical and delusional world-view.
It's not that. It's that I cannot bear having a person as PM with no integrity or sense of public service. For me this is more important than policies or 'world views'. They're ten a penny.
Totally this.
eg think Sunak overrated but he gets to the first base for a public servant. Johnson doesn't. As long as the Conservatives retain Johnson they are not fit to be in power and that has nothing to do with their policies.
Can’t believe just how emotional I feel seeing that pic . I’m close to tears . After so much horrid news recently it’s wonderful to see some happy news .
Tulip Siddiq deserves a lot of credit. She has campaigned tirelessly for her constituent's release, both with the FO and Iran. I can't say how much impact her campaigning has had, but I think at the very least she's helped to keep the story in the news.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
Better than the disgrace of a human being that we have, yes. Not even close.
This is why - even after all of BJ's mistakes it remains a huge gamble to trust the Labour party under the leadership of someone who served under Corbyn and failed to speak up for Jewish Labour MPs when they were under the cosh.
Hardly a huge gamble when Corbyn and his legacy have been so thoroughly repudiated by Starmer. It's his party now. You know what you're getting and there's not a trace of his predecessor. If you're able to tolerate Johnson - which I know many can although I can't - you can just take a view based on the policy platforms. See which appeals the most. That's what I'd do if I were you.
How has it been so thoroughly repudiated? Has he removed from the party the people who thought it appropriate to serve in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet, even after everything came to light regarding how inappropriate he was?
Oh, no, he'd have to purge himself.
Until Labour is led by someone who wasn't in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and who unabashedly repudiates that time, they're not fit for office.
But considering you still think he'd be a better PM, you have no judgement to speak on this matter.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
I QUOTED YOUR ORIGINAL POINT!
So has everyone else. We can see the words on the screen. They're right there!
You are not coming across as strong, or knowledgeable, or firm - this flailing about makes you look simultaneously weak, ignorant, and pretending to expertise you don't have.
Seriously, a simple: "Oh, sorry - I had been under the impression it was fairly easy with our capability; you live and learn," would have made you look far better.
You also seem to have a view of Thatcher that actually doesn't make her look good at all. The fact she went to war when it looked immensely challenging is FAR more to her credit than going to war when we could easily flatten an opponent. The belief she would deliberately carry out a crime against humanity is not only wrong, it would not remotely be a good thing if it were true. It's not strong, or brave, or noble to carry out a first strike of strategic nuclear weapons against a civilian population.
Glossing over the recapture of the Falklands against an embedded and prepared enemy when our centre of gravity was half a world away with "easy" REALLY denigrates those who pulled off something extraordinarily difficult.
Those are the things you keep refusing to face. And it doesn't make you look strong, or right.
No you didn't at all, my original point stands absolutely as to why we could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina but cannot take action and impose a no fly zone against Russia in Ukraine.
You also do not know what Thatcher would have done had the war in the Falklands not been a relatively swift win won in under 3 months.
If Thatcher was prepared to defend our territory and our people no matter what the cost then that shows her up to be the strong, decisive leader she was. Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands rather than using all means necessary to retake them no matter what the cost, Thatcher would not
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.
First it was Challenger 2 tanks on the Royal Mile, now Vanguard subs armed with Trident missiles off Buenos Aires.
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because: 1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil 2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Another cracking post Andy. I think I should just stop my efforts.
Re the insulting bit, I have told @HYUFD multiple time now how offensive his post are to those who served and those who know people who served. He just does not care. Christian? I don't think do.
Read the Old Testament to see how far God was prepared to go to defend his chosen people, the Jews against their enemies.
It is not insulting to point out the realpolitik, we could go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands on our own and win it, we could not go to war to defend Hong Kong against China alone. No matter how many died or gave their lives in the Falklands (and they should be saluted) that is the reality
It is insulting to Mrs T and her cabinet who made those hard decisions and insulting to the service personnel who carried them out to suggest she didn't have difficult heart wrenching decisions to make and that our forces had an easy war.
Compared to how war against Russia or China would have been it was easy, we won it in less than 3 months.
That is not to dismiss the sacrifices our forces made in 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
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
First it was Challenger 2 tanks on the Royal Mile, now Vanguard subs armed with Trident missiles off Buenos Aires.
HY does get around!
We had Polaris nuclear missiles in 1982, not Trident
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
But that is not what we are responding to. We are responding to you saying it was 'easy' and similar comments, which is truly an absolutely insulting comment that is offending people as well as being completely untrue.
Relatively my original comment was correct in response to Heathener.
We could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina alone, that was not an option against nuclear armed China and Russia with bigger militaries than Argentina too whether over Hong Kong had we not respected the handover agreement or Ukraine now.
None of us can see the top of your head any more, so you may as well stop digging now.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
But that is not what we are responding to. We are responding to you saying it was 'easy' and similar comments, which is truly an absolutely insulting comment that is offending people as well as being completely untrue.
Relatively my original comment was correct in response to Heathener.
We could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina alone, that was not an option against nuclear armed China and Russia with bigger militaries than Argentina too whether over Hong Kong had we not respected the handover agreement or Ukraine now.
Well I agree, but seeing as I and others, didn't actually argue with you on that point what the hell are you on about?
We are all arguing about the fact that you said taking the Falklands was easy. It wasn't. You are wrong and you are insulting people by saying so in the most spectacular way.
You then came out with a lot of other tosh about 4 carriers and nuking Argentina.
On top of that you managed to insult Mrs Thatcher, your hero, as well, by making her sound like Dr. Strangelove. Well done. Excellent day's work.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
I QUOTED YOUR ORIGINAL POINT!
So has everyone else. We can see the words on the screen. They're right there!
You are not coming across as strong, or knowledgeable, or firm - this flailing about makes you look simultaneously weak, ignorant, and pretending to expertise you don't have.
Seriously, a simple: "Oh, sorry - I had been under the impression it was fairly easy with our capability; you live and learn," would have made you look far better.
You also seem to have a view of Thatcher that actually doesn't make her look good at all. The fact she went to war when it looked immensely challenging is FAR more to her credit than going to war when we could easily flatten an opponent. The belief she would deliberately carry out a crime against humanity is not only wrong, it would not remotely be a good thing if it were true. It's not strong, or brave, or noble to carry out a first strike of strategic nuclear weapons against a civilian population.
Glossing over the recapture of the Falklands against an embedded and prepared enemy when our centre of gravity was half a world away with "easy" REALLY denigrates those who pulled off something extraordinarily difficult.
Those are the things you keep refusing to face. And it doesn't make you look strong, or right.
No you didn't at all, my original point stands absolutely as to why we could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina but cannot take action and impose a no fly zone against Russia in Ukraine.
You also do not know what Thatcher would have done had the war in the Falklands not been a relatively swift win won in under 3 months.
If Thatcher was prepared to defend our territory and our people no matter what the cost then that shows her up to be the strong, decisive leader she was. Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands rather than using all means necessary to retake them no matter what the cost, Thatcher would not
One of the two of us spent seventeen years in the military. The other didn't.
One of us understands the realities of warfare, the relevant laws, and what leadership actually is. The other doesn't.
One of us can read what was written earlier. The other can, but doesn't like it and keeps trying to wriggle around.
God preserve us from you ever getting more power than Epping Forest Parish Council.
P.S. You probably don't realise just how fucking insulting you are saying "Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands" when I signed up to stand between you and danger, when I was posted all around the world, when I moved my family hither and yon time and time again (my autistic son was living in his fifth house before his fifth birthday)... just because I'm pointing out that Thatcher WOULD NOT HAVE DELIBERATELY INCINERATED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
So what? He's been kicked out of the PLP by the –– er –– actual leader of the Labour Party.
It must be so miserable for you that your antihero is not even a Labour MP anymore.
Let it go FFS.
The actual leader of the Labour Party whose judgment was so sound that he felt that it was appropriate to serve under Corbyn as Prime Minister, had he won the election?
Oh OK, just "let it go".
He judged - correctly as it turns out - that he was campaigning for the better of the 2 alternatives for PM.
Bit of Realpolitik there.
Correctly?
Correctly?
Correctly!!!???
You still think its correct that Corbyn would have been the better Prime Minister?
You still think its a shame that Jeremy Corbyn isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during this Russia/Ukraine crisis?
Give me a break!
A Corbyn govt would have most likely been a coalition or tiny majority which would have fallen very early on.
So if we were offered a shit sandwich for a few months or a shit sandwich for several years.......
Weak government with a single issue mandate to cancel Brexit. But then the pandemic would have hit almost straightaway. God knows how it would all have panned out!
In fact I think the result was probably for the best because it broke the paralysis. But BJ a better PM than JC? - NFW. And I say that in the knowledge he would likely have struggled.
Sadly you are among the significant group of people who downplay or somehow cannot face the reality of Corbyn's fanatical and delusional world-view.
It's not that. It's that I cannot bear having a person as PM with no integrity or sense of public service. For me this is more important than policies or 'world views'. They're ten a penny.
Come off it! Johnson is a thoroughly reprehensible character but a principled moralist with an extreme authoritarian ideology is much more dangerous and will cause a lot more suffering. Pol Pot, Lenin and some of the Nazis to use justifiable Godwinism...
I hear Corbyn mentioned quite frequently when people - of all stripes - talk politics.
If you voted in the last General Election - and that’s 32m people - you consciously voted for or against Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader
The idea that we’re all gonna suddenly forget this is wistful dreamcasting by Labourites
Corbyn was awful but Johnson was awfuller. It was a terrible choice but Corbyn was still the lesser of two evils.
No. No no no no no
And that’s why you went down to historic defeat. And this is why the Tories, for all their many many faults, are right to mention Corbyn. Too many lefties still think Corbyn was the better choice. We have several on here today
We lost because Corbyn was shit. I still think Johnson was more shit. The public thought otherwise, as is their prerogative. I would have dearly loved for Corbyn not to have been our leader and did everything I could to prevent and stop him being our leader, and was far from surprised that he turned out to be such a fucking disaster, but the policy platform of Labour even under his appallingly flawed leadership was closer to my own views than that of the Tories, so I still voted Labour. You can have all the vapours you like about that choice but I stand by it completely, sorry.
No, don't be sorry. This pleases me. It means you will lose again
And it reminds wavering types like me why you must ALWAYS be defeated
Ooh you used capital letters, I'm flattered.
I'm not sure he's a 'wavering type' tbh. Chance of him ever voting Labour under any conceivable leader is about the same as running into Elvis at Tesco. Maybe a touch less.
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.
First it was Challenger 2 tanks on the Royal Mile, now Vanguard subs armed with Trident missiles off Buenos Aires.
HY does get around!
We had Polaris nuclear missiles in 1982, not Trident
You were suggesting earlier we could still take down Alberto Fernandez's current government in a heartbeat if he so much as looks towards the Falklands. I hadn't picked up that you were planning on using nukes in 1982, the moment we ran out of conventional ammunition, which by my back of a fag packet calculation, would have been an hour or so after after Galtieri surrendered. My mistake.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
I QUOTED YOUR ORIGINAL POINT!
So has everyone else. We can see the words on the screen. They're right there!
You are not coming across as strong, or knowledgeable, or firm - this flailing about makes you look simultaneously weak, ignorant, and pretending to expertise you don't have.
Seriously, a simple: "Oh, sorry - I had been under the impression it was fairly easy with our capability; you live and learn," would have made you look far better.
You also seem to have a view of Thatcher that actually doesn't make her look good at all. The fact she went to war when it looked immensely challenging is FAR more to her credit than going to war when we could easily flatten an opponent. The belief she would deliberately carry out a crime against humanity is not only wrong, it would not remotely be a good thing if it were true. It's not strong, or brave, or noble to carry out a first strike of strategic nuclear weapons against a civilian population.
Glossing over the recapture of the Falklands against an embedded and prepared enemy when our centre of gravity was half a world away with "easy" REALLY denigrates those who pulled off something extraordinarily difficult.
Those are the things you keep refusing to face. And it doesn't make you look strong, or right.
No you didn't at all, my original point stands absolutely as to why we could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina but cannot take action and impose a no fly zone against Russia in Ukraine.
You also do not know what Thatcher would have done had the war in the Falklands not been a relatively swift win won in under 3 months.
If Thatcher was prepared to defend our territory and our people no matter what the cost then that shows her up to be the strong, decisive leader she was. Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands rather than using all means necessary to retake them no matter what the cost, Thatcher would not
One of the two of us spent seventeen years in the military. The other didn't.
One of us understands the realities of warfare, the relevant laws, and what leadership actually is. The other doesn't.
One of us can read what was written earlier. The other can, but doesn't like it and keeps trying to wriggle around.
God preserve us from you ever getting more power than Epping Forest Parish Council.
@HYUFD reminds me of someone I know, I've realised.
Interested in detail to the extreme, but no context or judgement with it. Or ability to deal with getting facts wrong.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
The original point was: "She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. "
People picked you up on "we could easily beat them." We could not "easily beat them". Carrying out a war at that range with the logistics issues was never, ever, going to be easy.
You then doubled down with "We very easily beat them " and then insisted, even when picked up on it, that we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time.
Goalpost shifting doesn't win arguments. You were wrong. It's not weak to admit to having been wrong. It's only weak people who can't admit to being wrong.
The Falklands campaign was a very challenging one. One which many initially thought wouldn't even be attempted, because the challenges were so huge. It would not have taken much for it to have gone horribly wrong - landing a force on a defended island is always difficult. Doing one over several thousand miles... no, that can be described in many ways, but "Easy" is not one of them.
No it wasn't. My original point was Thatcher went to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands as we could and did beat them.
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
But that is not what we are responding to. We are responding to you saying it was 'easy' and similar comments, which is truly an absolutely insulting comment that is offending people as well as being completely untrue.
Relatively my original comment was correct in response to Heathener.
We could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina alone, that was not an option against nuclear armed China and Russia with bigger militaries than Argentina too whether over Hong Kong had we not respected the handover agreement or Ukraine now.
Well I agree, but seeing as I and others, didn't actually argue with you on that point what the hell are you on about?
We are all arguing about the fact that you said taking the Falklands was easy. It wasn't. You are wrong and you are insulting people by saying so in the most spectacular way.
You then came out with a lot of other tosh about 4 carriers and nuking Argentina.
On top of that you managed to insult Mrs Thatcher, your hero, as well, by making her sound like Dr. Strangelove. Well done. Excellent day's work.
That was my original point and it still stands now as when I originally made it.
Retaking the Falklands was easy in comparison to fighting Russia in Ukraine for Thatcher would have been. That stands still
It may have been an insult to Thatcher from a liberal like you who is not prepared to do whatever necessary to defend our people and territory. It was certainly not an insult for a conservative like me
Comments
In fact I think the result was probably for the best because it broke the paralysis. But BJ a better PM than JC? - NFW. And I say that in the knowledge he would likely have struggled.
https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1504088276453531658
People standing for inappropriate things is not.
Would you be so laid back about someone who served as one of Trump's closest advisors, who served in Trump's Cabinet, running for the GOP in 2024?
Decent GOP people, like decent Labour people, said that Trump/Corbyn was inappropriate and refused to serve with them. The current Labour Leader and Deputy Leader are not in their number.
We have and had nuclear weapons to be used as a last resort if the UK our our territory was attacked, the Falklands was our territory.
What is tactical or not is a matter of debate, in either case they could still be used as a last resort to force the Argentines out of the Falklands by the PM of the day, no Parliamentary debate needed (though of course Thatcher had a clear Tory majority at the time anyway).
See you ignored everything else I said - pot/kettle.
Again you attack my liberalism as if I was anti the war and I repeat again I wasn't. You also do Mrs. T a complete dis-service in your analysis of her. It wasn't a gung-ho action on our part. It was considered and limited and a huge risk and a delicate decision. You do her no credit by your assumption that she would do anything. And this came to the fore when the Belgrano was sunk. In an all out war this would have been an obvious decision, but this wasn't all out war and she came under huge criticism at home for that decision. A very difficult decision that is argued over today.
If the sinking of the Belgrano was a difficult decision, launching an ICBM is just is just in whole different league.
If you’re deep in one pile of sh*t, as we are, it serves little purpose to be arguing about whether or not the other pile that you were offered didn’t smell quite so bad.
The only exception of any significance is Romney
@HYUFD - We would NOT have ever lobbed a Polaris missile at Buenos Aires.
Because:
1 - Thatcher was neither mad nor evil
2 - Had she been mad or evil enough to give the order, she would have been taken aside by someone and told, "Don't be ridiculous, Prime Minister."
I very much doubt that any such order - to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - would have made it anywhere down the chain of command.
There is also the question of whether anyone would have obeyed it. Responding to letters of last resort is one thing. Carrying out a war crime (and this would have been a war crime - deliberately targeting civilians in wholesale fashion in a time and with capabilities where this is not at all necessary; this isn't World War 2) does not end up with "I was only following orders."
I also know people who were there. A good friend was very seriously injured at the Battle of Mount Harriet (wasn't originally expected to survive; he's still going today).
You are way out of your depth and bloviating on areas where you know nothing. You don't even realise how insulting you're being.
Edit: obvs doesn't apply iuf there is no ambiguity.
And it reminds wavering types like me why you must ALWAYS be defeated
She did not go to war with China to keep Hong Kong and agreed to the handover as we could not realistically beat China alone and she would not have gone to war with Russia alone over Ukraine either and imposed a no fly zone. That was in response to Heathener
Advisor Mykhailo Podolyak said that Ukraine could agree only to “legally certified security guarantees,” adding that in a new agreement, signatory states must be legally bound to defend Ukraine.
https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1504060427478654979
So, not NATO, but a similar guarantee.
Володимир Зеленський
@ZelenskyyUa
🇺🇦 has become a member of 🇪🇺 Energy Union. The unification of 🇺🇦 & 🇪🇺 energy systems has been completed. Now 🇺🇦 electricity flows in 🇪🇺 & vice versa. Grateful to 🇪🇺 members, personally to @vonderleyen, @KadriSimson & everyone, thanks to whom we now have a single energy system!
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1504091172196823042
To go all HYUFD. The Corbyn alliance with the Labour Centrists and SNP would have collapsed over his ambivalence towards the invasion of Ukraine, and Sunak would be about to celebrate his landslide. The Labour Party would have split into two and an invigorated Conservative Party would be looking at a generation in Government.
There were two major sources of risk for conceding air superiority: long range fighters from the closest air bases on the mainland, and the aircraft off the Cinqueceinto de Mayo (God knows if I've spelled that correctly).
The first was dealt with by Black Buck (signalling that a V-bomber could carry out a (reasonably accurate) precision bombing run at that sort of range scared the Junta and they pulled the newer, better aircraft back to cover Buenos Aires.
The second was dealt with by the sinking of the Belgrano. The Cinqu... Cin... 25th de Mayo instantly turned around and steamed back to port.
Otherwise you are making nonsense work for yourself with "they".
Had conventional forces been unable to retake the Falklands, ending her premiership and leaving the UK a pathetically week and humiliated nation unable to defeat even a relatively minor nation like Argentina when it invaded British territory then it would have been a complete disaster, especially with the Soviet threat and Thatcher knew that.
So no, it cannot be ruled out that Thatcher would not have given the Argentines 48 hours to withdraw from the Falklands or ordered a Polaris nuclear missile to be launched on Argentina. She would have known full well the Argentines had no nukes to respond with had conventional British forces been unable to liberate the islands.
Cold, hard realpolitik but the Argentines took that risk when they invaded. Anyone who refused to implement it could have been removed and replaced by the next in command
Properly done they are manna from heaven but murder for the old heartburn.
No idea if this is true, but the sky over London definitely has a queasy yellow tinge
Edit: turns out to be true
Saharan dust cloud moving across Europe could hit UK by afternoon
Met Office says dust may fall during showers in southern Britain and potentially most visible at sunset
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/16/saharan-dust-shifting-across-europe-hit-britain
Re the insulting bit, I have told @HYUFD multiple time now how offensive his post are to those who served and those who know people who served. He just does not care. Christian? I don't think do.
As bits of rain comes down, challengers to my tips bottle it 😮
True grit name of game of day 2.
Taking people hostage, even for a so-called "legitimate debt", is evil, hostage-taking and blackmail.
Do you think we should simply give in to hostage taking every time people take hostages?
Shakes things up a bit
- the political realities were such that Corbyn wasn't going to get elected with a majority of eighty. If he'd made it to PM he'd most likely have had to rely on either the LibDems or SNP, which would, along with his far more moderate parliamentary party, have constrained most of his nonsense from the getgo, and;
- those around Corbyn, his MPs and party members, are as if not more concerned with doing what they believe is right than in simply winning elections, and would have exercised more influence (in a more collective set up to begin with) than Tory MPs, who all knew that Johnson was an appalling man from the beginning, but put him there and have proved utterly supine (with a few noble exceptions) in response to all his transgressions subsequently.
It is not insulting to point out the realpolitik, we could go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands on our own and win it, we could not go to war to defend Hong Kong against China alone. No matter how many died or gave their lives in the Falklands (and they should be saluted) that is the reality
So has everyone else. We can see the words on the screen. They're right there!
You are not coming across as strong, or knowledgeable, or firm - this flailing about makes you look simultaneously weak, ignorant, and pretending to expertise you don't have.
Seriously, a simple: "Oh, sorry - I had been under the impression it was fairly easy with our capability; you live and learn," would have made you look far better.
You also seem to have a view of Thatcher that actually doesn't make her look good at all.
The fact she went to war when it looked immensely challenging is FAR more to her credit than going to war when we could easily flatten an opponent.
The belief she would deliberately carry out a crime against humanity is not only wrong, it would not remotely be a good thing if it were true. It's not strong, or brave, or noble to carry out a first strike of strategic nuclear weapons against a civilian population.
Glossing over the recapture of the Falklands against an embedded and prepared enemy when our centre of gravity was half a world away with "easy" REALLY denigrates those who pulled off something extraordinarily difficult.
Those are the things you keep refusing to face. And it doesn't make you look strong, or right.
L'Homme Presse 😍
https://twitter.com/petagna/status/1503766346122866688?s=21
https://twitter.com/murciatoday/status/1503653773348155402?s=21
Not sure which.
To change our mind on those reasons because of hostage-taking wouldn't have been wise, though perhaps there's an argument the debt should have been repaid long before so the whole situation would not have arisen.
In reality the poor woman has served not only her full original sentence but the extra year she was gratuitously given on top, and is returning after all of this has been completed. That we've settled the tank debt hasn't reduced her sentence at all; just maybe it prevented them giving her a third one.
https://youtu.be/UipTt-qqZOE
As a centrist, my deep hatred of Corbyn is down to his desire that non- Conservative politics is best served by a student debating society interest group, rather than a party winning power and operating a fairer social democratic agenda. So much so, that he will do his utmost to undermine social democracy because of it's tainted purity. He hates pink Tories more than blue Tories.
Corbyn in particular is a faux intellectual who has mistakenly viewed armed struggle by underdogs to be good and righteous whatever the circumstances, hence his regular photo opportunities with terrorists and gangsters who claim to be freedom fighters. He confuses Jewish Labour MPs with Likud expansionist tendencies. He cannot differentiate the Soviet Union with Putin's Russia. The man is an utter disgrace.
My dislike of Johnson is less complicated. He switched sides in the Brexit debate simply to undermine Cameron and become PM. He put himself before the nation.
We could and did retake the Falklands from Argentina alone, that was not an option against nuclear armed China and Russia with bigger militaries than Argentina too whether over Hong Kong had we not respected the handover agreement or Ukraine now.
eg think Sunak overrated but he gets to the first base for a public servant. Johnson doesn't. As long as the Conservatives retain Johnson they are not fit to be in power and that has nothing to do with their policies.
Oh, no, he'd have to purge himself.
Until Labour is led by someone who wasn't in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and who unabashedly repudiates that time, they're not fit for office.
But considering you still think he'd be a better PM, you have no judgement to speak on this matter.
You also do not know what Thatcher would have done had the war in the Falklands not been a relatively swift win won in under 3 months.
If Thatcher was prepared to defend our territory and our people no matter what the cost then that shows her up to be the strong, decisive leader she was. Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands rather than using all means necessary to retake them no matter what the cost, Thatcher would not
HY does get around!
That is not to dismiss the sacrifices our forces made in it
We are all arguing about the fact that you said taking the Falklands was easy. It wasn't. You are wrong and you are insulting people by saying so in the most spectacular way.
You then came out with a lot of other tosh about 4 carriers and nuking Argentina.
On top of that you managed to insult Mrs Thatcher, your hero, as well, by making her sound like Dr. Strangelove. Well done. Excellent day's work.
The other didn't.
One of us understands the realities of warfare, the relevant laws, and what leadership actually is.
The other doesn't.
One of us can read what was written earlier.
The other can, but doesn't like it and keeps trying to wriggle around.
God preserve us from you ever getting more power than Epping Forest Parish Council.
P.S. You probably don't realise just how fucking insulting you are saying "Liberals like you may well have accepted Argentina taking the Falklands" when I signed up to stand between you and danger, when I was posted all around the world, when I moved my family hither and yon time and time again (my autistic son was living in his fifth house before his fifth birthday)... just because I'm pointing out that Thatcher WOULD NOT HAVE DELIBERATELY INCINERATED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN.
Interested in detail to the extreme, but no context or judgement with it. Or ability to deal with getting facts wrong.
Retaking the Falklands was easy in comparison to fighting Russia in Ukraine for Thatcher would have been. That stands still
It may have been an insult to Thatcher from a liberal like you who is not prepared to do whatever necessary to defend our people and territory. It was certainly not an insult for a conservative like me