www.ditl.org

sunnyside wrote:

IanKennedy wrote: Falkland islands: She could have prevented it weeks before it even happened. The Argentinians where probing to find out what would happen if they did invade. The government knew this and did nothing. Had they simply told them to bog off and sent a small force into the area to make their presence felt they wouldn't have invaded. The Argentinian leader has said as much since. They started by putting a small group of people on a one of the smaller islands in the group (a tiny place), nothing was done about it. Not even a comment from the British ambassador to Argentina. The 30 year rule has proved they knew about it at the time and did nothing. She wanted the war. Without it she was down in the polls. After it she won the election with a landslide. May the lives of the soldiers and sailors on both sides haunt her every moment. The fact that we beat what is effectively a second world country was a forgone conclusion, I don't put it down to her leadership in any way.

Now I haven't seen those documents, but is that fair?

Quite a few wars could have been prevented with the benifit of 20/20 hindsight and a comparitivly small application of force.

WWII could have been prevented if we stomped on a treaty gimped Germany when they first started exceding what they were supposed to do.

A larger strike to take out Osama could have prevented 9/11 and therefore probalby both the Afgan and Iraq wars.

And so on.

However usually countries are villified for pre-emptive strikes, and the 20/20 thing applies in that often the outcome of letting something slide is not imagined.

I mean it does seem a little crazy that a second rate force like Argentina would attempt to conquer British territory. If the Falklands war hadn't happened, and the situation were brewing now, I don't really see you believe than they'd launch a full invasion.

Yes, entirely. She knew before it happened that it was going to happen. She should have simply said 'stop messing about' but she didn't want to be bothered. It was others that convinced her after the fact that she should do something about it and she did. No preemptive strike was required, she just had to react the the group of 4 people that had raised the Argentinian flag on St Georges island. It was claimed at the time that they where fishermen but they where Navy personnel out of uniform. This all came out at the time but was brushed under the carpet because we were in a war and had more important things to do.

Captain Seafort wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:Falkland islands: She could have prevented it weeks before it even happened.

It could have been prevented years earlier - scrapping the old Ark and listing Invincible, Fearless and Intrepid for sale sent entirely the wrong message.

The Argentinians where probing to find out what would happen if they did invade. The government knew this and did nothing. Had they simply told them to bog off and sent a small force into the area to make their presence felt they wouldn't have invaded. The Argentinian leader has said as much since.

Which can be ascribed to collective incompetence and complacency as much as malice.

They started by putting a small group of people on a one of the smaller islands in the group (a tiny place), nothing was done about it. Not even a comment from the British ambassador to Argentina. The 30 year rule has proved they knew about it at the time and did nothing.

We did not "do nothing" - Endurance had been sent with a RM detachment to evict the scrap merchants. They gave the Argies a serious bloody nose at 1st South Georgia, and could probably have beaten them off if Endurance's chopper had been allowed to join in.

She wanted the war. Without it she was down in the polls. After it she won the election with a landslide.

She certainly benefited from the war, but You've provided no evidence it support of the theory that she went looking for one that can't easily be put down to a collective bog-up.

The fact that we beat what is effectively a second world country was a forgone conclusion

Far from it - we nearly had to call the whole campaign off after Atlantic Conveyor was hit. If that missile had hit Invincible instead (it originally locked onto her, but was decoyed off target by a combination of Sea Kings and chaff) we would have had to withdraw.

We could easily have returned afterwords. The yanks were already lending us equipment.

She shut down perfectly good coal pits because she wanted a fight with the unions.

A fight that was needed to break the unions. Or would you prefer the unions to run the country instead of the elected government, as was frequently the case in the 70s.

I would prefer that she achieved her goal without causing a near war between the police and the unions. I would also prefer that she didn't shut down perfectly good working pits (according to her own inspectors) just to force a fight with them.

I also notice that you make no mention of her success dealing with the IRA.

Why would I talk about the IRA. Sure she started the process but she certainly didn't finish it. Nor have we any evidence that she was capable or not of doing so. I could equally say I see you have said nothing about the "no such thing as society" item.

IanKennedy wrote:We could easily have returned afterwords. The yanks were already lending us equipment.

They were not, however, lending us aircraft carriers. If either Invincible or Hermes had been sunk or damaged we'd have had to withdraw, and it would have been months at the earliest, possibly years, before we could have gone south again. By that time either a) the Argies would have reinforced the islands with their quality units (Pinochet wasn't going to keep posturing to keep them occupied forever), and we'd have been in even deeper shit, or b) the Yanks would have forced the Argies to give the islands back. Either way, the damage to Britain's reputation, due our failure to recover the islands, would have been immesurable.

I would prefer that she achieved her goal without causing a near war between the police and the unions. I would also prefer that she didn't shut down perfectly good working pits (according to her own inspectors) just to force a fight with them.

How exactly do you propose she do that? The unions in general and Scargill in particular weren't about to give up the power they had without a stiff fight, and given the circumstances of the strike (i.e. requiring massive police overtime and a mobile reserve to counter Scargill's flying pickets) it was inevitable that the brunt of the effort would fall on those plods who were spoiling for an excuse to crack a few heads. Ultimately, the conflict was inevitable, and it had to be brought about at a time when the government was in the best position to win. The aftermath of the '83 landslide was that time.

Why would I talk about the IRA. Sure she started the process but she certainly didn't finish it. Nor have we any evidence that she was capable or not of doing so. I could equally say I see you have said nothing about the "no such thing as society" item.

Fair enough, although I'd argue that the IRA were a lot less capable and effective organisation in the late 80s/early 90s than in the late 70s, largely thanks to us finally getting our act together at the political level.

Captain Seafort wrote:...flying pickets...

For some reason, I'm picturing protesters with jetpacks blasting around with the James Bond theme playing.

Sorry, carry on.

Can you bring her back to sort our the RMT before she pops her clogs?

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:...flying pickets...

For some reason, I'm picturing protesters with jetpacks blasting around with the James Bond theme playing.

Sorry, carry on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNoJ-WyxiX0

Captain Seafort wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:We could easily have returned afterwords. The yanks were already lending us equipment.

They were not, however, lending us aircraft carriers. If either Invincible or Hermes had been sunk or damaged we'd have had to withdraw, and it would have been months at the earliest, possibly years, before we could have gone south again. By that time either a) the Argies would have reinforced the islands with their quality units (Pinochet wasn't going to keep posturing to keep them occupied forever), and we'd have been in even deeper s**t, or b) the Yanks would have forced the Argies to give the islands back. Either way, the damage to Britain's reputation, due our failure to recover the islands, would have been immesurable.

There's nothing to say that they couldn't or wouldn't do so if asked. Hell, Ronald and her where like twins he would have given her anything she wanted. Plus we would have the whole of NATO to fall back on. Just to note that immesurable doesn't mean what you are trying to use it for. Immesurable means it can't be measured, it says nothing about the actual size.

I would prefer that she achieved her goal without causing a near war between the police and the unions. I would also prefer that she didn't shut down perfectly good working pits (according to her own inspectors) just to force a fight with them.

How exactly do you propose she do that? The unions in general and Scargill in particular weren't about to give up the power they had without a stiff fight, and given the circumstances of the strike (i.e. requiring massive police overtime and a mobile reserve to counter Scargill's flying pickets) it was inevitable that the brunt of the effort would fall on those plods who were spoiling for an excuse to crack a few heads. Ultimately, the conflict was inevitable, and it had to be brought about at a time when the government was in the best position to win. The aftermath of the '83 landslide was that time.

Using the law. She could have put restrictions on the actions of unions, which she did. However, she could easily have put financial penalties in place against both the union finances and the leaders of the unions themselves. Hell, we forced the soviet union into vast change without a single shot being fired. The principal here is equally sound.

Why would I talk about the IRA. Sure she started the process but she certainly didn't finish it. Nor have we any evidence that she was capable or not of doing so. I could equally say I see you have said nothing about the "no such thing as society" item.

Fair enough, although I'd argue that the IRA were a lot less capable and effective organisation in the late 80s/early 90s than in the late 70s, largely thanks to us finally getting our act together at the political level.

The IRAs ability to act was not changed by any political measures. It was changed by the fact that they where infiltrated by British intelligence. Hell by the end of it the head of IRA security was a British agent. We knew more about what they where planning then they did. That's what forced them to start negotiating, not anything that was done politically.