Prince Andrew - Falklands:We couldnt do it now

Discussion in 'Falkland Islands (Op CORPORATE)' started by Chalky, Jun 17, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Now, this is either an extraordinary gaff or a well-timed one in the eye to military planners, but Prince Andrew in an interview with the BBC has just stated that we couldn't achieve anything like the victory in the Falklands with today's armed forces.

    a) Am I the only one who noticed and b), am I the only one who has picked up on the extraordinary nature of this seemingly off-hand comment?

  2. Gaffe or not, the guy is telling it is as it is, end of.
  3. Not only could we not do it, but some spinless cretin in the government would probably apologise for us being there in the first place...
  4. I reckon he could have a point..
  5. You are so right there
  6. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    Perhaps a good time to bolster the Garrison just in case the Argentine is monitoring the BBC...can't give up those those rights just as the BAS is developing a bleeding edge base.
  7. Hes just sent an "Open Invitation " to the Argentinian Government.
    "Please Argentinian government, please come and lay false claim to the Falklands, there is Feck all we can do to stop you "

    The truth Hurts.

  8. Er no, what he said was we couldnt retake them in the way we did in 82, not that we couldnt defend them successfully, subtle difference methinks
  9. Much as I despise Bliar, I've got to disagree with you there. To be fair to him, he has ordered military action in Kosovo, Macedonia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq - none of which were operations he couldn't have avoided if he'd wanted to. The man may be a knob but you can't very well berate him for sending British troops to Iraq and then say he wouldn't have defended the Falklands.
  10. He could have avoided Afghanistan and Iraq in a major way. These are US wars that Blair was willing to risk British soldiers for his own gain (I believe a green card), but that is another thread.
    Its not a case of him not sending troops to the Falklands, its a case of the fact that he has decimated the forces so much with cut backs and increasing the commitment that the response wmuted. If an invasion of the Falklands occured he would have to take troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and send them to the Falklands. That would cause its own problems.
  11. Yeah, Cabana, that's what I said - he could have avoided every conflict he's committed troops to but chose not to. The criticism I was responding to was attacking the Govt on the basis of being too spineless to do anything, not saying that we couldn't do it due to other commitments, crap kit etc. All things being equal, of course Blair would do what Maggie did. He's the most interventionist PM we've had since bloody Disraeli!
  12. Do you really think if the crazy Argies kicked off now and landed a boat or two in FI, that the PM would act straight away?
    I reckon nothing would move from its own theatre of ops.
  13. Prevention is better than cure. There's no way we could take the islands back were we to ever lose them again, but for that situation to occur, the Argentinians would first have to figure out a way to get them back.
  14. I don't think anything would move for a while as Blair has got his head so far up Bush's arsehis head is poking out of Bush's mouth. I think that eventually he would bow down to public pressure and possibly send a token force or something that would not affect his special relationship with Bush.
  15. Sorry fella, misread your post. Roll on the 27th when we get rid of this traitorous rat.