Argentina vows to defend her interests after oil discovery
10 May 2010, 01:06 PM
#62
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
b) so what? The captain has already admitted he had been ordered to attack and that he was merely moving his ship to a better postion. The direction he was taing is a moot point.
c) so it had missiles as well as large artillery, and I presume, as a fairly modern ship (ok, ex WWII, but still...) anti-aircraft guns and torpedos to boot, what exactly isn't a threat about those?
Any threat is major in a conflict where you are fighting at the absolute limit of your supply and resource chain.The Argentines no longer consider this a war crime, so what's the problem?
Geezer
10 May 2010, 01:13 PM
#63
a) yes
b) so what? The captain has already admitted he had been ordered to attack and that he was merely moving his ship to a better postion. The direction he was taing is a moot point.
c) so it had missiles as well as large artillery, and I presume, as a fairly modern ship (ok, ex WWII, but still...) anti-aircraft guns and torpedos to boot, what exactly isn't a threat about those? Any threat is major in a conflict where you are fighting at the absolute limit of your supply and resource chain.
The Argentines no longer consider this a war crime, so what's the problem?
Geezer
b) so what? The captain has already admitted he had been ordered to attack and that he was merely moving his ship to a better postion. The direction he was taing is a moot point.
c) so it had missiles as well as large artillery, and I presume, as a fairly modern ship (ok, ex WWII, but still...) anti-aircraft guns and torpedos to boot, what exactly isn't a threat about those?
Any threat is major in a conflict where you are fighting at the absolute limit of your supply and resource chain.The Argentines no longer consider this a war crime, so what's the problem?
Geezer
As f1 fan says, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant
10 May 2010, 02:51 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Here's a chart of Rockhopper's share price(the company who've found oil). Each candlestick on the chart is a day. Investors are happy after the last 3. 
Edit - ignore the 139 beside the date, I had my mouse hovering at 139 when I took the screenshot.
Edit - ignore the 139 beside the date, I had my mouse hovering at 139 when I took the screenshot.
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 10 May 2010 at 02:55 PM.
10 May 2010, 03:45 PM
#65
Will be interesting to watch this, say the government do get involved and send carriers or whatever, who will be footing the bill ? after all Rockhopper are a commercial enterprise run to make money for the shareholders, I can see the need to protect our interests out there and not let them take the p1ss but sending a fully loaded carrier would cost millions to essentially protect Rockhopper so they can make money, ok there would be a tax take on the profits I assume but I cant imagine it would be as much as the cost of protecting them.
Last time it was Argentina invading a British colony, this is different, potentially it could cost the UK coffers dear whilst shareholders and directors get rich.
Last time it was Argentina invading a British colony, this is different, potentially it could cost the UK coffers dear whilst shareholders and directors get rich.
11 May 2010, 08:35 AM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So another blame labour situation?
I can tell you back in 1994 I was in HM Forces, in the uk, Tory government, and I couldnt even exchange a pair of lightweight trousers because we couldnt get hold of any
and we were the spearhead unit for the British Army 
In 1982 we didnt have a fleet, just a load of old ships from either Fleet Auxillary or constripted in as troop carriers and transports for military equipments
Tony
I can tell you back in 1994 I was in HM Forces, in the uk, Tory government, and I couldnt even exchange a pair of lightweight trousers because we couldnt get hold of any
and we were the spearhead unit for the British Army In 1982 we didnt have a fleet, just a load of old ships from either Fleet Auxillary or constripted in as troop carriers and transports for military equipments
Tony
Les
!!! Great quote though. D
11 May 2010, 08:14 PM
#73
Scooby Regular
11 May 2010, 08:29 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read Thatcher's own words. The Belgrano she had been advised was bearly seaworthy let alone battle ready.
Also the sinking occured at a time when both sides were supposed to be considering a Peruvian mediated peace plan.
Still that wouldn't have done as she may not have won the election without killing a boat load of 'Argies'.
Also the sinking occured at a time when both sides were supposed to be considering a Peruvian mediated peace plan.
Still that wouldn't have done as she may not have won the election without killing a boat load of 'Argies'.
11 May 2010, 09:57 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
as Bosnia was going on, also body armour was a bit scarce for us, blue helmet covers were 10 a penny though Like I say, we were the spearhead regiment for the british army (they still are, in the gulf 2 months before everyone else in 1990
damn they were even in Asension Islands 6 months before the falklands kicked off doing comms trials from the falklands back to the uk!)Tony
11 May 2010, 10:18 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read Thatcher's own words. The Belgrano she had been advised was bearly seaworthy let alone battle ready.
Also the sinking occured at a time when both sides were supposed to be considering a Peruvian mediated peace plan.
Still that wouldn't have done as she may not have won the election without killing a boat load of 'Argies'.
Also the sinking occured at a time when both sides were supposed to be considering a Peruvian mediated peace plan.
Still that wouldn't have done as she may not have won the election without killing a boat load of 'Argies'.
The sinking occurred 14 hours after President of Peru Fernando Belaúnde proposed a comprehensive peace plan and called for regional unity, although Thatcher and diplomats in London did not see this document until after the sinking of the Belgrano.[10] Diplomatic efforts to that point had failed completely. After the sinking Argentina rejected the plan but the UK indicated its acceptance on 5 May. The news was subsequently dominated by military action and it is not well known that the British continued to offer ceasefire terms until 1 June.
^^^^^source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
Although i have read this elsewhere (Simon Weston's book maybe???) this is the only refernence i could find
Belgrano was escorting/protecting two aircraft carriers which where just about in range to deploy thier aircraft which could easily have wreaked havoc on the British ships and troops.
Ta, ta
11 May 2010, 10:29 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear still not letting those facts get in the way of the F1 Falklands faireytale eh
The sinking occurred 14 hours after President of Peru Fernando Belaúnde proposed a comprehensive peace plan and called for regional unity, although Thatcher and diplomats in London did not see this document until after the sinking of the Belgrano.[10] Diplomatic efforts to that point had failed completely. After the sinking Argentina rejected the plan but the UK indicated its acceptance on 5 May. The news was subsequently dominated by military action and it is not well known that the British continued to offer ceasefire terms until 1 June.
^^^^^source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
Although i have read this elsewhere (Simon Weston's book maybe???) this is the only refernence i could find
Belgrano was escorting/protecting two aircraft carriers which where just about in range to deploy thier aircraft which could easily have wreaked havoc on the British ships and troops.
Ta, ta
The sinking occurred 14 hours after President of Peru Fernando Belaúnde proposed a comprehensive peace plan and called for regional unity, although Thatcher and diplomats in London did not see this document until after the sinking of the Belgrano.[10] Diplomatic efforts to that point had failed completely. After the sinking Argentina rejected the plan but the UK indicated its acceptance on 5 May. The news was subsequently dominated by military action and it is not well known that the British continued to offer ceasefire terms until 1 June.
^^^^^source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
Although i have read this elsewhere (Simon Weston's book maybe???) this is the only refernence i could find
Belgrano was escorting/protecting two aircraft carriers which where just about in range to deploy thier aircraft which could easily have wreaked havoc on the British ships and troops.
Ta, ta
12 May 2010, 07:58 AM
#79
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
source: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/spee...p?docid=109118
Ok, this extract is taken from the Thatcher Foundation and is from her biography - although it appears to fly in the face of your words and the F1 Falklands Faireytale you tell
A large amount of malicious and misleading nonsense was circulated at the time and long afterwards about the reasons why we sank the Belgrano. These allegations have been demonstrated to be without foundation. The decision to sink the Belgrano was taken for strictly military not political reasons: the claim that we were trying to undermine a promising peace initiative from Peru will not bear scrutiny. Those of us who took the decision at Chequers did not at that time know anything about the Peruvian proposals, which in any case closely resembled the Haig plan rejected by the Argentinians only days before. There was a clear military threat which we could not responsibly ignore. Moreover, subsequent events more than justified what was done. As a result of the devastating loss of the Belgrano, the Argentinian Navy - above all the carrier - went back to port and stayed there. Thereafter it posed no serious threat to the success of the taskforce, though of course we were not to know that this would be so at the time. The sinking of the Belgrano turned out to be one of the most decisive military actions of the war.
Lets not let the facts stand in the way of your faireytale, carry on!
If the Argentinians put to sea in a poorly maintained, aged ship with a poor crew who where not even performing Anti-Submarine drills/practices then it was their choice, no one made them do so.
Ironically the Belgrano was sunk by two/three type 25 torpedos which where designed in 1925 (approx.) manual, no electronic trickery and roughly the same vintage design ans the Belgrano itself
I would look a little closer to home, say the Argentine government at the time if we want to talk about blame for the loss of life. At the time the cold war was in full swing, the eyes of the USSR where on us and a failure to do anything would have been seen as a sign of real weakness, something we could ill afford.
Any chance you can provide the alternative Thatcher account, if i am wrong then im am man enough to admit it, i wonder if the same can be said...
Last edited by The Zohan; 12 May 2010 at 08:07 AM.
12 May 2010, 08:38 AM
#80
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul, last comment on this because I doubt you will be swayed. All I would ask is one day you read Hugo Young's official Thatcher bio and the official government statement of the whole affair.
The above is not what she says in there and anyway the accounts in the bio do not match up with the timings and events of the official statement.
Surely as you have seen from the 45 minute WMD statement from Blair things can get pretty nasty in politics and this was no different.
In sumamry they sunk the Belgrano at the last possible moment they could while still able to officially deny knowledge of the peace plan.
You, of course, and thousands of others who want to believe she was some saviour of the UK who could do no wrong will never believe it. That is up to you. I can quite happily choose to believe what I want too and from all the evidence I have read the official accounts of the situation are simply not true and do not stand up to scrutiny.
12 May 2010, 09:05 AM
#82
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a surprise - her website paints it all nice and rosy LOL!
Paul, last comment on this because I doubt you will be swayed. All I would ask is one day you read Hugo Young's official Thatcher bio and the official government statement of the whole affair.
The above is not what she says in there and anyway the accounts in the bio do not match up with the timings and events of the official statement.
Surely as you have seen from the 45 minute WMD statement from Blair things can get pretty nasty in politics and this was no different.
In sumamry they sunk the Belgrano at the last possible moment they could while still able to officially deny knowledge of the peace plan.
You, of course, and thousands of others who want to believe she was some saviour of the UK who could do no wrong will never believe it. That is up to you. I can quite happily choose to believe what I want too and from all the evidence I have read the official accounts of the situation are simply not true and do not stand up to scrutiny.
Paul, last comment on this because I doubt you will be swayed. All I would ask is one day you read Hugo Young's official Thatcher bio and the official government statement of the whole affair.
The above is not what she says in there and anyway the accounts in the bio do not match up with the timings and events of the official statement.
Surely as you have seen from the 45 minute WMD statement from Blair things can get pretty nasty in politics and this was no different.
In sumamry they sunk the Belgrano at the last possible moment they could while still able to officially deny knowledge of the peace plan.
You, of course, and thousands of others who want to believe she was some saviour of the UK who could do no wrong will never believe it. That is up to you. I can quite happily choose to believe what I want too and from all the evidence I have read the official accounts of the situation are simply not true and do not stand up to scrutiny.
OK my quote which you dismiss so easily is actually from Maggies Autobiography (that'll be the one she wrote then
- Not Hogo Young, who is/was Guardian columist writing for his own interests and agendas.So your quote is from someones interpretation and mine from the person themself. I wonder which is likely to be the more accurate and truthfull. Given that you knock the Iron Ladies' truthfullness, Hugo Young also has a vested interest in perhaps bending the truth given his leanings and that of his employers, The Guardian. It also helps book sales having controversial comments difficult to prove
Last edited by The Zohan; 12 May 2010 at 09:57 AM.
12 May 2010, 10:05 AM
#83
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, really what would be the point? Even if I could produce a video of Thatcher herself admitting it you wouldn't believe it and hence why should I waste my time.
As for a conspiracy, not really. Thatcher's bio account of the whole affair does simply not tally with the official statement of the affair ergo at least one of them must be wrong. Or am I missing something there?
I will ask you one last question though. Why are you so ready to believe that Blair knew more than he claims he did when he initially acted over Iraq yet not so with Thatcher over the Falklands?
12 May 2010, 10:24 AM
#84
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, not the stores, we were suffering shortages in combats too as Bosnia was going on, also body armour was a bit scarce for us, blue helmet covers were 10 a penny though
Like I say, we were the spearhead regiment for the british army (they still are, in the gulf 2 months before everyone else in 1990 damn they were even in Asension Islands 6 months before the falklands kicked off doing comms trials from the falklands back to the uk!)
Tony
as Bosnia was going on, also body armour was a bit scarce for us, blue helmet covers were 10 a penny though Like I say, we were the spearhead regiment for the british army (they still are, in the gulf 2 months before everyone else in 1990
damn they were even in Asension Islands 6 months before the falklands kicked off doing comms trials from the falklands back to the uk!)Tony
The politicians are very fond of excusing themselves by telling us how they have to make difficult decisions! Its not half so difficult for them is it?
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 12 May 2010 at 10:27 AM.
12 May 2010, 11:02 AM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well believe it or not I do have it here somewhere so just maybe I will re-read it and find the relevant parts.
However, really what would be the point? Even if I could produce a video of Thatcher herself admitting it you wouldn't believe it and hence why should I waste my time.
As for a conspiracy, not really. Thatcher's bio account of the whole affair does simply not tally with the official statement of the affair ergo at least one of them must be wrong. Or am I missing something there?
I will ask you one last question though. Why are you so ready to believe that Blair knew more than he claims he did when he initially acted over Iraq yet not so with Thatcher over the Falklands?
However, really what would be the point? Even if I could produce a video of Thatcher herself admitting it you wouldn't believe it and hence why should I waste my time.
As for a conspiracy, not really. Thatcher's bio account of the whole affair does simply not tally with the official statement of the affair ergo at least one of them must be wrong. Or am I missing something there?
I will ask you one last question though. Why are you so ready to believe that Blair knew more than he claims he did when he initially acted over Iraq yet not so with Thatcher over the Falklands?
As i have said, so do not make out otherwise. Iif i am wrong i will glady admit it. The ownus is on you to produce the facts that back up your assertion that the sinking was a war crime and you claim to have Maggies words albeit in a biography and i have producer Maggies own words in her Autobiography ststing otherwise.
Finally - why do you not trust nor believe Thatcher yet are happy to believe a leftie Guardian columist?
12 May 2010, 11:24 AM
#88
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugo's book Widely accepted as the best is it? can you point me in the right direction for the reviews (not just those who brought it) from Hugo's peers and contemporaries and the awards it won, would love to read them
Is it widely accepted that the book is 100% truthfull and accurate. I look forward to seeing the extracts from it and just when Thatcher was supposed to have had this conversation with Young and if there is anyone to vouch for it.
When push come to shove and in your own words you described this event as a War Crime. Yet neither Maggie nor her government at the time have been procecuted for this 'war crime' and lets face it there are enough Maggie haters out there to try to get this matter raised and her prosecuted if it was indeed a war crime...
It appears that it is a war crime in your head and i am sure a few other fevered Torie haters and not in the real world. Keep comparing this to Tony please although it will not change the reality of what you said is complete and utter tosh!
If the sinking was indeed a war crime and Hugo has the trump card in this then i am sure someone if not Hugo himself would have played it - whilst he was alive of course yet he chose not too...funny that!
Last edited by The Zohan; 12 May 2010 at 11:46 AM.
12 May 2010, 11:33 AM
#89
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (40)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Marlow, Bucks.
Posts: 6,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So another blame labour situation?
I can tell you back in 1994 I was in HM Forces, in the uk, Tory government, and I couldnt even exchange a pair of lightweight trousers because we couldnt get hold of any and we were the spearhead unit for the British Army
In 1982 we didnt have a fleet, just a load of old ships from either Fleet Auxillary or constripted in as troop carriers and transports for military equipments
Tony
I can tell you back in 1994 I was in HM Forces, in the uk, Tory government, and I couldnt even exchange a pair of lightweight trousers because we couldnt get hold of any
and we were the spearhead unit for the British Army In 1982 we didnt have a fleet, just a load of old ships from either Fleet Auxillary or constripted in as troop carriers and transports for military equipments
Tony
Ive got a set of CS95 trousers if you still need them Tony!
All the rich kids at school missed out on a cruise round the med because their ship was used as the hospital ship! The Canberra? Top tip: to avoid disappointment as a child, get born into a poor family!
12 May 2010, 11:46 AM
#90
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has Thatchers Autobiography and this incident in particular be widely discreditied then?
Hugo's book Widely accepted as the best is it? can you point me in the right direction for the reviews (not just those who brought it) from Hugo's peers and contemporaries and the awards it won, would love to read them
Is it widely accepted that the book is 100% truthfull and accurate. I look forward to seeing the extracts from it and just when Thatcher was supposed to have had this conversation with Young and if there is anyone to vouch for it.
Hugo's book Widely accepted as the best is it? can you point me in the right direction for the reviews (not just those who brought it) from Hugo's peers and contemporaries and the awards it won, would love to read them
Is it widely accepted that the book is 100% truthfull and accurate. I look forward to seeing the extracts from it and just when Thatcher was supposed to have had this conversation with Young and if there is anyone to vouch for it.