We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a very Happy New Year. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!
Falkland Islands under threat once more - huge oil reserves in peril
Comments
-
No Susi. I was on standby for it but my unit was heavy tanks and we weren't called into play, much to our disappointment.
Well my family and I are EXTREMELY greatful for what the military did, those that went there and those that nearly did. There's a very interesting museum on the island, certainly worth visiting if you ever go there.0 -
Well my family and I are EXTREMELY greatful for what the military did, those that went there and those that nearly did. There's a very interesting museum on the island, certainly worth visiting if you ever go there.
We'd loved to have gone but I suspect the UN would have complained if we'd been deployed: kind of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, plus I suspect the mountainous terrain might have slowed us down a little. I've never heard a government statement though why the heavies were never sent in. We had 65 of the beasts on absolute readiness.
It's nice of you to say you're grateful but I think the essence of my discussion on this thread is that you shouldn't have to be grateful. You're British by choice and you're entitled to the same protection of the Queen's Peace that all of us are.
0 -
FWIW, I'm not a military expert but my family are the owners of a Falkland Island and after spending a while out there this year, and noticing the military presence (circa 2k, comparable to the inhabitants I believe), 'we' are in no danger of the Argies taking it over anytime soon! They took it in 82 because there were about 50 army personnel on Stanley, not exactly tough to do!
Only asking the question:- Do you think this is good use of resources?
I accept that they may need to be there. I also accept that there is an inbuilt cost of that force wherever they may be if they are needed."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Only asking the question:- Do you think this is good use of resources?
I accept that they may need to be there. I also accept that there is an inbuilt cost of that force wherever they may be if they are needed.
I believe the ongoing political difficulties the Argentinian government are presenting make the situation unstable enough for a larger garrison to be in place. If Westminster reduced numbers we could be leaving the way open for another invasion and the massive cost in both fiscal and human terms that would incur.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Only asking the question:- Do you think this is good use of resources?
I accept that they may need to be there. I also accept that there is an inbuilt cost of that force wherever they may be if they are needed.
I can see why one would question it, but at the present time, it appears to be a good use of resources. Possibly not so much before it 'exploded' again....0 -
Nice try at twisting my words. For confirmation of what I said see post 45 which is reproduced above just for your benefit. The flagship of a particular unit is the ship the admiral chooses to fly his flag from.
Tell me the name of the flagship of the Royal Navy?
The Royal Navy says it is HMS Bulwark, which part of that do you disagree with?0 -
You can't say which ship the navy commander will fly his flag from. Ocean is an "amphibious assault ship". She was designed to replace Albion & Bulwark and is the largest ship in the navy.
I don't need to say which ship an Admiral/Commodore will choose to fly his flag from.
The Royal Navy flagship is a designated ship and is usually the prestige ship. The most prestigious ship is currently the HMS Bulwark and the point that I was making was that it isn't much of a (prestigious) flagship and is rather embarrassing to be our flagship.
Admit it you got confused between a ship that becomes A flagship with a flag officer on board and THE flagship of the Royal Navy.
How often do we form a fleet or squadron with an admiral/commodore acting as a flag officer anymore? Looking at it, it would 'appear' that we don't have many left and some of those don't look like they would ever take command of a ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fleets_and_major_commands_of_the_Royal_Navy#Flag_Officers
This sketch is about 5 years old, but it does sum up our position well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0jgZKV4N_A0 -
For all the recent Argentinian mouthing off about the Falklands issue, the absolute key difference between now and 1982 is that Argentina is a democracy.
And historically, democratic nations rarely start wars.
In 1982 the country was run by three generals, who thought nothing of kidnapping, torturing and murdering thousands of their own citizens for daring to disagree with their rule. They could do whatever they pleased.
It is easy for a politician to go on about how the islands should belong to Argentina, and gain popular support.
But if they stated that they would be prepared to use force to take them, let alone actually did so, I think that support would evaporate.
The islands are not just off their coast like the Isle of Wight or something, they are 300 miles away - you cannot see them from Argentina.
The people there are not, and have never been, of Argentinian or Spanish descent.
If the inhabitants were to be asked what they would prefer, you'd pretty much get a unanimous vote to remain part of Britain, as opposed become a colony of Argentina.
Why do they want to possess them, really?
The Channel Islands are a lot nearer to the French coast than to England, but the French seem to get by without getting in a huff over this every few years.
Perhaps the islanders should vote for independence, and then promptly sign a defence and support treaty with the UK, whereby we agreed to back them against any other hostile nation?
Then, although not much would have practically changed for the islanders, Argentina's "case" for possessing them would be utterly destroyed.
They would no longer be able to say that the UK is an old-style "colonial power" who should relinquish these "last remnants of empire".
And then their desire to take over an independent nation against the wishes of its people would make THEM the colonisers and "bad guys". They'd have no leg to stand on!0 -
Ok, let's start from scratch again.
You say that the equipment didn't work. I say it did. The world and his brother knows that Exocet defeated the picket. Why did it defeat the picket in your opinion?
It was a good weapon that is engineered to fly at low level making it hard to detect and defeat, fired from an aircraft that wasn't detected."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »It was a good weapon that is engineered to fly at low level making it hard to detect and defeat, fired from an aircraft that wasn't detected.
and against defensive systems that were, mostly, designed to counter a different threat0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.8K Spending & Discounts
- 246K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 260K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards