Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The Falklands Conflict

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: The Falklands Conflict Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/3/2007 11:21:30 PM   
oi_you_nutter


Posts: 418
Joined: 10/28/2004
From: from Bristle now living in Kalifornia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

the use of the (US administered) Wideawake airfield on (British) Ascension Island was critical, so was the US supply of aviation fuel. read the "Vulcan 607" book for details. that airfield was the busiest in the world for a period of time.

the Vulcan missions were a massive undertaking with little results, but imho not a waste of effort, even if just for morale purposes.. they gave the Brits a victory and (luckily) the main cost was an awful lot of fuel !



As I recall the US supplied jet fuel was not supposed to be used for offensive actions....

There is also a common feeling that the Black Buck missions were a waste of effort. In particular people point to the few hits scored on Stanley's runways. The bomb run was planned in such a way that there was only the possibility of 2-3 hits maximum on the surface from a single bomb load of 21 bombs. The raids (a) Caused the Argentinians to keep their fast jets as a defence against raids on the mainland and (b) Closed Stanley as a base for fast jets, the craters caused were beyond the capability of the Argentine forces to repair at the time and the craters kept on subsiding.


dropping bombs on someone is usually considered an "offensive" action

i would heartily recommend the "Vulcan 607" book as a great read


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 31
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/3/2007 11:25:45 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

dropping bombs on someone is usually considered an "offensive" action

i would heartily recommend the "Vulcan 607" book as a great read




I can't remember the specific, but it probably related the the fact that the US wasn't involved and that Wideawake was a civilian establishment.

Vulcan 607 is a top book, even if I am biased

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to oi_you_nutter)
Post #: 32
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/4/2007 3:20:15 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

Just to correct a few things:

1. The US did do a rush delivery of the all-aspect AIM-9L which gave the FAA (Fleet Air Arm) and RAF Harriers a distinct advantage over the, er, FAA (Fuerza Aerea Argentina).

2. Ascension Island is a dependency of the British overseas territory of St Helena, not a US dependency. Yes, NASA does have dibs on the runway there but Wideawake Airfield is a joint RAF/USAF base.

3. Yes, the satellite imagery was very useful, thanks.


Yeah, well its all been forgotten about now...





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 33
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/4/2007 9:55:07 AM   
7th Somersets

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 5/25/2006
Status: offline
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Have you ever read how the Malvinas became the Falklands in the first place?



Yes.



Not sure what you mean by these observations? It does not remove the de facto wishes of the population who live there NOW (and in 1982).

We can all go back through history and play 'who got there first'. Where would you choose to begin (in 1833 (British), 1816 (Spain), 1600 (Dutch) or its obvious ice age occupancy?) Where does it end?


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 34
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/4/2007 11:19:50 AM   
JudgeDredd


Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline 		Talking about who got there first, I remember there being a little side battle within the british army as to who was going to enter Stanley first when the fighting stopped. The Paras and Commando units were arguing about who should be the first unit in

If truth be told I cannot remember who did get in first....

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to 7th Somersets)
Post #: 35
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/4/2007 11:49:52 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Talking about who got there first, I remember there being a little side battle within the british army as to who was going to enter Stanley first when the fighting stopped. The Paras and Commando units were arguing about who should be the first unit in

If truth be told I cannot remember who did get in first....

Max Hastings, according to HansBolter

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to JudgeDredd)
Post #: 36
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/4/2007 5:13:20 PM   
GreyFox


Posts: 33
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Ireland
Status: offline 		Sorry for jumping in late, but

quote:

1) All I remember from the time was that the media portrayed it as a foregone conclusion from the moment the task force sailed. Reading about it afterwards though, the war could have been a much closer run thing, and was potentially disasterous. British history for the next two decades could have been dramatically different.


Many of the military viewed the BBC and the likes as enemy agents and kept as far away from them as possible.

For one many in the media were biased against the war and Thatcher, and only when it looked like the war might be won did they start changing their tone to supporting the government. The BBC was fairly quiet about it giving an extremely disproportionate amount of airtime to people who were against military action, whilst the Mirror was overtly anti-war.

The second was the media broadcasting British military intentions, probably the most notorious being informing the world that the army intended to attack Goose Green. Herbert Jones, commander of 2 Para swore that he'd have two journalists charged with high treason. Fortunately for them he was killed in action and they escaped punishment.

For those who think the war was not worth it: the people there were then and today still are British citizens. They see themselves as British, not Argentinian. They were invaded by a fascist military dictatorship. A democracy is supposed to support the rights of it's citizens, all of them, equally, no matter where they are. And then we have people who live in democracies saying that they should have let the Argies have them, that the rights and wishes of the people living there, fellow citizens, mean nothing. That is sick. if you want proof they could try a referrendum amongst the citizens of the Falklands, but the Foreign Office wouldn't want that as they've been trying to sell out the people on the islands they're supposed to serve for decades.

And the main reason the military dictatorship invaded the Falklands was because they needed to distract the people from their own privations and difficulties. The best way to do this has always been a good war.

< Message edited by GreyFox -- 8/4/2007 5:20:02 PM >

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 37
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/4/2007 5:50:43 PM   
fatehunter

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 11/22/2005
Status: offline


the 'war' for the Malvinas served the Argentinian Junta particularly well in distracting the Argentinian people. For weeks previous to the invasion thousands marched through the streets of Buenos Aires demanding the fall of the government. Weeks later they marched through in total support of the government. "wag the dog"

(in reply to GreyFox)
Post #: 38
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/4/2007 6:00:21 PM   
junk2drive


Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Have you ever read how the Malvinas became the Falklands in the first place?



Yes.



Not sure what you mean by these observations? It does not remove the de facto wishes of the population who live there NOW (and in 1982).

We can all go back through history and play 'who got there first'. Where would you choose to begin (in 1833 (British), 1816 (Spain), 1600 (Dutch) or its obvious ice age occupancy?) Where does it end?




Of course I can't find any reference on Wikipedia now but I recall way back then the story went that in the 1800s the USA had "given" the Brits the Falklands as part of peace negotiations between the UK and France (or Spain) . The islands were not the USA's to give away either.

Maybe someone with better google skills can find the story. Or I dreamed it...

(in reply to 7th Somersets)
Post #: 39
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/4/2007 7:24:17 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

They were invaded by a fascist military dictatorship. A democracy is supposed to support the rights of it's citizens, all of them, equally, no matter where they are. And then we have people who live in democracies saying that they should have let the Argies have them, that the rights and wishes of the people living there, fellow citizens, mean nothing. That is sick.


What self rightous boloney.

Yes it is sick. Kind of like when the British Empire sent a warship to the Malvinas, forced the Argentine settlers there to take down the Argentine flag and leave...and then replaced them with British settlers who now say they are theirs.

The Malvinas have been Argentine territory sence the formation of Argentina, always have been, always will be. That cannot be changed.

This is a relic from Britians Imperial passed of going out, stealing others peoples property and then planting their own colonist. Ahhh...yes. Then making a good speech about defending peoples freedoms and all the other poetry.




(in reply to junk2drive)
Post #: 40
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/4/2007 7:38:26 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
The Malvinas have been Argentine territory sence the formation of Argentina, always have been, always will be. That cannot be changed.


Didn't "Argentina" sorta belong to somebody else before the Spanish Empire colonized the area? It's not like peaceful farmers created the great Argentine civilzation at the dawn of man - so "always have been" is quite a stretch.


_____________________________


(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 41
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/4/2007 8:17:57 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		Regardless of how the Falklands came to be British and the hows and wherefores, rights and wrongs, the islanders want it to remain this way and the British government supports them.

< Message edited by Dixie -- 8/4/2007 8:18:13 PM >

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 42
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/4/2007 8:39:16 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Regardless of how the Falklands came to be British and the hows and wherefores, rights and wrongs, the islanders want it to remain this way and the British government supports them.



I completely agree. I'd also add that once Argentina took the islands by force they left the UK little choice but to take them back.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 43
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/4/2007 8:52:34 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

Regardless of how the Falklands came to be British and the hows and wherefores, rights and wrongs, the islanders want it to remain this way and the British government supports them.

I completely agree. I'd also add that once Argentina took the islands by force they left the UK little choice but to take them back.


The several thousand islanders may want it this way but 40 million Argentines do not and the Argentine government supports them.

And because Britian took the islands by force from Argentina 1st that left the Argentine government little choice but to take them back by force.

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 44
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/4/2007 9:07:15 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

And because Britian took the islands by force from Argentina 1st that left the Argentine government little choice but to take them back by force.


Except for that 150 years or so it took Argentina to act. Britain's claims predate Argentinian independence - as do Spanish, French (& Dutch?). The issue can't really be decided by who was there first anymore.

Why is it that Maggie didn't also feel compelled to take back the 13 colonies? By your logic, Spain is also within its rights to show up in Buenos Aires tomorrow with an invasion force to take back what was taken from them a couple of hundred years ago.

_____________________________


(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 45
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 2:00:35 AM   
ezzler

 

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline 		If you read Razors Edge which is all about the land combat , it gives a fair amount of insight into the actual batles and how they came about.
It also clearly shows that Argentina was a FACIST Dictatorship, with secret police , death squads and everything else that that entails.
Being invaded by Argentina would be like Hawaii being take over by the North Koreans. The Korean can say 'well you've only been here 70 years, really its ours'
The USA's response would be the same as the UK's and rightly so.









(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 46
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 3:34:06 AM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

If you read Razors Edge which is all about the land combat , it gives a fair amount of insight into the actual batles and how they came about.
It also clearly shows that Argentina was a FACIST Dictatorship, with secret police , death squads and everything else that that entails.
Being invaded by Argentina would be like Hawaii being take over by the North Koreans. The Korean can say 'well you've only been here 70 years, really its ours'
The USA's response would be the same as the UK's and rightly so.



And Japan should surrender to China and Korea as all inhabitants of Japan undoubtedly came from the mainland and they essentially stole most of their "culture" from the Koreans.

(in reply to ezzler)
Post #: 47
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 5:35:46 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

It also clearly shows that Argentina was a FACIST Dictatorship, with secret police , death squads and everything else that that entails.
Being invaded by Argentina would be like Hawaii being take over by the North Koreans. The Korean can say 'well you've only been here 70 years, really its ours'


Have you looked at the history of Britains Imperial past? It's VERY LONG and well documented. Destroying an Argentine town on its soverign territory (notice-as recognized by Spain, you do understand the concept of Soverignty yes?)then removing the rightful citizens, replacing them with British colonist is about like being invaded by Nazis in 1939 for German ¨Lebensraum¨

The whole British defense of the issue is something like...¨well this is way the islanders want it so that´s the way it`s going to be.¨ Notice they don`t say the Falklands are our territory.

This very defense acknowledges the Malvinas are not British territory but Argentine. They just have this complication of having placed colonist on the place illegaly.

Fair enough.

Return the Malvinas. Give the islanders dual citizenship if they wish to stay and keep raising their sheep or let Britian pay for their resettlement somewhere else on British territory.




< Message edited by Ike99 -- 8/5/2007 5:45:22 AM >

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)
Post #: 48
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 8:43:00 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		Ike99, I have no idea who you are or where you come from but you have managed to hi-jack this thread from a discussion about Military history and turned it into a political mud slinging match.  Go to Mad Cows to have such discussions, not here.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 49
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 9:25:42 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Of course you guys did hear about the three British soldiers who had been badly wounded performing heroic acts in the Falklands War. Some years later a grateful government offered them a reward for their heroism.

A representative of the govt came to the hospital ward in Londin and told them that they each would receive a thousand pounds per inch of any measurement of their bodies.

The first, a gangly fellow from Clydeside responded: "From the tip of me fingers of me outstretched hands to the other.'

The measurement was duly measured and he received 74,000 pounds sterling.

The second fellow, a tall youth from the midlands asked for the measurement to be from the tip of his head to his toes and received 76,000 pounds in payment.

The third fellow piped up: "From the tip of me p***s to me balls, sir!"

The gov't man was taken aback and asked, "Are you absolutely sure?"

Whereupon the the soldier responded "Yes Sir!' and dropped his drawers.

The representative of Her Majesty's Government duly bent down to take the measurement and exclaimed in shock: "Good Heavens! Where ARE your balls, soldiers?!"

"Goose Green, Falkland Islands, Sir!"

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 50
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 9:46:09 AM   
SemperAugustus

 

Posts: 257
Joined: 1/9/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Also, another little tidbit of info about it.

Argentina had to attack when it did. The military Junta at the time did not want to...they wanted to wait...time was on their side apart from one thing...discontent in Argentina. Had Argentina waited, they would've gained a large quantity of Exocet missiles from the French....they only had 5. These proved extremely effective against the "tinderbox" frigates of the RN. If they had more of these missiles, it's entirely possible Britain would either have had to work on a diplomatic tact...or risk the entire task force to these excellent weapons.



The British were also just about to get rid of their carriers. If the Argintines had waited a couple more months the British wouldn't have air cover either...

(in reply to JudgeDredd)
Post #: 51
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 9:55:30 AM   
SemperAugustus

 

Posts: 257
Joined: 1/9/2005
Status: offline 		When returning it to Spain, right? It was a Spanish town, not a Argentine town.
Also in international law possesion matters, whatever the quality of the original claim, why does the UK need to give it anyone? They have no obligation to Argentina.

Also given Argentinian history with the Mapuche during the 19th century, they can hardly say that the British were particularly brutal compared to themselves.

< Message edited by SemperAugustus -- 8/5/2007 10:16:26 AM >

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 52
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 10:18:09 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

Ike99, I have no idea who you are or where you come from but you have managed to hi-jack this thread from a discussion about Military history and turned it into a political mud slinging match. Go to Mad Cows to have such discussions, not here.


I`ve hijacked nothing and I didn`t create this thread. I have simply responded to others comments from the Argentine point of view. Not a British one. Or is only British points of view allowed here?

Sorry if these valid points have made some peoples moral high ground a little bit unstable or effected someones concience.

And just maybe if you wish to brag about how you were in the Aussie green machine and hoping the war would escalate so you could join in maybe you need to go to a military veterans forum and post this. Not a gaming site.

Yes this is a gaming site so perhaps this thread shouldn`t have been started or perhaps it should be closed.

Hi SemperAgustus, well I would respond but I will just end my comments on this here. I come to this forum for gaming. I´ll leave it like that.





< Message edited by Ike99 -- 8/5/2007 10:29:53 AM >

(in reply to SemperAugustus)
Post #: 53
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 10:28:39 AM   
Hertston


Posts: 3564
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Cornwall, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

The whole British defense of the issue is something like...¨well this is way the islanders want it so that´s the way it`s going to be.¨ Notice they don`t say the Falklands are our territory.

This very defense acknowledges the Malvinas are not British territory but Argentine. They just have this complication of having placed colonist on the place illegaly.



Bull.

That is certainly one 'defence' (none is needed) - i.e that what the people who actually happen to live there might want should count. It 'acknowledges' nothing of the sort, Britain has both exercised and claimed sovereignty since 1833. 'Resettlement' my arse...

Feel free to step outside to the Steakhouse..





< Message edited by Hertston -- 8/5/2007 10:29:51 AM >

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 54
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 11:11:29 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

Hertston-That is certainly one 'defence' (none is needed) - Feel free to step outside to the Steakhouse..


Last comment from me on this thread MODS, I promise, I promise, I promise.

Ahh...no defense is needed? I see. So I assume this position too then, the Malvinas are Argentine...uuhhh...period.

Feel free to step outside to the steakhouse? Haa.
That´s funny. Looks to me like you boys got a little
more than you can handle right now in Iraq mate.

(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 55
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 12:38:57 PM   
7th Somersets

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 5/25/2006
Status: offline 		Ike 99,

Do you not see the point that I made earlier? Clearly you will disagree with others about who occupied the Falkland Islands first (you seem to limit your history to Argentine independence from Spain - and ignore the French and British presence on the then unoccupied Islands that predated that by over 100 years.) We will obviously disagree on the history of the Islands.

BUT the point is that at some point people need to accept what are historical boundaries, or the world will continue to have uneccessary wars. Is there any point in people being killed today over what is now a nearly 200 year old change?

I'm off to stake my claim to some Norman village courtesy of William the Conquorer (King of Normandy and England in 1066) - er, or should I be giving up my house to the Normans? 




(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 56
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 2:05:14 PM   
JudgeDredd


Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
I`ve hijacked nothing and I didn`t create this thread.

No I did...and it was about the conflict, not the sovergnty of the islands. Personally I think it daft that a country so far away should come under citizenship of the UK when they are so close to Argentine, but that is how it is.

A country simply cannot stand by a let an island with people living under the protection of it's flag just disappear. I would say the same if the British had invaded the Falkands and Argentinians wanted to protect there citizens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
Yes this is a gaming site so perhaps this thread shouldn`t have been started or perhaps it should be closed.

There is nothing wrong with the thread in the General Discussion forum, unless I misunderstand the concept of General...it does not need to be closed if people remain civil. Get on topic and talk about the conflict, not who was in the right or wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
That´s funny. Looks to me like you boys got a little
more than you can handle right now in Iraq mate.

and that is very much uncalled for , no matter what country you are from.

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 57
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 2:32:33 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

and that is very much uncalled for , no matter what country you are from.


You right JudgeDredd, he made a juvenile comment along the lines of my country can wip your country I think...I responded in kind.

So I was as juvenile as he was and shouldn´t have been. My apologies to any Brits that comment may have offended.

I can tell you I am to young to have been sent at the time but my neighbor was there and captured by the British. He says he was not treated like a house guest but was not mistreated by the British either.

So maybe that will make someone feel better.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)
Post #: 58
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 5:36:05 PM   
LarryP


Posts: 3783
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Carson City, NV
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I can tell you I am to young to have been sent at the time but my neighbor was there and captured by the British. He says he was not treated like a house guest but was not mistreated by the British either.


I'm going to kick myself later today for entering this but I just have to say this... I just read about how the British treated their captives during the Revolutionary War. Ike, your neighbor was darn lucky, or they have really changed their ways. However, part of my country used to enslave people so I guess the times have changed us all.

< Message edited by LarryP -- 8/5/2007 5:38:34 PM >

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 59
RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/5/2007 8:08:36 PM   
sprior


Posts: 8596
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Portsmouth, UK
Status: offline 		Kick away! What did you read and where?

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to LarryP)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: The Falklands Conflict Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.875