Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Is that representative of your politics?
Was Thatcher's conduct during the Falklands War justified?
- Thread starter poului
- Start date
Is that representative of your politics?
JHE
.
- But, señor, las Malvinas are an integral part of la patria. We may allow your people to continue to live there and molest their sheep, according to their own customs, and we expect them to be grateful for our magnanimity, but the islands are ours and our law prevails. You talk bad about our caudillo, we drop you out of a helicopter. Entendido? You no like that? OK, what you gonna do?
Because its the Argentine flag (I assume you mean) same as any attempt to integrate the North into a United Ireland would be opposed by the Unionists even if the province was to have the same level of devolution/home rule as it ddoes currently under Brittish rule
I'm not sure, cos for a million quid I definitely would, y'see. I just wouldn't tell my mum about it.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
The Argentines captured by the Brits were treated better than when they were in their own units.
Ill equipped and frequently treated like shit by their Captains, they often fought in plimsols.
Galtieri was a bigger cunt than Thatcher will ever be, although both parties needed the war to boost flagging popularity.
A diplomatic solution was unlikely because of this.
The Argentines were fed so much bullshit, like the Ghurkas would eat them if they caught them, that they were terrified. A great many killed themselves as a result.
But Argentinas junta was the agressor, Thatcher just seized an opportunity.
My own view?
Las Malvinas son Argentinas.
Ill equipped and frequently treated like shit by their Captains, they often fought in plimsols.
Galtieri was a bigger cunt than Thatcher will ever be, although both parties needed the war to boost flagging popularity.
A diplomatic solution was unlikely because of this.
The Argentines were fed so much bullshit, like the Ghurkas would eat them if they caught them, that they were terrified. A great many killed themselves as a result.
But Argentinas junta was the agressor, Thatcher just seized an opportunity.
My own view?
Las Malvinas son Argentinas.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
A coup on March 24, 1976, saw a military junta seize power in Argentina. This Junta was armed and supported by the West. Under military rule, rather than "fascist" rule as some on here have said, thousands of people, trade unionists, human rights activists, leftists, anarchists were arrested and then vanished without a trace.
Whilst the Argentinians, under the leadership of Dictator General Galtieri were being whipped up into a patriotic fervor there, Thatcher also seized at the chance to whip up the same patriotic fervor in the UK.
At the time the average Brit thought the Falklands were closer to Scotland, or just off the Isle of Man. The media chimed in by reminding the UK population that the Islands were indeed 'British' and the people who lived there, the Falkland Islanders, were British too.
Argentinians we were told would destroy the British way of life on the Islands. This, despite the Islanders having to rely on Argentina for post, education, supplies, medical treatment and almost everything else. It was back to Empire, accepting that the British could actually lay claim to Islands 8000 miles away.
It was nothing to do with 'defending the Islanders', the 'British way of life', or fighting a "fascist dictator". Thatcher has great respect for dictators afterall, including one of the the bloodiest, Augusto Pinochet of Chile.
Thatcher, like Galtieri was going through a critical time then, with declining support and elections looming. In the final analysis, Thatcher took an opportunity and was willing to sacrifice others so that she could hold onto power.
Whilst the Argentinians, under the leadership of Dictator General Galtieri were being whipped up into a patriotic fervor there, Thatcher also seized at the chance to whip up the same patriotic fervor in the UK.
At the time the average Brit thought the Falklands were closer to Scotland, or just off the Isle of Man. The media chimed in by reminding the UK population that the Islands were indeed 'British' and the people who lived there, the Falkland Islanders, were British too.
Argentinians we were told would destroy the British way of life on the Islands. This, despite the Islanders having to rely on Argentina for post, education, supplies, medical treatment and almost everything else. It was back to Empire, accepting that the British could actually lay claim to Islands 8000 miles away.
It was nothing to do with 'defending the Islanders', the 'British way of life', or fighting a "fascist dictator". Thatcher has great respect for dictators afterall, including one of the the bloodiest, Augusto Pinochet of Chile.
Thatcher, like Galtieri was going through a critical time then, with declining support and elections looming. In the final analysis, Thatcher took an opportunity and was willing to sacrifice others so that she could hold onto power.
JHE
.
There is a very good, very moving Argentinian film about the way the soldiers were treated by their officers and the psychological aftermath of the war: 'Illuminados por el fuego' [released in Britain under the title 'Blessed by Fire'].
It's funny in parts, very sad in others. It's all very much seen from an Argentinian POV, but not at all unfair in its portrayal (towards the end of the film) of the Falkland Islanders.
JHE
.
You beat me to it.
You are quite right. It is, of course, definitely not a Galtierian gung ho las-Malvinas-son-argentinas film, at all.
Its politics are very clearly against the dictatorship and maybe against all militarism.
Anyway, yes, a good film.
PS: Its title is 'Illuminados por el fuego'.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
That looks like a cut & paste, with the different fonts. Where's it from?
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
There was lots of diplomacy in the lead up to war by the UN (a resolution was passed calling for the withdrawal of Argentine Forces), EC (trade sanctions), the US and others.
It took a long time for the fleet to get down there and quite a lot of people (notably the US) had big interests in the war not happening.
It took a good 3 weeks for the Navy to get within striking distance.
So there was plenty of time for the Argentinians to withdraw if they did not want a war.
The idea that the British started fighting without giving time for other means is rubbish.
Someone burgles your house, you give him 3 weeks to get the f*** out, before you throw him out.
Seems more than long enough to me.
Giles..
andy2002
To the Bat-poles!
Were the trade sanctions given a chance to bite? Genuine question as I really can't recall.
andy2002
To the Bat-poles!
Three weeks doesn't seem anything like long enough to me. Settling things without anyone losing their lives is surely preferable to a thousand deaths whether it takes three days, three weeks or three years.
YouSir
Retired from Urban
Bullshit comment. As if the Argentines were some abstract body which was being ejected for their collective sins. More 'someone breaks into your house you shoot them in the face'. Only cunts praise the slaughter of individuals for the sins of a government.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
There was an opportunity for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, with the US putting pressure on the Junta. This was rejected by the British.
probably not in 3 weeks i doubt, no.
i for one have never eaten corned beef since
eta - it was always my impression the US put a lot of pressure on the Argentinians to pull out.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
I think that the diplomatic solution involved the UK giving up sovereignty, which would have meant that the Argentinian side would have secured its fundamental aims as a result of its agression. People talk about diplomacy as if it resolves all difficulties. It doesn't. Once one side has begun a war, as did the Argentinians to try to grab the 300-miles distant Falklands, the other side may respond militarily to recover what has been taken and to ensure that the agressor can not threaten them again. It was reasonable to try diplomacy - for a short time - to avoid the use of armed force to achieve these objectives. Since it was possible to conclude that wasn't going to happen through diplomacy, it was right to achieve them by force.
andy2002
To the Bat-poles!
Why only for a short time? What's so bad about trying diplomacy for a long time?
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Because it can become pretty clear pretty quickly whether people are serious, or spinning you a yarn and playing for time.
Put it like this. Somebody nicks your lawnmower and you know who it was. You go and say "give me my lawnmower back or I'll get the cops". Now they either give you your lawnmower back, there and then, or you call the cops. If they say "oh, sorry, was that your lawnmower? I didn't know, I thought it was my brother's, here you are, sorry about that", well, you know they're lying, but no harm done, you just know not to trust them again. Now that's diplomacy. But if they say, "what lawnmower" and suggest that it was their lawnmower all along, you call the cops. If the cops then say, "your word against theirs, it's a civil matter, nothing to do with us", then - if you can - you probably take it back by force during the night.
If you wait for weeks and weeks and weeks, you know you're not going to get your lawnmower back, and your grass will not get cut by itself.
andy2002
To the Bat-poles!
On the other hand, if people who the burglar knows from around the neighbourhood start pestering him every day about returning the lawnmower and threaten to withold the loan of their own garden tools until he relents, maybe he'd just cave in.
john x
Well-Known Member
It's probably already been said but you risk a plausible diplomatic solution which will make it impossible to go to war and drag the Tories to another election win.
john x
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
On the other hand, if people who the burglar knows from around the neighbourhood start pestering him every day about returning the lawnmower and threaten to withold the loan of their own garden tools until he relents, maybe he'd just cave in.
Maybe... but probably not. It's Argentina - what pressure could or would Chile or Brazil or Uruguay apply over a dispute with the UK? They were half at war wiith Chile anyway. The Argentinian leadership had shown how determined it was by sailing 300 miles and landing. They got two or so weeks to back down, and they didn't take it. Maybe they were slow learners, or - much more likely - they didn't think the UK was serious or capable.
They were wrong.
andy2002
To the Bat-poles!
How so?
andy2002
To the Bat-poles!
I was thinking more of the US, UN and Europe – curse my shoddy analogy!
Was her government justified in carrying out actions that led to the Argentine invasion - No. Was she justified in sending troops to retake them - of course. It wouldn't have just been Galtieri's government that would have been encouraged about it but also any other government that believed it had a right to do likewise.
Anyone who believes that diplomacy could solve this in the timescale involved is deluding themselves. It's the same delusion that politicians and diplomats have that. Diplomacy only works when both sides actively WANT to end a conflict (usually because it's dragged on so long).
It also helps in hindsight that they've now found that there are plenty of exploitable resources under and around the Islands, plus there's the matter of access to the Antarctic.
Anyone who believes that diplomacy could solve this in the timescale involved is deluding themselves. It's the same delusion that politicians and diplomats have that. Diplomacy only works when both sides actively WANT to end a conflict (usually because it's dragged on so long).
It also helps in hindsight that they've now found that there are plenty of exploitable resources under and around the Islands, plus there's the matter of access to the Antarctic.
Similar threads
