Quote from: MonkeybuttC'mon argies! Seize an American ship. PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE. TV is so boring.
Your wishes may be answered, oh Angry One.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4157486,00.html
Quote'Iranian forces go on war alert'
Iran moving missiles to secret sites, Western officials tell British paper; earlier, Tehran residents reported to stockpile goods, fearing imminent strike
Ynet
Latest Update: 12.06.11, 02:55 / Israel News
Growing panic in Iran? The commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards has ordered his forces to raise their operational readiness ahead of a possible war or strike on the country's nuclear facilities, the Telegraph reported late Monday.
The British newspaper quoted Western intelligence sources as saying that Iran is repositioning ballistic missiles, explosives and troops into defensive positions, in order to offer a quick response in the case of an attack by Israel or the United States.
According to the report, Revolutionary Guards Commander Mohammed Ali Jaafari directed his forces to deploy Iran's long-range missiles at secret sites nationwide. Meanwhile, the country's air force has reportedly set up "rapid reaction units" that would respond to aerial assaults.
A senior Western intelligence official was quoted as saying: "There is deep concern within the senior leadership of the Iranian regime that they will be the target of a surprise military strike by either Israel or the US.
"For that reason they are taking all necessary precautions to ensure they can defend themselves properly if an attack happens," the official said.
Tehran residents fear strike
Meanwhile, international schools in Iran have shut their doors after hardline students stormed the British Embassy last week, stoking ordinary Iranians' fears that foreigners are about to pull out of the Islamic Republic ahead of a US or Israeli-led attack.
Protesters stormed and ransacked Britain's two diplomatic compounds in Tehran on Tuesday, prompting Britain to evacuate its staff from the country and expel Iranian diplomats from London.
The French school in Tehran is located on British Embassy grounds and children were in class when the mob swarmed through the compound gates. Windows at the German school nearby were shattered in the attack, but the British school escaped the worst of the chaos after teachers sent pupils home early.
The schools have remained shut since, forcing hundreds of children to stay home. Foreign teachers and their families have left Iran, parents were told, though the French school hopes to resume lessons on Sunday, and Britain's in the New Year.
'We are going to be attacked'
Iran's isolation over its nuclear ambitions, its claim to have shot down a US spy drone in its airspace on Sunday and the British embassy attack are feeding ordinary Iranians' fears.
"Many foreigners are leaving Iran ... I suspect that there will be military action ... we will become another Iraq," said architect Mahsa Sedri, 35. "Obviously something is going on ... otherwise the foreigners would not leave Iran."
"We are going to be attacked ... I sense it ... I am pulling out my money from the bank to have cash in hand in case of an attack," said government employee Hassan Vosughi. "I and all my friends have stockpiled goods at home."
Washington and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iranian nuclear facilities should diplomacy fail to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, a position that has only hardened since the critical report by the International Atomic Energy Agency last month.
Let them do as they like. Watch and learn is the name of the game when Iranian forces are moving about, etc.
Let them ahte us, os long as they hate us.
In other news, Communism is just over the horizon.
Should we be concerned over the Persian tiger?
"Yay! We shot down an American drone!!!"
...
"Oh shit. We shot down an American drone..."
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 06:51:16 PM
Should we be concerned over the Persian tiger?
No, unless you think we have leaders foolish enough to bother pulling the tail more than is necessary.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 06, 2011, 06:52:06 PM
"Yay! We shot down an American drone!!!"
...
"Oh shit. We shot down an American drone..."
:lol:
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 06, 2011, 06:53:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 06:51:16 PM
Should we be concerned over the Persian tiger?
No, unless you think we have leaders foolish enough to bother pulling the tail more than is necessary.
Sp very much so in other words.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 07:23:04 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 06, 2011, 06:53:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 06:51:16 PM
Should we be concerned over the Persian tiger?
No, unless you think we have leaders foolish enough to bother pulling the tail more than is necessary.
Sp very much so in other words.
Why are you taking in code to Ank ? :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on December 06, 2011, 07:26:15 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 07:23:04 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 06, 2011, 06:53:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 06:51:16 PM
Should we be concerned over the Persian tiger?
No, unless you think we have leaders foolish enough to bother pulling the tail more than is necessary.
Sp very much so in other words.
Why are you taking in code to Ank ? :hmm:
If you aren't clered to know then you aren't cleared to know.
Timmay is too overexciteable.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 07:27:34 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 06, 2011, 07:26:15 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 07:23:04 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 06, 2011, 06:53:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 06:51:16 PM
Should we be concerned over the Persian tiger?
No, unless you think we have leaders foolish enough to bother pulling the tail more than is necessary.
Sp very much so in other words.
Why are you taking in code to Ank ? :hmm:
If you aren't clered to know then you aren't cleared to know.
No Two Are Clear, Ed.
Quote from: mongers on December 06, 2011, 07:28:37 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 07:27:34 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 06, 2011, 07:26:15 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 07:23:04 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 06, 2011, 06:53:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 06:51:16 PM
Should we be concerned over the Persian tiger?
No, unless you think we have leaders foolish enough to bother pulling the tail more than is necessary.
Sp very much so in other words.
Why are you taking in code to Ank ? :hmm:
If you aren't clered to know then you aren't cleared to know.
No Two Are Clear, Ed.
I'd expect that out of you Drafty. You always were a pinko.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 06, 2011, 06:40:31 PM
Let them do as they like. Watch and learn is the name of the game when Iranian forces are moving about, etc.
Exactly. Let them lead us to their "secret sites." Klaatu barada nikto, as the Romans would say.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 06, 2011, 06:53:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 06:51:16 PM
Should we be concerned over the Persian tiger?
No, unless you think we have leaders foolish enough to bother pulling the tail more than is necessary.
How much is necessary?
The biggest problem with the Iranians is they aren't all on the same page. There seems to be some competition between factions in the Iranian state. One side might go to far in trying to out do the other one and end up doing something stupid.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 06:51:16 PM
Should we be concerned over the Persian tiger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_tiger
QuoteThe Caspian tiger, also known as the Turan tiger and Hyrcanian tiger, is an extinct tiger subspecies
I think we're safe.
Ah, the good old external threat, pulled straight from the "How to keep power when things go awry" chapter of the My First Dictatorship playbook.
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2011, 09:00:37 PM
Ah, the good old external threat, pulled straight from the "How to keep power when things go awry" chapter of the My First Dictatorship playbook.
I'm not sure that's really a good strategy. The Argentines tried that one. It didn't help.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2011, 09:00:37 PM
Ah, the good old external threat, pulled straight from the "How to keep power when things go awry" chapter of the My First Dictatorship playbook.
I'm not sure that's really a good strategy. The Argentines tried that one. It didn't help.
But they were taking on a formidable power, us, backed by the Americans.
In this situation it's the Iranians taking on the Americans 'backed' * by the Israelis.
*most of the chinese made air defence and anti-ship missiles have been so slavishly copied that they've included the stenciled in star of david. :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on December 06, 2011, 08:52:41 PMExactly. Let them lead us to their "secret sites." Klaatu barada nikto, as the Romans would say.
:lol:
Besides, the OP says the IRG is mobilizing. Not the Iranian military as a whole.
No biggie.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2011, 09:00:37 PM
Ah, the good old external threat, pulled straight from the "How to keep power when things go awry" chapter of the My First Dictatorship playbook.
I'm not sure that's really a good strategy. The Argentines tried that one. It didn't help.
The Argentines didn't bank on a British leader who also desperately needed an external threat to keep her hold on power.
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2011, 09:50:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2011, 09:00:37 PM
Ah, the good old external threat, pulled straight from the "How to keep power when things go awry" chapter of the My First Dictatorship playbook.
I'm not sure that's really a good strategy. The Argentines tried that one. It didn't help.
The Argentines didn't bank on a British leader who also desperately needed an external threat to keep her hold on power.
So cynical.
Quote from: mongers on December 06, 2011, 09:20:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2011, 09:00:37 PM
Ah, the good old external threat, pulled straight from the "How to keep power when things go awry" chapter of the My First Dictatorship playbook.
I'm not sure that's really a good strategy. The Argentines tried that one. It didn't help.
But they were taking on a formidable power, us, backed by the Americans.
In this situation it's the Iranians taking on the Americans 'backed' * by the Israelis.
*most of the chinese made air defence and anti-ship missiles have been so slavishly copied that they've included the stenciled in star of david. :hmm:
That seems a worse idea. Rattling sabres to distract from an internal problem may work (I'm not really sure on that), but fighting a war causes a great deal of instability. Especially a war against a much larger, stronger power. I doubt the people will pleased if the US destroys every civilian power plant in the country or destroyed all the railway tunnels and railway bridges. They may initially be angry with the US, but they'll get tired of sitting in the dark after a while and their anger may very well turn on the government for putting them in such a situation.
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2011, 09:50:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2011, 09:00:37 PM
Ah, the good old external threat, pulled straight from the "How to keep power when things go awry" chapter of the My First Dictatorship playbook.
I'm not sure that's really a good strategy. The Argentines tried that one. It didn't help.
The Argentines didn't bank on a British leader who also desperately needed an external threat to keep her hold on power.
Would any British leader have realistically conceded territory to a militant aggressor?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 06, 2011, 09:51:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2011, 09:50:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2011, 09:00:37 PM
Ah, the good old external threat, pulled straight from the "How to keep power when things go awry" chapter of the My First Dictatorship playbook.
I'm not sure that's really a good strategy. The Argentines tried that one. It didn't help.
The Argentines didn't bank on a British leader who also desperately needed an external threat to keep her hold on power.
So cynical.
He'll tie the coal mines to it.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 09:53:35 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2011, 09:50:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2011, 09:00:37 PM
Ah, the good old external threat, pulled straight from the "How to keep power when things go awry" chapter of the My First Dictatorship playbook.
I'm not sure that's really a good strategy. The Argentines tried that one. It didn't help.
The Argentines didn't bank on a British leader who also desperately needed an external threat to keep her hold on power.
Would any British leader have realistically conceded territory to a militant aggressor?
Any decent British leader wouldn't have practically invited them in in the first place.
QuoteThat seems a worse idea. Rattling sabres to distract from an internal problem may work (I'm not really sure on that), but fighting a war causes a great deal of instability. Especially a war against a much larger, stronger power. I doubt the people will pleased if the US destroys every civilian power plant in the country or destroyed all the railway tunnels and railway bridges. They may initially be angry with the US, but they'll get tired of sitting in the dark after a while and their anger may very well turn on the government for putting them in such a situation.
I doubt it would actually come to war- what do they stand to gain afterall?
It probably is just sabre rattling, but the more they rattle the more they drown out the murmurs of protest at home.
How did she "invite" them? was punch served?
At first I saw the subject heading as Italian forces go on war alert and was all like..."huh?"
I expect this has something to do with the split between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad somehow. Does anyone have links to decent analysis on the situation?
Quote
"Many foreigners are leaving Iran ... I suspect that there will be military action ... we will become another Iraq," said architect Mahsa Sedri, 35. "Obviously something is going on ... otherwise the foreigners would not leave Iran."
"We are going to be attacked ... I sense it ... I am pulling out my money from the bank to have cash in hand in case of an attack," said government employee Hassan Vosughi. "I and all my friends have stockpiled goods at home."
:rolleyes: Of course, foreigners leaving in droves couldn't
possibly be due to Iran being run by xenophobic fucktards with a terrible case of jingo.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 08:58:14 PM
The biggest problem with the Iranians is they aren't all on the same page.
Yeah, there's a significant population of educated, reasonably well-off non-fundamentalists in Iran.
They're similar to Iraq in that way.
And yet they abide the excesses and overlordship of their theocratic, evil masters.
Arthur Harris knows their hearts.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 12:18:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 08:58:14 PM
The biggest problem with the Iranians is they aren't all on the same page.
Yeah, there's a significant population of educated, reasonably well-off non-fundamentalists in Iran.
There used to be. A lot of them live around these parts now.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 10:00:46 PM
How did she "invite" them? was punch served?
We used to have a small South Atlantic fleet (maybe just 2-3 ships I think) that largely protected the Falklands. Thatcher cut it, the Argies invaded believing that was a signal that we weren't willing to defend them.
QuoteI expect this has something to do with the split between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad somehow. Does anyone have links to decent analysis on the situation?
This isn't to do with that but seemed interesting, from about a week ago:
QuoteIs Iran Already Under Attack?
International
Dec 2 2011, 8:28 AM ET Adam Chandler, the Goldblog deputy-editor-for-monitoring-Iran-obsessively-even-though-Goldblog-himself-also-monitors-Iran-obsessively, pointed out to me the other day that perhaps the West has already begun the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, that perhaps we ought to reframe this issue a bit. The attacks he mentioned are not the usual sub-rosa, eyebrow-raising tech and computer virus sort of attacks, but outright physical attacks. This is more a semantic issue, I suppose (and yes, I realize the Iranian regime is virulently anti-semantic), but operations against Iran are seeming to move away from the pure Mossad-in-the-70s-style attacks to straight-up military confrontations. I don't know if this is a sign of escalation or desperation or both, though it seems fair to say that less subtlety on the part of Israel, the U.S. and whoever else is doing this suggests that the previous tactics were deemed insufficient.
Following a (perhaps not-so-mysterious) explosion on a military base last month that took with it the life of Gen. Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam--one of the Iranian missile program's most distinguished OGs--comes news of a second explosion in Isfahan this past Monday, which according to sources "struck the uranium enrichment facility there, despite denials by Tehran."
Of course, accurate news out of Tehran is hard to come by, but if you want to take this a step further, one might consider Tuesday's (perhaps not-so-spontaneous) storming of the British embassy by Iranian "students" to be quite an effective smokescreen in keeping news of this second explosion from making serious waves. If you've had a lot of coffee, it's also worthy to note that on Monday evening, following the explosion in Iran, four missiles fired from southern Lebanon struck Israel--the first such incident in over two years.
I'm not entirely convinced, but it's not unreasonable to group these recent explosions with the Stuxnet virus of last summer that haywired an uranium enrichment facility in Natanz; last October's explosion at a Shahab missile factory; the killing of three Iranian nuclear scientists in the past two years, last November's attempted assassination of Fereydoun Abbasi-Davan--a senior official in the nuclear program -- and rumblings of a second supervirus deployed this month as proof that the West's war on Iran's nuclear program is getting less covert by the minute.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/is-iran-already-under-attack/249284/
That's hardly an invitation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 07, 2011, 01:02:47 AM
There used to be. A lot of them live around these parts now.
There's still a significant number there, like Lebanon (despite Syria's meddling) and Iraq (despite...well, despite the big mess we helped create).
Quote from: Jacob on December 06, 2011, 10:02:07 PM
I expect this has something to do with the split between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad somehow. Does anyone have links to decent analysis on the situation?
I would question whether even regime insiders know clearly what is going in there now.
Would make an interesting 3 player wargame. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 10:00:46 PM
How did she "invite" them? was punch served?
Major defense budget slashes including removing the naval presence from the South Atlantic and a complete failure to react to the rumblings that an invasion was on the cards- during Callaghan's term there had been a similar scare, they let it be quietly known to the Argentines that a British nuclear submarine was lurking in the area and an invasion would be a very bad idea.
Quote from: Tyr on December 07, 2011, 09:36:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 10:00:46 PM
How did she "invite" them? was punch served?
Major defense budget slashes including removing the naval presence from the South Atlantic and a complete failure to react to the rumblings that an invasion was on the cards- during Callaghan's term there had been a similar scare, they let it be quietly known to the Argentines that a British nuclear submarine was lurking in the area and an invasion would be a very bad idea.
That still doesn't seem to be an invitation to attack. What do they want the goddamn islands for anyway?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 10:20:14 PM
That still doesn't seem to be an invitation to attack. What do they want the goddamn islands for anyway?
I said practically, not she actually did send them an invitation.
Silly nationalism.
I know you don't like Thatcher, but I don't see how she could be culpable in causing the Argentines to invade. It's not like Argentina was some hostile communist state. They were suppose to be on our side.
I am reminded of some claims that the US encouraged Iraq to conquer to Kuwait, which is nonsense. Iraq was making some noises about settling the border dispute militarily (and if they just siezed some oil wells nobody would have cared that much. Except Kuwait), but nobody expected Saddam to take the whole country.
I'm not implying she deliberately goaded them into it- though I'm surprised there aren't people who do believe that- however she certainly deserves a lot of blame for the war; which makes it particularly annoying that the war worked out so damn well for her politically.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 11:27:54 PM
I know you don't like Thatcher, but I don't see how she could be culpable in causing the Argentines to invade. It's not like Argentina was some hostile communist state. They were suppose to be on our side.
I am reminded of some claims that the US encouraged Iraq to conquer to Kuwait, which is nonsense. Iraq was making some noises about settling the border dispute militarily (and if they just siezed some oil wells nobody would have cared that much. Except Kuwait), but nobody expected Saddam to take the whole country.
Communism or not's got nothing to do with it though and 'our' side was different when it comes to Argentina.
Your comparison doesn't work though. Everyone knew Argentina wanted the Falklands. They were sabre rattling and had been for fifty years or so. Also it's not the equivalent of whatever the US did in Kuwait because the US is a third party.
In this case you've got a piece of land which two countries claim. One is thousands of miles away and has mostly forgotten about it but keeps a vessel just pootering around. The other's far closer and has used jingoism attached to reclaiming the islands as a propaganda boost. When the ship gets pulled out I think it's almost inevitable that the other country's going to take that as an invitation, it's a sign that there's no commitment to the islands.
As Tyr says this all came up under Callaghan. I think the Treasury or MoD suggested cutting that South Atlantic commitment because it was quite expensive and Callaghan vetoed because he thought the Argies would take advantage. So Thatcher's decision and the Argie response didn't come entirely out of the blue.
The problem with Squeeze's "practically invite" formulation is that it suggests a linkage between physical deterrence and the moral or legal claim.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 11:27:54 PM
I know you don't like Thatcher, but I don't see how she could be culpable in causing the Argentines to invade. It's not like Argentina was some hostile communist state. They were suppose to be on our side.
They were on our side; up to the moment of the imperialist aggression by the UK, Argentina was our #1 sponsor of military training and support for the Contras. In fact, Ambassador Kirkpatrick was having dinner at the Argentinian Embassy the night the Argies took their legal and rightful action.
Thanks for fucking up our Latin American strategery for the sake of nostaglia, Brits.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2011, 06:30:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 11:27:54 PM
I know you don't like Thatcher, but I don't see how she could be culpable in causing the Argentines to invade. It's not like Argentina was some hostile communist state. They were suppose to be on our side.
I am reminded of some claims that the US encouraged Iraq to conquer to Kuwait, which is nonsense. Iraq was making some noises about settling the border dispute militarily (and if they just siezed some oil wells nobody would have cared that much. Except Kuwait), but nobody expected Saddam to take the whole country.
Communism or not's got nothing to do with it though and 'our' side was different when it comes to Argentina.
Your comparison doesn't work though. Everyone knew Argentina wanted the Falklands. They were sabre rattling and had been for fifty years or so. Also it's not the equivalent of whatever the US did in Kuwait because the US is a third party.
In this case you've got a piece of land which two countries claim. One is thousands of miles away and has mostly forgotten about it but keeps a vessel just pootering around. The other's far closer and has used jingoism attached to reclaiming the islands as a propaganda boost. When the ship gets pulled out I think it's almost inevitable that the other country's going to take that as an invitation, it's a sign that there's no commitment to the islands.
As Tyr says this all came up under Callaghan. I think the Treasury or MoD suggested cutting that South Atlantic commitment because it was quite expensive and Callaghan vetoed because he thought the Argies would take advantage. So Thatcher's decision and the Argie response didn't come entirely out of the blue.
Yeah, yeah. Argentina is hardly the only country that had claims on British territory during the Cold War. Spain didn't invade Gibraltar. Simply because you don't cover it in mine fields and razor wire doesn't mean you should expect a military invasion. There were people living there, that's enough of a commitment.
Any other examples? We always have a fleet in Gibraltar. Not to deter the Spaniards under Franco (though that's a bonus) but to generally project power. It would be like if the US maybe stepped back from South Korea or Taiwan.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2011, 07:32:54 AM
They were on our side; up to the moment of the imperialist aggression by the UK, Argentina was our #1 sponsor of military training and support for the Contras. In fact, Ambassador Kirkpatrick was having dinner at the Argentinian Embassy the night the Argies took their legal and rightful action.
Thanks for fucking up our Latin American strategery for the sake of nostaglia, Brits.
Imperialist aggression? It was the Argies who were trying to conquer UK territory not the other way around. And if the Falklanders wanted to be Argentine they could at any time they wanted. But why would they? The Argentine government and its mangement of Argentina hardly inspire much confidence.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Any other examples? We always have a fleet in Gibraltar. Not to deter the Spaniards under Franco (though that's a bonus) but to generally project power. It would be like if the US maybe stepped back from South Korea or Taiwan.
South Korea and Taiwan are independent countries. It would be like the US invading the Bahamas because you guys cut your budget. Or China invading Guam because we cut our budget. Also, don't you guys have some bases on Cyprus? Nobody invaded there.
I'm sorry, I simply don't buy that a cut military budget is invitation of invasion. The Argentine government made an irrational act. You can not predict someone making an irrational act.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2011, 06:30:58 AM
In this case you've got a piece of land which two countries claim. One is thousands of miles away and has mostly forgotten about it but keeps a vessel just pootering around. The other's far closer and has used jingoism attached to reclaiming the islands as a propaganda boost. When the ship gets pulled out I think it's almost inevitable that the other country's going to take that as an invitation, it's a sign that there's no commitment to the islands.
As Tyr says this all came up under Callaghan. I think the Treasury or MoD suggested cutting that South Atlantic commitment because it was quite expensive and Callaghan vetoed because he thought the Argies would take advantage. So Thatcher's decision and the Argie response didn't come entirely out of the blue.
My memory (which may be off on this, and the books I could look it up in to make sure are at my mom's) is that the "commitment" was 1 ship, not 2-3 as you mentioned earlier, and that ship was more along the lines of a coast guard ship than an actual warship--in fact I believe that it was classified as a "fisheries protection ship" or something like that--it was there to deter poaching, not armed invasion. And I don't think that it was being withdrawn from service, just pulled out for a refit (though I'm even less sure on that point).
Yeah, IIRC there was just the HMS Endurance which indeed was not a full war ship and probally wouldn't have been much use had the Argentinians invaded (indeed I do believe it had not yet returned to Britain when they did move in), nonetheless the planned withdrawal of this at least nominal naval prescence from the area sent out a clear signal to the Argentinians that Britain didn't really care and, since it couldn't even afford to keep that one little ship in the area, was unable to defend the Falklands.
QuoteYeah, yeah. Argentina is hardly the only country that had claims on British territory during the Cold War. Spain didn't invade Gibraltar. Simply because you don't cover it in mine fields and razor wire doesn't mean you should expect a military invasion. There were people living there, that's enough of a commitment.
Gibralter was covered by NATO.
And Spain, even under Franco, was a lot 'tamer' than Argentina. Far more of a known quantity with whom there was a bit of an agreement that things are the way they are even if they don't like it. I may be wrong here but though Spain claims Gibralter I don't believe they mark it as a regular part of Spanish territory on maps.
Did the British government intend it as a clear signal they didn't mind if Argentina invaded? Did the British population interpret it as a clear signal at the time the decision was made?
Maggie :wub:
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2011, 09:32:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2011, 07:32:54 AM
They were on our side; up to the moment of the imperialist aggression by the UK, Argentina was our #1 sponsor of military training and support for the Contras. In fact, Ambassador Kirkpatrick was having dinner at the Argentinian Embassy the night the Argies took their legal and rightful action.
Thanks for fucking up our Latin American strategery for the sake of nostaglia, Brits.
Imperialist aggression? It was the Argies who were trying to conquer UK territory not the other way around. And if the Falklanders wanted to be Argentine they could at any time they wanted. But why would they? The Argentine government and its mangement of Argentina hardly inspire much confidence.
CdM went to a few to many LaRouche rallies.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2011, 09:52:54 AMSouth Korea and Taiwan are independent countries. It would be like the US invading the Bahamas because you guys cut your budget. Or China invading Guam because we cut our budget. Also, don't you guys have some bases on Cyprus? Nobody invaded there.
That they're independent countries only enhances my argument though. But if you removed your forces from South Korea, or in the Cold War, Germany I think it would be interpreted as a sign that Korea or Germany is no longer a major interest to you and that you wouldn't fight for it. Doubly so when it's your own territory, it's an absolute withdrawal.
If you've got a bit of territory that someone else claims - and it's likely that they'll try and take it - and you remove the only force defending it then it seems likely that that'll be interpreted as a sign that you're not willing to fight.
QuoteI'm sorry, I simply don't buy that a cut military budget is invitation of invasion. The Argentine government made an irrational act. You can not predict someone making an irrational act.
I think the Argentine invasion was pretty rational.
QuoteDid the British government intend it as a clear signal they didn't mind if Argentina invaded?
No. But, as I say, that was how Jim Callaghan just a few years earlier thought it would be interpreted. He cut other bits of the defence budget to preserve the South Atlantic for that very reason.
QuoteDid the British population interpret it as a clear signal at the time the decision was made?
We had no idea that the Falklands existed or were British until the Argies invaded. It came as a surprise.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2011, 07:32:54 AM
Thanks for fucking up our Latin American strategery for the sake of nostaglia, Brits.
Indeed. The Brits have my thanks, as well, no matter what their motives.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2011, 07:32:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 11:27:54 PM
I know you don't like Thatcher, but I don't see how she could be culpable in causing the Argentines to invade. It's not like Argentina was some hostile communist state. They were suppose to be on our side.
They were on our side; up to the moment of the imperialist aggression by the UK, Argentina was our #1 sponsor of military training and support for the Contras. In fact, Ambassador Kirkpatrick was having dinner at the Argentinian Embassy the night the Argies took their legal and rightful action.
Thanks for fucking up our Latin American strategery for the sake of nostaglia, Brits.
How can you be so right about China, yet so wrong about this? The mind boggles.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2011, 06:38:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2011, 07:32:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 11:27:54 PM
I know you don't like Thatcher, but I don't see how she could be culpable in causing the Argentines to invade. It's not like Argentina was some hostile communist state. They were suppose to be on our side.
They were on our side; up to the moment of the imperialist aggression by the UK, Argentina was our #1 sponsor of military training and support for the Contras. In fact, Ambassador Kirkpatrick was having dinner at the Argentinian Embassy the night the Argies took their legal and rightful action.
Thanks for fucking up our Latin American strategery for the sake of nostaglia, Brits.
How can you be so right about China, yet so wrong about this? The mind boggles.
He's an IRA sympathizer.
Iran should be on alert! After that dastardly sneak attack on an innocent US drone, so close to a Pearl Harbor anniversary!!