Britain 'prepares for war with North Korea' while 'new carrier could be rushed into service'

[Lokie]

50 minutes ago, oldlakey said:

 I would suggest that you at least try and keep to the ACTUAL events that actually DID take place

No ifs, maybes, could haves or might have beens

Good idea or what

Ha ha ha, yet is ok for you to assume it was no threat? Tell us on what you base this assumption

 

Note having just checked info;

the Belgrano which at one point was on a Southwesterly course had changed and was heading South Easterly at time of order to fire being given from London (is what warships tend to do in times of conflict, change course regularly)

Edited October 14, 2017 by Lokie

[transam]

8 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Really?

 

So if it had come across something like the Atlantic Conveyor, the Canberra or any unarmed merchant ship because it was an obsolete WW2 light cruiser it could ahve done them no harm.

 

Granted it had turned around and was headed back to Argentina, but what was stopping it turning around again and heading for the battle zone?

Fink some here forgot it had a steering wheel and not a big white surrender flag  flying on the back.........

[owl sees all]

13 minutes ago, Lokie said:

Note having just checked info;

the Belgrano which at one point was on a Southwesterly course had changed and was heading South Easterly at time of order to fire being given from London (is what warships tend to do in times of conflict, change course regularly)

This was Maggie's own personal war. She over-rulled her war-cabinet's wishes continually (read the minutes). She knew that a win in the war would give her credibility and a longer time in office.

 

Tony Blair was taking note!!

[Lokie]

1 minute ago, owl sees all said:

This was Maggie's own personal war. She over-rulled her war-cabinet's wishes continually (read the minutes). She knew that a win in the war would give her credibility and a longer time in office.

 

Tony Blair was taking note!!

I mostly agree with that, the war did come at a time when she was on the verge of getting chucked out, but being the Iron Lady she was it was probably better for Britain and the Falkland Islanders that she called the shots so to speak and definitely led to her re-election as PM.

 

As she said to Al Haig, We will not give in to a band of criminals (The Junta) and as for the Falklands being thousands of miles from the UK - why are we bothered? she asked why the US bothered about the Hawaiian Islands when attacked by Japan...? That was end of that conversation

[Grouse]

12 hours ago, oldlakey said:

An obsolete WWll light cruiser a threat to a modern state of the art naval task force, really.   Your contention would be laughed out of a Kindergarten, never mind a court

 

 

 

Belgrano group was armed with Exocet. The Argentinians had enough of these to sink the entire task force. Belgrano had been in and out of the exclusion zone. The risk was that of a marine pincer movement. The decision to sink Belgrano was correct.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Grouse

[billd766]

4 hours ago, oldlakey said:

 I would suggest that you at least try and keep to the ACTUAL events that actually DID take place.  No ifs, maybes, could haves or might have been Good idea or what

 

OK.

 

It was an enemy ship and we torpedoed and sank it.

 

It doesn't matter that it was going away from the action nor does it matter that it was an old WW2 cruiser.

 

It was a legitimate decision.

 

Happy now?

 

Now go and tell all the other posters the same thing.

Edited October 14, 2017 by billd766
edited for bad spelling AFTER I have checked and posted it.

[transam]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

OK.

 

It was an enemy ship and we torpedoed and sank it.

 

It doesn't matter that it was going away from the action nor does it matter that it was an old WW2 cruiser.

 

It was a legitimate decision.

 

Happy now?

 

Now go and tell all the other posters the same thing.

Yes,......and I find it astounding that some folk here back the aggressor.. fluke in astounding ....

 

 

[oldlakey]

An overall interesting exchange of views and opinions

With the odd fact thrown in for good measure

Enjoy whats left of the weekend

Edited October 14, 2017 by oldlakey

[observer90210]

War is one of the battles in life that nobody wins...

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, observer90210 said:

War is one of the battles in life that nobody wins...

Pure mush.

[Catoni]

On 2017-10-12 at 9:36 AM, owl sees all said:

In the Falklands documentary it does make the point that a peace plan had been tabled by Peru and the Belgrano was returning to base. Mrs Thatcher would have nothing to do with any peace plan; consistently over-rulling her ministers and advisor. At the time of the sinking the Americans were trying to broker a deal in Argentina.

 

In later interveiws it was made clear on numerous occasions that the soldiers felt they were fighting a politician's war.

      They didn't call her the "Iron Lady" for nothing. She had no fear, even when the I.R.A. blew up a bomb in a hotel she was staying at in an assassination attempt trying to kill her in the Brighton Hotel Bombing of 1984. Five people killed, more than 30 injured...  Thatcher narrowly missing death.

         Thatcher was one of the two top British Prime Ministers of the 20th Century.  Sir Winston Churchill being the other.  She was the longest-serving British prime minister of the 20th century. That doesn't happen because you are a bad leader.  It happens because most of the people know that you are a damn good leader....  better than the alternative.  I like when she said, "I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations."

     And, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." 

  The socialists and communists hated her,  which is one reason I admired her.  Was she perfect? No... no one is.  But she was damn good. 

[Catoni]

On 2017-10-14 at 2:13 AM, transam said:

Yes,......and I find it astounding that some folk here back the aggressor.. fluke in astounding ....

 

 

 

On 2017-10-13 at 9:18 PM, owl sees all said:

This was Maggie's own personal war. She over-rulled her war-cabinet's wishes continually (read the minutes). She knew that a win in the war would give her credibility and a longer time in office.

 

Tony Blair was taking note!!

    Uh.... what would you have wished?  For her and Britain to lose the war?              Who who attacked whom first ? ?   The war was not Margaret Thatcher's war... it was forced on her. 

   The war was Argentine President General Leopoldo Galtieri's war.   Him and his military Junta.  

       Last time I checked... it was Argentina that launched the invasion in April of '84.  First taking the Falkland Islands, and in the next few days also grabbing South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The British government rightly regarded the action as an invasion of a territory that had been a Crown Colony since 1841. Falkland Islanders, who have inhabited the islands since the early 19th century, are predominantly descendants of British settlers, and favour British Sovereignty. They have been polled and voted on that many times.  

            For Britain to let Argentina have the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands back would make about as much sense as the U.S. letting Mexico have Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona and California back, which the U.S. got as a result of war against Mexico in 1836..(Texas)  and 1848 (U.S.). 

 

            The REAL reason Argentina invaded ? ?    To divert attention from serious domestic problems the military Junta under the President ...General Leopoldo Galtieri, was having in Argentina at the time.   The claim over the Falklands was just a screen...  Galtieri figured Britain would not do anything about the small islands more than 8,000 miles from the England.  General Galtieri seriously underestimated British resolve.  Great Britain was certainly not the one that started it..   But Great Britain certainly finished it... and rightly so.     Why compromise with a criminal military Junta dictatorship?  What would you do... let them have half the islands ? ?    Britain and Margart Thatcher and her cabinet were correct in refusing compromise..      Happy Britain won ! !

Edited October 23, 2017 by Catoni
Correction

[Catoni]

On 2017-10-14 at 3:48 PM, observer90210 said:

War is one of the battles in life that nobody wins...

        A war can have many battles, or only one.   A battle is armed conflict within a war between two or more sides.  Battles are usually short... while wars are usually long. 

      Seems to me I remember a war called World War II.  I was under the impression that one side won that war.  And I think Britain won the Falkland Islands War against Argentina also.   I'm sure the Falkland Islanders would agree. 

[Catoni]

33 minutes ago, Catoni said:

 

    Uh.... what would you have wished?  For her and Britain to lose the war?              Who who attacked whom first ? ?   The war was not Margaret Thatcher's war... it was forced on her. 

   The war was Argentine President General Leopoldo Galtieri's war.   Him and his military Junta.  

       Last time I checked... it was Argentina that launched the invasion in April of '82.  First taking the Falkland Islands, and in the next few days also grabbing South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The British government rightly regarded the action as an invasion of a territory that had been a Crown Colony since 1841. Falkland Islanders, who have inhabited the islands since the early 19th century, are predominantly descendants of British settlers, and favour British Sovereignty. They have been polled and voted on that many times.  

            For Britain to let Argentina have the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands back would make about as much sense as the U.S. letting Mexico have Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona and California back, which the U.S. got as a result of war against Mexico in 1836..(Texas)  and 1848 (U.S.). 

 

            The REAL reason Argentina invaded ? ?    To divert attention from serious domestic problems the military Junta under the President ...General Leopoldo Galtieri, was having in Argentina at the time.   The claim over the Falklands was just a screen...  Galtieri figured Britain would not do anything about the small islands more than 8,000 miles from the England.  General Galtieri seriously underestimated British resolve.  Great Britain was certainly not the one that started it..   But Great Britain certainly finished it... and rightly so.     Why compromise with a criminal military Junta dictatorship?  What would you do... let them have half the islands ? ?    Britain and Margart Thatcher and her cabinet were correct in refusing compromise..      Happy Britain won ! !

    My bad.... I meant to say...  "...it was Argentina that launched the invasion in April of '82."      NOT April of '84.  Wrong  year.   Too late at night.. . 

Edited October 23, 2017 by Catoni
Correction