Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 784903)

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 ???

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 784913)

99.99% of the British population didn't know of the existence of the Fakland Islands, prior it 1982.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 784913)

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.

Originally Posted by Bernard Dawson (Post 784920)

What about all the other Countries that sent troops to Iraq. Where they just American lap dogs as well?

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 784871)

How do you work that out. The Falklands was a success, Iraq is a mess and possibly always will be.

I still think we should have threatened Argentina with Nukes if they did not withdraw. Why have them if they are no use to us?

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 784944)

Since you mentioned oil - there are unexploited oil fields in Tahiti, and one particularly large one under Sun City, and a natural deep water harbour adjacent.
How convenient that the US military were on excercises in the area when disaster struck:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Stumped (Post 784952)

In the past religion has been one of the major causes of war. Seems like oil is fast becoming the modern day religion!

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 784953)

....and weather control is a new means of war

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 784929)

In the invasion of Iraq, besides the Americans (248,000) and the British troops (45,000), they were 'supported' by 2,000 Australians, and 193 Poles.

So if Blair was Bush's lap-dogs, the leaders of the lesser nations would be the runts of the sad and sorry litter.

The fact is the United Nations hadn't given up trying to secure a diplomatic solution in Iraq, and their weapons inspectors were only withdrawn, when it was clear America was ready to invade.

I'm afraid there is no way on God's Earth that you'll convince me that Blair went into this war for the right reasons, and that he didn't know the facts about the nonexistent weapons on mass destruction.

The whole thing is about the mega-money that comes from oil, and the vanity of Blair, wooed by the half-witted President Bush.

As you once said you were in favour of the E.E.C., from an idealist's point of common fraternity, I'd rather have hoped you might have supported the ideals of the United Nations, given it's historical significance, rather than an ex-alcholoic Texan dim-wit, and his subserviant lackey.

Originally Posted by Stumped (Post 784952)

In the past religion has been one of the major causes of war. Seems like oil is fast becoming the modern day religion!

Originally Posted by Bernard Dawson (Post 784920)

What about all the other Countries that sent troops to Iraq. Where they just American lap dogs as well?

Originally Posted by Eric (Post 785110)

Perhaps you should be asking which countries did not send troops ... even traditional, and still, US allies. Canada comes to mind, eh. George W's coalition of the willing, or whatever the hell he called it, was a coalition of those willing to swallow US bs. Only about 17% of Americans could place Iraq on a map; fortunately, most of them were Marines.:rolleyes: