cofty - I'll concede you that point if that was the only reason the islanders didn't want union with Argentina. But it's obvious to me that the 1982 war was and is the main obstacle for them. In that frame of mind, I can understand their reticence.
David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)
by cofty 182 Replies latest social current
-
-
jamesmahon
I'm sorry - that does not answer my question at all. Your father fought in the war? So. My grandad fought in the second war so by your logic Britain ruling Germany now would make a positive difference to me. No logic there. Does not answer why it would make any difference to your life.
Reason two is Britain does not need them. I agree. Does not explain why Argentina having ownership of them because they need them would make any difference to your life. As I said the fact that they are British makes not a blind bit of difference to my life.
"A lot of suffering has resulted due to imperial exploits." I agree. But what does this have to do with the Falklands or why you would be happier if they were considered part of Argentina?
"It makes a difference to me because I love my country, and see this land as a integral part of my own." And so we get to the crux of the issue. Let us pick this apart.
You love your country. The physical landscape? The people? The history? The culture? Good for you. I wouldn't say I 'love' my country. It has its good and bad. On the whole I like it, but I would not like it less if, say, the Isle of Wight wanted to declare independence from the rest of the UK. Or indeed love it more if we built an island in the North Sea. It would not make a blind bit of difference to who i am, which is determined by what I make of my own life - not some arbitrary boundaries that were drawn around what is considered the country that by chance I was born in and in which I choose to live.
You see the islands as 'yours' but they would not be more so if they were governed by Argentina anymore than they are 'mine' because the British govt administers them. It would not make any difference to your life whatsoever if they were governed by Argentina. You can visit the islands now, and no doubt you could move there if you wanted to (although I am betting you wouldn't want to any more than I would). So your belief that you would be happier if they were considered legally part of Argentina is not based on any rational analysis of your own feelings, which appear to be predominantly selfish.
-
cofty
So you agree the Islanders don't want Argentina because your country is not an attractive proposition and because you invaded them.
What is there left to discuss?
-
jamesmahon
Cofty - I would be happy if she would just concede it should be up to the islanders. That is all anyone here ever says.
-
cofty
That's the main point James. Its all academic.
The people might be yours, but the land is ours. - LMSA
The people are going nowhere - check-mate.
-
botchtowersociety
Back in 82, Ronnie was prepared to give Maggie the use of a brand new aircraft carrier (the Iwo Jima) if the UK lost any of theirs during the conflict. The Iwo Jima is classified here as an amphibious assault ship (a small carrier by US standards), but it is a carrier.
This is news to me:
http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/news/reagan-readied-us-warship-82-falklands-war-0
While publicly claiming neutrality between Argentina and the U.K. during the 1982 Falklands War, President Ronald Reagan’s administration had developed plans to loan a ship to the Royal Navy if it lost one of its aircraft carriers in the war, former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26.
Lehman and then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger agreed to support U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with the loan of the amphibious warship USS Iwo Jima , he said.
“We agreed that [Weinberger] would tell the President that we planned to handle all these requests routinely without going outside existing Navy channels,” Lehman said in a speech provided to the U.S. Naval Institute he made in Portsmouth, U.K. “We would ‘leave the State Department, except for [Secretary of State Al] Haig, out of it.’”
President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at the White House in 1981 The Reagan Library Archives
Reagan approved the request without hesitation and his instructions to Weinberger had been simple, “Give Maggie everything she needs to get on with it,” Lehman said in the speech.
At the time, the Royal Navy had deployed HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes to the Falklands. Each carrier fielded five vertical takeoff Sea Harriers armed with American Sidewinder missiles — all major components of the U.K.’s air war in the Falklands.
The contingency plan to provide a replacement carrier was developed at the Royal Navy’s request.
“As in most of the requests from the Brits at the time, it was an informal request on a ‘what if’ basis, Navy to Navy,” Lehman said.Retired U.S. Navy Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, commander of the U.S. Second Fleet at the time of the conflict, helped develop the plan to supply the Royal Navy with Iwo Jima if the Hermes or Invinciblewere lost. Though primarily a helicopter carrier, at least one Iwo Jima-class ship was qualified to operate the American version of the Sea Harrier, according to the 1982 edition of Combat Fleets of the World.
USS Iwo Jima underway in 1984 U.S. Naval Institute Archive
“We decided that the USS Iwo Jima would be the ship that would be the easiest for the British to operate and would make for a smooth transfer,” Lyons told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26. “We also identified ‘contract advisors’ who would be on board to help the British with some of the systems.”
The contract advisors needed to help operate the USS Iwo Jima would have likely been retired sailors with knowledge of the ship’s systems, said current Combat Fleets editor, Eric Wertheim on June 26.
“The arrangement would have probably been a similar operation to The Flying Tigers, when the U.S. sent surplus aircraft to China and then recruited former pilots to fly the planes,” Wertheim said.
“Once the British took over the ship, the crew would have likely been supplemented by privately contracted Americans familiar with the systems.”Iwo Jima would have functioned well as a replacement for the Invincible as both ships were close in size and function. “Even though the Hermes was a larger ship with more capabilities, Iwo Jima could have filled the gap,” Wertheim said.
Currently, tensions over the Falklands remain high since the U.K.’s 1982 victory. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received backlash from the British media in 2010 after she offered to mediate the dispute. Many British observers thought her offer indicated that the U.S. position of recognizing British sovereignty over the islands was fading.
Invincible and HMS Hermes in 1982 U.S. Naval Institute Archive
-
cofty
Thats vey interesting BTS thanks. If we had lost our carrier it would have been a disaster without that sort of safety net.
The Sea Harriers were immense in the Falklands war. They were equipped for air-to-air combat and shot down 20 enemy aircraft with one loss.
-
botchtowersociety
IIRC, the US Marines have had great success with the Harrier. I had a scale model I built of the AV8B in my room as a kid. It could do what no other fixed wing craft could do. Now comes the F-35B as the next VTOL platform. Stealthy and supersonic. The UK was a big part of its development.
-
cofty
Britain disposed of all its Harriers last year. I was really disappointed it was a beautiful aircraft with unique abilities.
That F35-B looks like it owes a lot to Harrier technology. IMO the Harrier was more elegant with its exhaust ports that gave it lift on the sides of the fuselage rather than out its arse. I'm guessing the spec of the F35-B is more impressive though.
I live in a low-fly zone so we get to see a lot of military planes. The Typhoon is my current favourite, its sound is distinctive even if its too high to see. I have seen them pull 100% vertical climbs, immense power.
-
botchtowersociety
I'm guessing the spec of the F35-B is more impressive though.
The F35's biggest advantage is it can fly supersonically yet retain VTOL capabilitites. It is also somewhat stealthy, so it can evade radar better.
The Typhoon is my current favourite, its sound is distinctive even if its too high to see. I have seen them pull 100% vertical climbs, immense power.
The Tornado has some pretty lines as well.
