I am implying that war should always be the absolute last resort when all else has failed, and not all possible avenues had been researched before the bullets started flying.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
So, do you believe the Argentinians exhausted all possible avenues before they opted for the forcible armed invasion of British territory?
I don't. The Argentinians might believe they had, though. It's been a bone of contention between our two countries for a long time and there's been a lot of talking about it by both sides. But they invaded, whatever the rights and wrongs of who did what in the past. And we sent troops to kick them out - which was the right thing to do. A successful outcome, too - the Argentinians were evicted and no-one in the British government died. In fact, some say it made a hero out of Margaret Thatcher at a time when her star was starting to wane.
FWIW, I was proud of our forces for doing their jobs so well. I was not so proud that our diplomatic corps were unable to prevent it happening in the first place by persuading the other side of the futility of invading. I've no idea if they were incompetent or the other side just bloody-minded.
Reminds me of something else happening right now, actually - except war will hopefully not be the immediate outcome.
You're not living in the real world.
Of course diplomacy has a real role to play, but British territory was attacked and occupied. Would you have tried to negotiate once Poland had fallen in 1939?
There had been negotiations on the possibility of joint sovereignty for the Falklands throughout the 70s, so there may have been an element of truth in that.
So it was possibly our fault that they invaded? We somehow failed in diplomacy because Argentina, under a mad Junta decided to invade another territory?
I may be wrong - I often am - but the Falkland Islands never held much interest to the Argentinians for many, many years. I’m not sure they ever settled it? I should research it, but feel free to beat me to this intel.
If I suddenly decide that your house should be mine, are you going to tell me to **** off, or shall we sit down together and work out how we’re going to share ownership going forward?
I said either we were not good at diplomacy or the other side were just bloody-minded. It's a possibility. We'll never know for sure unless we were at the discussions themselves.
The biggest factor for me regarding the Falklands is that the residents want to be British and not Argentinian.
My own view is the Argentinians probably were bloody-minded, but it's the job of our diplomats to do our governments bidding and achieve their objectives, so we were probably not good enough at persuading the Argentinians that we would resist an armed invasion and send troops. It suited the Argentine government to invade - they needed a PR success at home and weren't getting one. It suited our government to use force rather than diplomacy after that, and it was a winnable war from day one. We all came together somewhat as a country over the issue and felt proud of our boys (and girls). Some of them never came home and others came home somewhat changed from the people they were when they left.
I'm one of those people who didn't have a problem with the sinking of the Belgrano, BTW, even if it was sailing away from the area and in international waters. It was a warship of an invading enemy. I just felt sorry for the poor souls on board who died.
What happened to your strong commitment to self determination? In the entire history of the Falkland Islands the Argentinians have never had a permanent settlement there, just a few temporary fishermen, sealers and soldiers early in the C19th. The only people to have shown a long term commitment to living there have been of British descent. Yet we should have negotiated away their right to self determination with a regime which had already murdered at least 9,000, more likely 30,000 of its own citizens (after a bit of torture obviously)? The Spanish government can be accused of fascist tactics, but we should have negotiated with a genuine fascist regime? Britain can be right sometimes you know.
Just calling it as I see it Col. Blindingly obvious on this one, the Argentinian regime was exceptionally nasty, the people of the Falklands had very clear wishes, what was there to negotiate about? Get out or we will will kick you out. Not going? Don’t say we didn’t tell you. Apart from the loss of life and the cost at a time when we were really in the economic crap the only regret I have is that Thatcher got more support from it. But she showed her true colours with continued support and help to that bastard Pinochet.
I’m quite proud that I felt pretty much the same about the Falklands at the time, despite being much more left wing and actively political then (the folly of youth!) than I am now. As far as I remember Michael Foot was strong in his support (though not uncritical) and got a lot of flak from the Bennites for it. Also Labour had argued against defence cuts that Thatcher had made in 1981 and which may have encouraged the Argentinian aggression.
Odd that this all feels like ancient history now. Like the FA Cup final the same year.
I should stress that, hard to believe as it is, I have got many things wrong in the past and present.
Last edited:
The falklands war was justified imo
But remember it was turned into a side show by thatcher... that was wrong imo
But remember it was turned into a side show by thatcher... that was wrong imo
I’ve just read some more* on the Falklands and been very surprised. Apparently the UN Secretary General was amazed at what we were prepared to offer to prevent a war, the Argentines rejected it, because they thought the US would support them as ‘anti-communists’. The US was very slow in taking sides in public. The Peruvians, who represented Argentina in the U.K. after we broke off diplomatic relations, worked very hard with the Swiss (who did the job for us in Argentina), to broker a solution. We agreed, the Argentinians rejected it.Bloody right you have!!
Yet somehow it’s all own fault for being colonialists a century before, and not trying diplomacy. Balls to that.
You’ll like this - when the UN finally voted that the Argentinians should withdraw, with no teeth to back it up, the EU immediately applied sanctions on Argentina. John Nott said in his memoirs that France under Mitterrand was an invaluable ally, huge help.
But at least relations are now good enough for me to get almost limitless supplies of delicious Malbec.
*cant go anywhere tonight because of these ****ing fireworks, which terrify the dog even when he is indoors. And if the choice is between reading some history and watching Strictly, only one winner.
Last edited:
I know they sold them Exocets before the war, how did they help during? We ourselves were selling them arms until virtually the day they invaded. The Israelis were selling them weapons actually during the conflict - despite the fact that the Argentine military government was openly anti-Semitic, and that Jews made up 12% of the disappeared whilst only being 1% of the population.
Just looked it up, a French company had a technical team in Argentina which helped them fix faults in the rocket launchers for the five Exocets they had. The team included a spy who passed on information about the plans of the Argentine military. 50/50.
Last edited:
Wisconsin has passed a bill that would allow toddlers to hunt with guns.
http://www.newsweek.com/toddlers-hunt-guns-wisconsin-700793
This in a country where toddlers killed more Americans than terrorists in 2015.
http://www.newsweek.com/toddlers-hunt-guns-wisconsin-700793
This in a country where toddlers killed more Americans than terrorists in 2015.