Falklands War @ 25

  Zero G 18:53 22 Feb 2007
Locked

More info @ click here

  Jak_1 20:47 22 Feb 2007

And?

  Zero G 19:53 24 Feb 2007

It was to present the link to all.
And serve the purpose of remembering 25 years on.

  Stuartli 00:24 25 Feb 2007

At least we had real leadership in those days....

  Strawballs 00:29 25 Feb 2007

Lets not get into that Stuartli she only did it to boost her flagging poll and had she listened to her advisers she could have stopped it before it started oh no it took time to un-mothball those ships that were due for sale.

  Stuartli 00:37 25 Feb 2007

Using your logic I could claim exactly the same argument about Tony Blair's involvement with, for instance, Iraq and Afghanistan.

At least Margaret Thatcher didn't produce what proved to be unsubstantiated claims of "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

  Strawballs 01:04 25 Feb 2007

Who was defending Blair they are all the same

  beeuuem 02:23 25 Feb 2007

And the Secretary of State responsible, Lord Carrington, and two Foreign Offfice ministers did have the decency to resign over the matter.
Now they have to be removed kicking and screaming, still insisting they did nothing wrong and are back in another office before you can blink.
Integrity appears to be a word unknown to most modern politicians of all persusasions.

  HondaMan 14:40 25 Feb 2007

Strawballs, she did it to protect a bit of us. Her poll, flagging or otherwise had nothuing to do with it. Brits were at risk, she acted, argument over!

  Kate B 15:07 25 Feb 2007

A small handful of Brits were at risk of a fairly peaceful invasion by Argentina - I didn't then and still don't think it was worth putting hundreds more lives at risk.

Let's not forget that that government ignored warnings about the Falklands and in fact scaled down the British naval presence in the South Atlantic, thereby in effect saying to Argentina "you know what, we're not even sufficiently bothered to maintain HMS Endurance down here, so hey, we're not that fussed generally about the Falklands."

I'm not privy to what went on in Downing Street, obviously, but it strikes me as mighty suspicious that poor poll ratings at home suddenly forced a change of mind. One minute the naval presence is being scaled down; the next a task force is steaming south.

The Falklands adventure did wonders for her poll ratings. The monetarism experiment was beginning to cause real hardship, it was by no means certain she'd win a second term.

Many people died in the Falklands - for what? For restoring the Union flag over a rocky outcrop several thousand miles away of little or no strategic value? Presumably the handful of Brits would have been able to come to the UK - bits of Scotland offer the same bleak island existence - had they not wanted to remain under Argentine sovereignity.

I completely respect the professionalism of the people who served there, but - as with the Iraq situation - I question the validity of the exercise in the first place. More lives would have been saved by a dignified handover of the Falklands to Argentina. Except, of course, the political life of Margaret Thatcher. Is one political life more important?

  GANDALF <|:-)> 16:22 25 Feb 2007

Could someone explain to me the importance of the Falklands and why it was worth so much money and so many lives?

G

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Fujitsu Lifebook P727 laptop review

Converse draws on iconic heritage for a fresh brand identity

Mac power user tips and hidden tricks

Comment lancer Windows 10 en mode sans ├ęchec ?