The UKs place in the world

darkman2

Hi, this question has been popping up ever more frequently over recent years imparticular - what in modern times is the UKs role in world affairs. Our nearest neighbour has always been a major player on the international stage, from the time of the Empire to the present day and willl continue to have a big role. However it is obvious that its influence is diminishing and if anything its become unsure of what its place is in the world. This can be typified in the Iraq war - did the British really have any basis for following the Americans in there? Who has it benefited? The Americans are taking the lions share of the lucrative oil contracts and construction contracts with the British left effectively with the scraps. Has it enhanced Britains reputation on the world stage? - I would seriously doubt it.:(

The commonwealth, that proud institution, a remnant of the empire has turned into a complete joke. The vast majority of the countries in its ranks can only be described as despotic states. The Austrailians are on the verge of pulling out of this farce, waking up to the fact that a Queen of an Island 1000s of miles away shouldnt have anything to do with their affairs.:mad:

The falklands war though was probrably the starting point for this new uncertainty. Britian, a country thousands of miles from a group of Islands off Argentina sent a display of military might to the region to prevent the Argentinians from maintaining control of their newly taken prize.......for what. A few rocks? It pushed the UKs military capabilities to the limit and all just for pride. This was empire mentality at its worst. The British though thought it was great, the rest of the world felt it was childish.

Now take the French and Germans for example - two countries far bigger then the UK who had the guts to deny the Americans their support, economic consequences or no economic consequences they said no in Iraq. I ridiculed the French and Germans for that at the time but in retropect who are the bigger fools now? - 'The Americans and their lapdogs the British'. All of us who supported the war have to hold our hands up now and say it was a mistake.:(

The UK also has to tackle one of its biggest scourages - nationalism. On the rise across many commonwealth countries, it is also on the rise in the UK itself. The Scottish are only now realising that they have been taken for fools over their oil reserves - repeatedly lied too over a commodity that would have made them rich. This is just one of many reasons the UK as an entitiy may be closer to disintegration then we think. It is no coincidence that Glasgow, Belfast and Cardiff are among the most deprived cities in Europe, the money inevitably was centralised in Southeast England. Ireland of course is proving to the regions of the UK that economic arguments against independence are completely false. Proper economic management could see these regions sustain themselves. I reckon if Scotland left the UK the rest would be dissolved very quickly. :rolleyes:

So what is the role for the UK these days? World policeman? - They dont have the resources. A peacekeeping nation? They still have that WW2 complex. Economic superiority? - Hardly. At the centre of the EU? No, they seem in general to be probrably the most anti of all EU populations.

What do you think?:)

New_Departure06

The UK's modern role is to be a puppet of the US in international affairs, and a semi-detached member of the EU. I don't think they will leave the EU but I expect relations between the UK and the EU to get much worse under a Cameron Tory govt.

darkman2

New_Departure06 wrote:

The UK's modern role is to be a puppet of the US in international affairs, and a semi-detached member of the EU. I don't think they will leave the EU but I expect relations between the UK and the EU to get much worse under a Cameron Tory govt.

It wasnt always like that though. I actually think that the reputation the UK now has i.e When the Americans say jump - how high? is the most unfortunate episode in a nation that has a proud history. Its stance on Europe in general is bizarre - When asked in the commons why Ireland was getting so much US investment, Gordon Brown the would-be prime minister siad it is because 'Ireland is so heavily subsidised by the EU'. Nothing to do of course with our tax policies as against there outdated model! In a way claiming that the UK is effectively funding the new member states. So is practically every other nation for goodness sake! Their place in Europe is even uncertain, lambasting the Euro and any attempt to make the running of the EU more efficient because they feel it undermines their sovereignty.

arbeitsscheuer

Actually the UK had a good plan for its role in the world following the Second World War, when their fall from the status of Global Power was more or less complete. At the end of the war, the superpowers were USA and USSR, Great Britain's empire could no longer be sustained, and militarily and economically the country was clearly going to be eclipsed by said superpowers.

So, they divised an approach to international relations, and "Britain's place in the world", which Churchill called the "Three Circles Approach".

Essentially, the UK would become the world's moderator, if you like. It would act as a sort of negotiator between three pillars: The United States, the newly developing European Economic Community (ECSC I think it was at the time), and of course, their own Commonwealth. Each "Circle" was to be given equal priority to every other "Circle".

Of course, over time, this didn't pan out the way Churchill had wished. Rapidly, the "Special Relationship" eclipsed the other Circles, and Britain became more-or-less a stooge to the US; politically, militarily and even economically.

Dirk Gently

At the moment they're just another state of the U.S. in all but name.

They were once the major power in the world and the only way they have of maintaining that mentality is to blindly ally themselves with America. There is a national identity crisis in the UK and they must accept that they are no longer an empire with major influence on world affairs or they will just be seen as the pet poodle of America. If they accept their place in the international community as a nation among equals I feel their national identity would benefit greatly but to brown nose the real superpower they are just prostituting themselves in a futile attempt of not letting go of the past and accepting the realities of the present international climate.

I think what I described above would represent more the state and leaders in the UK more than the citizens though. Not so sure if Scotland and Wales would benefit economically from a split, even though their resources are benefiting the south east of England at the moment. Ireland had a rocky road after independence and it has taken a long time to stand on our own feet economically.

I hope for the sake of the people in the UK that they can declare their independence from America and take pride in making their own mark on the world through diplomacy and leading the way in combating climate change. These would be better goals for a proud nation than blindly following the worlds military superpower in the hope of getting thrown scraps from the spoils of war.

darkman2

SebtheBum wrote:

Actually the UK had a good plan for its role in the world following the Second World War, when their fall from the status of Global Power was more or less complete. At the end of the war, the superpowers were USA and USSR, Great Britain's empire could no longer be sustained, and militarily and economically the country was clearly going to be eclipsed by said superpowers.

So, they divised an approach to international relations, and "Britain's place in the world", which Churchill called the "Three Circles Approach".

Essentially, the UK would become the world's moderator, if you like. It would act as a sort of negotiator between three pillars: The United States, the newly developing European Economic Community (ECSC I think it was at the time), and of course, their own Commonwealth. Each "Circle" was to be given equal priority to every other "Circle".

Of course, over time, this didn't pan out the way Churchill had wished. Rapidly, the "Special Relationship" eclipsed the other Circles, and Britain became more-or-less a stooge to the US; politically, militarily and even economically.

Thats a good point there about being 'the worlds moderator' however as you say it looks like that fell flat on its face. In terms of the EEC, it is often convienently forgotten by the British when they target the EU for their ills, that they were, in fact a poor country when they entered it. I reckon it has benefitted them so much that pulling out is impossible. Theyd lose access to markets and would be on their own.

lostexpectation

i don't know Im continuely realising (and its the only thing I agree with you about) is the the UK is less important then they think they are, and less important they we think they are...

this informed by finding out that Spain used to rule the Netherlands...:eek:

Its just their Monarchy was the strongest most recently, all the other European France, Spain, Germany are no better.

Yes England is now US' bitch... that's key to there existance, but sure we're anybodies.

A Dub in Glasgo

darkman2 wrote:

It wasnt always like that though. I actually think that the reputation the UK now has i.e When the Americans say jump - how high? is the most unfortunate episode in a nation that has a proud history..

A lot in that history is not very proud at all, in fact, it is shameful

I remember reading a book about 22 years ago about how Britian was an unsinkable aircraft carrier for the US. So being in the back of the US pocket is nothing new.

Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So being in the back of the US pocket is nothing new.

Seemingly, neither are wide-ranging stereotypes or oversimplifications. But I guess we all knew that already too, right?

homah_7ft

I see a lot of the responses question the military alliance of Britain with the US and them being described as lapdogs. I would like to point out that this is also true of the rest of the EU. It has no ability to stand on it's on feet militarily and we live tacitly under the umbrella of American military spending.

I would see Britain's placement next to America as a reasonable policy at this moment. A lot is said about the future emergence of China as a new superpower but it's not a certainty by any means. It would also be a less convincing ally given the cultural differences between China and Britain. On that note I would suggest that a likey future ally for Britain might, more likely, be India.

Britain has one foot in each of the most powerful camps on the world stage. It, no matter what the internal posturings, is a central member of the EU. An EU without Britain would be severely weakened and vice versa.

For a good indication of the strength of Britain in the world compare it to France. Close in history, population and wealth. France has much less clout when it comes to world politics due to its leaders tendency to distance itself from America.

lostexpectation

homah_7ft wrote:

I see a lot of the responses question the military alliance of Britain with the US and them being described as lapdogs. I would like to point out that this is also true of the rest of the EU. It has no ability to stand on it's on feet militarily and we live tacitly under the umbrella of American military spending.

I would see Britain's placement next to America as a reasonable policy at this moment. A lot is said about the future emergence of China as a new superpower but it's not a certainty by any means. It would also be a less convincing ally given the cultural differences between China and Britain. On that note I would suggest that a likey future ally for Britain might, more likely, be India.

Britain has one foot in each of the most powerful camps on the world stage. It, no matter what the internal posturings, is a central member of the EU. An EU without Britain would be severely weakened and vice versa.

For a good indication of the strength of Britain in the world compare it to France. Close in history, population and wealth. France has much less clout when it comes to world politics due to its leaders tendency to distance itself from America.

How many French went to the new world compared to the English?

Parsley

darkman2 wrote:

The falklands war though was probrably the starting point for this new uncertainty. Britian, a country thousands of miles from a group of Islands off Argentina sent a display of military might to the region to prevent the Argentinians from maintaining control of their newly taken prize.......for what. A few rocks? It pushed the UKs military capabilities to the limit and all just for pride. This was empire mentality at its worst. The British though thought it was great, the rest of the world felt it was childish.

The funny thing about that is that they won only by sheer fluke. A couple of unlucky misses by argentine aircraft would have, had they hit, weakened the fleet's air defence sufficiently to allow subsequent attacks to sink or damage the british carriers. Britain almost defeated by Argentina.... priceless:rolleyes:

Dirk Gently

Britain almost besmirched by the Argies, utter folly old boy.

homah_7ft

lostexpectation wrote:

How many French went to the new world compared to the English?

Greater numbers of British went to the new world compared to the French. I don't really see the relevence of this.

darkman2

Parsley wrote:

The funny thing about that is that they won only by sheer fluke. A couple of unlucky misses by argentine aircraft would have, had they hit, weakened the fleet's air defence sufficiently to allow subsequent attacks to sink or damage the british carriers. Britain almost defeated by Argentina.... priceless:rolleyes:

Indeed, the victory over Argentina wasnt so clear cut as we would be led to believe. Having said that Argentina was really a weak target for the British. If the Americans had of decided they liked the Islands what would the British have done then.............

murphaph

This is one lame thread tbh. It seems to have been created solely to do some brit-bashing. Many events in many nation's pasts are shameful by today's standards or even by the standards of the day). People here seem quite at ease to slag modern day britain off because of events in her past yet wouldn't dream of doing the same to the likes of Germany or Spain or portugal or Belgium (all nasty imperialists, particularly cute little Belgium whom a hero to many here (Casement) reported were absolute tyrants in the Congo).

Anyways, looking at modern day UK, they are US lapdogs, of course, as are most of the western world, INCLUDING US! We are happy to let the US use Shannon, to take US FDI, to fall over orselves getting to ashington for paddies day etc. etc. We're no better and no worse than the UK, we just support the US in a more 'sly' way than actually sending troops into combat with them.

he UK is an incredibly important nation in the EU, let no-one forget that. They have always been large net-contributors compared to say France (and of course ourselves). UK taxpayers' money has built many a road scheme in Ireland and beyond. Compared to nations such as France and Ireland (which suck up CAP handouts like a sponge) the UK is positively pro-European. i wonder how pro-European we'd have been down these years if we hadn't been getting billions each year form them?

murphaph

murphaph wrote:

This is one lame thread tbh. It seems to have been created solely to do some brit-bashing.

I see nothing wrong with this thread.
It's thought out,it contains opinions(which apparently diverge from your own) and is fairly well put together.

So please do not be so disparaging.

darkman2

murphaph wrote:

This is one lame thread tbh. It seems to have been created solely to do some brit-bashing. Many events in many nation's pasts are shameful by today's standards or even by the standards of the day). People here seem quite at ease to slag modern day britain off because of events in her past yet wouldn't dream of doing the same to the likes of Germany or Spain or portugal or Belgium (all nasty imperialists, particularly cute little Belgium whom a hero to many here (Casement) reported were absolute tyrants in the Congo).

Anyways, looking at modern day UK, they are US lapdogs, of course, as are most of the western world, INCLUDING US! We are happy to let the US use Shannon, to take US FDI, to fall over orselves getting to ashington for paddies day etc. etc. We're no better and no worse than the UK, we just support the US in a more 'sly' way than actually sending troops into combat with them.

he UK is an incredibly important nation in the EU, let no-one forget that. They have always been large net-contributors compared to say France (and of course ourselves). UK taxpayers' money has built many a road scheme in Ireland and beyond. Compared to nations such as France and Ireland (which suck up CAP handouts like a sponge) the UK is positively pro-European. i wonder how pro-European we'd have been down these years if we hadn't been getting billions each year form them?

Hi Murphaph

Thats a good and valid point about the contribution the UK make to the EU. Obviously id dispute your assertion this is a 'brit bashing' thread. On the EU, the UK has a troubled relationship with the EU at the moment. (I note you left out the rebate in your comments on the funding) If they felt the EU was that important they would have joined the Euro, taken a risk like the rest of us did. They didnt. That was at the behest of, not the government but the population. They are in my view one of the most Anti EU countries. As has been mentioned in another post, if the Tories get in next time around the relationship may change.

bk

Parsley wrote:

The funny thing about that is that they won only by sheer fluke. A couple of unlucky misses by argentine aircraft would have, had they hit, weakened the fleet's air defence sufficiently to allow subsequent attacks to sink or damage the british carriers. Britain almost defeated by Argentina.... priceless:rolleyes:

Except for the three British Submarines in the area that were carrying ICBM's (nuclear missiles). Britain wasn't going to lose the war either way.

Also the US were preparing to jump in and support the UK if they got in trouble.
The US was very worried that if the UK lost, it would send all the wrong signals to the Soviet Union about the ability of the US partners.

The Falklands has caused a major change in British military planing, they are now building full size aircraft carriers to replace their old mini carriers, this will give them far greater capability to project force over very long distances, just like the US.

Pazaz 21

bk wrote:

Except for the three British Submarines in the area that were carrying ICBM's (nuclear missiles). Britain wasn't going to lose the war either way.

They were going to nuke Argentina :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: !!!!!!!!

darkman2

bk wrote:

Except for the three British Submarines in the area that were carrying ICBM's (nuclear missiles). Britain wasn't going to lose the war either way.

Also the US were preparing to jump in and support the UK if they got in trouble.
The US was very worried that if the UK lost, it would send all the wrong signals to the Soviet Union about the ability of the US partners.

The Falklands has caused a major change in British military planing, they are now building full size aircraft carriers to replace their old mini carriers, this will give them far greater capability to project force over very long distances, just like the US.

With respect, If that is true about the ICBMs, which I suspect it isnt, the US would have demanded that the Britsh withdraw immediately. If it is true they would have gotten an ear full from the Americans. They'd never of tolerated that sort aggression from any state. Anyhow that was very much Britians war with the rest of the world sitting back, making up their own mind as to whether it was justified or not.

On the Aircraft carriers, they have 3 'invincible' class Aircraft carriers.

zuma

darkman2 wrote:

On the Aircraft carriers, they have 3 'invincible' class Aircraft carriers.

In the coming decade 3 full sized ~50,000 Tonne aircraft carriers will be built on a Thales (French) design with 2 going to the UK and 1 going to France.

The British versions will be flying F-35's with VTOL(Harrier type launch) capability and the French will fly catapult assisted aircraft just like the US.

All 3 will be non-nuclear as well.

Those Invincible carriers were originally crusiers as the last time they were to build a full sized aircraft carrier the project was scrapped leaving a very sour taste about future aircraft carrier projects.

zuma

darkman2 wrote:

With respect, If that is true about the ICBMs, which I suspect it isnt, the US would have demanded that the Britsh withdraw immediately. If it is true they would have gotten an ear full from the Americans. They'd never of tolerated that sort aggression from any state. Anyhow that was very much Britians war with the rest of the world sitting back, making up their own mind as to whether it was justified or not.

You should also remember that those Trident launchers on the UK's 4 nuclear ICBM submarines are US property and only rented to the Uk but carry UK warheads...which are esentially US warheads as they have developed Nuclear weapons in conjunction with the US since the UK tested its Fusion warheads in the 50's(mabye 60's?) in Australia.

Effectively through NATO the US have a veto on whether or not the UK can launch those Tridents....Franch is not part of that veto as it opted out of it in the 60's or similar which is why the NATO headquaters are now in Belgium and not the original home of France!

In terms of the Military there is no way in hell the British will ever give up their "Special Relationship" with the US....not a chance of it!

darkman2

zuma wrote:

You should also remember that those Trident launchers on the UK's 4 nuclear ICBM submarines are US property and only rented to the Uk but carry UK warheads...which are esentially US warheads as they have developed Nuclear weapons in conjunction with the US since the UK tested its Fusion warheads in the 50's(mabye 60's?) in Australia.

Effectively through NATO the US have a veto on whether or not the UK can launch those Tridents....Franch is not part of that veto as it opted out of it in the 60's or similar which is why the NATO headquaters are now in Belgium and not the original home of France!

In terms of the Military there is no way in hell the British will ever give up their "Special Relationship" with the US....not a chance of it!

So effectively the British Navy will have 2 optimum use aircraft carriers without the nuclear capability. The harriers are being taken out of service aswell to be replaced by the hillariously overpriced Eurofighter. They definatley got a bad deal there. I suppose for the carriers its a good compromise as it actually increases their Naval and Air support ability. I agree with you aswell that I no longer see the British military as a stand alone force, rather an extension of the US military. In fairness in terms of their stragtegic interests it is the best ally to have.

lostexpectation

homah_7ft wrote:

Greater numbers of British went to the new world compared to the French. I don't really see the relevence of this.

I was responding becuase you said this.

For a good indication of the strength of Britain in the world compare it to France. Close in history, population and wealth. France has much less clout when it comes to world politics due to its leaders tendency to distance itself from America.

Do you not think these greater numbers led to a significant difference in the connection between Britain and USA and French and USA.

zuma

darkman2 wrote:

So effectively the British Navy will have 2 optimum use aircraft carriers without the nuclear capability.

Yes. But non nuclear is better when you have only 2 as refueling and such takes a long time and this might happen when one breaks down leaving you with no carriers at all!!!

darkman2 wrote:

The harriers are being taken out of service aswell to be replaced by the hillariously overpriced Eurofighter. They definatley got a bad deal there.

Eurofighter is not replacing the Harier...the F-35 is.
When compared to fighters of similar capability...the F-22 for example or the Japanese equiv of the F-16 its actually fairly good value but of limited usage!

darkman2 wrote:

I agree with you aswell that I no longer see the British military as a stand alone force, rather an extension of the US military. In fairness in terms of their stragtegic interests it is the best ally to have.

In terms of Economics the UK relies on the EU, for Military its the US and for international affairs they appear to court the commonwealth when it suits them...ie Africa.
The problem is that it believes it can use each as it wishes....but it cant.
Sometime in the future it will have to make a choice between being European or American as the UK will only get weaker on its own in the decades to come!

darkman2

zuma wrote:

Yes. But non nuclear is better when you have only 2 as refueling and such takes a long time and this might happen when one breaks down leaving you with no carriers at all!!!

Eurofighter is not replacing the Harier...the F-35 is.
When compared to fighters of similar capability...the F-22 for example or the Japanese equiv of the F-16 its actually fairly good value but of limited usage!

In terms of Economics the UK relies on the EU, for Military its the US and for international affairs they appear to court the commonwealth when it suits them...ie Africa.
The problem is that it believes it can use each as it wishes....but it cant.
Sometime in the future it will have to make a choice between being European or American as the UK will only get weaker on its own in the decades to come!

Oh rite, I thought
it was the harrier. So what is Eurofighter replacing?

The commonwealth IMO is a bit of a joke, I mean look at some of its member states.

zuma

darkman2 wrote:

Oh rite, I thought
it was the harrier. So what is Eurofighter replacing?

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html
The Jaguar and Tornado.....which were incidently also developed with French and german co-operation!

darkman2 wrote:

The commonwealth IMO is a bit of a joke, I mean look at some of its member states.

With the exception of Canada/Australia/New Zealand Im not too impressed with the 50 or so other members.

Its only a talking shop after all and its importance is merely ceremonial.

When Ireland left it in ~1949 it was a bad idea as there was no alternative and we probable lost some markets due to leaving....but now we are part of the EU so in comparison its an utter joke allright.

Recently I think Eamon O'Cuiv(might have the wrong name!) proposed we re-enter the Commonwealth so as to appease the Unionists....but other than that it serves NO PURPOSE.

If it wasnt a representation of the last vestiges of Empire then I think the British would laugh and jeer at it constantly!!!

piraka

darkman2 wrote:

The falklands war though was probrably the starting point for this new uncertainty. Britian, a country thousands of miles from a group of Islands off Argentina sent a display of military might to the region to prevent the Argentinians from maintaining control of their newly taken prize.......for what. A few rocks? It pushed the UKs military capabilities to the limit and all just for pride. This was empire mentality at its worst. The British though thought it was great, the rest of the world felt it was childish.

With a 200nm exclusive fishing zone and rights to the Malvinas continental shelf, it was not a crazy adventure after all. The few rocks could be worth a lot.

http://www.falklandislands.com/business/mineral_res.asp

The battle for the Malvinas was a no contest engagement for the British despite the best efforts of the Argentinean Air Force. The Argentinean ground forces were made up entirely of conscripts.

Islas Malvinas por siempre Argentina

arbeitsscheuer

In any case, from a purely democratic point of view, Britain had to go to war.
All the inhabitants of the Falklands regarded themselves as British, and as such the UK had an obligation to send a military force 8,000 miles to take it back.

1,800 people lived on the islands, and had been of "traditional British stock" (BBC's words) for over 150 years.

Given how poorly prepared Britain's military was to fight such a war, so far from the British Isles and within range of an intimidating Argentine fleet and Air Force, Thatcher's unilateral decision to fight for the Falklands is, in fact, her government's finest hour. Not to mention a decision which would her the subsequent general election in Britain!:D

Defence officials and experts feared the islands could not be retaken. It is a tribute to the Royal Navy and British Army that they were proved wrong.

darkman2

SebtheBum wrote:

In any case, from a purely democratic point of view, Britain had to go to war.
All the inhabitants of the Falklands regarded themselves as British, and as such the UK had an obligation to send a military force 8,000 miles to take it back.

1,800 people lived on the islands, and had been of "traditional British stock" (BBC's words) for over 150 years.

Given how poorly prepared Britain's military was to fight such a war, so far from the British Isles and within range of an intimidating Argentine fleet and Air Force, Thatcher's unilateral decision to fight for the Falklands is, in fact, her government's finest hour. Not to mention a decision which would her the subsequent general election in Britain!:D

Defence officials and experts feared the islands could not be retaken. It is a tribute to the Royal Navy and British Army that they were proved wrong.

Remember the propaganda machine that was going on all the time from British TV? Dont believe everything you heard. Was there ever a democratic vote taken on the status of these Islands by its inhabitants - in keeping with British tradition I would hazard a guess - no.

A Dub in Glasgo

SebtheBum wrote:

in fact, her government's finest hour.

Considering it included the warcrime inflicted on the Belgrano, that was no great acheivement

arbeitsscheuer

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Considering it included the warcrime inflicted on the Belgrano, that was no great acheivement

lollers... Warcrime? Last time I checked, the Belgrano was an Argentine naval vessel, and in fact was also carrying Exocet missiles as well. Oh, and we were at war.

Warcrime, right...:rolleyes:

Granted, it wasn't anything to be exceptionally proud of or anything, but given some of the posts about the war here, you'd think that; a) the UK was acting like a big evil imperialist against the poor, dispossessed people's of Argentina, and b) the UK were a shoe-in to win anyway, and only came close to losing because its military was incompetent.

Oh, and as for this:

darkman2 wrote:

Remember the propaganda machine that was going on all the time from British TV? Dont believe everything you heard. Was there ever a democratic vote taken on the status of these Islands by its inhabitants - in keeping with British tradition I would hazard a guess - no.

Well... That's just insane mate. Got much of a chip on your shoulder? By the sounds of that post I'd say you do. Seriously, cop the f**k on.

darkman2

SebtheBum wrote:

lollers... Warcrime? Last time I checked, the Belgrano was an Argentine naval vessel, and in fact was also carrying Exocet missiles as well. Oh, and we were at war.

Warcrime, right...:rolleyes:

Granted, it wasn't anything to be exceptionally proud of or anything, but given some of the posts about the war here, you'd think that; a) the UK was acting like a big evil imperialist against the poor, dispossessed people's of Argentina, and b) the UK were a shoe-in to win anyway, and only came close to losing because its military was incompetent.

Oh, and as for this:

Well... That's just insane mate. Got much of a chip on your shoulder? By the sounds of that post I'd say you do. Seriously, cop the f**k on.

I assure you Ive no chip on my shoulder and Im very serious. The Argentinian military at the time was defunct, bankrupted and corrupt. Which member of the Royal family was it who happened to be 'involved' in that 'war'?. That was a nice photo opportunity, dont you think. Of course it seems to have clouded the judgement somewhat of revisionists who thought this 'war' was justified. It wasnt really a war of course, more a skirmish. But the Argentinians equally have claim to those Islands and unfortunatley the British (liking to screw countries up for decades after they concede, look at NI!) have always put politics and dialouge on the back foot. A very conservative party trait though, it must be said.

darkman2

SebtheBum wrote:

lollers... Warcrime? Last time I checked, the Belgrano was an Argentine naval vessel, and in fact was also carrying Exocet missiles as well. Oh, and we were at war.

Oh I see now - your British. Well dont take things too personally for goodness sake.

Blackjack

SebtheBum wrote:

In any case, from a purely democratic point of view, Britain had to go to war.
All the inhabitants of the Falklands regarded themselves as British, and as such the UK had an obligation to send a military force 8,000 miles to take it back.

1,800 people lived on the islands, and had been of "traditional British stock" (BBC's words) for over 150 years.

Given how poorly prepared Britain's military was to fight such a war, so far from the British Isles and within range of an intimidating Argentine fleet and Air Force, Thatcher's unilateral decision to fight for the Falklands is, in fact, her government's finest hour. Not to mention a decision which would her the subsequent general election in Britain!:D

Defence officials and experts feared the islands could not be retaken. It is a tribute to the Royal Navy and British Army that they were proved wrong.

I would agree to most points however I don't believe that the Argentine Air Force was a particularly large threat. They were quite fortunate to have some impact in sinking the HMS Sheffield in an attack with what I am lead to understand were quite dated aircraft.
There's an interesting part in same Wiki Article about the Sinking of the Belgrano.

bk

darkman2 wrote:

Remember the propaganda machine that was going on all the time from British TV? Dont believe everything you heard. Was there ever a democratic vote taken on the status of these Islands by its inhabitants - in keeping with British tradition I would hazard a guess - no.

It would be useful if you checked the history of the island. It was first discovered by the Dutch in 1600, no people lived on the Island at that time. The first settlement was French in 1765, independently the British set up a colony in 1766, not knowing that the French were already there. The Spanish later took offer the French colony. When Argentina declared independence from Spain, they claimed the Islands, but only used them as a prisoner camp. The British returned in 1833 and setup another colony. Nearly all the residents are now of English descent and were fully in support of the British. They certainly didn't want the Argentina.

In fact the Falklands islanders are given the right to self determination under UN rulings (unlike Ireland ironically) and the British reclaimed the islands under this ruling.

About the nuclear submarines:

In 2005, a book written by President Mitterrand's psychoanalyst, Ali Magoudi, gave a different account of French cooperation, quoting him as saying: "I had a difference to settle with the Iron Lady. That Thatcher, what an impossible woman! With her four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind."

You are right, the nuclear missiles were rented from the US, however the Brits had complete operational control over them.

The Brits had only got mini carriers (invincible class) because the British Navy was designed to be a part of an overall larger Nato force with the US having the full size carriers. The British carriers were designed for anti-submarine operations against the Soviets in the North Atlantic, not long distance invasions (called a Blue Water Navy).

The problems with this approach were discovered by the Brits during the Falklands war were they discovered that without the large US carriers, it made it much more difficult for them to project force around the world as the SVTOL Harrier craft launched from such carriers had limited capabilities.

The Brits are trying to correct that mistake now with two full size carriers. These will carry up to 50 F35 SVTOL aircraft.

The F35 is the very capable, partly stealth, US Joint Strike Fighter. They aren't using the Eurofighter, the Eurofigter will replace the Tornados and Jaguars. Both the F35 and Eurofighters are probably two of the best aircraft in the world, they are only bettered by the US F22 Raptor.

Along with their new Type 45 Destroyers, the British are rebuilding their Navy into an impressive blue water navy.

Yes the newer carriers aren't Nuclear powered, however given the trouble the French have had with their Nulcear powered carrier (it has rarely left port), that is a good thing.

Dar

darkman2 wrote:

I assure you Ive no chip on my shoulder and Im very serious. The Argentinian military at the time was defunct, bankrupted and corrupt. Which member of the Royal family was it who happened to be 'involved' in that 'war'?. That was a nice photo opportunity, dont you think. Of course it seems to have clouded the judgement somewhat of revisionists who thought this 'war' was justified.

Actually the Argentinian army was well financed and equipped with modern, predominantly French, weaponry. The Brits did, however, have vastly superior training.

You seem to be implying that Prince Edward was along for the publicity, when in fact he flew missions as a decoy for exocet missles.

As for justification, the Argentine government thought taking the Falklands would be a nice little PR move to quell internal dissent. They considered western democracies to be weak-willed and did not expect any retaliation. Slightly baffling trait to attribute to Margeret Thatcher really.

Hydroquinone

Dar wrote:

You seem to be implying that Prince Edward was along for the publicity, when in fact he flew missions as a decoy for exocet missles.

Sorry to go into nit pick mode, but Edward wasn't there, it was Prince Andrew who was in the Navy and served in the Falklands at the time.

Interesting thread.

RedPlanet

I see Britian as a lapdog of the yanks for the time being, with ever dimishing self-respect and consequently, world influence.

One particular incident springs to mind:
During the Iraq war buildup this British Colonel (Collins, i think was his name from NI) gave a rable-rousing speech that the Brit-centric press just adored.
During all the platitudes and interviews w/ him he said how they (the British) were going to take Basra, then head toward Baghdad. In this one interview he claimed they would even beat the yanks to Baghdad.

Sure a couple of weeks later the yanks had bashed their way into the middle of Baghdad while the British were still pussyfooting around Basra!:rolleyes:

Jimboo_Jones

Humm, what is the alternative though? I united European defense force? Would that make Britain the lapdog of the French and Germans? .. would British self-respect be improved any more by that? somehow I doubt that. Also given the fiasco of the EU total inability to get their collective fingers out of their arses over Kosovo I would rather throw my lot in with the Americans.

Remember that Britain wasn’t the only European nation to invade Iraq, and I would suspect that Irelands Shannon airport also would have been used in some form and other to help with the invasion. Yes Britain where by far the largest European presence in Iraq, but I suspect that more to do with the size of the British force compared to the rest of the participating European nations.

So what is Britain current place in the world? … Well I guess its one of the largest world ecomenies, one of the best armed forces in the EU (if not the best). Close allies to the US. Also I guess they are seen as a Nuclear ‘power’, a member of the G7, a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

In short I would suspect that Britain is seen as a large European country that is still slightly more independent to Europe than most but closer to America than most European countries.

zuma

Hydroquinone wrote:

Sorry to go into nit pick mode, but Edward wasn't there, it was Prince Andrew who was in the Navy and served in the Falklands at the time.

Interesting thread.

Edwards Early Career

On leaving university, Prince Edward joined the Royal Marines to train as an officer. But Marines proved to be too demanding for the Prince, and he resigned his commission in January 1987, before graduation. This led to strong public criticism of the Prince for being "too weak".

He appears to be the weak one

Prince Andrew appears to be a pretty sound man!
When I was younger the Den sent a crew over to interview him and tour his ship, whether it was docked in Ireland or the Uk I cant remember.
He appeared to be a very nice person indeed.

bk

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

Humm, what is the alternative though? I united European defense force? Would that make Britain the lapdog of the French and Germans? .. would British self-respect be improved any more by that? somehow I doubt that. Also given the fiasco of the EU total inability to get their collective fingers out of their arses over Kosovo I would rather throw my lot in with the Americans.

This is starting to change. The various EU forces are increasingly closely integrating their forces and are building their own weapon systems, relying less and less on US systems, for example:

- The Eurofighter
- New British/French carriers
- New European built very long range and fast air to air missiles.
- New British Destroyers

Their military forces are now working much more closely together. It seems that in the Future the EU would have the capability to deal with a Kosovo type situation without US intervention.

Hogmeister B

bk wrote:

Except for the three British Submarines in the area that were carrying ICBM's (nuclear missiles). Britain wasn't going to lose the war either way.

Also the US were preparing to jump in and support the UK if they got in trouble.
The US was very worried that if the UK lost, it would send all the wrong signals to the Soviet Union about the ability of the US partners.

The Falklands has caused a major change in British military planing, they are now building full size aircraft carriers to replace their old mini carriers, this will give them far greater capability to project force over very long distances, just like the US.

There is no possibility whatsoever that the UK would have used nuclear weapons in the Falklands conflict. It would have been completely insane- aside from being illegal under international law and morally repugnant (even by Ms Thatcher's standards)-, the voters would NEVER have let her get away with it! Anyhow the risk of nuclear war with the Sovs would be to great- at the time noone planned to check where any nukes that were launched were headed before launching their own.

As for the US joining in, I very much doubt it. It was essentially a colonial war, and the US public is unlikely to have permitted the government to risk war with the USSR by directly intervening. Even if they had joined in after an Argentine defeat of the Brits, Parsley's point about the Brits almost getting their asses kicked still stands.

The near-loss of the war had a huge effect on military planning worldwide, primarily in the field of weapons effectiveness- it was repeated breakdowns in Britain's much-touted Sea Dart and Sea Wolf systems that almost led to the fleet's defeat- and close-in defence. Not only are weapons systems now tested and maintained better, secondary armament for close-in defence from air attack is now standard equipment on modern warships.

bk

Hogmeister B wrote:

As for the US joining in, I very much doubt it. It was essentially a colonial war, and the US public is unlikely to have permitted the government to risk war with the USSR by directly intervening. Even if they had joined in after an Argentine defeat of the Brits, Parsley's point about the Brits almost getting their asses kicked still stands.

The US had plans to indirectly support the Brits, by giving them the use of a full size carrier, if any of the Brit mini-carriers were sunk

Hogmeister B wrote:

The near-loss of the war had a huge effect on military planning worldwide, primarily in the field of weapons effectiveness- it was repeated breakdowns in Britain's much-touted Sea Dart and Sea Wolf systems that almost led to the fleet's defeat- and close-in defence. Not only are weapons systems now tested and maintained better, secondary armament for close-in defence from air attack is now standard equipment on modern warships.

Another important lesson learned was the importance of having long range offensive bombing capabilities and air superiority.

The problem for the Brits was that they only had mini-carriers designed for anti-submarine operations. That meant that the Harriers had only a short range of operation. That meant they could only work defensively around the British ships, despite their brilliant performance, it was impossible to stop all of the Argentine fighters from slipping through the net and sinking British ships.

Had Britain had full size carriers, with proper long range fighters like the US, they could have easily flown to Argentina and destroyed all the Argentine fighters on the ground, therefore neutralising any threat from the start.

The US learned this lesson and has used it with spectacular success in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Brits also learned the lesson and that is why they are now going to build two full size carriers, armed with F35 stealth fighters. With this type of fire power the Falklands would have been a very different war.

Ping Chow Chi

Hogmeister B wrote:

As for the US joining in, I very much doubt it. It was essentially a colonial war, and the US public is unlikely to have permitted the government to risk war with the USSR by directly intervening. Even if they had joined in after an Argentine defeat of the Brits, Parsley's point about the Brits almost getting their asses kicked still stands.

America offered to loan the Brits an aircraft Carrier if needed, and also gave them the sidewinder missiles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4495457-103690,00.html

Now this appears to be more support than any of the UK's european neighbours seemed to offer. Maybe being their 'lap dog' does hold more benifits than hoping for help from a united europe.

Parsley

bk wrote:

The US had plans to indirectly support the Brits, by giving them the use of a full size carrier, if any of the Brit mini-carriers were sunk.

My point is that if one of the British mini-carriers had been sunk, the British fleet would, with its air defences crippled, have been wiped out. So said Sandy Woodward, the taskforce commander, in his memoirs.

If that had happened, a loaned American carrier would have been too late to prevent the utter humiliation and defeat of the Brits to which I was originally referring.

Anyhow loaning a carrier and some missiles isn't joining in.

zuma

bk wrote:

The US had plans to indirectly support the Brits, by giving them the use of a full size carrier, if any of the Brit mini-carriers were sunk.

Actually the US had offered the UK a Vietnam era full sized carrier but it was refused due to the time it would take to train Royal Navy personell in its operation.

Also the Monroe Doctorine was a major issue for the US government to work with concerning what the war was about!

Hogmeister B

zuma wrote:

Also the Monroe Doctorine was a major issue for the US government to work with concerning what the war was about!

Indeed. Imperialist c*nts.

Pocari Sweat

Hogmeister B wrote:

Indeed. Imperialist c*nts.

The Belgrano was bought off the yanks. It narrowly missed being sunk by the Japanese in Pearl Harbour in 1942, when the US then decided, maybe Hitler was a bad one after all and pull their fingers out their bums. So it was due for a sinking anyway, especially with the daft Junta in control.

Pocari Sweat

Whats the Brits role in world today?

It seems they are losing their way and therefore similar to Ireland; binge drinking themselves silly, a bit over patriotic, nationalistic etc, they get their backs up easily, kick one and they all limp. The old Irish charm is being lost to the Celtic Tiger in pursuit of money, ego, one up manship, similar to the bolshyness of the Brits. Remember, Brits being - English, Welsh, Scots and those up in the six counties who count themselves as Brits.

Despite all their sh*te, they export all of the news tabloids Ireland reads, they export all the soaps Ireland watch most of, Corry, Eastenders etc, they export all products and services Ireland get right stuck into, they exported the language Ireland uses, they have over 200 Tescos in Ireland now, about one in every ten euros spent in Ireland goes into Tesco alone. They exported St Patrick, from South West of England, (then Roman/Saxon territory) and sent him on through Wales to get rid of the snakes.

Well, call them c*nts but, he who is without sin....