The Falklands 25 Years Later.

[teuchter]

Originally Posted by likesfish
thats an ideological position.
which while interesting and probably in the long term correct. its of absolutely no fucking use if a fascist junta decide to invade your home

What the fuck are you wittering on about?

I think likesfish is making the reasonable point that the discussion about the causes of war becomes a little academic if you find yourself to be the one under attack, in which situation you would probably tend to support something being done in your defense.

 

[rekil]

I wonder what theyre suicide rate is like? I'd go fucking mental.

Just setting foot on the shithole seems to be enough for some.

More veterans of the Falklands War have killed themselves in the years since the 1982 conflict ended than died during hostilities, according to a veterans support group.

The South Atlantic Medal Association say they are "almost certain" the suicide toll is greater than 255 - the number of men killed in the war.

The association estimates the total could be 264, according to a report in the Mail on Sunday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1758301.stm

 

[likesfish]

the islanders were referred to by the garrison as "bennies" takes an odd sort of person to live there long term ran into one farmer who didn't go to stanley any more cause of all the crime and pollution but people often go to uni in the UK but go back.
while I was there in 91 spread the rumour that the Falklands didn't exist was basically a bit of the army training area cordoned off with some penguins flown in
theres a family of American shia Muslims who moved to goose green in 1981 to avoid the coming nuclear war talk about unlucky

 

[Mrs Magpie]

the islanders were referred to by the garrison as "bennies"

...from Benny (learning disabled character) on "Crossroads". The squaddies were ordered to stop calling them bennies as the islanders objected, so the squaddies started calling them 'stills', as in 'they're still bennies'.

 

[likesfish]

mostly just carried on calling them bennies although it did go up on orders "the practice of cousin jokes will cease
its like dartmoor or wales or scotland with no people there or trees
you can go windsurfing there
and theres supposed to be a good surfing beach as well
they do get 55,000 tourist's
though when I was on a patrol ran into a bunch of city bankers who were on an extreme fishing holiday

 

[weltweit]

I think a lot of photographers go there also, for the Penguins and other birds.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I was so disappointed to discover that the team of squaddies that were detailed to pick up penguins that fell over watching vertical take-off jets was a myth.

 

[weltweit]

oh not only penguins I remember now, The Albatross.

And something I think called a Frigate bird.

 

[likesfish]

ran into a Norwegian natural documentary who we managed to terrify
as the falkland air service helicopters are flown by bristows so nick named Erics
they fly troops on regular patrols and civillians
have a more realistic attitude to flying than the RAF i.e they so this eric turns up picks up a section of troops who leap on board the couple of islanders oboard already seen it all before but the norwegians think a wars broken out especially
when we leap out into the middle of an exercise with blank and smoke grenades flying

 

[fela fan]

fema fan you say that diplomacy is founded on lies, but I could also argue that tact is founded on lies, yet tact I would argue like diplomacy is a requirement for peacefull human relations.

I will read the rest of your post in a minute, but here you are agreeing with me that diplomacy, like tact as you say, is founded on lies.

So are you saying that we need lies to maintain peaceful human relations? If you are, then that's a pretty poor indictment of humans.

I'd say that it's these lies that maintain violent human relations, or, in a word, war. If everybody stuck to the truth, then we'd not be needing diplomacy or tact or politicians or war, or any of this bloody rubbish.

 

[fela fan]

What else could the USA have done after 9/11 than retaliate and attack the Taliban / Al Queda?

But that was my point. What came before 911?? Approximately 15 million deaths committed by american armed forces since WW2. FIFTEEN MILLION DEATHS.

The CIA even acknowledge it with their term 'blowback', of which 911 was a typical example.

What else could the USA have done?? Bloody hell weltweit, you should be asking what the fuck they've been doing for the last 60 years. They are a death machine. Any retaliation that's going on is against the killer yanks. They are the murderers, the warmongerers, the criminals of humankind.

 

[fela fan]

But i've read the rest of your post now, and fair points, but i'll have to get back to you tomorrow.

But, man needs to learn the art of avoiding getting defensive. Then war just disappears. It is defensiveness that creates the never-ending cycle of war.

 

[weltweit]

I will read the rest of your post in a minute, but here you are agreeing with me that diplomacy, like tact as you say, is founded on lies.

So are you saying that we need lies to maintain peaceful human relations? If you are, then that's a pretty poor indictment of humans.

I'd say that it's these lies that maintain violent human relations, or, in a word, war. If everybody stuck to the truth, then we'd not be needing diplomacy or tact or politicians or war, or any of this bloody rubbish.

If everbody stuck to the truth? that is an interesting point but fela fan would you care to define what the word "truth" means to you?

For me the meaning is clear :

Truth: something I believe to be fact

Fact: something I believe to be truth perhaps supported by evidence

Evidence: something I believe proves that something is fact or true

Proof: something I believe supports that something is fact or true

All these words truth, fact, evidence and proof for me all boil down to what I believe myself and I am just a single human like all the rest, bombarded with messages by self interested parties each and every moment of the day, what is the truth?

So what I believe is the truth and what you believe is the truth are very likely to vary, indeed they may be quite different things.

If we wish to maintain peaceful relations then we need to tread carefully around each other and that imho is the art of diplomacy.

Alternatively if we wish to go towards war, that is equally easy because we almost certainly believe in different truths and the smallest difference has been utilised since the dawn of time to slaughter humans ruthlessly and increasingly efficiently.

 

[weltweit]

But that was my point. What came before 911?? Approximately 15 million deaths committed by american armed forces since WW2. FIFTEEN MILLION DEATHS.

The CIA even acknowledge it with their term 'blowback', of which 911 was a typical example.

What else could the USA have done?? Bloody hell weltweit, you should be asking what the fuck they've been doing for the last 60 years. They are a death machine. Any retaliation that's going on is against the killer yanks. They are the murderers, the warmongerers, the criminals of humankind.

Yes, you make a good point, the continuation of violence as in repeated retaliations for every act, the eye for an eye which leaves the world blind, is not the best solution.

It is just this situation that Israel and Palestine find themselves in also I believe.

 

[fela fan]

If everbody stuck to the truth? that is an interesting point but fela fan would you care to define what the word "truth" means to you?

All i mean here is that everybody sticks to not lying. Live life by consciously working hard to never lie. That, as you may imagine, is not necessarily easy! But if we make it one of our overriding objectives for living our lives, then it actually becomes easy through habit.

Trouble is that politicians and diplomats both lie out of necessity. The former so they can continue their crooked ways, the latter to cover the polis up.

People of course lie too, frequently. It's why we get wars and violence.

The moment we get rid of being defensive is the moment the world will find peace and drop war. But there's the small matter of a certain amount of pathetic men with their pathetic egos to get rid of first...

 

[fela fan]

Yes, you make a good point, the continuation of violence as in repeated retaliations for every act, the eye for an eye which leaves the world blind, is not the best solution.

It is just this situation that Israel and Palestine find themselves in also I believe.

Indeed. And nothing will ever be resolved properly by any politician or diplomat. But we do have hope, as always. And that hope can only reside in the appearance of statesmen.

Because they act out of truth and of a feeling of what is right and just and doable. More to the point, they don't lie!

Since it's just about a proven fact that violence never solves violence, we must conclude that there are those in this world, unfortunately in powerful positions, that actually want this violence. It suits their purposes.

And that of course is just the way it is. Until a critical mass of the public, of the peoples of the world, turn round and say enough is enough. But they'll have to stop lying themselves first!

 

[fela fan]

The thing is, that even if you do accept that "lesson", what is the correct response when you are the ones being attacked and not the ones doing the attacking?

You start from the wrong point. You start not at the start but in the middle.

The point is that prevention is the best form of cure. So you create conditions that will nullify any attack before it comes. You set up a situation where attack is not necessary nor desirable.

It is the only way. We have to drop being defensive. There is no other way to solving the major connundrum of human beings: dropping war and helping ourselves to peace.

 

[weltweit]

fela fan I think you have sidestepped my point on the truth, that your passionately held belief that something is true may contradict my equally passionately held belief that something else is true.

And I do not really understand the difference between a statesman and a diplomat or a political leader.

It seems to me that if someone can bridge the gap between two parties in a dispute then such a person could be called a statesman, a diplomat or a political leader.

Can you specify what truth means to you? and perhaps what statesman means also?

 

[likesfish]

Since it's just about a proven fact that violence never solves violence
frankly thats a lie
you might wish it was'nt but it is
the ghosts of napoleon hitler and ho chi min and mao might want to argue with
you there squire etc etc

violence does solve problems might not like what it achieves but it will solve the problem one way or the other

 

[fela fan]

fela fan I think you have sidestepped my point on the truth, that your passionately held belief that something is true may contradict my equally passionately held belief that something else is true.

And I do not really understand the difference between a statesman and a diplomat or a political leader.

It seems to me that if someone can bridge the gap between two parties in a dispute then such a person could be called a statesman, a diplomat or a political leader.

Can you specify what truth means to you? and perhaps what statesman means also?

I didn't mean to sidestep it, but to me truth and politics can't share the same bed. Your reply to my post made me realise i wasn't talking about the truth per se, rather about simply not lying.

[We can lie, or we can tell the truth. Telling the truth allows us to be wrong, but honestly so. The truth and what it is, is another concept really, and not infrequently debated in the philosophy forum! I'll leave that for there.]

As for who might bridge the gap in a dispute, i can only ask why did the dispute arise in the first place? I can only say a mixture of politics and lies.

A stateman to me is a person who both rises above poltiics, and is seen to rise above politics. Diplomats exist to repair the damage done by politicians.

 

[weltweit]

So fela fan the queen for example, an admirable person who did not choose their position in life but who with their privilidge feels a strong sense of duty, could be a stateswoman. But she is restricted in her field of influence so she does not get involved in global disputes.

I like to compare macro and micro.

When I was young I did not shy away from dispute and argument and often found myself in the thick of it, I was on occassion glassed by someone in a pub and was involved in disputes that became fights, now as an older person I often keep the peace just by avoiding situations and people where I think there may be conflict.

Nations cannot run away, for them there is no where to go.

As an individual fela fan how do you keep the peace? You mentioned abandoning defence interestingly in a post above but defence can be as simple as having a front door and windows that lock .. or erecting a pseudonym in an internet forum, would you recommend abandoning even those?

 

[SW12lad]

The respective governments of Argentina and Britain.

The former ruling junta in Argentina was unpopular due to the Argentinian people's hatred for General Galtieri's regime, over it's brutal 'dirty war' inside Argentina, the massive human rights violations and a economy in depression with massive debts. Mothers and relatives of those killed off by General Galtieri and his predecessor, General Videla, were holding daily protests demanding that the junta release information concerning those who had vanished at the hands of the junta's hired thugs/killers and the junta looked set to fall.

So General Galtieri hoped to divert public attention away from him by invading the Falklands, it worked for the first month as the junta became popular overnight and most Argentinians put aside their differences and their hatred for the junta to celebrate the capture of the Falklands.

Thatcher, like General Galtieri had a problem with public support, a still weak and unproductive economy in Britain, coupled with roits in London and Liverpool and industrial unrest did not make her popular, the war of course offered her what she needed, a convenient diversion away from the real problems in society by whipping up patriotic sentiment and focusing attention elsewhere.

In the end the gamble paid off for Thatcher and not General Galtieri.

Both Argentine and British lives were lost for no good reason at all, only for political power games.

The only good to have come out of the Falklands War was the downfall of the Argentine junta. Whatever one thinks of Thatcher's governmet, I hated it myself, the junta was way, way worse and it's downfall can only ever be a positive.

I couldn't agree more, as Argentinean living in the UK for long years now, still when this date comes across is always plenty of bitter memories.

The truth as you said is that forget the patriotic literature and propaganda, all is reduced to two actors: One unpopular drunken-fueled dictator and an unpopular Prime Minister, the gamble paid to the last one, the problem is that the nearly 900 lives (counting both sides) used for such a horrible political entreprise sadly are not here to tell us what the think.

(and btw I put my first message).

 

[likesfish]

stopping a fascist junta having its own way was the right thing to do. You just can't let the worlds shits get away with stuff because its difficult and dangerous to oppose them

 

[teuchter]

You start from the wrong point. You start not at the start but in the middle.

The point is that prevention is the best form of cure. So you create conditions that will nullify any attack before it comes. You set up a situation where attack is not necessary nor desirable.

It is the only way. We have to drop being defensive. There is no other way to solving the major connundrum of human beings: dropping war and helping ourselves to peace.

easier said than done though, innit?