More Argie Bargie

[scenario8]

onyx39 said:

Cameron seems fairly happy for a rematch if need be:

"Britain...

What's this source, please?

[scenario8]

I think the UK should be a little less hawkish than many on this thread would personally like to be. If you'll pardon the phrase, we are not an island and taking on Argentina militarily is one hell of a risk. Sure, we'd "probably" "win" the battles but do we think the majority of the rest of the world would support us or even look kindly in our direction? I very much doubt it. As I mentioned earlier we'd have all of South America (rightly or wrongly) up in arms, most likely to be supported by Africa and Asia. It's unlikely Russia or China or even dare I say it The US would support us. France, Germany and the rest of Europe would likely look at their feet.

Honestly, our best hope is Argentina gets around to focusing on its domestic woes again.

[98elise]

Dr Jekyll said:

im said:

Sorry the ship was well outside the 200 mile 'Total Exclusion Zone' that the British had declared around the Falklands and was on a westerly heading at the time it was attacked - and a Peruvian peace proposal was still on the table at the time of the attack.

The point of the exclusion zone was that any ships inside it would be sunk, not that ship outside it wouldn't be, so it's irrelevant.

The westerly course was to a temporary holding point until the weather had improved sufficiently for the Argentine carrier to launch an attack.

The Peruvian peace proposal involved British forces withdrawing and leaving the Argentinian occupation in situ pending 'negotiations'. So was a non starter.

Thats how I saw it....inside the exclusion zone, and we will sink you.....outside and we might.

It wasn't a game of cricket, it was a war.

(Ex-RN 1982-1990)

[im]

98elise said:

Dr Jekyll said:

im said:

Sorry the ship was well outside the 200 mile 'Total Exclusion Zone' that the British had declared around the Falklands and was on a westerly heading at the time it was attacked - and a Peruvian peace proposal was still on the table at the time of the attack.

The point of the exclusion zone was that any ships inside it would be sunk, not that ship outside it wouldn't be, so it's irrelevant.

The westerly course was to a temporary holding point until the weather had improved sufficiently for the Argentine carrier to launch an attack.

The Peruvian peace proposal involved British forces withdrawing and leaving the Argentinian occupation in situ pending 'negotiations'. So was a non starter.

Thats how I saw it....inside the exclusion zone, and we will sink you.....outside and we might.

It wasn't a game of cricket, it was a war.

(Ex-RN 1982-1990)

War was never delared and the Brits changed the Rules of Engagement specifically to sink the ship.

Jus' sayin'

[jmorgan]

Let them get close and were they going to play by the same rules? No, they would have gone for the carriers. Game over.

They tried to play dirty at Gibraltar as well.

[Halb]

Regiment said:

robmlufc said:

That's a disgusting joke you're trying to make. Just because they weren't British sailors that died doesn't make it ok to laugh at their grave.

I'm sure if it was a British ship in the pic (not in) everyone would still be pissing themselves at dead Britsthe joke...possibly.

[Balmoral]

Actually, the release of documents under the 30 year rule demonstrated that the decision was the right one, and senior retired Argentine Naval officers have corroborated it too. It's just a shame that Diana Gould didn't live long enough to have known the truth. The Belgrano was no less a danger than protagonists in a duel who are still counting out their ten paces before turning to fire.

[andymadmak]

im said:

War was never delared and the Brits changed the Rules of Engagement specifically to sink the ship.

Jus' trollin'

Fixed that for you

[Ayahuasca]

If the Conqueror had lost contact with the Belgrano she would have been incredibly difficult to find again; right decision to sink her. Shame she was filled with such young trainees. Is the Revell model box picture funny - yes, of course it is, in the same way that many sick jokes are.

[im]

andymadmak said:

im said:

War was never delared and the Brits changed the Rules of Engagement specifically to sink the ship.

Jus' trollin'

Just being a douche bag with a quick "fixed that for you" comment

Oh...EFA

[onyx39]

scenario8 said:

onyx39 said:

Cameron seems fairly happy for a rematch if need be:

"Britain...

What's this source, please?

Appeared on my Facebook from a councillor "friend" (friend of a friend in actual fact)

@CllrWarner: Cameron says he is prepared to fight for the Falklands again http://t.co/d0DJKukK

[scenario8]

onyx39 said:

scenario8 said:

onyx39 said:

Cameron seems fairly happy for a rematch if need be:

"Britain...

What's this source, please?

Appeared on my Facebook from a councillor "friend" (friend of a friend in actual fact)

@CllrWarner: Cameron says he is prepared to fight for the Falklands again http://t.co/d0DJKukK

So it was written by this Councillor - or the councillor forwarded it?

[onyx39]

scenario8 said:

So it was written by this Councillor - or the councillor forwarded it?

The latter I believe.
If you do a search on twitter for Cameron and Falklands, it appears several times from different sources.

[scenario8]

onyx39 said:

scenario8 said:

So it was written by this Councillor - or the councillor forwarded it?

The latter I believe.
If you do a search on twitter for Cameron and Falklands, it appears several times from different sources.

I was just curious as to who actually wrote the text since it wasn't noted in your original post. (I can't access facebook/twitter from this work pc anyway).

edited for hamfistedness.

Edited by scenario8 on Monday 7th January 22:07

[Oakey]

Guys, it's right there in the text. He said it on Andrew Marr's programme.

[scenario8]

Oakey said:

Guys, it's right there in the text. He said it on Andrew Marr's programme.

That's where some of the quoted words were said - not where the text of the "report" were written. (As I read it). It could be a Sky news article, but that would surprise me a little, too.

[Oakey]

Haha, i googled the text.... it's the DM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258018/Wo...

[scenario8]

Sounds about right. Thanks for the trouble.

[Caulkhead]

scenario8 said:

I think the UK should be a little less hawkish than many on this thread would personally like to be. If you'll pardon the phrase, we are not an island and taking on Argentina militarily is one hell of a risk. Sure, we'd "probably" "win" the battles but do we think the majority of the rest of the world would support us or even look kindly in our direction? I very much doubt it. As I mentioned earlier we'd have all of South America (rightly or wrongly) up in arms, most likely to be supported by Africa and Asia. It's unlikely Russia or China or even dare I say it The US would support us. France, Germany and the rest of Europe would likely look at their feet.

Honestly, our best hope is Argentina gets around to focusing on its domestic woes again.

Very few countries even in South America would support Argentina if they invaded or started hostilities. Since there is no chance whatsoever they will, you post is a little redundant.

[scenario8]

Very few countries would be sympathetic to the British if the British are being seen to be militarily hostile is my point. Argentina do not need to invade to provoke a military response from the UK (not necessarily in the form of an all out or even partial attack). Argentina would be very foolish to actually invade and I doubt this time the Argentinian leadership would be as foolish as the previous Junta.

I think pretty much any British escalation in the area would be frowned upon (at best). As I've mentioned in this thread before I truly hope Argentinian politics moves back to focus on its own domestic problems before this simmering international dispute heats up any more but eventually ownership of the islands and issues around the natural resources surrounding them are going to bring matters back to the fore.