More Argie Bargie
Discussion
NRS said:
I have no idea what he's meaning with this... it's saying absolutely nothing and just seems pointless. He's speaking about a war over 30 years ago, and saying it was pointless? Surely it's pointless to bring up something from so long ago?
Not pointless if you are directing your comments to the already converted.It seems a spectacularly stupid thing to say. Wasn't one of the reasons that Galtieri invaded that he thought that the British government wouldn't even bother to defend it and wanted shot of the islands anyway? Set against his own failing government in Argentina it seemed like a good populist cause.
If Corbyn is in power in a few years (God forbid) and Argentina has some crisis, as seems to be their way, this is like an invitation. A red rag to a bull.
If Corbyn is in power in a few years (God forbid) and Argentina has some crisis, as seems to be their way, this is like an invitation. A red rag to a bull.
AJS- said:
It seems a spectacularly stupid thing to say. Wasn't one of the reasons that Galtieri invaded that he thought that the British government wouldn't even bother to defend it and wanted shot of the islands anyway? Set against his own failing government in Argentina it seemed like a good populist cause.
If Corbyn is in power in a few years (God forbid) and Argentina has some crisis, as seems to be their way, this is like an invitation. A red rag to a bull.
I suspect if that situation occurred, Corbyn would be out pretty quick.If Corbyn is in power in a few years (God forbid) and Argentina has some crisis, as seems to be their way, this is like an invitation. A red rag to a bull.
AJS- said:
It seems a spectacularly stupid thing to say. Wasn't one of the reasons that Galtieri invaded that he thought that the British government wouldn't even bother to defend it and wanted shot of the islands anyway? Set against his own failing government in Argentina it seemed like a good populist cause.
Exactly. The war lost the election for Galtieri, and won it for Thatcher.NRS said:
I have no idea what he's meaning with this... it's saying absolutely nothing and just seems pointless. He's speaking about a war over 30 years ago, and saying it was pointless? Surely it's pointless to bring up something from so long ago?
He also refers to the sinking of the Belgrano as a 'disaster', the only disaster is that we never took their carrier out of action at the same time.Ayahuasca said:
His argument in favour of an accommodation with Argentina is that the islands are "just off" its coast.
It may have escaped his notice that the UK is islands "just off" the coast of France. Maybe he thinks we should be ruled by France? Oh, hang on minute...
It's only 50% France; half the time the drones are in Brussels.It may have escaped his notice that the UK is islands "just off" the coast of France. Maybe he thinks we should be ruled by France? Oh, hang on minute...
Ayahuasca said:
His argument in favour of an accommodation with Argentina is that the islands are "just off" its coast.
It may have escaped his notice that the UK is islands "just off" the coast of France. Maybe he thinks we should be ruled by France? Oh, hang on minute...
Well Jeremy, define "just off"... Port Stanley to Buenos Aires is about 2000km. Just off my arse more like you bearded communist cretin. It may have escaped his notice that the UK is islands "just off" the coast of France. Maybe he thinks we should be ruled by France? Oh, hang on minute...
Godalmighty83 said:
NRS said:
I have no idea what he's meaning with this... it's saying absolutely nothing and just seems pointless. He's speaking about a war over 30 years ago, and saying it was pointless? Surely it's pointless to bring up something from so long ago?
He also refers to the sinking of the Belgrano as a 'disaster', the only disaster is that we never took their carrier out of action at the same time.Einion Yrth said:
MiniMan64 said:
proper set of armed forces
Proper, yes, but given we had to ship men down there in a repurposed cruise liner...Apart from all the other arguments about why "just off" is a silly way to divide up the world (everywhere would just be subsumed by Russia as it has the largest current landmass, maybe that's the plan)...
Patagonia, the part of Argentina closest to the Falklands, was inhabited by native Mapuche tribes until the mid-late 19th century when it was taken by force and divided up between Chile and Argentina in "The Conquest of the Desert". 40+ years after Argentina's very brief & disputed occupation of the Falklands.
To be expected I guess seeing as the majority of Argentinians are actually descended from European settlers who decimated the real native populations. Sitting colonialists who hope they can distract the rest of the world by shouting loudly that Britain is the colonial problem in the region.
I've no idea why Jeremy Corbyn is not appalled by this and campaigning for the land of current day Argentina and it's Spanish settler neighbors to be returned to the ownership & control of the original native tribes?
Patagonia, the part of Argentina closest to the Falklands, was inhabited by native Mapuche tribes until the mid-late 19th century when it was taken by force and divided up between Chile and Argentina in "The Conquest of the Desert". 40+ years after Argentina's very brief & disputed occupation of the Falklands.
To be expected I guess seeing as the majority of Argentinians are actually descended from European settlers who decimated the real native populations. Sitting colonialists who hope they can distract the rest of the world by shouting loudly that Britain is the colonial problem in the region.
I've no idea why Jeremy Corbyn is not appalled by this and campaigning for the land of current day Argentina and it's Spanish settler neighbors to be returned to the ownership & control of the original native tribes?
Einion Yrth said:
MiniMan64 said:
proper set of armed forces
Proper, yes, but given we had to ship men down there in a repurposed cruise liner...We don't need that sort of capacity on a regular basis, so its hired in when we need it. It worked well then and it would still be used today in the same situation.
hidetheelephants said:
Moving thousands of squaddies to somewhere there's no friendly airport is not a requirement the government have ever dealt with directly except during the world wars(via the Ministry of War Transport), even the US effectively binned off that ability when the SS United States was mothballed; doing it with Ships Taken Up From Trade(STUFT) is entirely sensible and it compares well with how trooping was done before the advent of mass airtravel, typically ships would be taken on longterm charter from companies like Bibby and P&O.
Many years ago ( 1980ish ) I saw a rather odd looking ship in a US port. I was told it was one of a class used as commercial RoRo ships, but had been designed so that it could be converted to an escort carrier simply by removing the modular accomodation block. Construction was subsidised by the navy so the owner got a cheap ship on the understanding that it could be called up if needed. 
AJS- said:
It seems a spectacularly stupid thing to say. Wasn't one of the reasons that Galtieri invaded that he thought that the British government wouldn't even bother to defend it and wanted shot of the islands anyway? Set against his own failing government in Argentina it seemed like a good populist cause.
If Corbyn is in power in a few years (God forbid) and Argentina has some crisis, as seems to be their way, this is like an invitation. A red rag to a bull.
That is what people think...it was close to happening as well.If Corbyn is in power in a few years (God forbid) and Argentina has some crisis, as seems to be their way, this is like an invitation. A red rag to a bull.
Talks after invasion
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/28/thatcher...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/that...
Talks before invasion.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falkland...
98elise said:
Einion Yrth said:
MiniMan64 said:
proper set of armed forces
Proper, yes, but given we had to ship men down there in a repurposed cruise liner...We don't need that sort of capacity on a regular basis, so its hired in when we need it. It worked well then and it would still be used today in the same situation.
MartG said:
Many years ago ( 1980ish ) I saw a rather odd looking ship in a US port. I was told it was one of a class used as commercial RoRo ships, but had been designed so that it could be converted to an escort carrier simply by removing the modular accomodation block. Construction was subsidised by the navy so the owner got a cheap ship on the understanding that it could be called up if needed.
The UK has similar arrangements; the Point class ro-ro ships are on long term charter to the MoD.hidetheelephants said:
MartG said:
Many years ago ( 1980ish ) I saw a rather odd looking ship in a US port. I was told it was one of a class used as commercial RoRo ships, but had been designed so that it could be converted to an escort carrier simply by removing the modular accomodation block. Construction was subsidised by the navy so the owner got a cheap ship on the understanding that it could be called up if needed.
The UK has similar arrangements; the Point class ro-ro ships are on long term charter to the MoD.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff