johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944
|
Post by johnr on Nov 10, 2014 9:28:42 GMT
I understood a big help to the UK forces was the supply of large amounts of fuel oil for both the task force and the RAF by the US - and this was while the US was still officially neutral and trying to negotiate peace. It was not so much Reagan (who lets face it, had less grasp of the details than most US Presidents), but Caspar Weinberger.
How about this for the What if? Cap the Knife isnt Secretary for Defense. His reputation for cost cutting gets him the Treasury brief, and someone else, who is less of an Atlanticist and admirer of Winston Churchill is in post. The UK doesnt get the fuel - or just as crucially the satellite recon the US provided.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 10, 2014 17:48:57 GMT
It would have been interesting if the two other parts of the ABC Pact had gone down the same economic road as Chile.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 14, 2014 21:58:41 GMT
With the loss of 1500 service personal, many more tried in kangaroo courts in Argentina and native Falkland islaners expelled from their homes it is a national disaster and a humiliation for Prime Minister Thatcher who immediately resigned to be replaced by Edward du Cann. Will a further expedition assisted by the US take place. Public opinion and the labour party is split. Will the tories even survive as a party in the run up to the 1984 general election. Will the Alliance be forming the next government? Will this be the crisis about which the cold war becomes hot? I have looked at this proposition electorally and prepared a little Christmas-time AH election treat for you all. I have provisionally entitled it "Bring Your Daughter to the Slaughter". It makes 1997 look like kittens playing.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 15, 2014 0:01:03 GMT
We would I hope have launched a second strand of activity in the form of a threat to their mainland unless they withdrew, released the prisoners and apologized, failing which we drop a non nuclear missile on BA harbour with the threat of more to follow. There is no way we just accept defeat from a cruddy little toss-pot state like Argentina. We could not roll over to such a humiliation and our subs would have immediately put all of their vessels at sea to the bottom, not just the Belgrano. Then we look for allies such as Chile with prospects of dismembering the south of Argentina. There is a great deal we could have done and it would certainly have worked. This would not be a 'hard ball' occasion, but blood on the baseball bat until they were utterly crushed and then economically destroyed for at least a generation.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 15, 2014 11:32:27 GMT
We would I hope have launched a second strand of activity in the form of a threat to their mainland unless they withdrew, released the prisoners and apologized, failing which we drop a non nuclear missile on BA harbour with the threat of more to follow. There is no way we just accept defeat from a cruddy little toss-pot state like Argentina. We could not roll over to such a humiliation and our subs would have immediately put all of their vessels at sea to the bottom, not just the Belgrano. Then we look for allies such as Chile with prospects of dismembering the south of Argentina. There is a great deal we could have done and it would certainly have worked. This would not be a 'hard ball' occasion, but blood on the baseball bat until they were utterly crushed and then economically destroyed for at least a generation. And pray which missile do we have which can devastate BA harbour (which is the wrong target anyway) without being nuclear? The answer is, then as it is now, none. We could expensively refit a Polaris to carry around 600kg of some high explosive, but that's less use than a WWII Whitley bomber. No doubt, Carlton, from your usual haze of unknowing, you'd suggest we use the Vulcans from Ascension. Others on here will point out just how complicated and dangerous Black Buck was, extending it to BA would be suicidal. If we lost a carrier, we would have lost, we could interdict the islands with submarines, but unless the yanks did lend up that Iwo Jima, we'd be stuffed and I have my doubts that the Yanks would have done in the end. That evil cow Kirkpatrick would have done just about anything to stop it. I'm afraid unless you can intersect the local 800-pound gorilla, Brazil, action against Argentina would have been exceptionally difficult and dangerous. We were very lucky in the Falklands war, thank goodness.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 15, 2014 11:49:13 GMT
We would I hope have launched a second strand of activity in the form of a threat to their mainland unless they withdrew, released the prisoners and apologized, failing which we drop a non nuclear missile on BA harbour with the threat of more to follow. There is no way we just accept defeat from a cruddy little toss-pot state like Argentina. We could not roll over to such a humiliation and our subs would have immediately put all of their vessels at sea to the bottom, not just the Belgrano. Then we look for allies such as Chile with prospects of dismembering the south of Argentina. There is a great deal we could have done and it would certainly have worked. This would not be a 'hard ball' occasion, but blood on the baseball bat until they were utterly crushed and then economically destroyed for at least a generation. And pray which missile do we have which can devastate BA harbour (which is the wrong target anyway) without being nuclear? The answer is, then as it is now, none. We could expensively refit a Polaris to carry around 600kg of some high explosive, but that's less use than a WWII Whitley bomber. No doubt, Carlton, from your usual haze of unknowing, you'd suggest we use the Vulcans from Ascension. Others on here will point out just how complicated and dangerous Black Buck was, extending it to BA would be suicidal. If we lost a carrier, we would have lost, we could interdict the islands with submarines, but unless the yanks did lend up that Iwo Jima, we'd be stuffed and I have my doubts that the Yanks would have done in the end. That evil cow Kirkpatrick would have done just about anything to stop it. I'm afraid unless you can intersect the local 800-pound gorilla, Brazil, action against Argentina would have been exceptionally difficult and dangerous. We were very lucky in the Falklands war, thank goodness. All of that exposes why you are a LibDem and I never could be. It is a matter of pride and resolve and making things happen against the odds. Like Americans I am a can do person and cannot be beaten except by death. In such cases as this, I do not work on any cost/benefit analysis but on a how to get my way basis. I disagree with everything about your post except Kirkpatrick who I think we should have taken out by a well placed $30K contract. I beg to differ about BA harbour as it was then lined with some of the most massive grain silos in the world. At one stroke we could have struck an enormous financial blow and incidentally filled their harbour with huge quantities of swelling grain. In fact using naval surface vessels with missiles was my method but I am not an expert as you correctly state. If that had not been an option we stand off and shell the harbour instead, then go on to shell other towns for as long as it takes. This sort of action is all about resolve and a will to succeed. You are the sort of person that would have been against the whole exercise anyway and the sort of person that has diminished Britain and its power.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,920
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Nov 16, 2014 0:06:39 GMT
And pray which missile do we have which can devastate BA harbour (which is the wrong target anyway) without being nuclear? The answer is, then as it is now, none. We could expensively refit a Polaris to carry around 600kg of some high explosive, but that's less use than a WWII Whitley bomber. No doubt, Carlton, from your usual haze of unknowing, you'd suggest we use the Vulcans from Ascension. Others on here will point out just how complicated and dangerous Black Buck was, extending it to BA would be suicidal. If we lost a carrier, we would have lost, we could interdict the islands with submarines, but unless the yanks did lend up that Iwo Jima, we'd be stuffed and I have my doubts that the Yanks would have done in the end. That evil cow Kirkpatrick would have done just about anything to stop it. I'm afraid unless you can intersect the local 800-pound gorilla, Brazil, action against Argentina would have been exceptionally difficult and dangerous. We were very lucky in the Falklands war, thank goodness. All of that exposes why you are a LibDem and I never could be. It is a matter of pride and resolve and making things happen against the odds. Like Americans I am a can do person and cannot be beaten except by death. In such cases as this, I do not work on any cost/benefit analysis but on a how to get my way basis. I disagree with everything about your post except Kirkpatrick who I think we should have taken out by a well placed $30K contract. I beg to differ about BA harbour as it was then lined with some of the most massive grain silos in the world. At one stroke we could have struck an enormous financial blow and incidentally filled their harbour with huge quantities of swelling grain. In fact using naval surface vessels with missiles was my method but I am not an expert as you correctly state. If that had not been an option we stand off and shell the harbour instead, then go on to shell other towns for as long as it takes. This sort of action is all about resolve and a will to succeed. You are the sort of person that would have been against the whole exercise anyway and the sort of person that has diminished Britain and its power. But it would have greatly diminished Britain and its power. It would have targeted civilian population and would have transformed Britain in a pariah state nobody wants to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 16, 2014 10:12:24 GMT
And pray which missile do we have which can devastate BA harbour (which is the wrong target anyway) without being nuclear? The answer is, then as it is now, none. We could expensively refit a Polaris to carry around 600kg of some high explosive, but that's less use than a WWII Whitley bomber. No doubt, Carlton, from your usual haze of unknowing, you'd suggest we use the Vulcans from Ascension. Others on here will point out just how complicated and dangerous Black Buck was, extending it to BA would be suicidal. If we lost a carrier, we would have lost, we could interdict the islands with submarines, but unless the yanks did lend up that Iwo Jima, we'd be stuffed and I have my doubts that the Yanks would have done in the end. That evil cow Kirkpatrick would have done just about anything to stop it. I'm afraid unless you can intersect the local 800-pound gorilla, Brazil, action against Argentina would have been exceptionally difficult and dangerous. We were very lucky in the Falklands war, thank goodness. All of that exposes why you are a LibDem and I never could be. It is a matter of pride and resolve and making things happen against the odds. Like Americans I am a can do person and cannot be beaten except by death. In such cases as this, I do not work on any cost/benefit analysis but on a how to get my way basis. I disagree with everything about your post except Kirkpatrick who I think we should have taken out by a well placed $30K contract. So you're not a Lib Dem because you believe wishful thinking is more powerful than reality? Are you secretly Noel Edmonds?
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 16, 2014 10:37:57 GMT
All of that exposes why you are a LibDem and I never could be. It is a matter of pride and resolve and making things happen against the odds. Like Americans I am a can do person and cannot be beaten except by death. In such cases as this, I do not work on any cost/benefit analysis but on a how to get my way basis. I disagree with everything about your post except Kirkpatrick who I think we should have taken out by a well placed $30K contract. So you're not a Lib Dem because you believe wishful thinking is more powerful than reality? Are you secretly Noel Edmonds? This is a 'wishful or fantasy thread' in itself so your comment is a bit redundant. You cast me false as a woolly wishful thinking person. I have been successful because I am not woolly and because i am decisive and pragmatic and 'can do'. I did not dream about the West Coast, sheep and fires........I went there. I did not dream about a place in Italy.........I made it happen. I did not wonder about life outside the day job but angled an exit on eve of my 50th birthday. My 'reality' has been more real than that of most people because I have a talent to make things happen for me. I recognize a rut when I see it and I climb out in search of a more congenial rut with a better view or climate!! Tell me what I have posted that you consider to be wishful thinking? I am certain that with the resolve of people like me, Thatcher, Armchair (by the way where is he?) and Boogie, we could have easily come back from a first tactical reverse with our second third and fourth strike. This was never going to be a damp squib. It was always going to be a hard-edged triumph. You betray yourself with the wishy-washy fears of thinking the world would regard us as pariahs. So what? Fuck the rest of the world when we are faced with a national imperative. What do we care what they think? But of course......you do care.....and thus our current national weakness. Always looking over your shoulder instead of into the eyes of the enemy. That defines the difference between us.......not wishful thinking. And, in truth. the rest of the world respects firm positive action and even brute strength...........it despises losers. You have a loser mentality as do most of the left and liberals in general.
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Nov 16, 2014 11:10:18 GMT
So you're not a Lib Dem because you believe wishful thinking is more powerful than reality? Are you secretly Noel Edmonds? This is a 'wishful or fantasy thread' in itself so your comment is a bit redundant. You cast me false as a woolly wishful thinking person. I have been successful because I am not woolly and because i am decisive and pragmatic and 'can do'. I did not dream about the West Coast, sheep and fires........I went there. I did not dream about a place in Italy.........I made it happen. I did not wonder about life outside the day job but angled an exit on eve of my 50th birthday. My 'reality' has been more real than that of most people because I have a talent to make things happen for me. I recognize a rut when I see it and I climb out in search of a more congenial rut with a better view or climate!! Tell me what I have posted that you consider to be wishful thinking? I am certain that with the resolve of people like me, Thatcher, Armchair (by the way where is he?) and Boogie, we could have easily come back from a first tactical reverse with our second third and fourth strike. This was never going to be a damp squib. It was always going to be a hard-edged triumph. You betray yourself with the wishy-washy fears of thinking the world would regard us as pariahs. So what? Fuck the rest of the world when we are faced with a national imperative. What do we care what they think? But of course......you do care.....and thus our current national weakness. Always looking over your shoulder instead of into the eyes of the enemy. That defines the difference between us.......not wishful thinking. And, in truth. the rest of the world respects firm positive action and even brute strength...........it despises losers. You have a loser mentality as do most of the left and liberals in general. If you are a "can do" person, Carlton, then I suggest UKIP is the wrong party for you. UKIP are the party of the stay-at-homes, the stick-in-the-muds who be-grudge people making the most of their opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 16, 2014 11:20:14 GMT
This is a 'wishful or fantasy thread' in itself so your comment is a bit redundant. You cast me false as a woolly wishful thinking person. I have been successful because I am not woolly and because i am decisive and pragmatic and 'can do'. I did not dream about the West Coast, sheep and fires........I went there. I did not dream about a place in Italy.........I made it happen. I did not wonder about life outside the day job but angled an exit on eve of my 50th birthday. My 'reality' has been more real than that of most people because I have a talent to make things happen for me. I recognize a rut when I see it and I climb out in search of a more congenial rut with a better view or climate!! Tell me what I have posted that you consider to be wishful thinking? I am certain that with the resolve of people like me, Thatcher, Armchair (by the way where is he?) and Boogie, we could have easily come back from a first tactical reverse with our second third and fourth strike. This was never going to be a damp squib. It was always going to be a hard-edged triumph. You betray yourself with the wishy-washy fears of thinking the world would regard us as pariahs. So what? Fuck the rest of the world when we are faced with a national imperative. What do we care what they think? But of course......you do care.....and thus our current national weakness. Always looking over your shoulder instead of into the eyes of the enemy. That defines the difference between us.......not wishful thinking. And, in truth. the rest of the world respects firm positive action and even brute strength...........it despises losers. You have a loser mentality as do most of the left and liberals in general. If you are a "can do" person, Carlton, then I suggest UKIP is the wrong party for you. UKIP are the party of the stay-at-homes, the stick-in-the-muds who be-grudge people making the most of their opportunities. It is still half-formed and may disappear like summer mists or be moulded to my own preferred shape.........thus the attraction. You are mistaken in seeing just one model. UKIP has three distinct modes a) activists b) members and c) voters. They are oddly quite different from one another but with enough centrality of crossover to make it work so far. At this stage we can be very policy-lite and all about mainly what we are against with one or to big stories. As the shell hardens we shall gain and shed many people from each of those groupings. So far the maturation has only affected group 'a)' where the attrition has been rather too high but stability is round the corner, especially after an elected presence in the HOC.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 15, 2015 9:10:59 GMT
If we had lost the Falklands War - or if the war simply hadn't happened in the first place - UK politics would likely have gone down a very different course.
Prior to the war, support for Labour was collapsing due to division and in-fighting, the unpopularity of Michael Foot, and a policy agenda seen as too left wing in many areas. But support for Thatcher and her Tories had collapsed to a similar extent. Thatcher herself was loathed by many, and her policies were seen as uncaring and wantonly destructive to the livelihoods of ordinary people. The new SDP, however, was riding high in the polls, riding the crest of a wave of popularity. The Falklands war and victory changed all that by according Thatcher a massive popularity boost resulting from a wave of jingoistic nationalist sentiment. This electoral boost in her favour - massive at the time - was widely recognised and given a name - the "Falklands Factor". And it lasted for many years.
If the war hadn't happened the election would likely have been delayed until 1984, as the Tories waited as long as possible hoping for a change in fortunes. Chances are, their support would have risen a little, whilst the SDP's would have declined a little. But the result of the 84 election would still in all probability have been disastrous for the Tories as well as Labour. The SDP-Liberal alliance likely really would have broken the mould of British politics, becoming a powerful force in a thouroughly hung parliament.
If the war HAD taken place but been lost, the result would likely have been similar, except for the difference that it would have been even more disastrous for the Tories.
With such a hung parliament, what would likely have happened? Labour regarded the SDP defectionists as absolute traitors at the time to such an extent that I don't think it would or could have gone into coalition with them. Meanwhile the Tories would be ditching Thatcher as an utter failure and replacing her with a much more inclusive, one nation style, figure. I think that such a Tory party and the Liberal-SDP would then have formed some kind of coalition together.
More long term consequences? Some of the more strident positions of Thatcherism would never have come to pass, Thatcher would be remembered as a political failure, the Poll Tax would never have happened, the Scots would never have felt driven en masse towards the SNP, a reformist Labour party would likely have gone into coalition with the SDP-Liberals at some future point, and New Labour would probably never have happened either.
We on the left have a lot to hate General Galtieri for.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,557
|
Post by cibwr on Jul 15, 2015 12:08:32 GMT
So you're not a Lib Dem because you believe wishful thinking is more powerful than reality? Are you secretly Noel Edmonds? This is a 'wishful or fantasy thread' in itself so your comment is a bit redundant. You cast me false as a woolly wishful thinking person. I have been successful because I am not woolly and because i am decisive and pragmatic and 'can do'. I did not dream about the West Coast, sheep and fires........I went there. I did not dream about a place in Italy.........I made it happen. I did not wonder about life outside the day job but angled an exit on eve of my 50th birthday. My 'reality' has been more real than that of most people because I have a talent to make things happen for me. I recognize a rut when I see it and I climb out in search of a more congenial rut with a better view or climate!! Tell me what I have posted that you consider to be wishful thinking? I am certain that with the resolve of people like me, Thatcher, Armchair (by the way where is he?) and Boogie, we could have easily come back from a first tactical reverse with our second third and fourth strike. This was never going to be a damp squib. It was always going to be a hard-edged triumph. You betray yourself with the wishy-washy fears of thinking the world would regard us as pariahs. So what? frack the rest of the world when we are faced with a national imperative. What do we care what they think? But of course......you do care.....and thus our current national weakness. Always looking over your shoulder instead of into the eyes of the enemy. That defines the difference between us.......not wishful thinking. And, in truth. the rest of the world respects firm positive action and even brute strength...........it despises losers. You have a loser mentality as do most of the left and liberals in general. What national imperative? Thatcher was quite happy to signal her lack of interest in an uneconomic far flung bit of rock with a tiny population by withdrawing vessels from the South Atlantic. So the UK gains the islands and becomes an international pariah, in splendid isolation, but we showed the world that we haven't given up on imperialism... what next retaking Ireland by force to combat the IRA?
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 15, 2015 12:26:02 GMT
This is a 'wishful or fantasy thread' in itself so your comment is a bit redundant. You cast me false as a woolly wishful thinking person. I have been successful because I am not woolly and because i am decisive and pragmatic and 'can do'. I did not dream about the West Coast, sheep and fires........I went there. I did not dream about a place in Italy.........I made it happen. I did not wonder about life outside the day job but angled an exit on eve of my 50th birthday. My 'reality' has been more real than that of most people because I have a talent to make things happen for me. I recognize a rut when I see it and I climb out in search of a more congenial rut with a better view or climate!! Tell me what I have posted that you consider to be wishful thinking? I am certain that with the resolve of people like me, Thatcher, Armchair (by the way where is he?) and Boogie, we could have easily come back from a first tactical reverse with our second third and fourth strike. This was never going to be a damp squib. It was always going to be a hard-edged triumph. You betray yourself with the wishy-washy fears of thinking the world would regard us as pariahs. So what? frack the rest of the world when we are faced with a national imperative. What do we care what they think? But of course......you do care.....and thus our current national weakness. Always looking over your shoulder instead of into the eyes of the enemy. That defines the difference between us.......not wishful thinking. And, in truth. the rest of the world respects firm positive action and even brute strength...........it despises losers. You have a loser mentality as do most of the left and liberals in general. What national imperative? Thatcher was quite happy to signal her lack of interest in an uneconomic far flung bit of rock with a tiny population by withdrawing vessels from the South Atlantic. So the UK gains the islands and becomes an international pariah, in splendid isolation, but we showed the world that we haven't given up on imperialism... what next retaking Ireland by force to combat the IRA? Bit slow to react there cibwr! A national imperative is a pressing need as seen at that moment. That imperative was to show we are not to be meddled with, our property is OUR property, taking things by force is to be resisted, the population wanted us to, the islands still had strategic importance for us, the islands might be the key to control of oil and gas fields....etc., etc. We did not become an 'internastional pariah' (LOL) but quite the reverse, a much more respected nation. If only we were in spledid isolation and out of th EU. I am a totally unrepentent Imperialist. I was all in favour of taking the fight back to the IRA in a much more aggressive manner, but frankly Ireland was a drain on us when part of the UK and it is not worth fighting to ecover. I would let Ulster go rather than have the Troubles again. There! Clear and unequivocal answers to you.
|
|