falkland Islands

IF the left had had their way,

where do you think the falkland islanders would be


leftist SURRENDER MONKEYS


Twentieth Century
1965 A UN General Assembly resolution calls for talks about the future of the Islands.
1966 Raid by Armed Peronist commandos who capture Port Stanley, only to later surrender.
Sept. 1967 Labour Foreign Secretary, George Brown, starts talks with Argentina and states that Britain are prepared to surrender sovereignty if the Islanders' rights and way of life can be guaranteed.
early 1968 Conservative MPs begin campaign to 'keep the Islands British'.
July 1968 UK, under the Harold Wilson government, began secret negotiations to hand sovereignty of the islands to Argentina, but backed out at the last minute.
Nov. 1968 Lord Chalfont fails to convince Islanders of benefits of agreement with Argentina.
Dec. 1968 Sir Alec Douglas Hulme, foreign affairs spokesman, promises that a returned Conservative government would 'stike Sovereignty from the agenda' of negotiations.
1970 Edward Heath's new government does exactly that.
1971 Argentina temporarily shelves question of sovereignty whilst they try to persuade Islands of negotiated settlement.
1973 Peronist government returns in Argentina and renews claim of sovereignty at UN.
late 1973 Islands governer is refused the defence of an RN Frigate.
1977 Group of Argentinian sailors landed on Morrell, South Sandwich Islands for 'scientific research'.
New Labour government under James Callaghan launches new talks with soverignty again under discussion.
Autumn 1977 Argentine naval manouvers alarm British. Callaghan responds with two frigates and an SSN; Argentine activities subside.
Nov. 1980 First suggestion of a 'lease back' arrangement, by Thatcher's Secretary of State Nicholas Ridley, to Islanders fails.
Events leading up to The Conflict
30/6/81 UK Government confirms its decision to withdraw HMS Endurance as part of their defence review. British Antarctic survey announces budget cuts will force closure of the Grytviken base on South Georgia.
8/12/81 General Leopoldo Galtieri takes the office of President of Argentina in a coup. Planning begins for the retaking of Las Malvinas.
January
9/1/82 British Embassy in Buenos Aires lodges formal protest against the visit of Constantino Davidoff to the Falklands dependancy of South Georgia.
12/1/82 Argentinian Joint Armed Forces committee begins planning for military invasion of the islands.
24/1/82 Consideration of Junta's plans to recapture islands first revealed in a series of articles in La Prensa newspaper.
February
9/2/82 Prime Minister Thatcher confirms retirement of HMS Endurance
27 &
28/2/82 Richard Luce and Enrique Ros meet at the UN Building in New York.
March
1/3/82 Argentina issues total rejection of the outcome of the US talks.
3/3/82 PM Thatcher urges preparation of contingency plans in case of increased Argentine hostility towards islands.
5/3/82 UK Foreign Minister Lord Carrington rejects sending of SSN to patrol off the islands.
19/3/82 Davidoff's party of scrap metal workers lands on South Georgia: Britain issues formal protest
20/3/82 Admiral Anaya orders advance in invasion plans.
22/3/82 HMS Endurance ordered to remove scrap workers from South Georgia, but those orders are later rescinded.
25/3/82 Situation on South Georgia escalates with the arrival of armed personnel in military uniform from Argentine ship Bahia Paraiso.
26/3/82 The Junta decides on military action. The British Ministry of Defence advises against a military response and reminds Lord Carrington of withdrawal of HMS Endurance.
28/3/82 Argentine invasion fleet sets sail.
29/3/82 British PM and Foreign Minister agree to send SSN.
31/3/82 British intelligence learns of Argentine intentions to invade.
April
1/4/82 US President Reagan fails to persuade President Galtieri to abort the landings.
2/4/82 Invasion goes ahead - governor Rex Hunt surrenders after brief defence by overwhelmed detachment of Royal Marines.
3/4/82 PM Thatcher announces the despatch of the Task Force. UN approves Resolution 502.
5/4/82 Task force sets sail from Portsmouth. Gen.Al Haig, the US Secretary of State, begins marathon mediation effort; Lord Carrington resigns.
7/4/82 Britain declares 200 mile exclusion zone around Islands.
8/4/82 American Secretary of State Alexander Haig arrives in London.
10/4/82 Al Haig goes to Buenos Aires to begin talks with the Junta. The EEC, except Italy and Ireland, back trade sanctions against Argentina in protest of the invastion.
12/4/82 Britain declares a 200-mile exclusion zone around the islands. Al Haig back in London.
16/4/82 Al Haig makes final trip to Buenos Aires but talks end without an acceptable conclusion after 3 days. Peruvian initiative follows after.
17/4/82 Council-of-war planning session held at Ascension islands by Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, C-in-C of the British Task Force.
20/4/82 British Government War Cabinet orders repossession of Falklands.
25/4/82 South Georgia recaptured, release by HM Government 'by Marines' after failed landing by SAS on the Fortuna Glacier. Surrender signed on HMS Plymouth. Follow this link for the true story.
28/4/82 200-mile exclusion zone announced surrounding Falkland Islands.
30/4/82 Task force arrives in exclusion zone. USA declares support for Britain.
May
1/5/82 First day of military action. Argentine Mirages attack Task Force. Ships and Harrier a/c attack Port Stanley Airport. Argentine Navy begins pincer movement against Task Force, but Argentine Cruiser General Belgrano is shadowed by British SSN HMS Conqueror.
2/5/82 General Belgrano is sunk by HMS Conqueror without knowledge of cancellation of Argentine pincer attack. Peruvian President renews the peace initiative; new British Foreign Secretary Francis Pym holds talks with General Haig in Washington.
4/5/82 British DDG HMS Sheffield hit by air-launched Exocet missile.
5/5/82 Peru drafts peace plan.
7/5/82 UN enters peace negotiations.
12/5/82 British cruise ship QE2 sets sail as troop transport.
19/5/82 UN peace initiative founders.
20/5/82 UN General Secretary announces collapse of peace effort.
21/5/82 British start landing troops in San Carlos water.
25/5/82 British container ship, carrying vital transport helicopters for land offensive, hit and sunk by air-launched Exocet.
27/5/82 British 2nd Parachute Regiment attacks Argentine garrison at Goose Green.
30/5/82 British 3rd Commando Brigade advances to within 25 miles of Port Stanley.
June
1/6/82 5 Brigade reinforcements arrive at San Carlos Water.
3/6/82 2 Para advance on and capture Fitzroy and Bluff Cove.
4/6/82 Britain vetoes ceasefire resolution tabled by Panama and Spain at the UN.
8/6/82 RFAs Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram bombed by A-4 Skyhawks at Fitzroy.
11 &
12/6/82 British forces take Mount Longdon, Two Sisters and Mount Harriet.
13 &
14/6/82 British take Mount Tumbledown and Wireless Ridge.
HMS Glamorgan becomes last ship to be bombed.
14/6/82 Argentine forces surrender to Major-General Jeremy Moore.
20/6/82 Britain re-takes South Sandwich Islands.
25/6/82 Govenor Rex Hunt returns to retake his role as Commissioner of the Falklands at Stanley.

Labour would sell out their own mothers if they thought it was 'progressive'...

Funny how you guys have to go back decades, leave out crucial facts (like how the supposedly so pro-Falklands Thatcher government initially denied full British citizenship to Falkland Islanders, and how there was no pre-war sovereignty referendum) and generally make a huge fuss over a population that couldn't fill an American high school football stadium in order to bash the left.

Why are the Falklands so important to the right? Because they're a tiny vestige of the empire, and their defense is symbolically important to the idea of the primacy of the Anglosphere. In other words, petty dreams of past glory and rank tribalism.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Funny how you guys have to go back decades, leave out crucial facts (like how the supposedly so pro-Falklands Thatcher government initially denied full British citizenship to Falkland Islanders, and how there was no pre-war sovereignty referendum) and generally make a huge fuss over a population that couldn't fill an American high school football stadium in order to bash the left.

Why are the Falklands so important to the right? Because they're a tiny vestige of the empire, and their defense is symbolically important to the idea of the primacy of the Anglosphere. In other words, petty dreams of past glory and rank tribalism.

Nail - Head + 100

Ben_Reilly wrote:Funny how you guys have to go back decades, leave out crucial facts (like how the supposedly so pro-Falklands Thatcher government initially denied full British citizenship to Falkland Islanders, and how there was no pre-war sovereignty referendum) and generally make a huge fuss over a population that couldn't fill an American high school football stadium in order to bash the left.

Why are the Falklands so important to the right? Because they're a tiny vestige of the empire, and their defense is symbolically important to the idea of the primacy of the Anglosphere. In other words, petty dreams of past glory and rank tribalism.

That is because as an American who has just about failed in near every conflict they have started, you have no comprehension of being proud of your armed forces as the British are. The fact is and surely you agree, this is about self determination and these people class themselves as British. They were invaded and the fact is Britain pulled off major coup in retaking the Islands, where the odds were stacked against them, with the distances. It takes guts to do what Maggie did and with people against her sending a force, hence why even in your country she is hailed second to Churchill himself.
Now we both know your country has little to write home about with conflict success stories and hence why you would fail to understand how people are proud in Britain.

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Funny how you guys have to go back decades, leave out crucial facts (like how the supposedly so pro-Falklands Thatcher government initially denied full British citizenship to Falkland Islanders, and how there was no pre-war sovereignty referendum) and generally make a huge fuss over a population that couldn't fill an American high school football stadium in order to bash the left.

Why are the Falklands so important to the right? Because they're a tiny vestige of the empire, and their defense is symbolically important to the idea of the primacy of the Anglosphere. In other words, petty dreams of past glory and rank tribalism.

That is because as an American who has just about failed in near every conflict they have started, you have no comprehension of being proud of your armed forces as the British are. The fact is and surely you agree, this is about self determination and these people class themselves as British. They were invaded and the fact is Britain pulled off major coup in retaking the Islands, where the odds were stacked against them, with the distances. It takes guts to do what Maggie did and with people against her sending a force, hence why even in your country she is hailed second to Churchill himself.
Now we both know your country has little to write home about with conflict success stories and hence why you would fail to understand how people are proud in Britain.

Wow, your comment just BLEEDS tribalism. Anyway, which of Maggie's actions took guts -- depriving Falklanders of full UK citizenship in 1981, or going to war when she knew Ronnie would be there to back her up if needed?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


That is because as an American who has just about failed in near every conflict they have started, you have no comprehension of being proud of your armed forces as the British are. The fact is and surely you agree, this is about self determination and these people class themselves as British. They were invaded and the fact is Britain pulled off major coup in retaking the Islands, where the odds were stacked against them, with the distances. It takes guts to do what Maggie did and with people against her sending a force, hence why even in your country she is hailed second to Churchill himself.
Now we both know your country has little to write home about with conflict success stories and hence why you would fail to understand how people are proud in Britain.

Wow, your comment just BLEEDS tribalism. Anyway, which of Maggie's actions took guts -- depriving Falklanders of full UK citizenship in 1981, or going to war when she knew Ronnie would be there to back her up if needed?

Really, so to be proud of brave men is a bad thing, now even though you do it every week with your passion for sports? You then claim tribalism to me, when your passion of sports is steeped in tribalism. It is no bad thing as you poorly are trying to make out and where you are even guilty of yourself. It took guts over her own party, of which you clearly know very little about this event.  Because of the sensitive issue is why citizenship was not granted, but then you know nothing, because in fact Reagan pleaded with her not to retake the Falklands. So clearly she went against his wished. So on just about every point you fucked up

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


That is because as an American who has just about failed in near every conflict they have started, you have no comprehension of being proud of your armed forces as the British are. The fact is and surely you agree, this is about self determination and these people class themselves as British. They were invaded and the fact is Britain pulled off major coup in retaking the Islands, where the odds were stacked against them, with the distances. It takes guts to do what Maggie did and with people against her sending a force, hence why even in your country she is hailed second to Churchill himself.
Now we both know your country has little to write home about with conflict success stories and hence why you would fail to understand how people are proud in Britain.

Wow, your comment just BLEEDS tribalism. Anyway, which of Maggie's actions took guts -- depriving Falklanders of full UK citizenship in 1981, or going to war when she knew Ronnie would be there to back her up if needed?

Really, so to be proud of brave men is a bad thing, now even though you do it every week with your passion for sports? You then claim tribalism to me, when your passion of sports is steeped in tribalism. It is no bad thing as you poorly are trying to make out and where you are even guilty of yourself. It took guts over her own party, of which you clearly know very little about this event.  Because of the sensitive issue is why citizenship was not granted, but then you know nothing, because in fact Reagan pleaded with her not to retake the Falklands. So clearly she went against his wished. So on just about every point you fucked up

Hoping a sports team wins is hardly the same thing as dreaming of the British empire

And ...

The US feared the Thatcher government "had not thought much about diplomatic possibilities" for resolving the Falklands crisis when it dispatched a military taskforce 30 years ago, and predicted the conflict would be a "close-run thing" that could well bring about Margaret Thatcher's fall, according to newly declassified American diplomatic cables.

The documents, published by the National Security Archives, an independent research organisation in Washington, also highlight American worries that a protracted war could draw in the Soviet Union on Argentina's side, with far-reaching geopolitical repercussions in an area of the world the US saw as its backyard.

To try to ensure that did not happen, the Reagan administration provided the Thatcher government with substantial covert support, particularly in the form of satellite intelligence on Argentinian military deployments on the Falklands, while outwardly portraying itself as neutral.

In a personal note to Thatcher on 1 April 1982, Reagan wrote: "I want you to know that we have valued your co-operation on the challenges we both face in many different parts of the world. We will do what we can to assist you here. Sincerely, Ron."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/01/us-feared-falklands-war-documents

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:



Really, so to be proud of brave men is a bad thing, now even though you do it every week with your passion for sports? You then claim tribalism to me, when your passion of sports is steeped in tribalism. It is no bad thing as you poorly are trying to make out and where you are even guilty of yourself. It took guts over her own party, of which you clearly know very little about this event.  Because of the sensitive issue is why citizenship was not granted, but then you know nothing, because in fact Reagan pleaded with her not to retake the Falklands. So clearly she went against his wished. So on just about every point you fucked up

Hoping a sports team wins is hardly the same thing as dreaming of the British empire

And ...

The US feared the Thatcher government "had not thought much about diplomatic possibilities" for resolving the Falklands crisis when it dispatched a military taskforce 30 years ago, and predicted the conflict would be a "close-run thing" that could well bring about Margaret Thatcher's fall, according to newly declassified American diplomatic cables.

The documents, published by the National Security Archives, an independent research organisation in Washington, also highlight American worries that a protracted war could draw in the Soviet Union on Argentina's side, with far-reaching geopolitical repercussions in an area of the world the US saw as its backyard.

To try to ensure that did not happen, the Reagan administration provided the Thatcher government with substantial covert support, particularly in the form of satellite intelligence on Argentinian military deployments on the Falklands, while outwardly portraying itself as neutral.

In a personal note to Thatcher on 1 April 1982, Reagan wrote: "I want you to know that we have valued your co-operation on the challenges we both face in many different parts of the world. We will do what we can to assist you here. Sincerely, Ron."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/01/us-feared-falklands-war-documents

Owned silly Boy
You just claimed things about the Falklands you were wrong over including Regan

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fccc5384-4dc8-11e2-a0fc-00144feab49a.html#axzz3Z1joYsB0

So pipe down little boy, you have no where near my knowledge of history and it showed by you posting that, as seen she clearly did not listen to Reagan and took the decision to invade, which logistically was a nightmare, where advantage would be to the defenders, having close logistical support.

I do not dream of a British Empire, the pride was in our nation for freeing people invaded who have the right of self determination little boy, which is nothing to do with wanting a British Empire, but for the rights of British people to be defended. You do of course believe in that, so in every aspect the retaking of the island was to free subjugated people.

Seriously go and study and do not waste my time when you know little about psychology of tribalism, making a daft own goal with sports, and you know very little about history or the rights of people with their self determination to be British. Why do you say otherwise, because you are a wet Lefty who no doubt sympathies with the Argies

In a personal note to Thatcher on 1 April 1982, Reagan wrote: "I want you to know that we have valued your co-operation on the challenges we both face in many different parts of the world. We will do what we can to assist you here. Sincerely, Ron."

Not going to debate with you if you don't even read my posts

oh HOW I wish there was a fishing smiley

Ben_Reilly wrote:In a personal note to Thatcher on 1 April 1982, Reagan wrote: "I want you to know that we have valued your co-operation on the challenges we both face in many different parts of the world. We will do what we can to assist you here. Sincerely, Ron."

Not going to debate with you if you don't even read my posts

Assist and yet he "pleaded" with her not to invade, she did not listen and what assistance did they give little boy?

So now you are clearly attempt to use a get out of this debate fast because you are getting utterly schooled.

Muppet ha ha

Ben_Reilly wrote:In a personal note to Thatcher on 1 April 1982, Reagan wrote: "I want you to know that we have valued your co-operation on the challenges we both face in many different parts of the world. We will do what we can to assist you here. Sincerely, Ron."

Not going to debate with you if you don't even read my posts

Frankly if the Falklands didn't have oil (and they knew about it many years ago although it is only just now being drilled for I believe) no country would give a flying fuck about them, and they certainly wouldn't send men there to be killed.

on that I agree.....
dont for one moment think I beleiev maggie did it for a couple of thousand fishermen and sheep herders....

Um, Reagan gave Thatcher satellite imagery of the Falklands, per my Guardian article, and wrote her a note saying he'd do whatever he could to help.

Either Thatcher committed to military action knowing she'd have U.S. backup if needed ... or she was too stupid to realize that quite obvious fact.

So which way do you want it?

Oh here we go the extreme lefty now claiming it is oil and clearly does not back the right of the islanders for self determination, who now says people should give a fuck about being occupied, even though this is the claim and bases she uses in regards to Palestine, of which 3 times could have been a state, but instead choose to go to war, the consequence of which has led to all the deaths to this date in this conflict

Ben_Reilly wrote:Um, Reagan gave Thatcher satellite imagery of the Falklands, per my Guardian article, and wrote her a note saying he'd do whatever he could to help.

Either Thatcher committed to military action knowing she'd have U.S. backup if needed ... or she was too stupid to realize that quite obvious fact.

So which way do you want it?

Wow and that made her feel secure going to war?
Seriously have you ever studied strategy?
Clearly not, so you are telling me she only went to war off that backing, after he pleaded with her not to?
She committed based on her own view to do so and that had no bearing on her, as she had far ore difficult with her own party.
Typical Thatcher hating lefty where Thatcher is hailed in your country, I mean first woman Prime Minister and you make daft claims.

no really nemesis....I dont think maggie did it for any "honourable reason" It was OIL and britains percieved standing in the world order

not to mention that it was a worthwhile gamble to regain popularity........

darknessss wrote:no really nemesis....I dont think maggie did it for any "honourable reason"  It was OIL and britains percieved standing in the world order

not to mention that it was a worthwhile gamble to regain popularity........

Yet more assumptions. I think she clearly did it for the people.
It certainly was a gamble and to take a gamble like that is a huge risk, which is nothing to do with oil, but back then prestige of the nation.

Okay Ben, you show me where in these communications Thatcher is looking for US approval to go to war. It is clear she would go to war if a settlement could not be reached:




1. (TOP SECRET ENTIRE TEXT) [Text following originally in upper case.]
2. I spent five hours with Prime Minister Thatcher, the first hour with her and the Foreign Secretary, [ Francis ] Pym , alone, following by a working dinner which included the Defense Minister, [ John ] Nott , and senior officials. Before meeting with her, I spent an hour alone with Pym.
3. The Prime Minister has the bit in her teeth, owing to the politics of a unified nation and an angry Parliament, as well as her own convictions about the principles at stake. She is clearly prepared to use force, though she admits a preference for a diplomatic solution. She is [fo 1] rigid in her insistence on a return to the status quo ante, and indeed seemingly determined that any solution involve some retribution.
4. Her Defense Secretary is squarely behind her, though less ideological than she. He is confident of military success, based not on a strategy of landing on the islands but rather by a blockade which, he believes, will eventually make the Argentine presence untenable. Thus, the prospect of imminent hostilities appears less acute – if the Argentines keep their distance – though this does not fundamentally diminish the gravity and urgency of the crisis.

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/109216

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Um, Reagan gave Thatcher satellite imagery of the Falklands, per my Guardian article, and wrote her a note saying he'd do whatever he could to help.

Either Thatcher committed to military action knowing she'd have U.S. backup if needed ... or she was too stupid to realize that quite obvious fact.

So which way do you want it?

Wow and that made her feel secure going to war?
Seriously have you ever studied strategy?
Clearly not, so you are telling me she only went to war off that backing, after he pleaded with her not to?
She committed based on her own view to do so and that had no bearing on her, as she had far ore difficult with her own party.
Typical Thatcher hating lefty where Thatcher is hailed in your country, I mean first woman Prime Minister and you make daft claims.

OK, let's walk through the politics of this. Reagan was a big fan of Thatcher's and wanted her to succeed. He pretty much had to plead publicly against war for the sake of not being seen as a warmonger, and was no doubt concerned over what he saw as a political threat to her career -- as well as any tarnishing of his own image by association (he would run for reelection two years later).

But no U.S. president could ever get away with leaving Britain stranded in our own back yard in need of military support. I don't care if you're Reagan or Carter or Obama, nor who the British PM is -- no president would take the political risk that not helping the UK in a war would represent.

Obviously Thatcher knew that, and would have even if she hadn't gotten a handwritten letter from Reagan. Thatcher and the British military brass never doubted for one second the notion that the U.S. would not leave them hanging, I promise you.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Wow and that made her feel secure going to war?
Seriously have you ever studied strategy?
Clearly not, so you are telling me she only went to war off that backing, after he pleaded with her not to?
She committed based on her own view to do so and that had no bearing on her, as she had far ore difficult with her own party.
Typical Thatcher hating lefty where Thatcher is hailed in your country, I mean first woman Prime Minister and you make daft claims.

OK, let's walk through the politics of this. Reagan was a big fan of Thatcher's and wanted her to succeed. He pretty much had to plead publicly against war for the sake of not being seen as a warmonger, and was no doubt concerned over what he saw as a political threat to her career -- as well as any tarnishing of his own image by association (he would run for reelection two years later).

But no U.S. president could ever get away with leaving Britain stranded in our own back yard in need of military support. I don't care if you're Reagan or Carter or Obama, nor who the British PM is -- no president would take the political risk that not helping the UK in a war would represent.

Obviously Thatcher knew that, and would have even if she hadn't gotten a handwritten letter from Reagan. Thatcher and the British military brass never doubted for one second the notion that the U.S. would not leave them hanging, I promise you.

Point 1) Complete assumption based of your lefty views, which shows your lack of impartiality. She certainly was not happy with him for his invasion of Grenada, seeking no approval there.

Point 2) The point is whether she only decided on going to war based off needing his approval. So it does not matter whether he would not leave her stranded, this is about her will to retake them off her own choosing of which she did. 

Point 3) So the US being allies would not leave them hanging yet offered them very little in support and you base a view that because they were close allies, that she only went to war based off this? Far fetched and no comprehension of the character of Thatcher herself.  You have shown me nothing that she only went to war because of his approval. Which even with their backing providing limited help, the retaking of the Islands is seen as a stunning success. That means people are proud of such things to free people.

I will tell you another reason why you do not understand the resolve of Thatcher and that she would have not needed his approval.

The Iranian Embassy Siege


Another calculated risk and gamble at a time when most nations would instead negotiate and give into the demands of the terrorist, she choose to end the siege.

That is why you need to look at many factors to see the resolve that she had.

I'm not saying the U.S. factored in any way into her decision besides the fact that the U.S. would help IF help was needed. But the fact that she knew that meant it wasn't a terribly gutsy decision for her to make. She had a safety net if she needed it.

Nemesis wrote:

darknessss wrote:no really nemesis....I dont think maggie did it for any "honourable reason"  It was OIL and britains percieved standing in the world order

not to mention that it was a worthwhile gamble to regain popularity........

Yet more assumptions. I think she clearly did it for the people.
It certainly was a gamble and to take a gamble like that is a huge risk, which is nothing to do with oil, but back then prestige of the nation.

well thats your opinion

personally i dont think she had that amount of humanity in her

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm not saying the U.S. factored in any way into her decision besides the fact that the U.S. would help IF help was needed. But the fact that she knew that meant it wasn't a terribly gutsy decision for her to make. She had a safety net if she needed it.

Of course it was a gutsy decision, being as it was a complete gamble, with the UK forces at a distinct disadvantage, having to invade an Island close to the defenders home country. So yes it is very much a very difficult decision to make, which could have ended in disaster.

darknessss wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Yet more assumptions. I think she clearly did it for the people.
It certainly was a gamble and to take a gamble like that is a huge risk, which is nothing to do with oil, but back then prestige of the nation.

well thats your opinion

personally i dont think she had that amount of humanity in her

I certainly think part of her decision was based on the Government not doing well, but clearly prestige of the country strongly played a part and she did resolve to take them back, which meant risking lives doing so, which to me meant she did want the Islanders freed

Night all

The right to self determination eh dodge...!?

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm not saying the U.S. factored in any way into her decision besides the fact that the U.S. would help IF help was needed. But the fact that she knew that meant it wasn't a terribly gutsy decision for her to make. She had a safety net if she needed it.

Of course it was a gutsy decision, being as it was a complete gamble, with the UK forces at a distinct disadvantage, having to invade an Island close to the defenders home country. So yes it is very much a very difficult decision to make, which could have ended in disaster.

A home country which was nearly bankrupt and engaged in civil war, with another conflict brewing with neighboring Chile. Compared to Britain, which sent a military force of 26,000 personnel to a place about the size of New York City to defend a few thousand residents, and knew it could count on the U.S. (which did contribute to the war effort, mostly with materiel) and other allies.

I don't know anybody who would think there was any real chance of failure for the UK in that situation. Rather than proving Maggie was resolved, I think it proves she was (quite literally) belligerent.

By the way, if we want to use the story of the Falklands to illustrate how awful the left is, let's talk about Videla while we're at it He killed far more Argentines than the Brits did, and all for the crime of being left-wing. Oh yeah, he sheltered Nazis, too!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:



Of course it was a gutsy decision, being as it was a complete gamble, with the UK forces at a distinct disadvantage, having to invade an Island close to the defenders home country. So yes it is very much a very difficult decision to make, which could have ended in disaster.

A home country which was nearly bankrupt and engaged in civil war, with another conflict brewing with neighboring Chile. Compared to Britain, which sent a military force of 26,000 personnel to a place about the size of New York City to defend a few thousand residents, and knew it could count on the U.S. (which did contribute to the war effort, mostly with materiel) and other allies.

I don't know anybody who would think there was any real chance of failure for the UK in that situation. Rather than proving Maggie was resolved, I think it proves she was (quite literally) belligerent.

By the way, if we want to use the story of the Falklands to illustrate how awful the left is, let's talk about Videla while we're at it He killed far more Argentines than the Brits did, and all for the crime of being left-wing. Oh yeah, he sheltered Nazis, too!

I don't know anyone half as dumb as you on the Falklands or Maggie Thatcher.
You are just claiming to know the mind of a woman, not understanding the resolve this individual had, which is backed by countless evidence of other things she did. Not only that, you have utterly no comprehension of the difficulties of retaking the Falklands, being as you have no concept of battles, logistics, what favours the defenders and strategy. So you base all of your views based on you being  Maggie hating lefty where you made rather poor assumptions. For one not even understand how people were very much still proud to be British back then. There is even evidence she was resolved to go to war. You think the backing of America influenced this decision, where again as known from herself, she was determined to fight being as sent an angry letter to Reagan telling him she would not concede, further proof you are talking gibberish. 
Yeah I just need to throw in Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and just these three together have committed the most political murders. All left wing I might add.

A SECRET transcript of a telephone conversation between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan has revealed how the former president tried to persuade the prime minister to stop the Falklands war as British troops were advancing on Port Stanley.
The document shows Thatcher was determined to deliver a crushing victory to avenge British losses. Her response to the peace initiative left the president stammering on the transatlantic hotline. At one stage a clearly heated Thatcher demanded to know what Reagan would do if Alaska had been invaded and the United States had suffered casualties recapturing it.

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110526


Best you learn to suck eggs Ben, as this is further proof of her resolve, the one major aspect you never factored in your counters.

On that note, I wish you a goodnight

Lefties hate other lefties when they are deemed to be the 'wrong' type of leftie... this is not new news!



Maybe some just aren't 'progressive' enough..!!!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:



Of course it was a gutsy decision, being as it was a complete gamble, with the UK forces at a distinct disadvantage, having to invade an Island close to the defenders home country. So yes it is very much a very difficult decision to make, which could have ended in disaster.

A home country which was nearly bankrupt and engaged in civil war, with another conflict brewing with neighboring Chile. Compared to Britain, which sent a military force of 26,000 personnel to a place about the size of New York City to defend a few thousand residents, and knew it could count on the U.S. (which did contribute to the war effort, mostly with materiel) and other allies.

I don't know anybody who would think there was any real chance of failure for the UK in that situation. Rather than proving Maggie was resolved, I think it proves she was (quite literally) belligerent.

By the way, if we want to use the story of the Falklands to illustrate how awful the left is, let's talk about Videla while we're at it He killed far more Argentines than the Brits did, and all for the crime of being left-wing. Oh yeah, he sheltered Nazis, too!

Are you ...for one moment suggesting that because I criticize the left, that I am aligned with NAZI lovers??
are you really that dense
do you really wanna go there

or is it just another lefty reflex stock "silencing" routine

"if you aint left, you're a Nazi"

the last resort when "SIXHIRB" fails.......

Sounds about right darkness... the same tricks have been keeping their bullshit going for years so no surprise they still try pulling it...

Tommy Monk wrote:Sounds about right darkness... the same tricks have been keeping their bullshit going for years so no surprise they still try pulling it...

There is no tricks in regards to your view points, the problem you have is being in denial of them, which is really a problem you need to recognize yourself.
The fact is the "SIXHIRB" card is always played as if it actually means something when in reality it is a moot non-starter. It is just an invented mechanism for racists or xenophobes or homophobes etc to play as if they seem to think it will shield them.
Have news for you, it just in fact endorses that they in fact are.

No, it is a trick of the Leftie to label anyone who doesn't follow their agenda as one or more of these so as to try to force compliance and to prevent anyone else daring to question or oppose their agenda.

Tommy Monk wrote:No, it is a trick of the Leftie to label anyone who doesn't follow their agenda as one or more of these so as to try to force compliance and to prevent anyone else daring to question or oppose their agenda.

You see, thank your for proving how you are in complete denial.
That is your issue you need to come to terms with Tommy.
There is no denying your views, its time you started to recognize that
Well do you think its an agenda to be against racism?
I would like to gladly think it is and I am sure you will join me in this agenda against racism?
So yes or no?

Support mass uncontrolled immigration into the country and priority treatment for the foreigners or in The mind of the leftie You are a racist xenaphobic intolerant bigot... see how it works...!?



Or rather how it doesn't work any more...!!!

Tommy proving he dodges all questions:

Try again

Well do you think its an agenda to be against racism?
I would like to gladly think it is and I am sure you will join me in this agenda against racism?
So yes or no?

I've answered... if you are against the agenda of mass immigration into the country and priority treatment given to The foreigners then in The mind of the leftie You are a racist intolerant xenaphobic bigot...

Tommy Monk wrote:I've answered... if you are against the agenda of mass immigration into the country and priority treatment given to The foreigners then in The mind of the leftie You are a racist intolerant xenaphobic bigot...

That is not answering my question on racism.
People who are not racist are against mass immigration also, it is understanding who is and who is not racist so I will ask again:

Well do you think its an agenda to be against racism?
I would like to gladly think it is and I am sure you will join me in this agenda against racism?
So yes or no?

Your question is gobbledegook.

Tommy Monk wrote:Your question is gobbledegook.

So a person who has the chance to state they are against racism fails to do so.

I rest my case.

That was easy ha ha ha ha ha

I am against racism and I am also against mass immigration and priority treatment given to foreigners.


But to The leftie I must be a racist for not supporting their agenda of mass immigration etc.

Tommy Monk wrote:I am against racism and I am also against mass immigration and priority treatment given to foreigners.


But to The leftie I must be a racist for not supporting their agenda of mass immigration etc.

You are against racism then, which took you some tie to declare, well done Matti, so you treat black people as equals then?

The leftie thinks some are more equal than others... I would like to see an end to that...

Tommy Monk wrote:The leftie thinks some are more equal than others... I would like to see an end to that...

So again a direct question fails to be answered and I agree on how some of the left are just as bad but is irrelevant to my question to you.

So do I have to take the view again you do not think blacks are equal then by avoiding answering?