The Falklands War

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Bit of a risky strategy though. Could easily have backfired. We were damned lucky that we managed to take them back. If the argies had been even slightly more organised and had a bit more of a stomach for a fight then we would have been deep in the shit. That wouldn't have won maggie any elections..

Indeed, there is always that risk. Ask Tony Blair.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Incidentally, the Falkland Islands now turn a nice tidy little profit due to tourism and the sale of fishing rights.

But then they were just a few windy rocks. We sent a task force for the windy rocks but when China said they wanted Hong Kong back we didn't put up too much of a fight. Funny that.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

Yup, Thatcher was far too hardline in the negotiations which the Argie Junta used as an excuse to invade. I believe that the offer was a 100 year leaseback agreement giving us plenty of time to convince those idiots who live there we could find them somewhere equally dreadful to live. Thatcher for some reason was against this and we ended up spending hudreds of lives and billions of pounds on that shithole.

Not a big fan of the place then?

Originally Posted by dodger

But then they were just a few windy rocks. We sent a task force for the windy rocks but when China said they wanted Hong Kong back we didn't put up too much of a fight. Funny that.

Well who would you rather get into a pissing contest with

Originally Posted by Jack Duckworth

what accent do people from the falklands have?

An Oldham one. She has lived over here for 19 years.

The missus wants to go to the Malvinas on Honeymoon.

Sun, sand and sea, a thousand ‘Robinson Crusoe’ islands, massive lagoons with different depths and infinite shades of blue and turquoise, dazzling underwater coral gardens; a perfect natural combination for the ideal tropical holiday destination.

Sounds great. I'll leave it in her capable hands.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop

Not a big fan of the place then?

I certainly don't think it was worth the lives of 200+ British servicemens lives or the £1.6 billion either. Wonder how long the "modest prophet" it makes will take to pay that off?

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

I certainly don't think it was worth the lives of 200+ British servicemens lives or the £1.6 billion either. Wonder how long the "modest prophet" it makes will take to pay that off?

Not everything is about profit and loss you know. Sometimes you have to do what you believe is the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by dodger

But then they were just a few windy rocks. We sent a task force for the windy rocks but when China said they wanted Hong Kong back we didn't put up too much of a fight. Funny that.

So when someone invaded our sovereign territory we used force to get it back, but when China wanted Hong Kong back because the lease had run out and we were obliged to do so, we did. Not particularly funny, that.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Not everything is about profit and loss you know. Sometimes you have to do what you believe is the right thing to do.

As I said, once the Argies invaded we had to respond, the problem is the whole thing could've been easily avoided diplomatically before it started.

Originally Posted by tim887

So when someone invaded our sovereign territory we used force to get it back, but when China wanted Hong Kong back because the lease had run out and we were obliged to do so, we did. Not particularly funny, that.

The lease coverd a very small part of Kowloon harbour and some other small islands. The main part of Hong Kong was not part of the lease. Amazing that this isn't common knowledge don't you think? Why would or glorious leaders want to bury something like that?

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Sometimes you have to do what you believe is the right thing to do.

Or what we're told is the right thing to do. Again.

Well if it's any consolation at least World War 2 has thought us all that colonisation and annexing soverign countries is not cool and will come back to bite arses. Pity that lesson wasn't learnt earlier on though wasn't it?

I mean, what the £#%&! were you @#%&!s playing at? Putting your clammy hands on everyone elses shit for hundreds of years.

Originally Posted by Tropical

whether the war was justified is to sidestep more pertinent questions. Foremost among which is, could the war have been prevented?



The answer is almost certainly, yes. Once Argentina invaded, Britain had little option but to defend sovereign territory. But there is little doubt that with a little foresight on the part of the British government, and in particular the foreign office, the invasion would not have taken place. Although there is a plausible argument, made in Richard C Thornton's The Falklands Sting (which places the conflict in a Cold War context) that the occurrence of the Falklands war was less of a mishap than it might seem.



This is interesting, too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/falklands/...516277,00.html

nice linkage.

it's almost always the case that such things could've been prevented, though. WWI could've been prevented if britain had stuck with her isolationist policy; WWII could've been prevented if britain had had a stronger PM than chamberlain and had listened to churchill's warnings in parliament about the dangers of nazism; much of the carnage in northern ireland could've been prevented if the sunningdale agreement had been signed.

the fact that it could have been prevented but wasn't doesn't mean that the actions of the british government were any less justified. they were dealing with the political realities of 1982, not 1980, or indeed 1977, when the labour government had deployed royal navy ships to deter a potential threat of invasion by the argies.

Originally Posted by Jack Duckworth

it's almost always the case that such things could've been prevented, though. WWI could've been prevented if britain had stuck with her isolationist policy; WWII could've been prevented if britain had had a stronger PM than chamberlain and had listened to churchill's warnings in parliament about the dangers of nazism

but with those examples you're looking at predicting a giant sweep of geopolitical movements and forces; whereas with the Falklands (unless you agree with Thornton, of course) you're looking at a small, localised and very specific sequence of events over a short period of time. So they don't really bear comparison.

Originally Posted by dodger

The lease coverd a very small part of Kowloon harbour and some other small islands. The main part of Hong Kong was not part of the lease. Amazing that this isn't common knowledge don't you think? Why would or glorious leaders want to bury something like that?

So what were we supposed to do?

The world isn't one big conspiracy theory, you know. We gave Hong Kong back in 1997 under John Major; do you seriously think he would have sent a task force to The Falklands?

I strongly suspect that Margaret Thatcher did what she did because she thought it was the right thing to do. Same with [quite rightly at the time] smashing the unions. Sure she may have been aware of the election bi-product, but I don't belive that was her main motiviating force. And if it was, what a stroke of good luck Argentina invading just when they did. And Lord Carrington being prepared to resign over it.

She may well have been wrong to have done a lot of what she did, but I doubt very much that she didn't do it because she thought it was the best thing for Britain. She doesn't strink me as being worried about winning popularity contests. Which is, of course, why so many people hate her.

I'd recommend this as an excellent read on the subject, both politically and militarilly.

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Falklan.../dp/0393301982

Originally Posted by Jack Duckworth

nice linkage.

it's almost always the case that such things could've been prevented, though. WWI could've been prevented if britain had stuck with her isolationist policy; WWII could've been prevented if britain had had a stronger PM than chamberlain and had listened to churchill's warnings in parliament about the dangers of nazism; much of the carnage in northern ireland could've been prevented if the sunningdale agreement had been signed.

the fact that it could have been prevented but wasn't doesn't mean that the actions of the british government were any less justified. they were dealing with the political realities of 1982, not 1980, or indeed 1977, when the labour government had deployed royal navy ships to deter a potential threat of invasion by the argies.

Do you really think that a few diplomatic moves here and there would really have been enough to stop either of the world wars. They were not results of a few isolated incidents but rather of large numbers of people being dissatisfied and long standing disagreements between nations. They may have been postponed or the focus moved from one hot spot to another, but to think that they could have been avoided all together is slightly naive I feel.

It's the same with the Falklands. The Argentines had been warned off before by us send a few gunboats, and no doubt they would have been again, but the issue would still have been unresolved, and more importantly, the military government would still have been in place.

Originally Posted by tim887

So what were we supposed to do? .

We were supposed to do what were told, by the Chinese. And we did. And quite £#%&!ing rightly so.
That is rather different to the rhetoric we are forced to listen by the people in charge though.
And which seems to have the desired effect on some.

Originally Posted by tim887

The world isn't one big conspiracy theory, you know. .

There is no theory here. If you want to behave like the Eloi then feel free, you'll fit in nicely.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

It's the same with the Falklands. The Argentines had been warned off before by us send a few gunboats, and no doubt they would have been again, but the issue would still have been unresolved, and more importantly, the military government would still have been in place.

Yes but the point was that there were diplomatic negotiations that could've avoided the conflict all together. Essentially a leaseback whereby the UK would have 100 years to depopulate the Falklands. This would'bve been good for Britain as it was a costly shithole and good for Argentina as they would've got what they wanted eventually without military action. Thatcher misjudged the Argie Junta and essentially blocked this giving them what they felt was no option but to invade and as a result us no option but to respond. It's sad 'cos it could all have been so easily avoided and all those lives need not have been lost.

Originally Posted by dodger

There is no theory here. If you want to behave like the Eloi then feel free, you'll fit in nicely.

In fairness I did have to look that up.

"The Eloi are the spoiled, attractive upper class, living in luxury on the surface of the earth while the Morlocks live underground, tending machinery and providing food, clothing and infrastructure for the Eloi. Each class evolved and degenerated from different social classes as humans, a theme that reflects upon Wells' sociopolitical opinions."

I could live with that; I've seen Upstairs, Downstairs. Do you get access to the fit Morlocks though?