| Author |
 Topic  |
|
DaveyTee
Fourth Love
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
 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. |
Edited by - DaveyTee on 12/04/2013 22:30:31 |
 |
|
|
John9
Old Love
United Kingdom
2154 Posts |
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.
|
Edited by - John9 on 13/04/2013 01:46:41 |
|
|
|
stewart
Old Love
United Kingdom
568 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Condolences to UK - Thatcher dies at 87
