Dutch spies helped GCHQ break Argentine crypto during Falklands War

Yes and no, if you mean relocated then true.
Collected up from the escorts and concentrated aboard Hermes and Fort Austin to begin with as they had better protected magazines and were heavily defended. Later moved to RFAs sailing for Gibraltar to get them out of the picture.
 

Dwarf

LE
Yes ok ok, i forgot about the offer of an aircraft carrier and i suppose the French may have told us who they had sold the rest of the Exocet to? I read about a mad shopping expedition where we had to buy up all of the Exocet on the market to deny them to Argentina who were trying to pick up a few more.

It was hardly the display of public solidarity to make Argentina think again that it could have been though which is what i meant by what i said.
Geek hat on.
It was USS Guam a helicopter landing ship, and only if we lost one of our carriers. The offer was rather symbolic as we would not have had time to get a crew on and work up before it was all over. They couldn't have provided a crew as that would put them firmly in a shooting war as opposed to providing logistic/intelligence aid. Much of Latin America would have gone apeshit if they had.
Geek hat off.
 

Glue_Sniffer

Old-Salt
Firstly Britain didn't start anything.
Secondly Argentina invaded because they wanted to distract from the problems at home
Thirdly, although seismic data goes back to the 50's , the first exploratory wells weren't dug until 1998!
Lastly the Falklands are a crown dependency, with a Govenor who is the Queen's representative, who was at the time protected by a small detachment of Royal Marines. All of these came under an unprovoked attack on April 2nd 1982, by a country run by a military Junta.
What do you think the British government should have done?
I was referring to the UK government's claim on a slice of the Antarctic.
Maybe you are referring to the actual drilling wells in the South Atlantic?

What SHOULD the British government have done?
I can't answer that, because that's not how I interpret events.
Every action will result in winners and losers.

I always follow the money and look closely for propaganda.
 

Glue_Sniffer

Old-Salt
Forced movement and resettlement of people?
Is that the ‘liberal‘ approach?
I was trying to emphasise the different perspective of different groups involved.
A successful outcome means different things for an Argentinean conscript, a British serviceman, a Falkland Islands civilian, a British politician, an arms manufacturer, etc.

Everyone has their own agenda.
 
I was referring to the UK government's claim on a slice of the Antarctic.
Maybe you are referring to the actual drilling wells in the South Atlantic?

What SHOULD the British government have done?
I can't answer that, because that's not how I interpret events.
Every action will result in winners and losers.

I always follow the money and look closely for propaganda.
 

Glue_Sniffer

Old-Salt
True.

And not a single FI person ever wanted Argentina involved in their affairs, so the Government was being contemptible and wrong in even considering it. Especially when Argentina was run by Fascist murderers.
Sounds a bit like the "better dead than red" argument used in the Vietnam War etc.

Personally, a government would need to be really, really, bad for me to prefer my family to be killed, than to live as one of their citizens.

If you were a Falkland Islands civilian, I'm sure you would really prefer to live peacefully with an Argentinean passport, than to risk death to retain a British one.

Unfortunately, there are always a minority who are brainwashed enough to value a certain political cause (or citizenship) over a peaceful life. You only need to look at Northern Ireland to realise that.
 
1. Sounds a bit like the "better dead than red" argument used in the Vietnam War etc.

2. Personally, a government would need to be really, really, bad for me to prefer my family to be killed, than to live as one of their citizens.

3. If you were a Falkland Islands civilian, I'm sure you would really prefer to live peacefully with an Argentinean passport, than to risk death to retain a British one.
1. Not at all.
2. Yes, it really was that bad, particularly if you disagreed with those in power.
3. Other options are available. You also sound like a sheep.
 

Glue_Sniffer

Old-Salt
True.

And not a single FI person ever wanted Argentina involved in their affairs, so the Government was being contemptible and wrong in even considering it. Especially when Argentina was run by Fascist murderers.
I have met many people who have lived under "brutal dictatorships".
Most say that for ordinary people, it wasn't as bad as the Western media portray.
Most people just live their lives and never come into contact with the security forces.
 
Sounds a bit like the "better dead than red" argument used in the Vietnam War etc.

Personally, a government would need to be really, really, bad for me to prefer my family to be killed, than to live as one of their citizens.

If you were a Falkland Islands civilian, I'm sure you would really prefer to live peacefully with an Argentinean passport, than to risk death to retain a British one.

Unfortunately, there are always a minority who are brainwashed enough to value a certain political cause (or citizenship) over a peaceful life. You only need to look at Northern Ireland to realise that.
How on God's Earth does the wish to remain British (as expressed by the FI inhabitants) translate across to 'would rather be dead than be ruled by Argentinians'?

Just, how?
 

Glue_Sniffer

Old-Salt
1. Not at all.
2. Yes, it really was that bad, particularly if you disagreed with those in power.
3. Other options are available. You also sound like a sheep.
I'm the exact opposite of a sheep.
I'm always sceptical of the MSM propaganda.
 

Glue_Sniffer

Old-Salt
How on God's Earth does the wish to remain British (as expressed by the FI inhabitants) translate across to 'would rather be dead than be ruled by Argentinians'?

Just, how?
If you were in favour of the British forces fighting to regain control of the Falklands, then you are arguing that remaining British is worth risking your life (or the lives of others) for.
 
If you were in favour of the British forces fighting to regain control of the Falklands, then you are arguing that remaining British is worth risking your life (or the lives of others) for.
Many Falkland Islanders have done just that having lived through the fighting. You are assigning a position to them which is not supported by what they say.
 

Glue_Sniffer

Old-Salt
@Solo Dave most of the Iraqi civilians I met, said that life was better under the Saddam Hussein government, than it was post UK invasion. For Basra Shia to say that is pretty significant.

Even if you don't believe that I was in Iraq (which would be sensible, as I am an anonymous internet poster), just try speaking to others who you know were there.
 

Glue_Sniffer

Old-Salt
No, you are a sheep. Happy to accept fascist undemocratic rule as long as you are safe.
Well, if that's your definition of a sheep, then yes, absolutely that is my opinion. I'd prefer to live in a country that was peaceful. That would always be my absolute priority.
 
Well, if that's your definition of a sheep, then yes, absolutely that is my opinion. I'd prefer to live in a country that was peaceful. That would always be my absolute priority.
They did live in a country that was peaceful. Then a warlike country invaded.

You would be happy living in that warlike country.
 

Latest Threads

Top