Yeah and Argentina are still using technology from the 70's and 80's whilst we've move on.It would be a no contest that would be over in 14 days with Britain the winners of course.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp Go here and compare military strength Looks bad for Argies But then they have no foreign commitments They have local allies They have friendly ports They will pick when it happens Logistical nightmare for UK imo Leave it to the Bennys
That would be fair enough, if the firebombing of Dresden was the only way we fought WW2. But it wasn't. The vast majority of British military actions were in conventional battle. Unlike the IRA of course. Once they'd stopped fannying around for 2 years bullying the likes of Finland and Estonia, and decided whose side they were on.
Regarding Terrorism/War etc. My personal thoughts. If you engage in a "War" by whatever means necessary" - whether that be conventional warfare or through acts of (what most people would call) Terrorism - then you have made your bed and should lie in it. One man's collateral damage is another man's victim in the same way that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. If you are willing to fight a "Total War" then you should have no complaints when the opposition do likewise. If you don't take prisoners then why should the enemy take prisoners and vice versa? If you do your best to avoid civilian casualties and the enemy don't then are you a fool for doing so? After all, War is war and all that. In all honesty, when I served in NI the majority of the guys I served with believed the easiest way to put an end to the troubles was simply to send assasination squads into the Republic and take out the leaders. We knew who they were, we knew where they lived and we had the capability to carry out the killings. Whether or not this was simplistic and wishful thinking is another matter (argument) entirely, but we believed we were being hamstrung by the Rules of War. We were firmly of the belief that we were the only side who were playing by a set of rules, and I have no doubt that the opposition believed the same. Considering the PIRA/Real IRA/Whatever were operating outside any 'rules of engagement' would it have been fairer to our side if we simply discarded the rules that limited our actions or reactions? We know that where an Army is concerned, different standards are expected, nay demanded. As a soldier I may not have always liked the restrictions placed upon me, but I was always mindful of them, even if I thought there was an inherent unfairness in them. This is a question that could be asked of most conflicts and i don't have the answer, I doubt many people have in all honesty, because we are all biased towards our own side.
One of the many things I cringe about is the likes of Sinn Fein crying about the Loughgall massacre - because the SAS didn't use conventional warfare, they shot IRA men who were incapacitated lying wounded on the floor. If it had of been around the other way there certainly wouldn't have been any mercy, so there is no angle to complain in this regard. What I maybe could complain about was the British publicly stating that they were morally superior in the conflict when they were more than willing to use terrorist tactics themselves when it suited.
The IRA thought they were fighting a war. They also saw the British Army as an army of occupation. Successive British governments never acknowledged a war in NI, and always insisted that the army was there to keep the peace - not something armies are usually recruited or trained to do. So the terms of engagement were never agreed. Had the British been a bit less preoccupied with the rule of law, or a bit less squeamish about employing some the methods the Israeli govt used against the PLO for example, would the conflict have ended any quicker? I'd say not. Cut off the head of a terrorist organisation and the body doesn't die, it grows a hundred new heads.
Some might say you just keep cutting the heads off until there are none left, or at least until the new heads do not think it would be wise to take the place of a previously assasinated head. As I said, that's another argument for another day.
The "team 'em a lesson" approach practically started the war. Many people don't realise that The Troubles had been raging for a full two years before the IRA shot the first British soldier - and the most deadly year of The Troubles was the 12 months after Bloody Sunday.
Indeed. One General stated that he would rather see a dozen Warrenpoint massacres than one Bloody Sunday.
