The Falklands

[Old Timer]

As i said much as i HATE Thatcher, she was right about this ( may god forgive me!)

The successful economy that was bequeathed to Labour in 1997 had much to do with her. She had to turn round an economy that she was bequeathed after years of Labour mismanagemnt. The situation today is exctly the same as it was in 1979. Years of Labour mismanagement has left the Country economically destitute again, and once more the Conservatives have to dig it out and make the hard decisions, and become unpopular once again for doing so.

The sad thing is that Labour NEVER ever have to make the decision necessary to repair the damage they have wrought, thus leaving people such as yourself to happily throw in soundbites and regurgitated pooh.

If you bothered to just do a little research and study you would find that pretty much every Country in the World has adopted the policies that Mrs Thatcher introduced in 1979. If you were ever able to get above your petty hatred and read her autobiography you would understand the woman and her concern for the working person, but I will not hold my breath.

 

[Schnellzug]

The sinking of the Belgrano was soley political, it was heading AWAY from the Falklands crewed by young conscripts. If a diplomatic solution had of been found Thatcher would never have remained our PM and not have been as cosy with General Pinochet over in Chile....

And if, say, an Argentine plane or Submarine had spotted units of the task force (even, perhaps, the Canberra), within reasonably easy reach of the Belgrano, the commander of the Belgrano would have disdained such a tempting target and carried on steaming back to base, of course, since he wouldn't have wanted to put all the Conscripts aboard at risk, I suppose.

 

[DarloRich]

I dont want to take this OT - sorry. I think she was right about the Falklands Islands.

 

[ainsworth74]

If Thatcher had stood up to the Americans and defended the rights of the Diego Garcians (sic?) I would have admired her (as well as being completely gob-smacked with surprise).

Well I don't think it would have had much impact as at the time (1970) she was a minor member of the Shadow Cabinet! (But I take your point )

Anyway this has certainly livened up a dull sunday afternoon!

Very much so!

 

[IanXC]

The successful economy that was bequeathed to Labour in 1997 had much to do with her. She had to turn round an economy that she was bequeathed after years of Labour mismanagemnt. The situation today is exctly the same as it was in 1979. Years of Labour mismanagement has left the Country economically destitute again, and once more the Conservatives have to dig it out and make the hard decisions, and become unpopular once again for doing so.

The sad thing is that Labour NEVER ever have to make the decision necessary to repair the damage they have wrought, thus leaving people such as yourself to happily throw in soundbites and regurgitated pooh.

If you bothered to just do a little research and study you would find that pretty much every Country in the World has adopted the policies that Mrs Thatcher introduced in 1979. If you were ever able to get above your petty hatred and read her autobiography you would understand the woman and her concern for the working person, but I will not hold my breath.

This.

Much as it might be party political it is very important to the narrative. Its hard to dismiss the fact that the first time for years where Argentina has made much noise about the Falklands happens to correlate with UK Defence cuts.

 

[Old Timer]

I dont want to take this OT - sorry. I think she was right about the Falklands Islands.

Frankly though she had no choice, as she says in her autobiography, she was caught betwen a rock and a hard place. Whatever option she took would have left her open to criticism for ever.

The fact is that had she NOT taken on the Falklands then any and every British protectorate Country would have been at the mercy of some petty dictator with an eye on the populist opinion at home. The decision was not taken light-heartedly and certainly was NOT taken for Political expedient reasons as some would have you believe.
What I find very sad is that we do not have an Opposition with men like that. I might disagree with their viewpoint but I certainly respect them as men who did what thye thought was right from conviction and not for some short term gain through headlines.

I really DO wish you would read her autobiography, at least then if you still object I will find your argument to have some validity. Incidentally I would also commend "Sunny" Jim Callaghan's autobiography to you as well. He was in essence a good man but was driven to act as he did through Political pressures.

 

[Schnellzug]

This.

Much as it might be party political it is very important to the narrative. Its hard to dismiss the fact that the first time for years where Argentina has made much noise about the Falklands happens to correlate with UK Defence cuts.

Indeed. There's a phrase that comes to mind about those who do not learn from history being compelled to repeat it ... Mrs. T (GBH*) comes to office, and one of the first things she does is enormous defence Cuts (including proposing selling the Invincible to Australia, i believe). General Galteiri strokes his moustache and thinks "Hmmm".

... fast forward a bit ... Mr. David "Cam" Cameron (GHH**) comes to power, and the first thing he does is ....

(including selling one of the UK's most capable amphibious ships, Largs Bay, to Australia).
.....


(*Gawd Bless Her)
(** Gawd Help Him)

 

[Old Timer]

This.

Much as it might be party political it is very important to the narrative. Its hard to dismiss the fact that the first time for years where Argentina has made much noise about the Falklands happens to correlate with UK Defence cuts.

Yes of course and it also happens to coincide with issues surrounding the President whose personal fortune has grown by some 572% since taking office, whilst at the same time that some 30% of Argentinians remain below the poverty line.

Having recently worked on a job in Argentina I would simply say that the Falklands Islands are not an issue worrying other than a small but vocal minority who are taking their lead from the extremists and those who wish to turn the Argentinian attention away from their internal economic problems.

If you talk with the educated Argentinians trhen you discover that they wish for an improvement in relations with the UK, and the ability to trade with the Falkland Islands.

For them going to war over the Falklands (which incidentally will not happen) would meet with the same public hostility as Iraq did here.

 

[DarloRich]

Frankly though she had no choice, as she says in her autobiography, she was caught betwen a rock and a hard place. Whatever option she took would have left her open to criticism for ever.

The fact is that had she NOT taken on the Falklands then any and every British protectorate Country would have been at the mercy of some petty dictator with an eye on the populist opinion at home. The decision was not taken light-heartedly and certainly was NOT taken for Political expedient reasons as some would have you believe.
What I find very sad is that we do not have an Opposition with men like that. I might disagree with their viewpoint but I certainly respect them as men who did what thye thought was right from conviction and not for some short term gain through headlines.

I really DO wish you would read her autobiography, at least then if you still object I will find your argument to have some validity. Incidentally I would also commend "Sunny" Jim Callaghan's autobiography to you as well. He was in essence a good man but was driven to act as he did through Political pressures.

I dont think she did take the decision on any political basis, far from it, i think she took a stand as to what she felt was the right thing to do. (and this WAS the right thing to do for the reasons you set out)

I agree with this posistion. I dont agree with much else she did. I never will.

I have read her autobiography but this is not the place to discuss it. I have not read Callaghans autobiography. I shall have to seek it out on Ebay.

 

[Old Timer]

Indeed. There's a phrase that comes to mind about those who do not learn from history being compelled to repeat it ... Mrs. T (GBH*) comes to office, and one of the first things she does is enormous defence Cuts (including proposing selling the Invincible to Australia, i believe). General Galteiri strokes his moustache and thinks "Hmmm".

... fast forward a bit ... Mr. David "Cam" Cameron (GHH**) comes to power, and the first thing he does is ....

(including selling one of the UK's most capable amphibious ships, Largs Bay, to Australia).
.....


(*Gawd Bless Her)
(** Gawd Help Him)

As Im posted above the common Argentian internal political situation is economic, the same as it was then.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree with this posistion. I dont agree with much else she did. I never will.

I have read her autobiography but this is not the place to discuss it. I have not read Callaghans autobiography. I shall have to seek it out on Ebay.

In which case I will happily withdraw my earlier comments.

Have you read Lawson's autobiography ?

 

[Aictos]

It's surprising that no one has actually looked nor discussed the view I had put across.....

Seeing as the majority of the islanders have expressed their wishes to remain British then any transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determine as protected by Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 which clearly states that purpose of the UN Charter is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."

This position is referred to in the Falkland Islands Constitution and is a powerful factor in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.

Also the European Union Treaty of Lisbon ratifies that the Falkland Islands belong to Britain.

In short, Argentina is simply acting in a aggressive manner as it has done for decades towards the UK government and ignoring the wishes of the islanders to remain British by stating the islanders have no right, this is despite what the above UN charter states.

Therefore, the UK should ignore Argentina by telling them to get off their high horse and push off!

Therefore legally Argentina has no rightful claim to the Falklands and as a result the rightful action of the UK government would be to launch a complaint to the The International Court of Justice stating that Argentina is aggressively ignoring Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 which clearly states that purpose of the UN Charter is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."

The UK government should also take appropriate measures to warn Argentina against continuing on their ill conceived path and to state that they will back the islanders by any means necessary.

 

[kylemore]

Frankly though she had no choice, as she says in her autobiography, she was caught betwen a rock and a hard place. Whatever option she took would have left her open to criticism for ever.

The fact is that had she NOT taken on the Falklands then any and every British protectorate Country would have been at the mercy of some petty dictator with an eye on the populist opinion at home. The decision was not taken light-heartedly and certainly was NOT taken for Political expedient reasons as some would have you believe.
What I find very sad is that we do not have an Opposition with men like that. I might disagree with their viewpoint but I certainly respect them as men who did what thye thought was right from conviction and not for some short term gain through headlines.

I really DO wish you would read her autobiography, at least then if you still object I will find your argument to have some validity. Incidentally I would also commend "Sunny" Jim Callaghan's autobiography to you as well. He was in essence a good man but was driven to act as he did through Political pressures.

The mention of "Sunny Jim" is very apropos as Callaghan had succesfully seen the "Argies" off in the late 70s with the discreet despatch of a nuclear hunter killer sub, the "message" got through and any further action was deterred.

Come 1981 and it's almost as if every possible signal was being given to Argentina that Britain was not bothered much about the Falklands.
For if Thatcher was "bothered" why did she not do at least as much as a Labour leader had done just a few years previously?

The not very bright Junta fell for it much as later Sadam fell for the American ambassador's "nod and a wink" just before he went into Kuwait.

 

[ainsworth74]

(including selling one of the UK's most capable amphibious ships, Largs Bay, to Australia).

One of the most ludicrous cuts they made, some of the others being Harrier, Nimrod and Fort George. Pure cost cutting not even a bit of strategy in the entire thing.

 

[DarloRich]

@ OT Nigel or Ngella Lawson (Sorry)


I havent read either. Perhaps i should look that one out to. I wasnt aware one had been written

 

[Old Timer]

@ OT Nigel or Ngella Lawson (Sorry)


I havent read either. Perhaps i should look that one out to. I wasnt aware one had been written

Nigel. He talks about his time as Chancellor. He obviously eventually disagrees with the way Mrs Thatcher went forward.

You may find this Guardian article pretty fair about the man.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/may/13/politics.politicalcolumnists

Lawson is a man I find myself agreeing with but also disagreeing with. That said, much of his tenure was successful and enabled the upturn in the UK economy that was left to Labour in 1997.

If you are having any problems finding "Sunny" Jims autobiography I can look and find mine and send it over to you if you want

 

[yorksrob]

massive loss of life for no reason other that it flying the Argentinian flag?

So I am sure you would have agreed if the Argentinians had of sunk one of our vessels heading away from the Islands?

No - for invading someone elses country. I would have thought that that was a fairly obvious cause of the loss of life.

The Argentinians did sink our ships and we responded in the course of war.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Back to the topic I'm not slagging the people at the sharp end the officers who had to do what their political masters told them within the bounds of their conscience. Once war has been decided upon then alls' fair in love and war as they say, whether warships are sailing this way or that, I just question the motives and integrity of the politicians and others at the very highest level.

The political masters were right in this case. The main motive is that they are our islands (with the consent of their inhabitants) and not Argentinas. I am happy with that explanation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I agree with you about Diego Garcia though. The Americans gain most from their possession and we should call their bluff and make them take responsibility for them.

 

[Tiny Tim]

Whilst the British Government of the day had little or no option but to retake the Falklands, it was this same government that had previously withdrawn military protection, allowing Argentina to invade. We may not have started the Falklands War, but we did little to prevent it happening. We had been warned through intelligence sources that an invasion was planned, but this information was dismissed.

It's interesting to note that the present Argentine belligerence over the Falklands is probably costing them very little. Military cutbacks or not, it's costing the British taxpayer a fortune.

As to the sinking of the Belgrano, people will argue forever about her course, intentions etc, and the justification for sinking her, but setting all that aside, does nobody remember the government's discomfort? John Nott walked out of a TV interview, even Mrs Thatcher was unusually flustered when tackled on the subject. The control room log of HMS Conqueror disappeared. Even if we accept that the sinking was a legitimate act of war, it appears that the decision was made a long way from the South Atlantic. Downing Street is my guess. It's a pity that our leaders couldn't admit to this, it's what they're paid to do, isn't it?

 

[ainsworth74]

Military cutbacks or not, it's costing the British taxpayer a fortune.

Last I heard the budget for defending the islands was £70 million which when you're talking about a defence budget of £40 billion isn't all that much (and when compared to the UK's budget overall is small change).

Even if we accept that the sinking was a legitimate act of war, it appears that the decision was made a long way from the South Atlantic. Downing Street is my guess. It's a pity that our leaders couldn't admit to this, it's what they're paid to do, isn't it?

Has that ever been in doubt? I thought it was common knowledge that Downing Street took the decision (following the advice of military personnel I would assume) to sink the Belgrano?

 

[yorksrob]

Whilst the British Government of the day had little or no option but to retake the Falklands, it was this same government that had previously withdrawn military protection, allowing Argentina to invade. We may not have started the Falklands War, but we did little to prevent it happening. We had been warned through intelligence sources that an invasion was planned, but this information was dismissed.

It's undoubtedly true that the (British) Government of the day must bear some responsibility for leaving the islands undefended.

That said, it's not as if they were an uninhabited rock at the time of the invasion (unlike South Georgia). They are (and were) a functioning community and the Argentinians would have been in no doubt of their opinions on the sovereignty issue from various negotiations during the previous decades. The moral responsibility for the invasion (and its consequences) lies with Argentina.

 

[junglejames]

The current Falklands issue in Argentina is simply being driven by exactly the same reasons that the original invasion was.

There is a huge economic problem over there, and a President whose is unpopular. Dont be fooled into thinbking that the vast majority of the Argentinians actually want to take back the Falklands.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the President sees the Falklands as a way of deflecting attention away from her own problems. The average Argentinian sees no reason to take on the Falklands and would prefer that relationships with the UK were placed on a better long term footing

Having spoken to someone who has recently spoken to a normal everyday Argentinian (did you follow that?!!), it would seem that Old Timer is spot on.

I also reckon it does have something to do with oil though, certainly this time. They only started kicking up a fuss this time once the possiblity of oil was mentioned.

 

[kylemore]

I would'nt want to live in a country where the economy's in tatters and the scum that passes for a government are doing their best to have a war to divert our attention..........like Argentina I mean......errr..hmmm

 

[junglejames]

I would'nt want to live in a country where the economy's in tatters and the scum that passes for a government are doing their best to have a war to divert our attention..........like Argentina I mean......errr..hmmm

Sounds like you are trying to suggest Argentina is just like the UK.
Id say there is a world of difference. Having had the pleasure to visit Buenes Aires recently, I know where I would rather be, and it isnt down in Argentina.
Plus what war are we using to divert attention? Nobody has tried to divert our attention, and all we are doing right now, is telling the Argies to shut up.

 

[kylemore]

Sounds like you are trying to suggest Argentina is just like the UK.
Id say there is a world of difference. Having had the pleasure to visit Buenes Aires recently, I know where I would rather be, and it isnt down in Argentina.
Plus what war are we using to divert attention? Nobody has tried to divert our attention, and all we are doing right now, is telling the Argies to shut up.

Lighten up just havin a laff

The war I'm referring to is Syria, however the USA (and hence us!) seems to be backing off this one as the Syrians look as if they might be able to fight back and give them a kicking with a little help from the Ruskies!
And as we know the US and NATO prefer wars to be guaranteed one-sided these days.

 

[Schnellzug]

Lighten up just havin a laff

The war I'm referring to is Syria, however the USA (and hence us!) seems to be backing off this one as the Syrians look as if they might be able to fight back and give them a kicking with a little help from the Ruskies!
And as we know the US and NATO prefer wars to be guaranteed one-sided these days.

So 7,000 civilian deaths are worth it then, just as long as the Western Imperialists are prevented from spreading their evil regime?

 

[kylemore]

So 7,000 civilian deaths are worth it then, just as long as the Western Imperialists are prevented from spreading their evil regime?

Well if a bunch of terrorists most of them mercenaries descended on a police station in say Leeds captured it tortured and murdered the Police officers and called it a "rising" you would think the UK government an "evil regime" if they tried to regain control of their own cities?
And how many of the "7000" are actually murdering terrorists?

 

[Schnellzug]

Well if a bunch of terrorists most of them mercenaries descended on a police station in say Leeds captured it tortured and murdered the Police officers and called it a "rising" you would think the UK government an "evil regime" if they tried to regain control of their own cities?
And how many of the "7000" are actually murdering terrorists?

I expect a very small percentage. This is the "kill them all, some of them are probably guilty" apparoach to quelling unrest, then, is it.
:-/

 

[kylemore]

I expect a very small percentage. This is the "kill them all, some of them are probably guilty" apparoach to quelling unrest, then, is it.
:-/

You'll maybe notice that my comments are mostly in the way of questions. I don't know for certain what is going on and who these "rebels" are, however there is evidence that they are not entirely squeecky clean.
With the utmost of respect I would suggest you are also not in position to know the entire truth.
Obviously If the Syrian Govt were simply shelling civilians for the sake of it then that should be condemned.
Is it really simply a case of "Evil" Arabs as opposed to "Good" Westerners supporting innocent rebels?
These "rebels" have instigated Civil War, there is very good evidence that atrocities have been committed by them. For instance the most senior Syrian officer killed so far was a General who happened to be a Medical officer, assasinated without the opportunity to defend himself, a cowardly act, an easy target. Is that the action of freedom loving, democratic nice guys?

 

[jon0844]

The average Argentinian sees no reason to take on the Falklands and would prefer that relationships with the UK were placed on a better long term footing

Of course, they want us to continue using the (Total) Wipeout course for one!

 

[yorksrob]

No - for invading someone elses country. I would have thought that that was a fairly obvious cause of the loss of life.

The Argentinians did sink our ships and we responded in the course of war.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Er, I was probably a bit overly strident when I typed that.

I suppose we won't know for sure the exact thoughts of the high command at the time, and yes, it would have been wrong to sink a ship just to teach Argentina "a lesson".

What I was trying to say (albeit a bit too angrily) was that I don't think you can really regard the sinking as seperate from the overall conflict at the time. Our troops were already deployed at the end of a very long supply line and an enemy warship is something that can easily bite you on the backside in those circumstances - particularly if the war had turned out to be more protracted than it eventually was.

 

[LE Greys]

Er, I was probably a bit overly strident when I typed that.

I suppose we won't know for sure the exact thoughts of the high command at the time, and yes, it would have been wrong to sink a ship just to teach Argentina "a lesson".

What I was trying to say (albeit a bit too angrily) was that I don't think you can really regard the sinking as seperate from the overall conflict at the time. Our troops were already deployed at the end of a very long supply line and an enemy warship is something that can easily bite you on the backside in those circumstances - particularly if the war had turned out to be more protracted than it eventually was.

I have to agree. If you think like a submarine captain, enemy ship of war = fair game. Personally, I would have gone far further and authorised unrestricted warfare against Argentinian warships, merchant ships and aircraft, but then I would have made a full declaration of war, just as if they had invaded the Isle of Wight. It's probably a good thing I'm never going to have to make that sort of decision.