Irish policy on the Falklands war

tvc15

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So is that the solution for the north, all the nationalists should stop moaning and move to Leitrim?

Well you certainly do have a chip on your shoulder about the whole situation then, at what point exactly did I give the impression that I believe the people living in the Falklands should leave? Bringing it back to the Irish situation just looks like you're out for a fight which you won't get from me

dubhthach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are local names for places, in English, the language we are speaking they are called the Falklands. In Spanish it is Las Malvinas, it is bad diction to chop and change. If you refer to Britain and Argentina in their Spanish names, then fine, but using English and referring to the Malvinas just comes across as trying to be smart.

There's a couple of British newspapers I can think of who need to take a leaf out of that book all this "Eire" (sic) business you would think they were talking about encumberance/burden of doing business instead of Ireland (Éire -- hint is that without the fada it's completely different word). Either way I look forward to the Daily Mail publishing an article fully in Irish one of these days

eire fir4
gu: eire, ai: eirí, gi: eirí
Gnó · Business
= bac fir1
encumbrance s
Bhí bac fiacha air., Bhí eire d’fhiacha air. He was debt encumbered.
= ualach fir1
burden s

faoi eire fir1
Gnó › Airgeadas · Business › Finance
encumbered a

Mongfinder General

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's the Falklands, not the Malvinas.

- Ulster, Northern Ireland, Six counties. Different meanings to different people. Get over it.

You accuse both sides of jingoism, but post a load if linguistic crap.

- What's your point?????

As for fish in a barrel, the Belgrano was a 17,000 tonne warship accompanied by two modern destroyers, it wasn't exactly a harmless ship out for a bit of penguin spotting.

- The Royal Navy were streets ahead of the Argentinians. However, did they have prior knowledge that civilians were on board the Belgrano? If the situation was reversed, would the Argentinians have fired? I wager they would have. The whole south atlantic was probably fair game at that stage. The question is, why was the Belgrano headed away from the Falklands?

Thatcher did not start the war, but she is often blamed for it. What were her alternatives? The people of the falklands are not Argentinians and they do not wish to be Argentinians.

The vast majority of Falklanders do not want Argentina as their governors. They may not want HRH in the future either if the intrinisic value of their natural resources can be realised. What could she have done differently? Gotten the Americans involved. There might have been a US-brokered compromise, like the British leaseback under Argentinian sovereignty proposed by Nick Ridley the previous year. She got lucky because the the hawkish elements of the junta got what they wanted and were stupid enough to invade in the middle of winter with a force that was no match for the Royal Navy.

Fratton Fred

tvc15 wrote: »

Well you certainly do have a chip on your shoulder about the whole situation then, at what point exactly did I give the impression that I believe the people living in the Falklands should leave? Bringing it back to the Irish situation just looks like you're out for a fight which you won't get from me

I know several people who went to the falklands and a couple that didn't return.

Using the Irish situation is a handy way of bringing the position to life. The people on the falklands are the descendants of the original settlers, who were the first people to settle the land. Suggesting they leave, or that Argentina taking over their country against their wishes is an infringement of their human rights.

Judgement Day

thecommietommy wrote: »

How the Brits can be a super power and a minor one at the same time is beyond me As for their relationship with America, the Yanks consider them little more than expendable sandbags. To quote a guy from the military forum - " the relationship works like this: the Yanks tell the Brits what to do, and the Brits get to take what scraps fall from the table. "

What part of this do you not understand?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

thecommietommy

Judgement Day wrote: »

What part of this do you not understand?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

So who will Britain threaten or use them against without big brother USA giving them the nod or backing them ? This might help you to understand Britain mocked by US over 'special relationship'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8180709/WikiLeaks-Britain-mocked-by-US-over-special-relationship.html

Judgement Day

Paper never refused ink. The fact remains that the USA were in favour of a negotiated settlement over the Falklands but the Brits went their own sweet way. The fact also remains that Britain (England) remains the only nation that the USA can depend on in the World apart from Israel. It suits the agendas of some in the USA to cock a snook in the direction of the UK but on their own heads be it.

tricky D

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The British had communicated to the Argentines that they would take action against any Argentine forces they considered a threat to its objectives of retaking the Falklands. The Belgrano was the most powerful ship Argentina had and although outside the exclusion zone (which a warning to non belligerent countries, that is all) it was part of a pincer movement intended to threaten the task force. The Argentine military did not see it as controversial.

The pincer movement had just been called off as the aircraft carrier to the north couldn't launch its planes with enough fuel and ordnance when the wind died down. Whether or not they were actively doing the pincer had no effect on the legitimacy of the sinking. There's a strong argument that the British got very lucky with that change of weather. Had the planes been able to attack the task force, the whole war could easily have been lost before the task force arrived.

dubhthach wrote: »

Personally the Belgrano was a warship sunk during wartime. That's par for the course if you ask me. Of course if you read some of the reports released over last couple years (released under 30 year rule) it would appear that the Belgrano had actually been given a grid reference to sail to within the exclusion zone (picked up via Sigint -- Signals intellgience)

That reference might well have been for the pincer movement before it was called off. It might have been a factor in the modification of the Rules of Engagement, but nevertheless the Belgrano's position in relation to the exclusion zone, as you imply, was irrelevant to its legitimacy as a target.

The only real controversy about the sinking was the fibs Thatcher told later and the leaking of details by Clive Ponting. However the fibs might have been intentional to obfuscate SigInt capabilities.

Judgement Day

I seem to remember that the sinking of the Belgrano forced the retirement of the Argentinian aircraft carrier "Veinticinco de Mayo", aka the Twenty-Fifth of May, to port for the remainder of the hostilities, thereby removing a serious threat to the British task force. Heat and kitchen come to mind with regards to the sinking.

jonniebgood1

There is a depth of information on this website pertaining to be an independent inquiry of sorts into the Belgrano. http://belgranoinquiry.com/about-2

Whilst it is helpful I did find it is on the 'make love not war' side of the argument.
There are arguments on either side. It does seem unlikely that Thatcher did not know of the Peruvian peace plan 14 hours after it was completed. It was not the stone age. I also dislike the war monger type attitude that brought about the infamous Sun newspaper headline. Whilst it is of course a rag, it is also representative of a certain populist viewpoint.

Fratton Fred

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

There is a depth of information on this website pertaining to be an independent inquiry of sorts into the Belgrano. http://belgranoinquiry.com/about-2

Whilst it is helpful I did find it is on the 'make love not war' side of the argument.
There are arguments on either side. It does seem unlikely that Thatcher did not know of the Peruvian peace plan 14 hours after it was completed. It was not the stone age. I also dislike the war monger type attitude that brought about the infamous Sun newspaper headline. Whilst it is of course a rag, it is also representative of a certain populist viewpoint.

Two things to note on that headline. Firstly, that headline was used only on first editions of the northern copies. When the scale of the sinking unfolded (and a public outcry) the headline was soon changed to "Did 800 Argies Drown" it something like that.

Secondly, that is the same piece of **** newspaper that published a story about Liverpool fans printing on the dead at Hillsborough.

Fratton Fred

Judgement Day wrote: »

I seem to remember that the sinking of the Belgrano forced the retirement of the Argentinian aircraft carrier "Veinticinco de Mayo", aka the Twenty-Fifth of May, to port for the remainder of the hostilities, thereby removing a serious threat to the British task force. Heat and kitchen come to mind with regards to the sinking.

And their two exocet equipped type 42 Destroyers.

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Two things to note on that headline. Firstly, that headline was used only on first editions of the northern copies. When the scale of the sinking unfolded (and a public outcry) the headline was soon changed to "Did 800 Argies Drown" it something like that.

This is true. I put it out as representative of a certain viewpoint, not universal but there would be support for it nonetheless. The conflict was popular in Britain. It was the first action that she had been so openly involved in since WWII. As the BBC link I posted earlier said, it set Thatcher up for electoral success.

dubhthach

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It was the first action that she had been so openly involved in since WWII.

Korea and Suez surely?

jonniebgood1

dubhthach wrote: »

Korea and Suez surely?

I say 'openly' in a deliberate way. I would see the involvement in Korea as not being so open as they were part of a UN force supporting the Americans. Similar for Suez where the action was not as much of a solo run. In fairness I should have said it was one of the largest actions rather than first action.

Cardinal Richelieu

Judgement Day wrote: »

Paper never refused ink. The fact remains that the USA were in favour of a negotiated settlement over the Falklands but the Brits went their own sweet way. The fact also remains that Britain (England) remains the only nation that the USA can depend on in the World apart from Israel. It suits the agendas of some in the USA to cock a snook in the direction of the UK but on their own heads be it.

South Korea?

Judgement Day

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

South Korea?

That's definitely a one sided relationship. South Korea is a millstone around America's neck. If the US forces left the North would overrun the South in days. Bit like saying Taiwan is another dependable ally.

Cardinal Richelieu

Judgement Day wrote: »

That's definitely a one sided relationship. South Korea is a millstone around America's neck. If the US forces left the North would overrun the South in days. Bit like saying Taiwan is another dependable ally.

Really so are you saying then that the South Korean Military isn't up to scratch when compared to the North? The North may have caught the South out in the 50s but today the ROK is one of the best trained and equipment military forces in the world. Why are the Americans handing over wartime operational control to the ROK then if the North will overrun them in days? I assume the Americans believe the ROK is up to scratch.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/South-Korea-Plans-To-Invade-The-North-6-26-2009.asp

Judgement Day

We're straying way off topic here but I was considering allies of the USA as countries which are of assistance to the USA rather than a drain on their resources. And, I don't think that the South would be able to withstand an invasion from the North without American support.

cruasder777

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Well with the 'empire' gone the need for the best Navy in the world was not as pressing as it once had been. The economic catastrophe for Britain that was WWII is often overlooked also in this context. So Britain post 1960's has no oversea empire (comparative to 1900 say) to protect and no money for a Navy she barely needs.

And there was me thinking the UKs defence budget was the third highest on the planet and the Royal Navy the worlds most modern.

Judgement Day

cruasder777 wrote: »

And there was me thinking the UKs defence budget was the third highest on the planet and the Royal Navy the worlds most modern.

Well it is according to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

$59.6 billion in 2011 - not bad for such a tin-pot country.

cruasder777

Judgement Day wrote: »

Well it is according to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

$59.6 billion in 2011 - not bad for such a tin-pot country.

Argentina is 49, the Republic 63.

I doubt Argentina has the capability to even attempt an invasion.

Judgement Day

cruasder777 wrote: »

Argentina is 49, the Republic 63.

I doubt Argentina has the capability to even attempt an invasion.

Argentina is a democracy these days, thanks to Maggie Thatcher, and so an invasion is far less likely. Anyway it wouldn't be very sporting as Britain needs time to complete its two new aircraft carriers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzLmY9SFDUY

losthorizon

Interesting Piece here on why the Argentinians left one of the British Troopships alone. If they had bombed her things could have turned out differently

http://www.wlrfm.com/wlrfm-podcasts/on-this-day-podcasts/145317-2012-01-06-12-38-08.html

http://www.themysteryworld.com/2012/04/30-years-since-falklands-war-41-pics.html

jonniebgood1

cruasder777 wrote: »

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
Well with the 'empire' gone the need for the best Navy in the world was not as pressing as it once had been. The economic catastrophe for Britain that was WWII is often overlooked also in this context. So Britain post 1960's has no oversea empire (comparative to 1900 say) to protect and no money for a Navy she barely needs.

And there was me thinking the UKs defence budget was the third highest on the planet and the Royal Navy the worlds most modern.

I mentioned context and you are ignoring this.

To be clear the context to which I clearly referred is Britain in the early 20th century.

Refer to spending on defenseapprox 100 years ago in 1910:


And contrast with present:


My understanding is that it is commonly accepted that the reduction in military strength is linked to reduction in empire and also to WWII economic reasons with the end of the cold war being a more recent addition. This is the point I was making.

Britain's defense outlays as a percentage of GDP declined after the Cold War. Estimated defense outlays in 2008 (the last year for which official data was available in 2010) amounted to 2.2% of GDP, half what the UK spent during its last severe economic crisis, in the late 1970s. The last time the UK spent so little on defense was in the 1930s, before the belated arms buildup against Germany. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/uk-budget.htm

cruasder777

Every developed nations military spending in % terms has gone down, the average nation now spends 2 %, 100 years ago as your chart shows it was nearer 20%, its not just applicable to the UK.

The last ecomomic crisis was during the cold war.

Things are very different now, there is no major threat apart from terrorism and unstable dictatorships around the world. The UKs armed forces forces in the cold war inc reserves were 750,000 strong, that cant be justified in todays world.

Hence the Royal navy is going from being a force geared up to hunting Soviet subs in the north Atlantic to an expiditionary force with helicopter carriers to put troops on shore quickly in a rapid deployment role etc.

Technology also means forces are smaller nowadays, mass tank battles WW2 style are a thing of the past.

Todays infantry soldier costs 28k to train and thousands to equip. Some anti tank missiles fired at buildings in Agfghanistan by infantrymen cost £ 60,000 a go.

Pilots cost 1.5 million plus to train, in WW2 Spitfire pilots had two weeks training then took to the air, its a very different world today.

Hence forces are smaller but have alot more fire power.

jonniebgood1

cruasder777 wrote: »

Every developed nations military spending in % terms has gone down, the average nation now spends 2 %, 100 years ago as your chart shows it was nearer 20%, its not just applicable to the UK.

What about the dominant player- the US?

cruasder777 wrote: »

Hence the Royal navy is going from being a force geared up to hunting Soviet subs in the north Atlantic to an expiditionary force with helicopter carriers to put troops on shore quickly in a rapid deployment role etc.

Granted, but...
In 1910 it was the strongest Navy in the world, albeit locked in a battle of dreadnought construction with Germany. Nowadays it is very much distant in strength to the US, a comparison of strength of both would be interesting.

cruasder777

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What about the dominant player- the US?



Granted, but...
In 1910 it was the strongest Navy in the world, albeit locked in a battle of dreadnought construction with Germany. Nowadays it is very much distant in strength to the US, a comparison of strength of both would be interesting.

The US is the exception to the rule, but even they are now in decline in recent yrs in terms of military spending.

China is the new major player in terms of increased military spending.

fryup

even the wolfe tones took advantage of the situation, this reached the Top 20 in the irish charts i'm embarrassed to say:cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lowCuD8OYE

cruasder777

fryup wrote: »

even the wolfe tones took advantage of the situation, this reached the Top 20 in the irish charts i'm embarrassed to say:cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lowCuD8OYE

They must have been gutted about the peace process in NI, they made a good living out of the conflict.

Notice they left out the near total destruction of the natives who inhabited "Argentina".


In Argentina the “Day of the Race†is still celebrated every 12th of October. It was on this day when, over 500 years ago in 1492, Cristobel Colon landed on the shores of the Americas for the first time and proclaimed to bring race and civilization to the ‘New World’. This day signified the end of race and civilization for the continent’s indigenous inhabitants. In just 150 years they were nearly exterminated; from around 70 million when Colon arrived to barely 3 ½ million. (13

http://www.zcommunications.org/argentinas-forgotten-people-by-ann-scholl

....The calms of colonialism aimed at the Falkland islanders are a bit rich.