Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Falklands invasion 'surprised'/Scared Thatcher
  • Subject: Falklands invasion 'surprised'/Scared Thatcher
Subject: Falklands invasion 'surprised'/Scared Thatcher
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

e 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina took Margaret Thatcher by surprise, newly released government papers have shown.

The then-prime minister only saw it was likely after getting "raw intelligence" two days before the Argentines landed.

Papers released under the 30-year rule show Mrs Thatcher was acutely worried about retaking the islands.


This April there was talk about Britain's capability at retaking the Falklands if they where invaded again many thinking it would be impossible.

Well it seems even with our Aircraft Carriers the government of the past had the same thoughts and discussions. It's interesting to think that everybody thought it was not possible, including the American's and yet we surprised everybody including ourselves.

Also it's also one moment in which we know Maggie Thatcher was actually worried, considering she took part of an SAS exercise getting shot at and not moving an inch.

Thoughts.

  • 12.28.2012 6:49 AM PDT

Recon Number 54 -
If they are still looking, then while holding the snarl, I let drool start to drip from my mouth, I stand, curl my fingers into claws and with a hunched over crouch, I then make slow and deliberate steps towards them. When I get close enough, I let them hear my agonized and gasping growls and then, if they continue to stare, when I get within arm's reach? I kiss them on the nose, and run away giggling.

She was probably worried of Britain screwing up retaking the Islands, because that would be a final blow to the idea that Britain could control and maintain it's Colonies/Commonwealth.

If we had not been able to retake the islands Britain would have looked like a failed shell of the Empire. Whilst that might be the case now, it has been a slow decline rather than a colossal balls up in South America.

And how bad would it be if the USA could not defend Hawaii? They are American citizens and if a Country can't defend it's people then that looks really bad.

  • 12.28.2012 6:58 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

UN should have intervened and fought the British

  • 12.28.2012 7:03 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Pongee Opressee
UN should have intervened and fought the British
y?

[Edited on 12.28.2012 7:06 AM PST]

  • 12.28.2012 7:06 AM PDT

Recon Number 54 -
If they are still looking, then while holding the snarl, I let drool start to drip from my mouth, I stand, curl my fingers into claws and with a hunched over crouch, I then make slow and deliberate steps towards them. When I get close enough, I let them hear my agonized and gasping growls and then, if they continue to stare, when I get within arm's reach? I kiss them on the nose, and run away giggling.


Posted by: Pongee Opressee
UN should have intervened and fought the British


Try harder. Argentina were the aggressors.

  • 12.28.2012 7:16 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Even worse is the US response to the war

  • 12.28.2012 7:27 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: lightlamp2
Even worse is the US response to the war
America has never supported Britain when it comes to the Falklands, yes they secretly sent new missiles to help British forces but even then that was to keep friendly with us.

  • 12.28.2012 7:37 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Tom
USNSCC, E-3

The Line of Steel
Basically, it's a blog of mine that focuses on military and policy related issues. Feel free to bookmark it and PM me any ideas you have to improve its quality. I hope you enjoy it!

Argentina's Navy would never be capable of launching another invasion, only a fool would think that it's possible. This is exactly why the British removal of the Sea Harriers makes sense; if the primary threat that demands the utilization of Sea Harriers no longer exists, why keep them?

  • 12.28.2012 7:41 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Tom
USNSCC, E-3

The Line of Steel
Basically, it's a blog of mine that focuses on military and policy related issues. Feel free to bookmark it and PM me any ideas you have to improve its quality. I hope you enjoy it!


Posted by: Android Spartan

Posted by: lightlamp2
Even worse is the US response to the war
America has never supported Britain when it comes to the Falklands, yes they secretly sent new missiles to help British forces but even then that was to keep friendly with us.


I'm generally pretty pro-Reagan, but even that irks me.

  • 12.28.2012 7:42 AM PDT