| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| lemonade kid |
Posted - 08/04/2013 : 15:36:35
The iconic & controversial leader dies at 87
RIP
Continuing live coverage at The Guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/apr/08/miliband-clegg-local-elections-cameron-madrid
________________________________________________
Old hippies never die, they just ramble on.
-lk |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| stewart |
Posted - 13/04/2013 : 20:35:50
DT That's not my logic at all. What I was alluding to was the fact that by deciding to close the South Georgia Research Station and withdraw the armed HMS Endurance from the area and by being willing to discuss giving Argentina a 99 yr lease on the islands, this simply encouraged the crazed junta to think that the UK had little interest in the islands and that they were a soft target so they invaded. So mismanagement by the UK govt actually precipitated the situation. The govt should have known that an invasion was imminent, but claimed it didn’t, or at any rate if it did know it took no action to prevent it. Once it had happened any govt would have had to take action but for the deeply unpopular Thatcher it was essential to retrieve her popularity and not just get the Argentinians out of the Falklands, which would have been perfectly practicable by a show of force plus negotiation, but to wage a dramatic victorious war . That is why the war was provoked by the UK whatever the Argentine attitude. There’s little doubt that the Argentinians, as soon as they discovered that this was the UK attitude, were looking for a way out of an intolerable situation. Thatcher wasn’t prepared to let them because the whole object of the exercise was not to settle the matter now but to prove that Britain was still great, if only in a symbolic fashion. At virtually every stage the policy of the govt in and out of the UN was one of total intransigence. I’m not saying that the junta made it easy to come to a settlement but a negotiated withdrawal of the Argentinians was certainly not out of the question it just wasn't seriously tried. |
| John9 |
Posted - 13/04/2013 : 01:44:00
I can only endorse what DaveyTee has said. Stewart - the war didn't start because we were concerned about the odious military regime in Buenos Aires - but because the Falkland Islanders had been delivered into its hands.
The connection with Pinochet's Chile is, admittedly an uncomfortable one - but Chile was able to supply valuable intelligence that provided the Task Force with early warnings of Argentine attacks. Almost certainly this saved lives and enabled a swifter conclusion to the conflict. I can see that we were faced with something of a moral dilemma over this.....but making a choice could not be evaded. Once again there is an analogy with the Second World War - would the western democracies have won it without the Soviet Union and its murderous dictator?
Be assured that I do not look back the Falklands War with a sense of triumphalism. To my mind, Argentina's historical and geographical claim to the islands is worthy of consideration. But paradoxically, by launching such an unprovoked invasion thirty years ago, Argentina set back their cause by a very long time indeed. And as a consequence, Thatcher will always be seen in Port Stanley as a saviour....however unpalatable that thought might be to many in the UK.
|
| DaveyTee |
Posted - 12/04/2013 : 21:41:38
quote:
Originally posted by stewartDaveyTee- The war was nothing to do with human rights. Thatcher had failed to properly protect the Falklands and then failed to enter into a diplomatic solution with Galtieri
So according to your logic, blame for a war lies not with the invader, but with the country which doesn't do enough to defend itself? I suppose that's what Hitler relied on when he invaded Poland. Presumably such a theory would also provide a good defence to burglars who could show that the householder hadn't installed alarms. Bad argument, Stewart. Even if Thatcher had failed to properly defend the Falklands - and I'd be interested to hear from you just how she failed to do that - that gave Galtieri no excuse whatever for launching a completely unprovoked invasion.
As to the diplomatic solution, I assume that you are referring to the Peruvian Peace Plan. What happened about that is confusing depending on who you believe, but it does seem that after the sinking of the Belgrano Galtieri said that he wanted nothing more to do with the plan. In any event, it would have been a non-starter. Basically it required a ceasefire, immediate withdrawal of both UK and Argentinian forces and their replacement with an international force, acknowledgement by both governments of the interests and aspirations of the islanders, and a definitive agreement by April 1983. It would never have worked because the Argentinians would never have agreed to the interests and aspirations of the islanders being considered, and neither party would have agreed to give up sovreignty by 1983, if ever (they still haven't).
Finally, Stewart - you haven't answered my question. A British sovereign territory, inhabited virtually exclusively by British subjects, was invaded without warning by a country governed by a right wing military dictatorship with an appalling human rights record. If you think Thatcher was wrong, what do you think that the British government should have done?
DT
But I Can't Understand
Why We Let Someone Else
Rule Our Land
Cap in Hand. |
| stewart |
Posted - 12/04/2013 : 20:18:16
quote:
Originally posted by rocker
And just a comemnt on 'Britain today'...I see that in a barometer of 'well-being' (called the Social Progress Index) which measures countries on benchmarks such as nutrition, medical care and access to higher education, Britain is actually almost at the 'top'o'the pops' coming in number two right behind Sweden in that gauge of so-called 'well-being'. The US ranks six. And you really don't want to be in Nigeria or Ethiopia which ranks at the very bottom. Supposedly this doesn't inlclude 'economic' indicators, uie.e how much you make, how much you have saved etc. It's another look at a country's prosperity outside of GDP.
|
| stewart |
Posted - 12/04/2013 : 18:18:04
John 9 - I feel really sorry for Simon and full of admiration for the way he has dealt with his disfigurement and the charitable work he does, but just because he was an individual victim of the conflict does endow him any more credibility about the politics of the conflict. Diplomacy could have prevented and later found a solution to the conflict but Thatcher was not prepared to go down that road of jaw-jaw is better than war-war. The Belgrano was sank for domestic political reasons and Thatcher's famous avoidance of answering questions about it spoke volumes
DaveyTee- The war was nothing to do with human rights. Thatcher had failed to properly protect the Falklands and then failed to enter into a diplomatic solution with Galtieri who you think she would have got on with very well but perhaps his human rights record was not quite bad enough compared to that of her pal Pinochet, the butcher of Chile, who gave tactical support to the UK during the Falklands |
| rocker |
Posted - 12/04/2013 : 16:53:53
And just a comemnt on 'Britain today'...I see that in a barometer of 'well-being' (called the Social Progress Index) which measures countries on benchmarks such as nutrition, medical care and access to higher education, Britain is actually almost at the 'top'o'the pops' coming in number two right behind Sweden in that gauge of so-called 'well-being'. The US ranks six. And you really don't want to be in Nigeria or Ethiopia which ranks at the very bottom. Supposedly this doesn't inlclude 'economic' indicators, uie.e how much you make, how much you have saved etc. It's another look at a country's prosperity outside of GDP. |
| DaveyTee |
Posted - 12/04/2013 : 01:31:41
quote:
Originally posted by stewart
His comments on the Falklands are incredibly naive or very selective. No mention of the defence cutbacks that effectively gave Galtieri a green light to invade in the first place..........
And no mention from you, Stewart, that the whole war only happened because a right-wing Argentinian military junta which had an appalling human rights record tried to divert public attention away from the country's economic problems and bolster its dwindling popularity by invading a British Sovereign Territory inhabited by British subjects. If you don't agree with what Thatcher did, what would you have had the British do in these circumstances?
DT
But I Can't Understand
Why We Let Someone Else
Rule Our Land
Cap in Hand. |
| John9 |
Posted - 11/04/2013 : 22:08:33
Perhaps Simon Weston's comments are selective......though I suppose no more than Glenda Jackson's. But as for "incredibly nieve" - I really would hesitate to call the views of someone who actually went down there and paid such a heavy price for his courage something like that.
As for the Belgrano - well that remains a highly contentious issue. Not least because of The Sun's deeply offensive and upsetting Gotcha headline. And even now I think of the suffering that the young Argentines onboard must have endured - and of the loved ones who grieved for them. But ten years ago the captain of the Belgrano said that his ship's westward course had been only temporary - and that his orders had been to attack any British ships within range. And of course it is important to remember that our task force was still at sea and therefore highly vulnerable. On the previous day it had been attacked by Mirage jets and Argentine warships were starting a pincer movement against it. With the lives of 28,000 troops at stake, I for one would not like to have been faced with a decision like that. |
| stewart |
Posted - 11/04/2013 : 20:46:14
quote:
Originally posted by John9
And, in the interest of balance - a remarkably nuanced assessment from Falklands War veteran Simon Weston:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btF8YS9mHO4
It is less than five minutes long - and during the middle, he is very critical of what Margaret Thatcher did to the mining industry in his native South Wales.
His comments on the Falklands are incredibly naive or very selective. No mention of the defence cutbacks that effectively gave Galtieri a green light to invade in the first place, nor of the shameful Belgrano sinking and the lies Thatcher told about both that and the Peruvian Peace Plan which would have saved lives and injuries |
| John9 |
Posted - 11/04/2013 : 16:25:49
Well, Rocker - it is very difficult to answer that definitively. I suppose that it depends in part on who you are and how well or badly you've fared in post 1970s Britain. As for the debt, there'll be no end to ours until we we begin to return to economic growth again...you're seeing the start of that aren't you in the US...despite nearly going over the fiscal cliff in January! The way in which political parties always seem to blame each other for our ills sometimes fills me despair. Until that is, I remember what Churchill said about Democracy being the worst possible form of government................apart from all the alternatives!
I'm not sure as to whether our isle is still sceptered or not.....or set in a silver sea. And as for being This other Eden.....well! But I must admit, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. With its wonderful diversity, sense of toleration and history, together with its gloriously unpredictable weather, I'm still glad that it's my home.  |
| rocker |
Posted - 11/04/2013 : 16:01:00
Well I'd just like to know from our fellow Uk'ers here. So what hath Thatcher wrought....for today in your 'sceptered isle'? I understand that to some it is no longer 'sceptered'. Am I wrong thinking you guys are probably even more 'separated' when it comes classes nowadays? Really both countires, the US and Britain (I'll add the Irish too!) have trod the same path to almost ruin. We're going to be paying for it for quite a while my sons. |
| John9 |
Posted - 11/04/2013 : 10:18:56
I think that there is a large measure of agreement between us there, DaveyTee - cheers.
And you're right about Churchill...he definitely wasn't the man to lead us through post- war recovery. There is a new film out from radical director Ken Loach called Spirit of 45. It is a documentary with plenty of fascinating archive footage and it it centres on the sense of idealism that seemed to be helping to forge a new society during the late 40s. Near the beginning Tony Benn says to the camera:
"The idea was that if you can have full employment fighting the Germans then why can't you have full employment in a battle against poverty and ill health" |
| DaveyTee |
Posted - 11/04/2013 : 09:59:27
I think he basically makes the fact that Thatcher was a great war leader, and I don't think I would argue too much with that. Unlike some other critics, I fully supported (and still support) her actions over the Falklands crisis, and believe that in taking decisive military action in a situation where British interests were directly involved, she was doing the right thing. That is in marked contrast to the actions of subsequent leaders in getting us needlessly involved in military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Having said that, great wartime leaders do not necessarily make great peacetime leaders - Winston Churchill was perhaps an example of that. Where Thatcher's undoubted strength and single mindedness worked in her favour over the Falklands issue, it worked neither in her favour nor the country's in peacetime.
DT
But I Can't Understand
Why We Let Someone Else
Rule Our Land
Cap in Hand. |
| John9 |
Posted - 10/04/2013 : 23:25:50
And, in the interest of balance - a remarkably nuanced assessment from Falklands War veteran Simon Weston:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btF8YS9mHO4
It is less than five minutes long - and during the middle, he is very critical of what Margaret Thatcher did to the mining industry in his native South Wales.
|
| stewart |
Posted - 10/04/2013 : 20:53:51
Glenda Jackson on her http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj8&feature=youtu.be |
