Jump to content

"British Government betrays all those who gave their lives in the Falklands War"


Stephen Muddie

Recommended Posts

Stephen Muddie

Lack of personnel and fleet apparently. Despite a ?171million overspend in the foreign aid budget.

Bring back national service? Build more frigates and destroyers? (they still building warships in Scotland after the supercarriers? Ok looks like the most modern type 45s have reliability issues... What a disgrace http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35432341 )

http://forargyll.com/?p=105540

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/falklands-islands-left-with-no-royal-navy-warship-protection-for-first-time-since-1982-conflict-a6964491.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that happened the day Thatcher decided to sacrifice lives for re-election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that happened the day Thatcher decided to sacrifice lives for re-election.

I hate Thatcher and the Conservative Party but did you expect them to just roll over and allow Argentina to just take British territory without defence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck

There is a garrison and an RAF presence on the Islands.

 

Add an SSN (the presence of which the UK Government will neither confirm nor deny) and you have a fairly potent deterrence to any ambition that Argentina might have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone

Since this is Falklands related I will ask here as there was a fair amount of chat on another thread.

 

I wasn't born during the Falklands but my understanding is the following;

 

* It's an island in the South Atlantic that at various times in the 1800's had people from various nations reach it at some point.

* No one really lived there until the British had people settle there.

* Argentina, a nation ruled and mainly made up of descendants of Spanish colonists, was not an independent nation state at this point.

* At some point, Argentina started claiming the island belonged to them due to proximity and ?

* The descendants of Spanish colonists use disgust of British colonialism to enhance their argument.

* The Argentinian ruling right-wing military Junta decided to invade the island.

* Thatcher decided to send the military to take it back.

 

As someone who tends to be on the opposite side of people like Thatcher, I can't see how she had an alternative. Happy to hear arguments against though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

There is a garrison and an RAF presence on the Islands.

 

Add an SSN (the presence of which the UK Government will neither confirm nor deny) and you have a fairly potent deterrence to any ambition that Argentina might have.

 

More than enough firepower in and around the Islands to deter any aggression from Argentina.

 

Not only that but it's amazing what satellites can see, like troop build-ups, supplies being readied on ships etc etc etc.

 

Never again will the UK get taken by surprise like the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Since this is Falklands related I will ask here as there was a fair amount of chat on another thread.

 

I wasn't born during the Falklands but my understanding is the following;

 

* It's an island in the South Atlantic that at various times in the 1800's had people from various nations reach it at some point.

* No one really lived there until the British had people settle there.

* Argentina, a nation ruled and mainly made up of descendants of Spanish colonists, was not an independent nation state at this point.

* At some point, Argentina started claiming the island belonged to them due to proximity and ?

* The descendants of Spanish colonists use disgust of British colonialism to enhance their argument.

* The Argentinian ruling right-wing military Junta decided to invade the island.

* Thatcher decided to send the military to take it back.

 

As someone who tends to be on the opposite side of people like Thatcher, I can't see how she had an alternative. Happy to hear arguments against though?

 

Pretty much correct on all points.

 

The public mood in the UK at the time was hugely in favour of the UK going down there and kicking Argentina out.

 

The Junta in Argentina IIRC were in serious danger at home and this was a desperate throw of the dice to deflect the attention of the Argentine population away from them and onto the Falklands.

The Argentine government still use the same tactic as a deflection when things are not going well at home, they always bring up the Falklands question to deflect attention away from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong but I thought Italian descent edges it in Argentina but Spanish held the power and were the initial majority.

 

The argument about the island was that it was never Argentinian held.

 

France colonised it and sold it to Spain(or possibly vice versa) then onto Britain but Argentina claim it because of Spanish heritage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this is Falklands related I will ask here as there was a fair amount of chat on another thread.

 

I wasn't born during the Falklands but my understanding is the following;

 

* It's an island in the South Atlantic that at various times in the 1800's had people from various nations reach it at some point.

* No one really lived there until the British had people settle there.

* Argentina, a nation ruled and mainly made up of descendants of Spanish colonists, was not an independent nation state at this point.

* At some point, Argentina started claiming the island belonged to them due to proximity and ?

* The descendants of Spanish colonists use disgust of British colonialism to enhance their argument.

* The Argentinian ruling right-wing military Junta decided to invade the island.

* Thatcher decided to send the military to take it back.

 

As someone who tends to be on the opposite side of people like Thatcher, I can't see how she had an alternative. Happy to hear arguments against though?

 

Pretty much, although the neo-liberal economic decision to take the survey ship Endurance away from the area may well have given the Junta more courage to actually invade, thinking that the UK weren't interested.

 

Apart from that what else could the UK govt do?  I'm certainly not a Thatcher apologist(!) but the Govt did the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck

I could be wrong but I thought Italian descent edges it in Argentina but Spanish held the power and were the initial majority.

 

The argument about the island was that it was never Argentinian held.

 

France colonised it and sold it to Spain(or possibly vice versa) then onto Britain but Argentina claim it because of Spanish heritage.

Don't forget the Welsh in Argentina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget the Welsh in Argentina.

A lot of people of German descent as well. From pre WWII I hasten to add.

 

Sent from my P01Z using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

Pretty much, although the neo-liberal economic decision to take the survey ship Endurance away from the area may well have given the Junta more courage to actually invade, thinking that the UK weren't interested.

 

Apart from that what else could the UK govt do? I'm certainly not a Thatcher apologist(!) but the Govt did the right thing.

Neo-liberal. :vrface:

 

Are we playing Grauniad bullshit bingo again? Cost cutting <> neo-liberal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neo-liberal. :vrface:

 

Are we playing Grauniad bullshit bingo again? Cost cutting <> neo-liberal.

 

OK, monetarist.  Same thing though, more or less, innit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

OK, monetarist. Same thing though, more or less, innit?

Yay let's argue over what confusing other label we put on fascism. That's a fun game.

 

I admit to some fairly ignorant (simplistic maybe) posts on the Isis thread (don't know how we got to Falklands on that one but hey, I got the blame)

 

I realise that there is a fairly strong land presence there now where there wasn't in 1982. Was slightly surprised to read that the Royal Navy only have 19 (iirc) frigates and destroyers now plus two new (joint strategy) aircraft carriers of course. OFC there's (8?) type 26s in the pipeline.

 

Has anybody noticed we are reliant more than ever before on our allies' fleet and weaponry? It's almost like countries don't really exist, unless it's a country that isn't embracing our ways

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay let's argue over what confusing other label we put on fascism. That's a fun game.

 

I admit to some fairly ignorant (simplistic maybe) posts on the Isis thread (don't know how we got to Falklands on that one but hey, I got the blame)

 

I realise that there is a fairly strong land presence there now where there wasn't in 1982. Was slightly surprised to read that the Royal Navy only have 19 (iirc) frigates and destroyers now plus two new (joint strategy) aircraft carriers of course. OFC there's (8?) type 26s in the pipeline.

 

Has anybody noticed we are reliant more than ever before on our allies' fleet and weaponry? It's almost like countries don't really exist, unless it's a country that isn't embracing our ways

 

Ah, but we have our "independent" nuclear capability to put the shits up johnny foreigner!

 

Agreed, there seems to be a multi-national "axis of 'good'", e.g. the USA and her supporters.  The recent Russian involvement in Syria was interesting - first real Russian intervention post Soviet times.  But yes, the way things are reported (as ever was I guess) is very basic and black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

Ah, but we have our "independent" nuclear capability to put the shits up johnny foreigner!

 

Agreed, there seems to be a multi-national "axis of 'good'", e.g. the USA and her supporters.  The recent Russian involvement in Syria was interesting - first real Russian intervention post Soviet times.  But yes, the way things are reported (as ever was I guess) is very basic and black and white.

Ah of course http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/defence-send-warning-putin-trident-6473095#oXtLGGguIguojWFO.97

 

Since 1945, the United States has attempted to overthrow or invade more than 50 foreign governments/countries. that's about a quarter of the world. When you consider how many countries are also her allies, you would have to imagine she has attempted to do so against MOST of her non-allies. Cool story or what bro.

 

IMO WW3 is already on... A bit more heated than a cold war... Ukraine for example: US/bankster coup d'etat of Neo-liberals/corporate fascists vs people who voted legitimately for independence+Russian support. Against this backdrop and the strategic significance of the Clyde, it's not outlandish to suggest the ScotRef was never going to be allowed to be a Yes, is it?

 

Interesting take on events from this guy

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nookie Bear

There is a garrison and an RAF presence on the Islands.

Add an SSN (the presence of which the UK Government will neither confirm nor deny) and you have a fairly potent deterrence to any ambition that Argentina might have.

The OP knows full well the situation. He does seem awfully concerned at the health of our armed forces, which is nice to see (maybe one of the ships has a Hearts-link that exempts it from colonial, fascist, new-blah blah criticism)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

Simply one of a succession of routine visits and similar to visits by RN "Boats" to King's Bay, Georgia. Nothing to get worked up about or a cause to get the Bacofoil out of the kitchen.

There's nothing routine about a sub armed with 24 ballistic warheads docking. It even says it in the article, if you're not one of the TL;DR brigade that is :sailor:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck

There's nothing routine about a sub armed with 24 ballistic warheads docking. It even says it in the article, if you're not one of the TL;DR brigade that is :sailor:

The Daily Record!! You've tipped over the edge now. It's football reporting is usually the most accurate content and we all know how good that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

The Daily Record!! You've tipped over the edge now. It's football reporting is usually the most accurate content and we all know how good that is.

It's easier to attack sources than it is to provide them. Sure, I get you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

I would suggest that the Independent's headline is the most accurate of the three links in the opening post. I would humbly suggest the title of the thread was bordering on the sensational alla a red top headline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

davemclaren

I would suggest that the Independent's headline is the most accurate of the three links in the opening post. I would humbly suggest the title of the thread was bordering on the sensational alla a red top headline.

How do you scramble a frigate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

I would suggest that the Independent's headline is the most accurate of the three links in the opening post. I would humbly suggest the title of the thread was bordering on the sensational alla a red top headline.

I would suggest that the title of the thread was a direct quote of the headline in the local paper that was my original link. Then, I edited and added the link to the independent.

 

No conspiracy I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

How do you scramble a frigate?

One Captain tried by hitting the tower Bridge in London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

I would suggest that the title of the thread was a direct quote of the headline in the local paper that was my original link. Then, I edited and added the link to the independent.

 

No conspiracy I'm afraid.

I would suggest you ear seeing conspiracy where none exists. There was nothing to stop you having a less sensational thread title. The link to the local Argyll paper would have been suffice. Your link to the BBC was for a story over two months old. Do try and keep up to date old boy:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

First link doesn't work for me buddy.

 

2nd link is from uk defence journal ( :sailor: ) And says that USS Wyoming (Ohio class ballistic sub) visit was "routine" (DR says it's first time such a sub has berthed in over a decade), then mentions a visit by USS New Mexico being recent (armed with tomahawks and torpedoes only). I'd suggest that the berthing of these Virginia class subs is "routine".

 

Fail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

I would suggest you ear seeing conspiracy where none exists. There was nothing to stop you having a less sensational thread title. The link to the local Argyll paper would have been suffice. Your link to the BBC was for a story over two months old. Do try and keep up to date old boy:-)

I didn't know how else to link the actual article I originally read and found interesting enough to share. I didn't want to misrepresent the article. No doubt someone would have found a mistake had I done so :sailor:

 

I noticed afterwards, when I questioned the article, that the independent link would help, so edited.

 

I guess it is my fault for directly linking someone else's headline John? (in quotes so you all knew it wasn't ME saying it??) Sheesh. Pointless bickering has reached new levels here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bowmans_Boot

Since this is Falklands related I will ask here as there was a fair amount of chat on another thread.

 

I wasn't born during the Falklands but my understanding is the following;

 

* It's an island in the South Atlantic that at various times in the 1800's had people from various nations reach it at some point.

* No one really lived there until the British had people settle there.

* Argentina, a nation ruled and mainly made up of descendants of Spanish colonists, was not an independent nation state at this point.

* At some point, Argentina started claiming the island belonged to them due to proximity and ?

* The descendants of Spanish colonists use disgust of British colonialism to enhance their argument.

* The Argentinian ruling right-wing military Junta decided to invade the island.

* Thatcher decided to send the military to take it back.

 

As someone who tends to be on the opposite side of people like Thatcher, I can't see how she had an alternative. Happy to hear arguments against though?

 

Again, as with the other thread, this is over simplifying the issue. The manner in which Las Malvinas was gained by Britain was described (by themselves) in 1936 as difficult to explain "without showing ourselves up as international bandits". In addition, Argentina have claimed the islands belong to them since the 1800s, not "at some point", which makes it sound like they just decided some day prior to invading.

 

There is no doubt that the Argentine government of 1982 was evil and nobody of sound mind would want to have been ruled by them. Today the situation is entirely different and Argentina is a democracy.

 

The issue is complex and difficult to resolve, but I find it very, very hard to believe that they should remain as they are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck

First link doesn't work for me buddy.

 

2nd link is from uk defence journal ( :sailor: ) And says that USS Wyoming (Ohio class ballistic sub) visit was "routine" (DR says it's first time such a sub has berthed in over a decade), then mentions a visit by USS New Mexico being recent (armed with tomahawks and torpedoes only). I'd suggest that the berthing of these Virginia class subs is "routine".

 

Fail

You seem to be very good at using the Internet for research when it suits your agenda. It is surprising therefore that you failed to uncover the information that showed that ALL foreign visits by USN SSBNs were suspended in 2003 but were recently relaxed for the benefit of crews. Subic Bay and Diego Garcia being other ports of call receiving planned (routine) visits.

 

Such visits don't just happen as everything from diplomatic clearance to victuals have to be arranged well in advance. The Wyoming visit would be planned months in advance so would be "routine" as opposed to "unplanned".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

You seem to be very good at using the Internet for research when it suits your agenda. It is surprising therefore that you failed to uncover the information that showed that ALL foreign visits by USN SSBNs were suspended in 2003 but were recently relaxed for the benefit of crews. Subic Bay and Diego Garcia being other ports of call receiving planned (routine) visits.

 

Such visits don't just happen as everything from diplomatic clearance to victuals have to be arranged well in advance. The Wyoming visit would be planned months in advance so would be "routine" as opposed to "unplanned".

Ah that's right my agenda...

 

Didn't realise facts and truth were so abhorrent :sailor:

 

Sorry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

 The definition of "routine" has changed from "happens all the time" to "planned months in advance" in the space of two of your posts. Not very consistent.

Apologies again for noticing these glaring inconsistencies.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck

The definition of "routine" has changed from "happens all the time" to "planned months in advance" in the space of two of your posts. Not very consistent.

 

Apologies again for noticing these glaring inconsistencies.

 

My fault, I must learn to be more precise in my wording as, in my little world, "routine" (adjective) can mean standard, normal, ordinary, natural or unexceptional.

 

Maybe you are right and the visit had nothing to do with deterring Putin and more to do with keeping the Clyde free of oil rigs and keeping open access to Faslane. After all, the US probably paid for the pre-printing of the Indy Referendum ballot papers ready for insertion into ballot boxes between Polling Stations and Counting Halls. I wonder if they have a similar contract for the EU Referendum. (Do I now qualify for a tinfoil hat?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

My fault, I must learn to be more precise in my wording as, in my little world, "routine" (adjective) can mean standard, normal, ordinary, natural or unexceptional.

 

Maybe you are right and the visit had nothing to do with deterring Putin and more to do with keeping the Clyde free of oil rigs and keeping open access to Faslane. After all, the US probably paid for the pre-printing of the Indy Referendum ballot papers ready for insertion into ballot boxes between Polling Stations and Counting Halls. I wonder if they have a similar contract for the EU Referendum. (Do I now qualify for a tinfoil hat?)

Hahaha.

 

You're some kid. Keep calm and carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone

Again, as with the other thread, this is over simplifying the issue. The manner in which Las Malvinas was gained by Britain was described (by themselves) in 1936 as difficult to explain "without showing ourselves up as international bandits". In addition, Argentina have claimed the islands belong to them since the 1800s, not "at some point", which makes it sound like they just decided some day prior to invading.

 

There is no doubt that the Argentine government of 1982 was evil and nobody of sound mind would want to have been ruled by them. Today the situation is entirely different and Argentina is a democracy.

 

The issue is complex and difficult to resolve, but I find it very, very hard to believe that they should remain as they are.

I stated at the start I didn't know much about it so was setting out what I thought I knew and welcomed challenges to that so it's not surprising my post is a simplification.

 

I assume from your use of Las Marvinas you side with Argentina on this.

 

OK apologies for the use of "at some point". What exactly is the claim from Argentina on the islands?

 

From what I have read it seems that various European countries had settlements at various points on the island and the British ended up with them. Argentina seem to have claimed them on the basis of claims on Spanish settlements in the South Atlantic? If so, and I may be be wrong, that seems as spurious as the British having them.

 

Do you agree with the British Governments decision to take the islands back after the invasion?

 

And finally, on exactly what should happen with them, would you not agree that regardless of what happened in the early 1800's you now have thousands of people who live and have ancestors who have lived on these islands for a long time that unequivocally want to remain part of Britain, and their wishes should be respected? I get you might say it's a loaded dice, of course they'd say that but what can be done, kick them our or force them to live under a foreign Government's rule?

 

I'm intrigued to hear your viewpoints btw as I said earlier, don't know a lot about it and most folk seem on the same but different page from you so genuinely interested in another point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

I stated at the start I didn't know much about it so was setting out what I thought I knew and welcomed challenges to that so it's not surprising my post is a simplification.

 

I assume from your use of Las Marvinas you side with Argentina on this.

 

OK apologies for the use of "at some point". What exactly is the claim from Argentina on the islands?

 

From what I have read it seems that various European countries had settlements at various points on the island and the British ended up with them. Argentina seem to have claimed them on the basis of claims on Spanish settlements in the South Atlantic? If so, and I may be be wrong, that seems as spurious as the British having them.

 

Do you agree with the British Governments decision to take the islands back after the invasion?

 

And finally, on exactly what should happen with them, would you not agree that regardless of what happened in the early 1800's you now have thousands of people who live and have ancestors who have lived on these islands for a long time that unequivocally want to remain part of Britain, and their wishes should be respected? I get you might say it's a loaded dice, of course they'd say that but what can be done, kick them our or force them to live under a foreign Government's rule?

 

I'm intrigued to hear your viewpoints btw as I said earlier, don't know a lot about it and most folk seem on the same but different page from you so genuinely interested in another point of view.

After that ISIS thread I took it upon myself to learn more about it. Part of that quest was the uncovering of the info in the OP. What I found really tragic I suppose was that before the military junta invaded the islands (and would have wiped out the British forces had it not been for the fact there were twice as many military personnel there due to chance - a changeover) the two countries were in diplomatic talks to hand the islands over to Argentina.

 

I can argue the morality aspect of colonialism etc, I don't think we had any choice but to fight, as it happened. You can't just let your soldiers die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bowmans_Boot

I stated at the start I didn't know much about it so was setting out what I thought I knew and welcomed challenges to that so it's not surprising my post is a simplification.

 

I assume from your use of Las Marvinas you side with Argentina on this.

 

OK apologies for the use of "at some point". What exactly is the claim from Argentina on the islands?

 

From what I have read it seems that various European countries had settlements at various points on the island and the British ended up with them. Argentina seem to have claimed them on the basis of claims on Spanish settlements in the South Atlantic? If so, and I may be be wrong, that seems as spurious as the British having them.

 

Do you agree with the British Governments decision to take the islands back after the invasion?

 

And finally, on exactly what should happen with them, would you not agree that regardless of what happened in the early 1800's you now have thousands of people who live and have ancestors who have lived on these islands for a long time that unequivocally want to remain part of Britain, and their wishes should be respected? I get you might say it's a loaded dice, of course they'd say that but what can be done, kick them our or force them to live under a foreign Government's rule?

 

I'm intrigued to hear your viewpoints btw as I said earlier, don't know a lot about it and most folk seem on the same but different page from you so genuinely interested in another point of view.

 

The islands were held by France, then Spain for years and then Argentina had sovereignty once it was formally established. The British took the islands by force (100% admitted by themselves, as I previously posted) which was, basically, a prime example of 19th century colonialism.

 

I do not think that the British have a true claim to the islands, no, but I do understand why they defended them in 1982, given that the vast majority of the inhabitants wished to remain British (albeit I do not believe that was the motivation behind the British attack).

 

However, the issue is complex, given that you have people who live there and wish to remain British. That said, I believe that Las Malvinas son argentinas and that the inhabitants should be given the option of either remaining there, under Argentine ( a fair, just and great country) rule, or relocated to Great Britain, at the cost of GB, of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck

The islands were held by France, then Spain for years and then Argentina had sovereignty once it was formally established. The British took the islands by force (100% admitted by themselves, as I previously posted) which was, basically, a prime example of 19th century colonialism.

 

I do not think that the British have a true claim to the islands, no, but I do understand why they defended them in 1982, given that the vast majority of the inhabitants wished to remain British (albeit I do not believe that was the motivation behind the British attack).

 

However, the issue is complex, given that you have people who live there and wish to remain British. That said, I believe that Las Malvinas son argentinas and that the inhabitants should be given the option of either remaining there, under Argentine ( a fair, just and great country) rule, or relocated to Great Britain, at the cost of GB, of course.

If I follow your logic, Britain has a legitimate claim on the Faroes whether or not the Faroese or the Danes wish that to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much correct on all points.

 

The public mood in the UK at the time was hugely in favour of the UK going down there and kicking Argentina out.

 

The Junta in Argentina IIRC were in serious danger at home and this was a desperate throw of the dice to deflect the attention of the Argentine population away from them and onto the Falklands.

The Argentine government still use the same tactic as a deflection when things are not going well at home, they always bring up the Falklands question to deflect attention away from them.

No , it wasn't. Thatcher used the  Falklands to save her political skin. It worked for a while , but she went in the end. 

 

 

To suggest that the UK could have a sovereign claim over  territory that out weighs Argentina's claim to the Falklands is like saying Australia could claim the Hebrides. It's such a shit hole desolate place , the infantry batallion that's supposed to defend it has the shortest stay of any place in the British army , where the junior ranks bar shuts early and they're  not allowed to drink spirits. It's that kind of a place. 

 

As for Argentina ever taking the Falklands - you need to see the armoury down there to believe it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

Your link to the BBC was for a story over two months old. Do try and keep up to date old boy:-)

Sorry John, I missed this little dig. I tried not to reply but given the insane nature of the dig, I feel duty bound.

 

Wow, the story is over two months old. So? ?1bn per boat, and they break down a lot. Shocking IMO. I'm no fan of some of the stuff we get involved in militarily, but if these things are potentially putting lives in danger it's pretty grim and I do think it's disgraceful, yes.

 

Fair enough you're a Navy old boy, but I certainly didn't know about this until I searched for Navy fleet numbers and I'm pretty sure most of JKB didn't either. I don't really understand your point about it being "old news" anyway - The refits, the extra generators or whatever, won't be STARTED until 2019

For what it's worth, JF, here is what Lord West thinks:

 

"In 2014, HMS Dauntless abandoned a training mission due to engine failure and in 2009 HMS Daring lost power in the Atlantic on her first trip to America. Daring also lost power in Kuwait in 2012.

 

Former Navy head Lord West told the BBC that what had initially been described as ?teething problems? was obviously much more.

?Clearly there is a major fault here,? West said.

?It is bad enough fighting your ship when people are dropping bombs on it and blowing bits of equipment out and you keep it going ? that?s what we?re trained to do.?

?You don?t expect suddenly to lose all power when you are steaming along normally,? he said.

He warned that the faults combined and the impact of repairs would stretch the Navy?s ability to hit operational targets.

?We only have 19 destroyers and frigates. That is a national disgrace.

?We can only just do some of the tasks that we should be doing around the world. Suddenly we will not have ships available and that is very, very worrying,? he added."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

No , it wasn't. Thatcher used the Falklands to save her political skin. It worked for a while , but she went in the end.

 

 

To suggest that the UK could have a sovereign claim over territory that out weighs Argentina's claim to the Falklands is like saying Australia could claim the Hebrides. It's such a shit hole desolate place , the infantry batallion that's supposed to defend it has the shortest stay of any place in the British army , where the junior ranks bar shuts early and they're not allowed to drink spirits. It's that kind of a place.

 

As for Argentina ever taking the Falklands - you need to see the armoury down there to believe it.

Thatcher didn't want to send a taskforce. She was persuaded by the then First Sealord Lord Field house. Who promised her he could have a task force ready to sail within 48hrs. He kept his promise.

 

Mr Muddle stop wriggling. You linked to a story that was in all media forms from Jan 29th. I read it then and knew about it. Tough shit that you didn't. Your not quite abreast of things as you like to think you are. You don't fool me with your rhetoric. You went for the sensational in the thread title. You can deny all you want. One who keeps spouting they speak the truth. You were being very economical with it with regards the thread title. IMHO you sir are a windbag and a blowhard. If that is flouting the forum rules so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

Thatcher didn't want to send a taskforce. She was persuaded by the then First Sealord Lord Field house. Who promised her he could have a task force ready to sail within 48hrs. He kept his promise.

 

Mr Muddle stop wriggling. You linked to a story that was in all media forms from Jan 29th. I read it then and knew about it. Tough shit that you didn't. Your not quite abreast of things as you like to think you are. You don't fool me with your rhetoric. You went for the sensational in the thread title. You can deny all you want. One who keeps spouting they speak the truth. You were being very economical with it with regards the thread title. IMHO you sir are a windbag and a blowhard. If that is flouting the forum rules so be it.

OMG you think it's all about me or something. Oh well, I suppose that's a reflection. Most of your posts are autobiographical I've noticed.

 

Deny what? Some boy mate. Damned if I link direct with direct quotes, damned if I don't. What was I meant to say "Local West Coast Pro-Military Rag Says Blah Blah Blah".

 

What would you have titled this thread as, Boss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

OMG you think it's all about me or something. Oh well, I suppose that's a reflection.

It's always been all about you. You like the sound of your own voice far to much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

It's always been all about you. You like the sound of your own voice far to much.

Hmmm. Interesting judgements you make. I've obviously upset you by quoting another author's article. I repeat: What would you have titled the thread as, seeing as that's your main gripe? I think I've only posted once about myself on JKB, barring the odd relevant anecdote. Reflection, like I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanks said no

It's always been all about you. You like the sound of your own voice far to much.

Seconded

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Muddie

Seconded

I don't like to be attacked constantly by other posters and tend to tell them to GTF quite a lot. At least half my posts must be responses to trolls.

 

apart from that I enjoy a decent discussion, like to hear other points of view and above all, like to learn new things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WorldChampions1902

No , it wasn't. Thatcher used the  Falklands to save her political skin.

 

Certainly the Belgrano scandal and the missing nuclear sub logbook fuelled that fire. Not to mention the suspicious murder of an elderly rose-grower who happened to be the Aunt of a senior Naval intelligence officer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...