[QUOTE="Salad Dodger"] On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 17:06:38 +0000, Italy?[/QUOTE] Ethiopia
Is it a false memory or were the French supplying exocet parts or support during the Falklands Conflict? It's lodged in the back of my mind but I find it hard to believe.
I do, what's your point? You said the sub-comms were compromised, are you sure about that? What band were they using? What equipment were they transmitting through?
I think you've missed Tallbloke's point. He's claiming that diplomatic pressure was applied to Argentina to drop the claim that we sunk the Belgrano illegally.
(The Older Gentleman) spouted the following in I deplore all violent loss of life TOG. However, I do have some understanding of 'Jus in Bello' Having studied ethics. I also have a sense of perpective and proportianate response, unlike Margaret. The following URL (wrapped, sorry) has a good and balanced discussion of the whole Falklands issue: http://www.waikato.ac.nz/wfass/subjects/history/waimilhist/1999/falkland s ..htm "There were, in fact, only a handful of soldiers killed or injured, [In the initial invasion], almost all of them Argentine." contrast with: http://www.parliament.the-stationery- office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cm pubacc/759/2041003.htm "Since 1982 we have had two conflicts where this is relevant: the Falklands where we had eight people killed from fratricide and 22 wounded through friendly fire incidents," Over a 1000 lives were lost in all. Now if the maintainence of British sovereignty over a windswept sheep pasture is really that important, it must be because of it's potential strategic importance, say as a refuelling depot on the way to and from Antarctica, or because there is a percieved possibility of deriving valuable mineral rights (Oil again!), because otherwise, we have plenty of empty croft land which we could maintain for the islanders in the outer hebrides at a lot less expense to the taxpayer. If you bother to read the history, you will find that the Argentinians actually have a better claim to the Islands than we do anyway, because the British renounced all rights to any lands in or around South America a long long time ago.
(The Older Gentleman) spouted the following in <Big Snip> Sorry TOG, have to stop you there. Take another look at the date in Dodgers post. 1994... You are into a whole different argument about the lead up to the conflict, rather than the ecnomic aftermath.
Yes. Furthermore, the French wouldn't give the 'Friend or Foe' codes (whatever they're called) for the missiles. With these codes, the British forces could have made sure that the missiles would not have hit their targets, IIRC. I suppose one could argue that if the codes were given, then the conflict would have been shorter and with fewer deaths on either side.
I disagree. The key phrase is this one I think: "if necessary, we had to be prepared to attack" Subtext: "Though we knew we'd get the shit kicked out of us if we did."
spouted the following in I didn't say anything of the kind. You don't have to be able to decode comms to be aware that they are being made.
Could just buy another one on ebay. -- Dave GS 850 x2 / SE 6a SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3 FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19
LOL! "Here give us a grand for this computer. Ta, you can't have a manual tho" Get real. The Sheffield was hit 2 days after the Belgrano was sunk. Did the French fly over there and help 'em bolt the launchers onto the planes during that 48 hour period?
You only have to be aware of a transmission to get a bearing, triangulate and get range. Which is exactly why sub commanders run silent and listen, *not* transmit when in close formation and preparing for a possible strike.
