Random News Article Thread

[Blue Maniac]

I knew what you meant sweetie

:icon_lol: Nice.

Sorry, too busy reading watch tower.

Quality publication that. Not at all intended to be used in brainwashing anyone.

 

[RHYDAL]

It belongs to the Creator.

Have you got a few moments to talk about Jesus Christ, our Lord and saviour?

Did you just make a joke incorporating a dead person? You utter c***.

 

[Mawsley]

A simple question was asked of you. Would you have sent the task force to the Falklands, yes or no.

Your reply to that (repeated) question is above.

I have drawn my own conclusions.

I'll make this easier for you seeing as you seem to be struggling: You are asking "Would you have sent the task force to the Falklands, yes or no?" without having laid down any parameters to the ****ing question.

I'm sure you have drawn your conclusions, you seem to be pretty damn good at forming cockarse opinions without being in possession of all of the facts.

I asked you a set of clarification questions, are you able to answer them or do you need further help?

 

[spionfox]

I'll make this easier for you seeing as you seem to be struggling: You are asking "Would you have sent the task force to the Falklands, yes or no?" without having laid down any parameters to the ****ing question.

I'm sure you have drawn your conclusions, you seem to be pretty damn good at forming cockarse opinions without being in possession of all of the facts.

I asked you a set of clarification questions, are you able to answer them or do you need further help?

Mawsley, is there really any need for the implied abuse and bad language?

The parameters to the question were the circumstances and facts that were in place and existed at the time. In other words, a foreign force was occupying a British protectorate, the inhabitants of which, who considered themselves (and indeed were to all intents and purposes were) 'British', were none too pleased!

Under that set of circumstances, if you were in charge at the time would you have sent the task force over?

If you can finally manage to reply that would be great.

Of course this being an internet forum you can feel free to carry on prevaricating or even just ignore me.

Whatever you choose to do is up to you but if you could manage it without any further implied abuse or bad language that would be appreciated :icon_wink

 

[Biffa Bacon]

Mawsley, is there really any need for the implied abuse and bad language?

The parameters to the question were the circumstances and facts that were in place and existed at the time. In other words, a foreign force was occupying a British protectorate, the inhabitants of which, who considered themselves (and indeed were to all intents and purposes were) 'British', were none too pleased!

Under that set of circumstances, if you were in charge at the time would you have sent the task force over?

If you can finally manage to reply that would be great.

Of course this being an internet forum you can feel free to carry on prevaricating or even just ignore me.

Whatever you choose to do is up to you but if you could manage it without any further implied abuse or bad language that would be appreciated :icon_wink

More to the point is the question 'would the current government send a task force to the Falklands if it was invaded?'. The answer is obviously no because they don't have the capability since the defence review and the US decided they wouldn't support a UK taskforce in the future. The original 'war' was a tragic loss of young men for a pretence of British might, the sooner this country stops pissing about on foreign fields the better.

 

[spionfox]

More to the point is the question 'would the current government send a task force to the Falklands if it was invaded?'. The answer is obviously no because they don't have the capability since the defence review.......

Quite true.

And for some of us, whether you are pro or anti the last Falklands campaign, that is a very sad and tragic state of affairs .

 

[drew]

More to the point is the question 'would the current government send a task force to the Falklands if it was invaded?'. The answer is obviously no because they don't have the capability since the defence review and the US decided they wouldn't support a UK taskforce in the future. The original 'war' was a tragic loss of young men for a pretence of British might, the sooner this country stops pissing about on foreign fields the better.

With chances of the oil reserves being developed I suspect that you are wrong.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

With chances of the oil reserves being developed I suspect that you are wrong.

Britain doesn't have the capability to send a taskforce anymore, there are no aircraft carriers and few troop ships.

 

[RHYDAL]

More to the point is the question 'would the current government send a task force to the Falklands if it was invaded?'. The answer is obviously no because they don't have the capability since the defence review and the US decided they wouldn't support a UK taskforce in the future. The original 'war' was a tragic loss of young men for a pretence of British might, the sooner this country stops pissing about on foreign fields the better.

I very much doubt that, with modern technology and the military presence currently in the area, Britain would be taken by surprise as easily again.
I also doubt that Argentina would risk another Belgrano type incident.
I suspect the tactics for dealing with such an incident would also change to suit modern warfare, and not need to involve a task force of the size required last time.

 

[RHYDAL]

Britain doesn't have the capability to send a taskforce anymore, there are no aircraft carriers and few troop ships.

There is, however, a fully functional airbase on the island now. And the last time, troop ships were press-ganged cruise ships. The QEII was one of them. So there are plenty.

 

[OldGit]

The "would you have" question is, of course, a false one. If we are to try to answer hindsight questions of this sort we need always to answer first the previous question - would you have been in the same situation? One of the conclusions of the inquiry into the Falklands war was that the decision to invade at that time was prompted by the perception by the junta that the UK government of the day was signalling a lack of interest in the islands by withdrawing the bulk of their defences.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

There is, however, a fully functional airbase on the island now. And the last time, troop ships were press-ganged cruise ships. The QEII was one of them. So there are plenty.

There are 4 Typhoons, 1 VC10, 1 Hercules, 2 Seakings, a constant navy ship, probably some subs and 500 troops on the Falklands, we cannot get more planes there quickly because the US would not allow us to use their facilities for refueling (unlike last time), we have much reduced troop shipping ability and we wouldn't get any international support if we started sinking ships. A concerted attack by Argentina would easily overpower the Falklands in a few days with very little chance of a UK taskforce ever turning up.

 

[Chuck T Masala]

Argentina's military capability is nowhere near as capable as it was in 1982. Like everyone else Argentina is broke and has been for 10 years. It has acquired some SU 29 Fighters and I think new 12 Mirage F1 are being acquired next year. But an invasion of the type launched in 1982 would be a costly affair with a significant chance of failure. The Stanley airfield has an intergrated air defence system and 4 Typhoons are a significant additional deterrent. These are very capable aircraft, not to be underestimated even in small numbers. In 1982 2 British SSNs effectively bottled up the entire Argentine Navy for the rest of the conflict after the sinking of the Belgrano. They have no countermeasure. A battiallion of UK ifantry is a formidable fighting unit and with good intel would make any invasion a bloody affair. Ships taken up from trade (STUFT) is still a viable proposition. However escorting the ships 8000 miles is no longer an option. We Have insufficient surface ships to mount a such an operation.

 

[Leesoh]

I'm not enjoying this version of Risk. I'm holding on to the Maldives, and I don't care what you roll, you lot aren't having them. Move your counters elsewhere.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

Argentina's military capability is nowhere near as capable as it was in 1982. Like everyone else Argentina is broke and has been for 10 years. It has acquired some SU 29 Fighters and I think new 12 Mirage F1 are being acquired next year. But an invasion of the type launched in 1982 would be a costly affair with a significant chance of failure. The Stanley airfield has an intergrated air defence system and 4 Typhoons are a significant additional deterrent. These are very capable aircraft, not to be underestimated even in small numbers. In 1982 2 British SSNs effectively bottled up the entire Argentine Navy for the rest of the conflict after the sinking of the Belgrano. They have no countermeasure. A battiallion of UK ifantry is a formidable fighting unit and with good intel would make any invasion a bloody affair. Ships taken up from trade (STUFT) is still a viable proposition. However escorting the ships 8000 miles is no longer an option. We Have insufficient surface ships to mount a such an operation.

I'd agree with that, it is highly unlikely that Argentina have the capability or will to invade but if it did the forces there would be pretty much on their own and we wouldn't be talking about a taskforce.

 

[Leesoh]

Stop talking sense, BB, and fetch me a large glass of wine.

 

[Mawsley]

Mawsley, is there really any need for the implied abuse and bad language?

Spion, look back at your posts. I naturally figured that if you were going to be insulting then you were happy to be insulted in return, obviously not.

The parameters to the question were the circumstances and facts that were in place and existed at the time. In other words, a foreign force was occupying a British protectorate, the inhabitants of which, who considered themselves (and indeed were to all intents and purposes were) 'British', were none too pleased!

Under that set of circumstances, if you were in charge at the time would you have sent the task force over?

You still aren't getting it.

You are asking me to state what I would have done were I Thatcher...but I'm not Thatcher.

If I were Thatcher then I would have obviously done the same as her as I would be her, and thereby be a massive ****. If I were me as Prime Minister then the circumstances would not have presented themselves to me as events and actions would have changed the course of history.

For a start I would not have led a government fighting for the rights of my rich friends at the expense of the population at large, I would not have denied the existence of "society" while promoting the selfish rights of the individual. I wouldn't have sold-off the housing stock leading to a growth in homelessness - particularly effecting those thrown on the streets through the 'Care in the Community' program which closed off access to support mechanisms and accommodation for the weakest in society.

I would not have thrown money at the pointless Trident and, linked, would have made it illegal for British companies to be involved in the production and sale of land mines rather than touring the world and actively promoting them on behalf of my chums. I would have not recommissioned the Valiant fleet but I would have maintained a strong conventional armed force. I would not have thrown good after bad with the EFA program. I would have shut Porton Down the second I came to power. I would not have allowed Cruise to be stationed within the UK and I would have scraped Polaris.

I would have reached out to legally elected governments in Central and South America and not supported Regan's CIA-led, anti-Communist, blood-soaked foreign policy. I would not have befriended mass-murdering utter and complete ****s like Pinochet. Obviously, neither would I have counted Pik ****head Botha as one of my close, personal friends and supported his ****ish apartheid regime. I wouldn't have accelerated our current problems in the Middle East by giving guns and training to anyone there. Nor would I have allowed the USA to launch attacks on Libya.

I would have taken action to provide genuine jobs to the 3.5million jobless which may, in some part, have helped to avoid the inner-city riots and rampant racial tensions afflicting the country as was. I would not have dicked about with education by introducing CTCs and the 27 strand National Curriculum - which would have saved me changing it on an annual (and at times termly) basis. I wouldn't have destroyed a mining industry which had 300years-worth of natural resources left in order to make a petty stand only to then import more expensive coal from abroad.

I would have allowed investment in order to avert 18% interest rates and rampant home repossessions...mainly from the massive savings from not holding a nuclear arsenal and not having to squander the North Sea Oil revenue on benefit payments and yet more handouts to my chums in business.

Instead of killing off the steel industry I would have supported British industry, especially the manufacturing base with financial support to maintain the expertise and quality exports. I would have supported the ship-building industry. I'd not have sold off our utilities, I opposed it at the time and no one can justify it as a success for the consumer or the country. She agreed to the plans to get shot of the railway too, I hope my successor would have seen more sense than Major.

As a response to a recession we would have been insulated against had I been in power but is happening possibly in your fictitious scenario I would not have raised taxes. Not being a total ****ing moron, I would never have introduced the Poll Tax.

Finally, I would never, ever, have had sex with Dennis - thereby preserving the world from the prick that is Mark.

. . . _ _ _ . . .​

The question I believe you are straining to get to is "Mawsley, did you support Thatcher's decision to send the troops to the Falklands?" as this is the only one which isn't hypothetical bollocks. To cut down on time I'll do this question too:

If, for one minute, I believed that it was worth the loss of 907 lives to "protect" it then I would not have sanctioned lobbing landmines all over it which, coupled with the ones put down by the Argentinians has rendered large swathes uninhabitable (as if the weather hadn't done that already). But of course it was never about sovereignty - Argentina was diverting attention from a crisis at home while Thatcher was helping her oil company friends.

And all for nothing: no oil in thirty years and the islands still can't support themselves or produce enough sprogs for the UN to let them be an independent state. If it weren't for the fact we artificially pump people into the place, paid a very large bonus just to be there, and flood it with subsidised resources it would be a barren bunch of rocks no one would want.

Was there any point in my dear friend dying in the computer room on HMS Sheffield? Was it worth it? Was it ****ing bollocks.

</Gwilliam>

 

[Matt_B]

Spion, look back at your posts. I naturally figured that if you were going to be insulting then you were happy to be insulted in return, obviously not.



You still aren't getting it.

You are asking me to state what I would have done were I Thatcher...but I'm not Thatcher.

If I were Thatcher then I would have obviously done the same as her as I would be her, and thereby be a massive ****. If I were me as Prime Minister then the circumstances would not have presented themselves to me as events and actions would have changed the course of history.

For a start I would not have led a government fighting for the rights of my rich friends at the expense of the population at large, I would not have denied the existence of "society" while promoting the selfish rights of the individual. I wouldn't have sold-off the housing stock leading to a growth in homelessness - particularly effecting those thrown on the streets through the 'Care in the Community' program which closed off access to support mechanisms and accommodation for the weakest in society.

I would not have thrown money at the pointless Trident and, linked, would have made it illegal for British companies to be involved in the production and sale of land mines rather than touring the world and actively promoting them on behalf of my chums. I would have not recommissioned the Valiant fleet but I would have maintained a strong conventional armed force. I would not have thrown good after bad with the EFA program. I would have shut Porton Down the second I came to power. I would not have allowed Cruise to be stationed within the UK and I would have scraped Polaris.

I would have reached out to legally elected governments in Central and South America and not supported Regan's CIA-led, anti-Communist, blood-soaked foreign policy. I would not have befriended mass-murdering utter and complete ****s like Pinochet. Obviously, neither would I have counted Pik ****head Botha as one of my close, personal friends and supported his ****ish apartheid regime. I wouldn't have accelerated our current problems in the Middle East by giving guns and training to anyone there. Nor would I have allowed the USA to launch attacks on Libya.

I would have taken action to provide genuine jobs to the 3.5million jobless which may, in some part, have helped to avoid the inner-city riots and rampant racial tensions afflicting the country as was. I would not have dicked about with education by introducing CTCs and the 27 strand National Curriculum - which would have saved me changing it on an annual (and at times termly) basis. I wouldn't have destroyed a mining industry which had 300years-worth of natural resources left in order to make a petty stand only to then import more expensive coal from abroad.

I would have allowed investment in order to avert 18% interest rates and rampant home repossessions...mainly from the massive savings from not holding a nuclear arsenal and not having to squander the North Sea Oil revenue on benefit payments and yet more handouts to my chums in business.

Instead of killing off the steel industry I would have supported British industry, especially the manufacturing base with financial support to maintain the expertise and quality exports. I would have supported the ship-building industry. I'd not have sold off our utilities, I opposed it at the time and no one can justify it as a success for the consumer or the country. She agreed to the plans to get shot of the railway too, I hope my successor would have seen more sense than Major.

As a response to a recession we would have been insulated against had I been in power but is happening possibly in your fictitious scenario I would not have raised taxes. Not being a total ****ing moron, I would never have introduced the Poll Tax.

Finally, I would never, ever, have had sex with Dennis - thereby preserving the world from the prick that is Mark.

. . . _ _ _ . . .​

The question I believe you are straining to get to is "Mawsley, did you support Thatcher's decision to send the troops to the Falklands?" as this is the only one which isn't hypothetical bollocks. To cut down on time I'll do this question too:

If, for one minute, I believed that it was worth the loss of 907 lives to "protect" it then I would not have sanctioned lobbing landmines all over it which, coupled with the ones put down by the Argentinians has rendered large swathes uninhabitable (as if the weather hadn't done that already). But of course it was never about sovereignty - Argentina was diverting attention from a crisis at home while Thatcher was helping her oil company friends.

And all for nothing: no oil in thirty years and the islands still can't support themselves or produce enough sprogs for the UN to let them be an independent state. If it weren't for the fact we artificially pump people into the place, paid a very large bonus just to be there, and flood it with subsidised resources it would be a barren bunch of rocks no one would want.

Was there any point in my dear friend dying in the computer room on HMS Sheffield? Was it worth it? Was it ****ing bollocks.

</Gwilliam>

Would you still have had a play with your own diddies?

 

[Mawsley]

Would you still have had a play with your own diddies?

I wouldn't have been Thatcher, I'd have been Maria Whittaker and playing with them would have been a cornerstone of my election campaign.

 

[spionfox]

Spion, look back at your posts. I naturally figured that if you were going to be insulting then you were happy to be insulted in return, obviously not.

I accused you of having a closed mind and stated that I found the attitude of you and your ilk very sad.

If you find that insulting then you need to toughen up a little.