Hmm…Argentina has an ASL for the Falkland as well. Obviously the Falkland needs a charismatic leader that will support Status Quo to save the day.
I guess he’ll do for now
Huang Guang Chen said[quote]The UK nearly lost that one. Wonder what would’ve happened if they had? [/quote]
I saw a documentary series a couple of years back and apparently it was touch and go for the British. Not a cakewalk as the gung ho types would have you believe.The Argentines almost pulled it off (if they’d waited another year it seems likely they would have won because of British defence cuts). But with American and French help (with the exocets) the British won.
However, some time ago, I read a book called, I think, “The Last Pink Bits.” (can’t remember the author). The Falklands was featured, along with the other remnants of the English Empire. The book made the claim that a British nuclear armed submarine was positioned off the coast of Argentina and in the event the British didn’t succeed, Buenos Aires was to be wiped off the face of the Earth. I have never seen this claimed anywhere else. Does anyone know anything about this? I don’t think it’s credible simply for political reasons although I wouldn’t put it past Thatcher if she thought she could get away with it.
Was there an element of The Mouse That Roared in Argentina’s actions in 1982? I think the American threat to withdraw support for the UK if it attacked mainland Argentine air force basis removed any remaining illusion in Britain that a “special relationship” existed between the US and the UK. The UK did after all formally declare war on Argentina. (Which is also why I don’t understand why there is any controversy about the sinking of the Argentine submarine, the Belgrano, regardless of where it was in the world or in what direction it was headed at the time. Had it actually formally surrendered at the time? Must check up on that. As well as my spelling…)
No, the Belgrano left the British “eclusion zone.” That was the main fizz as I recall.
quotehe British, operating under strict rules of self-defence, had considered that a general authorisation for their submarines to attack Argentinian warships was not in accordance with international law.Now the two admirals told Prime Minister Thatcher that Woodward, the carrier task group commander, was desperate. Did she want to overrule the man on the spot?
Thatcher, who always deferred to the military professionals, felt that she had no alternative: she authorised the change in TF 324’s rules of engagement. After some delay, during which Conqueror
Interesting, but I can’t understand how a war might be fought on such an odd basis. How on earth could the sinking of an enemy warship in the theatre of conflict be “unlawful”? I mean sending in a cruise missile to blow the Argentine navy up in port would also be “legal” in my book. It was a war after all.
I don’t have much time for the Guardian readers who would wait until the Belgrano took out a British ship before grudgingly accepting that something might have to be done. It was a shooting war. Which is why it’s so bloody important to think long and hard before you declare war, and when you do, to make the thing as short and decisive as possible. God damn these people who would wage a half-war on Tuesdays, and then a full war every second Wednesday.
I watched that exchange with that silly woman who rang in trying to make Thatcher look stupid. A nasty piece of work she might be, but Thatcher was not stupid. I think her flustering was because she couldn’t get over the stupidity of the caller’s assertion that whether or not the Belgrano should have been sunk depended upon which direction it was headed it. There was no talk of secret orders or policy at the time. The argument was that as the Belgrano was heading away from the Falklands and beyond the exclusion zone it should have been left alone. Huh? Just as Thatcher used the war to win her election, so a lot of people who should have known better started talking a lot of nonsense in opposition to the war simply to make Thatcher look bad, never mind the merits of the war or its execution.
When you fight a war with one hand up your arse and the the other tied to a tree you end up with a never-ending mess. Either fight or don’t fight but this half-assed compromise shit doesn’t work. Not that I agree with the invasion of Iraq’s soverign territory either, but if the Yanks and the Brits had gone into Iraq with a million men it would be in a damned sight better shape today.
There’s no point in trying to argue with me either. If you do I will tell you that I was in 2 Para then 1 SAS and I served under Kitchener Table in the Battle of the Barman’s Apron in '53 so there. :raspberry:
Belgrano was 100% fair game. The Conqueror exercised restraint by not sinking her earlier. The reason Conqueror was told to pop Belgrano’s plug was precisely because Belgrano turned back northwest. If Belgrano had continued northward, it would have gone into shallower waters which it could have cut across to go straight for the British fleet. The Argentines new full well that they could not approach the British fleet through deep waters. Conqueror would not have been able to follow Belgrano through the shallow waters it was about to enter. In the minds of the MoD and Conqueror’s skipper, the shots that were taken would likely be the last chance a British sub would have on Belgrano.
And your dignity. 
I guess you don’t mind seeing photos of Argentine commandos pointing guns at the backs of British soldiers with their noses buried in the mud.
Some of you seem to be allowing your disdain for Thatcher (which in my opinion is warranted to a certain degree) lead you to conclude that the Falklands weren’t worth fighting for or that it was all just a big show. It was anything but a walkover for the Brits. Sure, a lot of the Argentine infantry were poorly trained conscripts, but the airforce was pretty well trained and equipped. The climate there also made it difficult for ANY navy to conduct offensive operations. I once read that the weather was so bad that if the US had actually gotten off the fence and sent a carrier group down, Hermes’ and Invicible’s Harriers would have been flying CAPs to protect the American carrier for as many as half the days of the conflict. The weather was too bad for arrester wire landings.
IMO, the fact that Thatcher gained politically from the war does not make the war unworthy of fighting. The only disgraceful thing about the war is that the US didn’t get off the fence.
The U.S. did get off the fence.
guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story … 58,00.html
As for why the U.S. didn’t publicly join in but aided the U.K. behind the lines, well:
[quote]Legally, the United States had military treaty obligations to both parties in the war, bound to the UK by NATO and to Argentina by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the “Rio Pact”). In March, Secretary of State Alexander Haig directed the U.S. Ambassador to Argentina to warn the Argentine government away from any invasion. President Ronald Reagan requested assurances from Galtieri against an invasion and offered the services of his Vice President, George H. W. Bush, as mediator, but was refused.
In fact, the Reagan Administration was sharply divided on the issue. Meeting on 5 April, Haig and Assistant Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger favored decisive backing of Britain, concerned that equivocation would undermine the NATO alliance. Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Thomas Enders, however, feared that supporting Britain would undermine U.S. anti-communist efforts in Latin America. He received the firm backing of U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Haig’s nominal subordinate and political rival.
The White House continued its neutrality; Reagan famously declared at the time that he could not understand why two allies were arguing over “That little ice-cold bunch of land down there”. But he assented to Haig and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger’s position. Haig briefly (April 8
That’s what I would call the bare minimum. Good to see the US putting its guerilla wars and “covert action” in Latin America above its NATO committments.
Speaking of friends in Nato . . . .remember Le Exocet?
HG
Wonder if the Frogs will give the escape codes next time?
I think what Maggie said to Mitterrand is that she would nuke Paris, not Buenos Aries, if he didn’t give her the codes. Actually, I suspect Mitterrand gave her the codes because he fancied her and this nonsense he told his analyst is just a smokescreen to make him look hard. Mitterrand harder than Maggie?
Anyway, I don’t think the UK has the wherewithall to fight a war any more. They’ve whittled down the armed forces to almost nothing. Good time to decommission the Harrier, lads. Anyway, given Blair’s support for a violation of sovereign territory in Iraq, he doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on in the Falklands. Unless Argentina has weapons of mass destruction of course. Or not. Whatever. We can make something up.
On the other hand, who cares? Neither the UN nor the idea of “sovereign territory” has stopped any war in the past. Good to hear the French talking about the UN. Tee hee. Like the French give a shit about the UN, or EU, or anyone else (and why should they?)… I remember the French being big into the UN in Indochina and Angola. “Fuckez moi,” they were saying. “Aaah wonduer iff weh haaave aussority fram ze Ooo Aahng fooer sannding eeen zee legion etrangers?”
Er, presumably Britain has an answer to the Exocet by now? And have they fixed the destroyers so they can send faxes AND operate their missile warning systems at the same time?
How did the war between Argentina and the U.K. become America
The Englishmen are right when there always bitching about
Golf War II, Falkland War II. But don’t start complaining when the Germans take over this history repeating stuff
… er … 
Well you folks seemed to have handled things quite well. No need in stealing the thunder, as it were.
Much respect to the Lads who did the Falkland action.
Nice of you to also work in the cheap shots at the US in this thread…always good to see… 
Why anyone would believe anything said by some shrink who violates client-therapist confidence, a cardinal sin IMO, is beyond me. The content was unbelievable anyway.
[quote=“PPE”]The Englishmen are right when there always bitching about
DM, I liked you better when you weren’t on to me.
Let’s be fair, Dangermouse, PPE hates Canadians, Euros, English teachers, people who speak “bad Mandarin”, and lots of other folks, too. He seems to be an equal opportunity ranter.
Thanks for the backhanded compliment mod 
but to be honest every since DM mentioned he was going to “thump me one” if he saw me in the bar I’ve had a soft spot for the Engrish.
Awwww, come on…that was a joke. Anyway, I said I was going to whack a bottle over your head in true British thuggery style, not thump you.
Thumping is for wimps.