Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinGermany
The main reason the Falklands was a "success" was that the political will was there, the people were behind it as part of the remaining "British Empire" was under threat & the Falklanders themselves wanted us there to defend them. Added to that our Armed forces & most of their equipment was equal to the job in hand, at the time (early 80's) there was about 330,000 service personnel in all 3 branches of the forces.
Compare that with the performance of the present day Armed forces which consists of about 240,000 (late 2009/10) lack of military hardware Armour/APC's & Airmobile equipment,overstretched in operational commitments. We are bogged down in a war not of our choosing but another Countries, the people aren't behind it "it's a far away Country & nothing to do with us", the politicians pay it lip service & say it's for our benefit ??? & the people certainly don't want us there, is there any wonder there is such a marked contrast, in results & feelings ???
|
99.99% of the British population didn't know of the existence of the Fakland Islands, prior it 1982.
Though a slighter higher figure would have heard of the Commonwealth island nation of Grenada, which was invaded by the good old U.S. of A., in 1983.
America saw the overthrow of Saddam as building another secure base in the oil rich Middle East. Blair the lap dog, flattered by Bush's courtship, meekly followed, knowing that there wasn't the intense and urgent threat caused by weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam was evil, but no more so than your average megalomanical dictator, such as Muggabe. But of course Zimbabwe isn't quite as strategically well placed to major oil fields, as Iraq is.
Do I think there has been any major advancements brought about by the invasion of Iraq, weighed against the loss of blood of Britain's armed services?
No.