falkland Islands

First topic message reminder :

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.

Is a town full of blacks going to be the same as a town full of whites...?


If not, why not if if we are all the same and equal...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Is a town full of blacks going to be the same as a town full of whites...?
If not, why not if if we are all the same and equal...!?

As people they are biologically no different in regards to being one race, what differs is how each groups is treated, as a system can allow for discrimination against black people as our system does, which helps illustrate my point.
I love how you avoid my questions but I easily answer yours.

So again

Do "you" treat blacks as equals?

No You didn't answer the question.

Tommy Monk wrote:No You didn't answer the question.

I certainly did, because the system of the country will greatly effect how each group is treated in a given town, which is the real problem here because blacks are disadvantaged compared to whites in this country and the US. So it actually illustrates my point very well.

You are still avoiding the question.

Do "you" treat blacks as equals?

Bollocks, you didn't answer the question.



Take your excuses out of the equation.

Tommy Monk wrote:Bollocks, you didn't answer the question.
Take your excuses out of the equation.

The question was answered because you have to factor in if a group is advantaged of disadvantaged, which you wish to ignore like the plague because it perfectly illustrates the point I am making and why even more itis the reason why you yet again fail to answer my question.

I have now asked you multiple time the same question, which leads me clearly to believe you do not think blacks should be treated as equals by refusing to answer.

You can if you wish prove me wrong by answering but as seen it is very easy to expose the backward views that you adhere to which you are in constant denial of.

On that note, this will just be another boring Tommy avoid answering everything and as I am off out for the evening, I shall leave you to sulk.

Enjoy

Still didn't answer the question... but in a way, You did...



You are already imagining the scenarios and knowing full well that there would be considerable glaringjly obvious differences between the two towns, and adding the excuse that the black town would be much worse and that would be because of discrimination and all the whites fault!!!



Even though these two imaginary towns could be the opposite sides of the world and totally isolated from any other intervention of any other people, black or white!!!



YOu still know that the black town would be turned into a crime infested shit hole while the white town would be a decent and successful place to live.

Tommy Monk wrote:Still didn't answer the question... but in a way, You did...
You are already imagining the scenarios and knowing full well that there would be considerable glaringjly obvious differences between the two towns, and adding the excuse that the black town would be much worse and that would be because of discrimination and all the whites fault!!!
Even though these two imaginary towns could be the opposite sides of the world and totally isolated from any other intervention of any other people, black or white!!!
YOu still know that the black town would be turned into a crime infested shit hole while the white town would be a decent and successful place to live.

The only difference in the towns is again how each group is treated, which shows that racism is still alive and well and you fail to factor this when looking at each town. The fact is there is little differences in towns, what we see is where there is high levels of poverty all manufactured by the system which discriminate we see an increase in problems. We see a disparity in sentencing, arrests etc, all of which you choose to ignore. In fact if you want to show other cities in the world you will become even more unstuck in your view points

The fact is at every point you have evaded stated blacks are equals and that the system does not treat them as equals.

That proves you are nothing ore than a small minded racist.

It was not even difficult to prove and here we know blacks and whites are not equally treated in society,  because blacks are discriminated against, which is the whole point and why we all know you are a poor little racist Tommy.

Never my little boy, you will never hold any intelligent views, unless you wake up from the bullshit you believe in.

On that I wish you luck.

Have a good evening

Even though these two imaginary towns could be the opposite sides of the world and totally isolated from any other intervention of any other people, black or white!!!



You still bring in The excuse of discrimination...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

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.

You're quite right Ben. The US were always going to be there to support the UK task force and they did. And it was Sir Henry Leach that told her she had to do it because if she didn't this country of ours would never be the same again. She would also have been finished if she hadn't and would have crashed out of power probably before the end of the parliament. The Brass knew they could depend on the US and the Brass in the US told Regan Reagan what he had to do.

The lefty backs Ben based off hearsay

PMSL

At the end of the day all this discussion about who would have helped etc is irrelevant....

she went and did it....

the left would ahve curled up in a ball ans whimpered "here its yours argentina" please dont hurt us"

Nemesis wrote:The lefty backs Ben based off hearsay

PMSL

Prove me wrong then.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:The lefty backs Ben based off hearsay

PMSL

Prove me wrong then.

Easy boy, look at Bens claims

He claims Maggie only went to war off American backing.
Now unless you can tell me you have the ability to read her mind, I suggest you eat humble pie.
I mean after showing her resolve on many things, did he not make an assumption based off not knowing her?
Take your time

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:The lefty backs Ben based off hearsay

PMSL

Prove me wrong then.

Easy boy, look at Bens claims

He claims Maggie only went to war off American backing.
Now unless you can tell me you have the ability to read her mind, I suggest you eat humble pie.
I mean after showing her resolve on many things, did he not make an assumption based off not knowing her?
Take your time

She authorised the task force because the Brass told her she had to do it and they knew they could depend on the US for support. Her first reaction when she heard the news was 'what can we do', 'what can we do'.
Are you suggesting that the US did not support the task force? I thought I spotted you saying that.

Either Irn has no reply or he understands he has no reply


Night all. lol

darknessss wrote:At the end of the day all this discussion about who would have helped etc is irrelevant....

she went and did it....

the left would ahve curled up in a ball ans whimpered "here its yours argentina" please dont hurt us"

They wouldn't. A Labour govt. would never have let the Falklands fall into the hands of a tin-pot RW dictator like the clown running the show in Argentina. Labour supported the action to retake the Islands.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Easy boy, look at Bens claims

He claims Maggie only went to war off American backing.
Now unless you can tell me you have the ability to read her mind, I suggest you eat humble pie.
I mean after showing her resolve on many things, did he not make an assumption based off not knowing her?
Take your time

She authorised the task force because the Brass told her she had to do it and they knew they could depend on the US for support. Her first reaction when she heard the news was 'what can we do', 'what can we do'.
Are you suggesting that the US did not support the task force? I thought I spotted you saying that.

 

What utter bullshit

Seriously are you that fucking stupid?
Show me where she demanded US support?
What you claim is nothing more than hearsay.
Thank you Irn, you are one ignorant idiot.
So the bases of your claim is zero?

Right now show me why she rarely backed down on many things?
Take your time small man syndrome.

Nemesis wrote:Either Irn has no reply or he understands he has no reply


Night all. lol

Look above your last post

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:Either Irn has no reply or he understands he has no reply


Night all. lol

Look above your last post

Read my last post

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Easy boy, look at Bens claims

He claims Maggie only went to war off American backing.
Now unless you can tell me you have the ability to read her mind, I suggest you eat humble pie.
I mean after showing her resolve on many things, did he not make an assumption based off not knowing her?
Take your time

She authorised the task force because the Brass told her she had to do it and they knew they could depend on the US for support. Her first reaction when she heard the news was 'what can we do', 'what can we do'.
Are you suggesting that the US did not support the task force? I thought I spotted you saying that.

 

What utter bullshit

Seriously are you that fucking stupid?
Show me where she demanded US support?
What you claim is nothing more than hearsay.
Thank you Irn, you are one ignorant idiot.
So the bases of your claim is zero?

Right now show me why she rarely backed down on many things?
Take your time small man syndrome.

I never said she demanded support. I said the support was given willingly. You're making things up now.

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:Either Irn has no reply or he understands he has no reply


Night all. lol

Look above your last post

Read my last post

You should have read mine before you hit the send button..

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


 

What utter bullshit

Seriously are you that fucking stupid?
Show me where she demanded US support?
What you claim is nothing more than hearsay.
Thank you Irn, you are one ignorant idiot.
So the bases of your claim is zero?

Right now show me why she rarely backed down on many things?
Take your time small man syndrome.

I never said she demanded support. I said the support was given willingly. You're making things up now.

Oh do calm down muppet, you backed Ben, he was talking out of his arse as you often do, now as seen even you know I am right by your back track here.

Thanks dummy, on that I wish you a fond fair well

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


 

What utter bullshit

Seriously are you that fucking stupid?
Show me where she demanded US support?
What you claim is nothing more than hearsay.
Thank you Irn, you are one ignorant idiot.
So the bases of your claim is zero?

Right now show me why she rarely backed down on many things?
Take your time small man syndrome.

I never said she demanded support. I said the support was given willingly. You're making things up now.

Oh do calm down muppet, you backed Ben, he was talking out of his arse as you often do, now as seen even you know I am right by your back track here.

Thanks dummy, on that I wish you a fond fair well

I think it's you that needs to calm down and it shows. Prove me wrong about US support for the Task Force led by the Aircraft Carriers.

And is this going to be another night of long goodbye's?

From one of your favourite sources



Reagan wanted Thatcher to give the diplomatic effort a bit more time and she was angry at him for not publicly backing the UK - the real reason for the rift.

The US backed the task force with material, logistics and intelligence reports. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and John Lenham told Reagan what he had to agree to and he agreed to everything - our Brass knew that.

Thems the facts dude

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Oh do calm down muppet, you backed Ben, he was talking out of his arse as you often do, now as seen even you know I am right by your back track here.

Thanks dummy, on that I wish you a fond fair well

I think it's you that needs to calm down and it shows. Prove me wrong about US support for the Task Force led by the Aircraft Carriers.

And is this going to be another night of long goodbye's?

Yes please do prove this, I am going to have a good laugh over this ha ha ha

Irn Bru wrote:From one of your favourite sources



Reagan wanted Thatcher to give the diplomatic effort a bit more time  and she was angry at him for not publicly backing the UK - the real reason for the rift.

The US backed the task force with material, logistics and intelligence reports. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and John Lenham told Reagan what he had to agree to and he agreed to everything - our Brass knew that.

Thems the facts dude

Is that it?

 

This was the reason to make her decide then?

So what did they actually provide in the end?

Thank you for proving my point as I knew you would in the end not even understanding what the argument was.
Seriously it proves you never read a debate do you?

How the U.S. Almost Betrayed Britain


President Reagan presided over this discussion with a kind of calm detachment. He had outlined a fairly clear U.S. position from the start of the crisis: neutrality over which country had sovereignty over the Falklands but strong opposition to settling the question by military aggression. He stuck to it thereafter. The British would have preferred U.S. support on both points, but what they got was substantial—American endorsement of a principle that allowed Washington to give them strong material support for a military campaign that faced steep uphill odds even then.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454


So yhe point still stands and it would help if you actually understood what was being debated

Irn Bru wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

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.

You're quite right Ben. The US were always going to be there to support the UK task force and they did. And it was Sir Henry Leach that told her she had to do it because if she didn't this country of ours would never be the same again. She would also have been finished if she hadn't and would have crashed out of power probably before the end of the parliament. The Brass knew they could depend on the US and the Brass in the US told Regan Reagan what he had to do.

The US were always going to be there to support the UK?
I seem to remember they wouldn't allow our ships into any of their ports, leaving the fleet sitting ducks in open water?
There was also lots of talk at the time of Argentinian snipers turning out to be US soldiers when captured.
I also remember our Vulcans having to fly non stop return to the Falklands as the US wouldn't let us use their air bases.

Much as I hate Thatcher and I know she went to war to save her own skin. I remember the refitting in days of the QEll etc I remember the pride we had and the grief we had. Even Prince Andrew saw active service. We took back the Falklands because we have the best armed services in the world and God knows we could do with getting some pride back in our country. Britain needs less Uriah Heep and more British Bulldog.

Nems wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

You're quite right Ben. The US were always going to be there to support the UK task force and they did. And it was Sir Henry Leach that told her she had to do it because if she didn't this country of ours would never be the same again. She would also have been finished if she hadn't and would have crashed out of power probably before the end of the parliament. The Brass knew they could depend on the US and the Brass in the US told Regan Reagan what he had to do.

The US were always going to be there to support the UK?
I seem to remember they wouldn't allow our ships into any of their ports, leaving the fleet sitting ducks in open water?
There was also lots of talk at the time of Argentinian snipers turning out to be US soldiers when captured.
I also remember our Vulcans having to fly non stop return to the Falklands as the US wouldn't let us use their air bases.

Much as I hate Thatcher and I know she went to war to save her own skin. I remember the refitting in days of the QEll etc I remember the pride we had and the grief we had. Even Prince Andrew saw active service. We took back the Falklands because we have the best armed services in the world and God knows we could do with getting some pride back in our country. Britain needs less Uriah Heep and more British Bulldog.

Excellent post!


I don't remember the bit about Argentinian snipers being US soldiers though...

Nems wrote:
The US was always going to be there to support the UK?
I seem to remember they wouldn't allow our ships into any of their ports, leaving the fleet sitting ducks in open water?

I think that was the South American countries – not the US.

Nems wrote:There was also lots of talk at the time of Argentinian snipers turning out to be US soldiers when captured.

Sorry Nems, that’s complete Nonsense

Nems wrote:I also remember our Vulcans having to fly non stop return to the Falklands as the US wouldn't let us use their air bases.

They didn’t. The Vulcan’s went via Ascension Island where they were refuelled with fuel supplied by British and US tankers and the support of US ground crews at Wideawake Airfield. They still required air-to air refuelling though between both journeys there and back with our tankerss There were no US bases available that were nearer than the Ascension Islands that could be used. [/quote]

Nems wrote:Much as I hate Thatcher and I know she went to war to save her own skin. I remember the refitting in days of the QEll etc I remember the pride we had and the grief we had. Even Prince Andrew saw active service. We took back the Falklands because we have the best armed services in the world and God knows we could do with getting some pride back in our country. Britain needs less Uriah Heep and more British Bulldog.

I agree. The defence review to cut the Navy surface fleet by a third and closing the Royal dockyard at Chatham and significantly reducing the capacity and the workforce at the Portsmouth dockyard didn’t really help in that respect. Despite that the dockyard workers still worked furiously round the clock to prepare the task force on the very day that they were handed redundancy notices. Just as well that in the face of all that they and our armed forces and the workforce at large throughout the country who were left to clear up the mess caused  by her incompetent government showed the British Bulldog spirit you speak of

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:From one of your favourite sources



Reagan wanted Thatcher to give the diplomatic effort a bit more time  and she was angry at him for not publicly backing the UK - the real reason for the rift.

The US backed the task force with material, logistics and intelligence reports. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and John Lenham told Reagan what he had to agree to and he agreed to everything - our Brass knew that.

Thems the facts dude

Is that it?

 

This was the reason to make her decide then?

So what did they actually provide in the end?

Thank you for proving my point as I knew you would in the end not even understanding what the argument was.
Seriously it proves you never read a debate do you?

How the U.S. Almost Betrayed Britain


President Reagan presided over this discussion with a kind of calm detachment. He had outlined a fairly clear U.S. position from the start of the crisis: neutrality over which country had sovereignty over the Falklands but strong opposition to settling the question by military aggression. He stuck to it thereafter. The British would have preferred U.S. support on both points, but what they got was substantial—American endorsement of a principle that allowed Washington to give them strong material support for a military campaign that faced steep uphill odds even then.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454


So yhe point still stands and it would help if you actually understood what was being debated

I'm really glad you included that extract from a newspaper about the NSC meeting because that as much as anything confirms what I have been saying all along and I've highlighted the text for you. She wanted the US to publicly come out in support of the UK which of course Reagan hadn't done so far. But it was that particular meeting that endorsed the US position to support the UK and not the position of Al Haig who had tried to sell a deal that was not really in our interests. Reagan was having none of that and Haig resigned just a few weeks later. Reagan's support was gratefully acknowledged by Thatcher and if you had looked on the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website you would have seen that.



Weapons, arms and material were flown into the Ascension Islands from the US on  USAF C-5A Galaxy and the C-141 Starlifter heavy lift transport aircraft in the days leading up to the war. Fuel was supplied in US tankers.

They even offered up the use of an aircraft carrier which was turned down by our brass as being impractical. A second one was offered up as well and lay on the table if required.

All true.

And as per usual Irn fails to see what Ben claimed of which yet he has failed to proved.

 

I mean here we have Maggie, who held firm on the miners strike
The Poll tax
The Iranian Siege and we are being lef to believe she would only have gone to war with US backing

This is what makes me laugh with pathetic little commies who know little about the Falklands conflict and have to C&P, they lose rack of what the actual debate was

Now please present your case she went to war only off US backing, if not crawlback under what ever little hovel you came from

Nemesis wrote:And as per usual Irn fails to see what Ben claimed of which yet he has failed to proved.

 

I mean here we have Maggie, who held firm on the miners strike
The Poll tax
The Iranian Siege and we are being lef to believe she would only have gone to war with US backing

This is what makes me laugh with pathetic little commies who know little about the Falklands conflict and have to C&P, they lose rack of what the actual debate was

Now please present your case she went to war only off US backing, if not crawlback under what ever little hovel you came from

Well it was you that brought up the NSC meeting and you did ask the question of what was supplied and I'm just giving you the answer. Do you disagree with what I've posted?

And if you insult me personally then it really means that you have no political argument left. - so it's been said.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:And as per usual Irn fails to see what Ben claimed of which yet he has failed to proved.

 

I mean here we have Maggie, who held firm on the miners strike
The Poll tax
The Iranian Siege and we are being lef to believe she would only have gone to war with US backing

This is what makes me laugh with pathetic little commies who know little about the Falklands conflict and have to C&P, they lose rack of what the actual debate was

Now please present your case she went to war only off US backing, if not crawlback under what ever little hovel you came from

Well it was you that brought up the NSC meeting and you did ask the question of what was supplied and I'm just giving you the answer. Do you disagree with what I've posted?

And if you insult me personally then it really means that you have no political argument left. - so it's been said.

That is because you always fail to see what the debate is and you jumped in with both feet in your mouth which is why I allowed you to continue to make an even bigger idiot of yourself.
So you have no evidence that she went to war only off American backing which as I said would be daft to claim not knowing the resolve of Maggie.
Its like I said, when it came to those scum the miners, she never backed down and rightly put them in their place.
I Insult you because you are not worth treating with any respect because you are a terrorist supporting left wing scum. If you do not like that, that is touch shit and believe me, I do think you are scum

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:And as per usual Irn fails to see what Ben claimed of which yet he has failed to proved.

 

I mean here we have Maggie, who held firm on the miners strike
The Poll tax
The Iranian Siege and we are being lef to believe she would only have gone to war with US backing

This is what makes me laugh with pathetic little commies who know little about the Falklands conflict and have to C&P, they lose rack of what the actual debate was

Now please present your case she went to war only off US backing, if not crawlback under what ever little hovel you came from

Well it was you that brought up the NSC meeting and you did ask the question of what was supplied and I'm just giving you the answer. Do you disagree with what I've posted?

And if you insult me personally then it really means that you have no political argument left. - so it's been said.

That is because you always fail to see what the debate is and you jumped in with both feet in your mouth which is why I allowed you to continue to make an even bigger idiot of yourself.
So you have no evidence that she went to war only off American backing which as I said would be daft to claim not knowing the resolve of Maggie.
Its like I said, when it came to those scum the miners, she never backed down and rightly put them in their place.
I Insult you because you are not worth treating with any respect because you are a terrorist supporting left wing scum. If you do not like that, that is touch shot and believe me, I do think you are scum

I love it when you get all bolshie like that Brother Nemesis. Makes my day and tells me I am doing something right. If you want to dispute the answers I gave you then go right ahead.
But right now I have work to go to in the morning and I'm sure you to as well so I'll catch up with anything that you think I've got wrong

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:



That is because you always fail to see what the debate is and you jumped in with both feet in your mouth which is why I allowed you to continue to make an even bigger idiot of yourself.
So you have no evidence that she went to war only off American backing which as I said would be daft to claim not knowing the resolve of Maggie.
Its like I said, when it came to those scum the miners, she never backed down and rightly put them in their place.
I Insult you because you are not worth treating with any respect because you are a terrorist supporting left wing scum. If you do not like that, that is touch shot and believe me, I do think you are scum

I love it when you get all bolshie like that Brother Nemesis. Makes my day and tells me I am doing something right. If you want to dispute the answers I gave you then go right ahead.
But right now I have work to go to in the morning and I'm sure you to as well so I'll catch up with anything that you think I've got wrong

Ha Ha Ha, you think wrongly, I have never thought you were an honest person and about one of the most intolerant left wing posters to have set foot on forums, so cowardly you would send me PM's here to fight your battles on Flap. That is what you call an utter weasel too scared to take on others and to use others where you have not the balls too.
The point is you have not disputed my claims with Ben and still stupidly think you have a point lol
That is why you are such a cretin

So once again you bail out ha ha ha

That's it you piss off you pathetic worm as you always do when shown to be a prime muppet

 

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:



That is because you always fail to see what the debate is and you jumped in with both feet in your mouth which is why I allowed you to continue to make an even bigger idiot of yourself.
So you have no evidence that she went to war only off American backing which as I said would be daft to claim not knowing the resolve of Maggie.
Its like I said, when it came to those scum the miners, she never backed down and rightly put them in their place.
I Insult you because you are not worth treating with any respect because you are a terrorist supporting left wing scum. If you do not like that, that is touch shot and believe me, I do think you are scum

I love it when you get all bolshie like that Brother Nemesis. Makes my day and tells me I am doing something right. If you want to dispute the answers I gave you then go right ahead.
But right now I have work to go to in the morning and I'm sure you to as well so I'll catch up with anything that you think I've got wrong

Did you serve in the Falklands Irn Bru?

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:



That is because you always fail to see what the debate is and you jumped in with both feet in your mouth which is why I allowed you to continue to make an even bigger idiot of yourself.
So you have no evidence that she went to war only off American backing which as I said would be daft to claim not knowing the resolve of Maggie.
Its like I said, when it came to those scum the miners, she never backed down and rightly put them in their place.
I Insult you because you are not worth treating with any respect because you are a terrorist supporting left wing scum. If you do not like that, that is touch shot and believe me, I do think you are scum

I love it when you get all bolshie like that Brother Nemesis. Makes my day and tells me I am doing something right. If you want to dispute the answers I gave you then go right ahead.
But right now I have work to go to in the morning and I'm sure you to as well so I'll catch up with anything that you think I've got wrong

Ha Ha Ha, you think wrongly, I have never thought you were an honest person and about one of the most intolerant left wing posters to have set foot on forums, so cowardly you would send me PM's here to fight your battles on Flap. That is what you call an utter weasel too scared to take on others and to use others where you have not the balls too.
The point is you have not disputed my claims with Ben and still stupidly think you have a point lol
That is why you are such a cretin

So once again you bail out ha ha ha

That's it you piss off you pathetic worm as you always do when shown to be a prime muppet

 

That is an out-and-out lie because I never sent you a PM. You have been here just over 2 weeks having said you have never been on this site before so it must have been someone else. Check your PM box and if you find anything from me then you have my permission to show it.
And besides, making claims about details contained in a PM being sent to you by anyone just demonstrates how low would stoop to try and make a point – it’s low and clearly shows that you can’t be trusted with anything.

And just a reminded, I never said Maggie went to war only off American backing. Go back and read what I really did say and realise your mistake

Now who is telling porkies

As Didge you did send me PM's, one of which was a debate around the founding of the NHS.
It proves you are gutless to fight your own battles.
So not only are you lying you are trying to defend how you are gutless. I care little what you think of me, but all now know you cannot fight your own battles you try and get others to do them for you.
This is evident by your reaction.
As to trust, you have no conception of its meaning and when you cross people, you pay the price for your arrogance and how you are utterly such a slime ball.

You agreed with Ben of which I challenged of which you cannot show she only went to war off American backing. Seems you do not like being ousted as a coward. It shows you are gutless and revealing this is quite a pleasure really.

So you are finally admitting you are Didge now and stopped lying then...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:So you are finally admitting you are Didge now and stopped lying then...!?

Sure when you admit you are Matti?

Nemesis wrote:Now who is telling porkies

As Didge you did send me PM's, one of which was a debate around the founding of the NHS.
It proves you are gutless to fight your own battles.
So not only are you lying you are trying to defend how you are gutless. I care little what you think of me, but all now know you cannot fight your own battles you try and get others to do them for you.
This is evident by your reaction.
As to trust, you have no conception of its meaning and when you cross people, you pay the price for your arrogance and how you are utterly such a slime ball.

So despite all the deceit and dishonesty of the last few weeks you finally make it clear that you are in fact Didge/Brasidas. I knew that all along but it was fun playing along with you avoiding it by saying you had never been on this site before.

And It's true I never sent Nemesis a PM did I. Yes, I sent you a PM as Didge to help you out on the creation of the NHS because you needed it. So much fior doing you a favour that you stoop to this as thanks when you were grateful at the time.

I don't need anyone to fight my battles because I've fought them all every time I have come across them but I won't join that site and they seem reluctant to come heare. You of course flounced and bolted from there just recently so it doesn't say much for you

Nemesis wrote:You agreed with Ben of which I challenged of which you cannot show she only went to war off American backing. Seems you do not like being ousted as a coward. It shows you are gutless and revealing this is quite a pleasure really.

I didn't on the reason why she went to war. Go and read what I said.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:Now who is telling porkies

As Didge you did send me PM's, one of which was a debate around the founding of the NHS.
It proves you are gutless to fight your own battles.
So not only are you lying you are trying to defend how you are gutless. I care little what you think of me, but all now know you cannot fight your own battles you try and get others to do them for you.
This is evident by your reaction.
As to trust, you have no conception of its meaning and when you cross people, you pay the price for your arrogance and how you are utterly such a slime ball.

So despite all the deceit and dishonesty of the last few weeks you finally make it clear that you are  in fact Didge/Brasidas. I knew that all along but it was fun playing along with you avoiding it by saying you had never been on this site before.

And It's true I never sent Nemesis a PM did I. Yes, I sent you a PM as Didge to help you out on the creation of the NHS because you needed it. So much fior doing you a favour that you stoop to this as thanks when you were grateful at the time.

I don't need anyone to fight my battles because I've fought them all every time I have come across them but I won't join that site and they seem reluctant to come heare. You of course flounced and bolted from there just recently so it doesn't say much for you

Never claimed you sent me a PM as Nemesis.
You did as Didge of which I am and you can ask Ben why I did asked to keep my identity secret which I am sure he will tell you, which is not any of your buisness really anyway. The fact is you have been exposed as gutless. It shows you certainly look in often on Inaflap, but have not the balls to join and debate your points. Even worse you try to get others to do this for you. Hardly secret information mind that you would be so gutless and more fool you for sending me this information as I have no loyality to you and never did. As I say, I have tried to move on with you inb the past but you always drag up the past poorly trying to throw this in my face. Now you might start to learn to not be such a twat.

So please spare me the excuses about Inflap, many of them are here and again if you look in, it shows you have interested but try to use others when you are too gutless yourself. Now you have been exposed.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:You agreed with Ben of which I challenged of which you cannot show she only went to war off American backing. Seems you do not like being ousted as a coward. It shows you are gutless and revealing this is quite a pleasure really.

I didn't on the reason why she went to war. Go and read what I said.

I did thanks and as I say, your point is thus irrelevant, just like most of your historical claims, which are based around your childish hate of a PM.

Some flap posters have joined here and were banned almost immediately...

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:You agreed with Ben of which I challenged of which you cannot show she only went to war off American backing. Seems you do not like being ousted as a coward. It shows you are gutless and revealing this is quite a pleasure really.

I didn't on the reason why she went to war. Go and read what I said.

I did thanks and as I say, your point is thus irrelevant, just like most of your historical claims, which are based around your childish hate of a PM.

You can't bring yourself to go and read it or you did and you now realise I didn't say that.

I called it right regarding the support we got from the USA aircraft carriers as well.

Anyway's. I just popped in during a break for lunch but I'll try and get on later after I have been and voted. I expect you will want to get on with your work as well so I won't detain you any longer.

Chin up old bean.

Tommy Monk wrote:Some flap posters have joined here and were banned almost immediately...

I know Tommy. I called for an amnesty and it's open again for any who want to return.