|
Post by baggins on Sept 14, 2020 11:30:58 GMT
Falklands. 1982. Couldn't wait to get into that. Couldn’t wait to get out of it, having lost some good friends and shipmates. Not to mention several pairs of underpants. But was proud of what we did....and I really don’t care if anyone might disagree with that. Fella, ultimate respect for your service, I'm not doubting the sacrifice you and your comrades put in, I'm questioning the reason why you had to do it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 14, 2020 11:31:36 GMT
I don’t think any party are pro war tbh. Trying to paint the Tories as some blood thirsty mob intent on committing to war at every opportunity is frankly embarrassing. How many wars have the last two American presidents taken their countries into? Falklands. 1982. Couldn't wait to get into that. Far from it, Bags, far from it.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Sept 14, 2020 11:38:37 GMT
Falklands. 1982. Couldn't wait to get into that. Far from it, Bags, far from it. Reason? Not meaning to be flippant, genuinly interested.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2020 11:39:44 GMT
I don’t think any party are pro war tbh. Trying to paint the Tories as some blood thirsty mob intent on committing to war at every opportunity is frankly embarrassing. How many wars have the last two American presidents taken their countries into? Falklands. 1982. Couldn't wait to get into that. Would you have just abandoned the Falklands inhabitants then?
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Sept 14, 2020 11:39:46 GMT
Couldn’t wait to get out of it, having lost some good friends and shipmates. Not to mention several pairs of underpants. But was proud of what we did....and I really don’t care if anyone might disagree with that. Fella, ultimate respect for your service, I'm not doubting the sacrifice you and your comrades put in, I'm questioning the reason why you had to do it in the first place. No problems mate and thanks. As for the second point you raise it would take a thread of its own I guess. And, for me, the answer really boils down to the fact that throughout the centuries military personnel have always paid the price for political failings (whoever they may be). T’was ever thus and will remain so I’m afraid. Although that ain’t really ain’t beginning to scratch the surface of the point you raise.... Cheers...
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Sept 14, 2020 11:45:03 GMT
Falklands. 1982. Couldn't wait to get into that. Would you have just abandoned the Falklands inhabitants then? Why not? We've given back most of our other states.
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Sept 14, 2020 12:03:29 GMT
Would you have just abandoned the Falklands inhabitants then? Why not? We've given back most of our other states. Problem is Baggins that these were British Citizens who were asking for help. Whatever the historic rights or wrongs of why they are there that is a fact. I’d like to think that 8000 miles away or not the country of their birth would hear their plea and not let a foreign power subjugate them. But once again you get back to the political failings......and why over 255 service personnel never came back. And let’s not forget about the Argentinians who also did not come back because of the political issues in their country.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Sept 14, 2020 12:12:16 GMT
Why not? We've given back most of our other states. Problem is Baggins that these were British Citizens who were asking for help. Whatever the historic rights or wrongs of why they are there that is a fact. I’d like to think that 8000 miles away or not the country of their birth would hear their plea and not let a foreign power subjugate them. But once again you get back to the political failings......and why over 255 service personnel never came back. And let’s not forget about the Argentinians who also did not come back because of the political issues in their country. I hear you chap, any service persons life lost in conflict is horrendous. However, would we have gone to war over an island that far away, to protect an extremely small population, if say, China or Russia had decided to put thousands of troops there with all that comes with them, subs, tanks, cruisers, destroyers etc?
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Sept 14, 2020 12:20:39 GMT
Problem is Baggins that these were British Citizens who were asking for help. Whatever the historic rights or wrongs of why they are there that is a fact. I’d like to think that 8000 miles away or not the country of their birth would hear their plea and not let a foreign power subjugate them. But once again you get back to the political failings......and why over 255 service personnel never came back. And let’s not forget about the Argentinians who also did not come back because of the political issues in their country. I hear you chap, any service persons life lost in conflict is horrendous. However, would we have gone to war over an island that far away, to protect an extremely small population, if say, China or Russia had decided to put thousands of troops there with all that comes with them, subs, tanks, cruisers, destroyers etc? I have no answer for you - other than I would like to think that the Government of the day had the morals and the balls to do so. But strongly suggest that it would be done differently and not alone due to the actual military power and reach of the country’s you mention. And whatever it may escalate into. Likely USA and/or UN (hopefully the latter!) might even get involved. But it is only a hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question. Could tie ourselves in knots forever and a day with this one.
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Sept 14, 2020 12:24:37 GMT
I don’t think any party are pro war tbh. Trying to paint the Tories as some blood thirsty mob intent on committing to war at every opportunity is frankly embarrassing. How many wars have the last two American presidents taken their countries into? Falklands. 1982. Couldn't wait to get into that. Neither could the vast majority of the Country and our esteemed media.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 14, 2020 12:25:49 GMT
Far from it, Bags, far from it. Reason? Not meaning to be flippant, genuinly interested. The chance of failure was far, far greater than success. 8,000 miles away, a few untested aircraft against the entire Argentine air force. Forces unready and ill equiped to go. Not even parity on numbers, let alone the 3 to 1 ratio advantage generally accepted as the minimum. This was a war we should have lost and on several occasions nearly did. Another week or two and we'd have lost (or at best, a stalemate) due to the South Atlantic weather. The Foreign office were trying to get rid for years before. The politically 'safest' thing to have done was agree a leaseback with those who wished to, come here.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Sept 14, 2020 12:26:53 GMT
I hear you chap, any service persons life lost in conflict is horrendous. However, would we have gone to war over an island that far away, to protect an extremely small population, if say, China or Russia had decided to put thousands of troops there with all that comes with them, subs, tanks, cruisers, destroyers etc? I have no answer for you - other than I would like to think that the Government of the day had the morals and the balls to do so. But strongly suggest that it would be done differently and not alone due to the actual military power and reach of the country’s you mention. And whatever it may escalate into. Likely USA and/or UN (hopefully the latter!) might even get involved. But it is only a hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question. Could tie ourselves in knots forever and a day with this one. True. Mind if I ask a question? You obviously served there, I'm guessing Navy? Did it affect you? I assume you're no longer serving? Tell me to water off and mind my business if you want.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Sept 14, 2020 12:28:33 GMT
Reason? Not meaning to be flippant, genuinly interested. The chance of failure was far, far greater than success. 8,000 miles away, a few untested aircraft against the entire Argentine air force. Forces unready and ill equiped to go. Not even parity on numbers, let alone the 3 to 1 ratio advantage generally accepted as the minimum. This was a war we should have lost and on several occasions nearly did. Another week or two and we'd have lost (or at best, a stalemate) due to the South Atlantic weather. The Foreign office were trying to get rid for years before. The politically 'safest' thing to have done was agree a leaseback with those who wished to, come here. Was it a made up fact that, for the cost of going to war, we could have offered every Islander £1 mil each to move but they said no?
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Sept 14, 2020 12:29:19 GMT
Reason? Not meaning to be flippant, genuinly interested. The chance of failure was far, far greater than success. 8,000 miles away, a few untested aircraft against the entire Argentine air force. Forces unready and ill equiped to go. Not even parity on numbers, let alone the 3 to 1 ratio advantage generally accepted as the minimum. This was a war we should have lost and on several occasions nearly did. Another week or two and we'd have lost (or at best, a stalemate) due to the South Atlantic weather. The Foreign office were trying to get rid for years before. The politically 'safest' thing to have done was agree a leaseback with those who wished to, come here. Was it worth it?
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Sept 14, 2020 12:30:35 GMT
The chance of failure was far, far greater than success. 8,000 miles away, a few untested aircraft against the entire Argentine air force. Forces unready and ill equiped to go. Not even parity on numbers, let alone the 3 to 1 ratio advantage generally accepted as the minimum. This was a war we should have lost and on several occasions nearly did. Another week or two and we'd have lost (or at best, a stalemate) due to the South Atlantic weather. The Foreign office were trying to get rid for years before. The politically 'safest' thing to have done was agree a leaseback with those who wished to, come here. Was it worth it? Depends how you measure value
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 14, 2020 12:35:01 GMT
The chance of failure was far, far greater than success. 8,000 miles away, a few untested aircraft against the entire Argentine air force. Forces unready and ill equiped to go. Not even parity on numbers, let alone the 3 to 1 ratio advantage generally accepted as the minimum. This was a war we should have lost and on several occasions nearly did. Another week or two and we'd have lost (or at best, a stalemate) due to the South Atlantic weather. The Foreign office were trying to get rid for years before. The politically 'safest' thing to have done was agree a leaseback with those who wished to, come here. Was it a made up fact that, for the cost of going to war, we could have offered every Islander £1 mil each to move but they said no? Costs wouldn't be known in advance so not an option. Cheapest thing (before it started) would have to had a slightly larger garrison or a patrol ship, like the one we withdrew just before. The Argentinians simply thought it would be a fait accompli and we just wouldn't do it, not that we couldn't. If the FCO had its way, we wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 14, 2020 12:39:30 GMT
The chance of failure was far, far greater than success. 8,000 miles away, a few untested aircraft against the entire Argentine air force. Forces unready and ill equiped to go. Not even parity on numbers, let alone the 3 to 1 ratio advantage generally accepted as the minimum. This was a war we should have lost and on several occasions nearly did. Another week or two and we'd have lost (or at best, a stalemate) due to the South Atlantic weather. The Foreign office were trying to get rid for years before. The politically 'safest' thing to have done was agree a leaseback with those who wished to, come here. Was it worth it? One dead serviceman to cover the mistakes if a politician not even fit to clean their boots, no. For those who served or lost loved ones, it's perhaps a bit of solice but not something I really have the right to decide. Did I think it was the right course of action given the circumstances, yes. And that's from someone who dislikes the politicians in question.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Sept 14, 2020 12:41:10 GMT
Thanks for a good chat, I've taken it off topic, apologies.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 14, 2020 12:46:35 GMT
Thanks for a good chat, I've taken it off topic, apologies. No problem, one of my areas if interest, which you may have noticed.
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Sept 14, 2020 12:49:52 GMT
I have no answer for you - other than I would like to think that the Government of the day had the morals and the balls to do so. But strongly suggest that it would be done differently and not alone due to the actual military power and reach of the country’s you mention. And whatever it may escalate into. Likely USA and/or UN (hopefully the latter!) might even get involved. But it is only a hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question. Could tie ourselves in knots forever and a day with this one. True. Mind if I ask a question? You obviously served there, I'm guessing Navy? Did it affect you? I assume you're no longer serving? Tell me to water off and mind my business if you want. Not at all, happy to. Yes 22 years in RN. I was lucky in that it did not affect me at all (Mind you I still buy a ST to watch the Gas every season so feel free to question that 😀) But in my view I think the Navy are in a slightly different scenario to land forces (Army/Paras etc) in what they witness and experience. Even around Iraq/Kuwait we were distanced from much of the sh**e...don’t think I need to expand too much on that self obvious point. Of course when you do get hit it’s a different story .... My dad was RN during WW2 and his words always stayed with me “Unless you get sunk there is always a dry bed and a drink somewhere to be had” Very true 😆. And anecdotally this was borne out in a strange way after the surrender when, during the clear up ops, we landed on the hills above San Carlos to resupply some of the poor sods up there in their foxholes operating the Rapier batteries. We brought one guy back to the ship, gave him a warm shower, hot meal and a beer. His words (honest to God...they will always stay with me)...”Don’t know how you can live in this tin box, much prefer my foxhole. When the Argies came over I could dig deeper into the mud to hide. These tin boxes are a sitting target” Seriously....we couldn’t stop laughing for ages.....but we took him back to his foxhole and he was happy as they come having got off the ‘Sitting target”......😳 (We didn’t tell him the skipper in the Ops Room was happy not to make us a “sitting target”) 😂 But, yes, I was lucky, many were not, understandably. I feel for them all the time and those in later conflicts.
|
|