Last Flight Sea Harrier(10) - SHAR_Last_Flight_10.JPG

"alf blume" wrote in message
k...

Alf

One of your comments yesterday was something in the order of "Aircraft
carriers can stand off at long distances and protect land" or something like
that. Not in the South Atlantic without radar; the British proved that in
1982 - the Harriers were often grounded by fog, rain or low cloud. How are
the GR-7's going to "defend land"?


--
Alan Erskine

Hello, Alan!
You wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:34:48 GMT:

AE Alf

AE One of your comments yesterday was something in the order of "Aircraft
AE carriers can stand off at long distances and protect land" or something
AE like that. Not in the South Atlantic without radar; the British proved
AE that in 1982 - the Harriers were often grounded by fog, rain or low
AE cloud. How are the GR-7's going to "defend land"?

Didn't write that . . .

With best regards, alf blume. E-mail:

Hello, Alan!
You wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:34:48 GMT:

AE Alf

AE One of your comments yesterday was something in the order of "Aircraft
AE carriers can stand off at long distances and protect land" or something
AE like that. Not in the South Atlantic without radar; the British proved
AE that in 1982 - the Harriers were often grounded by fog, rain or low
AE cloud. How are the GR-7's going to "defend land"?

Didn't write that . . .

With best regards, alf blume. E-mail:

"alf blume" wrote in message
k...

"Alan Erskine" skrev i en meddelelse
...
"alf blume" wrote in message
k...

"Paul Elliot" skrev i en meddelelse
t...

Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have
seen
it.

I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .

Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?

You think they didn't know? - they did in both cases - both wars were
politically motivated and intelligence ignored.
1) Thacher was made perfectly aware of the Argentinian preparations - but
chose a war to divert attention from internal problems - nothing unites a
nation better than a quick little war!

See Military Intelligence Blunders and Cover-ups by (Colonel) John
Hughes-Wilson. I don't think it was that deliberate: never underestimate
the stupidity of politicians. They were a new government elected on a
monetarist mandate to drastically cut government spending, and that included
foreign policy and the armed forces. They ended up sending out all the
wrong signals to the Argentinian junta. I think it was more luck than
judgement that Thatcher ended up (in the eyes of the electorate anyway)
smelling of roses despite it being her cockup that caused it. Also, don't
forget that fighting the 1982 war and maintaining the current garrison just
to protect the archaic Falkland Islands Company and its serfs appears
strategically ludicrous, until you consider that there is oil in the area.

2) Same situation - Blair knew that the presence of WMD were at best
dubious - the war was politically motivated: "Britain is still a world
power - look we can fight on equal terms with the US!!!"


No, I think it was more to do with the 'o' word again, plus a desire to
blindly maintain the "special relationship", which has worked largely to our
mutual advantage in the past.

"alf blume" wrote in message
k...

"Alan Erskine" skrev i en meddelelse
...
"alf blume" wrote in message
k...

"Paul Elliot" skrev i en meddelelse
t...

Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have
seen
it.

I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .

Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?

You think they didn't know? - they did in both cases - both wars were
politically motivated and intelligence ignored.
1) Thacher was made perfectly aware of the Argentinian preparations - but
chose a war to divert attention from internal problems - nothing unites a
nation better than a quick little war!

See Military Intelligence Blunders and Cover-ups by (Colonel) John
Hughes-Wilson. I don't think it was that deliberate: never underestimate
the stupidity of politicians. They were a new government elected on a
monetarist mandate to drastically cut government spending, and that included
foreign policy and the armed forces. They ended up sending out all the
wrong signals to the Argentinian junta. I think it was more luck than
judgement that Thatcher ended up (in the eyes of the electorate anyway)
smelling of roses despite it being her cockup that caused it. Also, don't
forget that fighting the 1982 war and maintaining the current garrison just
to protect the archaic Falkland Islands Company and its serfs appears
strategically ludicrous, until you consider that there is oil in the area.

2) Same situation - Blair knew that the presence of WMD were at best
dubious - the war was politically motivated: "Britain is still a world
power - look we can fight on equal terms with the US!!!"


No, I think it was more to do with the 'o' word again, plus a desire to
blindly maintain the "special relationship", which has worked largely to our
mutual advantage in the past.

"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote in message
...


I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
own...


See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote in message
...


I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
own...


See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

"NoJags Neil" wrote in message
...
See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).


--
Alan Erskine

"NoJags Neil" wrote in message
...
See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).


--
Alan Erskine

NoJags Neil wrote:

"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote in message
...


I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
own...


See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...



But this was not known back in the 1980, yes?

JT