Proof ?

Its his opinion you idiot.

Quote ="Big Graeme"Complete horse, at any other time we would have left a tiny spec on the map to its fate and negotiated a hand over, being well behind in the polls and looking like being ousted at the impending election was very much on her mind.'" More myths: the earliest poll taken (7 April 1982) after the Falklands invasion (2 April) had the polls at: CON 31.5%, LAB 29.0%, SDP/LIB 37.0%. So given that the Tories had a small lead over Labour at the time and were only behind the Alliance in the polls, why take such a political risk in fighting a war you have a high chance of losing? It wasn't in early 1982 that Thatcher was well behind in the polls, it was in 1980. In December 1980 it was CON 32.0%, LAB 56.0%, LIB 11.0%. The big turning point in the polls, which shredded Labour, was the formation of the Alliance in early 1981. Labour dropped to the mid 30s after that. During the next term, Thatcher was in more trouble in the polls in 1986 than she was in 1982, she was ten points down on Kinnock's Labour a year away from the 1987 election but still won 100 seat majority, there was no 'Falklands factor' then. Remember as well that at this time the Labour party was scoring own goals over Militant and infighting between Bennites and those on the centre of the party which also played in Thatcher's favour. Historic opinion poll data can be downloaded here: www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls/

Quote ="Big Graeme"Complete horse, at any other time we would have left a tiny spec on the map to its fate and negotiated a hand over, being well behind in the polls and looking like being ousted at the impending election was very much on her mind.'" More myths: the earliest poll taken (7 April 1982) after the Falklands invasion (2 April) had the polls at: CON 31.5%, LAB 29.0%, SDP/LIB 37.0%. So given that the Tories had a small lead over Labour at the time and were only behind the Alliance in the polls, why take such a political risk in fighting a war you have a high chance of losing? It wasn't in early 1982 that Thatcher was well behind in the polls, it was in 1980. In December 1980 it was CON 32.0%, LAB 56.0%, LIB 11.0%. The big turning point in the polls, which shredded Labour, was the formation of the Alliance in early 1981. Labour dropped to the mid 30s after that. During the next term, Thatcher was in more trouble in the polls in 1986 than she was in 1982, she was ten points down on Kinnock's Labour a year away from the 1987 election but still won 100 seat majority, there was no 'Falklands factor' then. Remember as well that at this time the Labour party was scoring own goals over Militant and infighting between Bennites and those on the centre of the party which also played in Thatcher's favour. Historic opinion poll data can be downloaded here: www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls/

The way he said 'complete horse' I thought he might have some hard evidence to back up his wild assertions.

Not a very good opinion is it, as Tony Blair said he would have done the same, but as this is obviously far too difficult for your brain to comprehend maybe we should leave it there.

Yes, after the war went well, it looked retrospectively like a good decision to go in and it portrayed Thatcher as a strong leader. Up till 1982 she didn't really have the "Iron Lady" image. After that she was a lot more confident and decisive and shaped her own Cabinet in her way with her own picks as well, whereas before the 83 election it was still Thatcher a bit isolated amongst Heathites.

Undoubtedly the swift outcome of the conflict helped Thatcher's image, but the key point is that before the conflict took place the advice she got was that it was going to be very difficult and there was a high chance of humiliation and failure to retake the islands. So to say Thatcher calculated on going to war for political reasons to help her win an election just doesn't wash because the chances of success were so ropey - a shrewd political calculator would have avoided the conflict. I am not a Thatcher lover by any means but you have to give her a fair trial and attack her for the right reasons.

Wars are very risky affairs for Prime Ministers. Tony Blair's reputation came out enhanced after Kosovo and Sierra Leone, because they were fairly swift affairs that achieved a desired outcome. But the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were disastrous for Blair politically because they dragged on, no WMDs were found in Iraq and Blair was exposed for not having an exit strategy. Blair should really have romped to another landslide in 2005 but his majority was cut substantially because trust had already been eroded over the Iraq affair.

Another point on wars, in 1991 just after John Major had taken over as PM Britain was at war with Iraq, Major was ahead in the polls just after that but it's difficult to see if it was a 'war bounce' because Major had not long since taken over from Thatcher and the Tories jumped ahead in the polls as soon as she left anyway! Nevertheless by June that year Labour were ten points up. So Major definitely did not benefit from a war effect in the 92 election, he was forced to call it whilst still about five points down, but Kinnock and Labour blew that one big time.

The opinion of one poster here is as valid as Tony Blairs opinion on something that he had no part of, I know that you were probably just very, very small, if born at all in 1982 but 15 seconds on Wiki is all the evidence that you'd need to gather before judging how the facts may dilute your comment somewhat.

If you had mentioned that the then labour leader Michael Foot, a life long pacifist and CND supporter had declared his support for Thatchers call to arms on the Falklands then you would have made a very strong point and valid counter argument, but as I say, you weren't born at that point so your innocence is forgiven.

No because the poster specifically said 'at any other time we would have left a spec.....'

Well no, because Tony Blair has stated he would have done the same as Thatcher if he was in her shoes. So according to him (not me), if the Falklands had been invaded in say 2000, he would have done the same as Thatcher (ie, send a task force).

So it's likely not true to say 'at any other time we would have not fought the war'.

Has a conscripted army ever beat a professional one in modern warfare?

You really can't handle Blair being the son of Thatcher politics wise can you.
Of course he would have done the same thing (and I took that to mean if he were PM at the time), they had the same core ideology.

Don't forget as well that Michael Foot who was leader of the Labour party at the time, and the most left wing Labour leader since the war other than Attlee, supported sending the task force to recapture the islands from Galtieri. So if it was just about winning an election for Thatcher, wtf was Foot in on it, trying to win her an election?

It's ironic that a lot of people that now claim we should have left the islands to Galtieri after he used force to invade, criticise Blair for an 'illegal invasion' of Afghanistan and Iraq. Surely if what Blair did was illegal, then Galtieri was illegal too....? What about when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990. Was this ok?

It would have been political suicide not to be seen to "back our boys".

I think it went deeper than that with Foot, he was incredibly well respected within his party for being a man of principle even when those within the party didn't agree with his left wing agenda, they at least respected his obstinate stance on his politics - for such a man who throughout his career had been a CND member and outspoken critic of war in all its forms to meekly kow-tow to the Commons overwhelming support for a Task Force to sail to the Falklands is surprising, possibly he had one eye on the opinion polls and held for several weeks the hope that the Americans would broker a deal, but even so...

...such are politics.

What should be remembered is that Argentina invaded a British territory and occupied it by force against the wishes of the islanders. This makes it quite different to Hong Kong etc

Mrs Thatcher did not send the task force because of a forthcoming election. She took a huge risk on her decision to honour a treaty to protect the islanders who considered themselves British. She faced opposition from the USA because they were relying on Argentina to prevent the spread of communism in South America.

That she acted so decisively is great credit to her and sent an important message that Britain would go to war on a principle to defend British people. It was why other people of principal like Michael Foot supported her.

Conservative party central office couldn't have put it any better...

sounds about right to me

That chip must ache at times.

Spot on. Hong Kong was a different circumstance entirely.

As for the Falklands, the US government was torn between pro-UK, anti-communism and other factions. But let's not forget, they supported us behind the scenes pretty much from the off and when mediation failed, in public. Reagan always supported the UK but had to pussy around with the various factions within his government until he could declare his unilateral support.

Thatcher actually took a massive risk. There were serious doubts whether we could even win a Falklands war, and whether we should even bother. But let's put it this way. If, as Adrian Mole's father believed, the Falklands were located off the coast of Scotland, fighting back would never be in doubt. However, because those British citizens were located further afield, certain people feel we should abandon them to a country that has no real historical claim to the islands yet is willing to invade and kill over them.

In hindsight, yes it probably won her an election. But at the time? Only an true idiot would honestly believe she said "listen up, if we win this thing, will we win the next election?" especially when the recently released papers say otherwise.

I'm no Thatcher lover, but for me she made the right moves over the Falklands.

Apart from allowing them to be invaded in the first place. Then again the argies wouldn't have invaded and Thatcher would have lost the next election, so maybe she did make the right moves.

Interesting that planned defence cuts in the couple of years prior to the invasion hinted to Argentina that the GB government wouldn't be all that interested in defending the islands, on the other hand you might argue that the main cause of the Argentine invasion was of pure opportunity and of their own country's making, their "diversion from a dire economy" argument is probably very valid.

Which brings us to date - the circumstances and relations between the two country's are totally different these days, but how much do we now spend on defending the Falklands (one of my bro-in-laws has spent some time being stationed on defence duties there, the worst of his military career is how he described it), and going through some severe defence cuts now, just how many Falklands situations exist around the world now and what would be our response today ?

Some very good points have been made, and from personal experiance i can say at the moment oil exploration is happening. when i landed there in march this year. when you talk to locals total 200 in stanley. helicopters taking oil workers to the new remote positioned oil platforms, theres something there, in what quantity and difficulty for extraction is not my guess, but i think the place has great economic value to it. even with some of the worlds most expensive fishing rights on offer there. but trust me you would not want to live there. i lie about the 200 its more but it feels much less. But the islanders themselves are madly patriotic about britain. on the flip the junta in argentina at the time went to war to boost there polls and dismal economy. much like kirchner and the sabre rattling now that she is buying up oil companys.

Do the Islanders resemble this lot at all?

When my brother in law was there with the RAF he said that the most interesting thing about the Falklands were the penguins, they were also the easiest to speak to - mind, he was an MP in the RAF...

very true. its basicaslly the full cast from a league of gentlemen. when i was in the globe the only decent pub in that tin roof metropolis all the weopons on the wall that i instantly knew where british SLRs and rockets, where actually argentinian, we sold to them before the war, brought a tear to my eye at British pride. the penquins are fantastic here, but not the same as the Brunt ice shelf. Saw prince William as well in his sea king. sounds all exciting, but its a living nightmare if you dont like cans of beer only in a pub and women with more hair than a alpaca!

We went to save the penguins not the Falklanders.

As much rational to go to war as any judging by past events in the world

Not if the penguins NOW have WMD.