Which leads me neatly on to the Foreign Secertary statement today about the Falklands which opens by saying,
"2nd April marks the 25th anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands. The resulting loss of life on both sides is a source of continuing regret."We have absolutely nothing to regret or apologise for about the Falklands conflict. The military Junta of Galtieri was a fasicist regime, and deserves no historical revisionism, especially from our Foreign Secretary.
18 comments:
I do not suppose there is much chance of a note of regret for her running of DEFRA, and the bill to the taxpayer from the EU for screwing the whole thing up.
"...faults on both sides.....looking back perhaps we were a little hasty...Argies only there for a sealwatch visit apparently....vast over-reaction sinking their cruiseship "Carnival General Belgrano", mistaken for a military craft...all the fault of the Tories"
"What is it about those on the Left and their fluid attitudes against fascism?"
Also see: What is it about those on the right and their fluid attitudes against fascism?
.
That is NOT an apology Dizzy. Regretting people are dead is not apologising.
However it is almost certain that a lot of those deaths could have been avoided and that power-sharing in the Malvinas after two generations, with compensation, and economic growth all round would have been a price worth paying to save Belgrano, Sir Galahad and heroes of Goose Green.
Very badly handled. Unless you're just trying to turn round a waning govt's fortunes that is. That worked right enough.
Blogged about this - OK did A2 poster pull out in student rag in 1982 or 3.
Ha ha ha Tuscan Tony. It is a no brainer that the rust bucket Belgrano would not have been menacing anything if we were instead sitting in the UN. That Excocet Missiles wouldn't be killing NATO allies if the arms trade was not a pernicious game of craps. That a deal could have been done.
It suited Maggie to beat the drum, rattle the sabre, and hit the gas hard ... and too soon.
Chris you have just proved my point about fluid attitudes towards facisim. The Argentinian regime were scumbags, period. Do you know how many people died btw, it wasn't many. As for turning round the Goevrnment's fortunes that is a classic myth like "it was the Sun wot won it" in 1992
Leon you;re correct of course on that point, there are people on both sides that apologise.
As ever
LEFTIES HEART DICTATORS
I wonder can we come to some arrangement whereby Eire is readmitted to it's rightful place as a province of the UK?
Chris, in my view you do give away your position on this by referring to them as the "Malvinas" - as one can also identify the Tuscan household view on certain things, i.e. the "Labour" great leader in waiting is known here as The Pick 'n Wipe King.
Apols btw if I was excessively rude to "Chirs Paul" the other day on Guido, my feeble excuse is that I didn't realise at the time the offending comment(s) were those of a "marioneta del calcetÃn" as I beleive the Argies call them.
I think that it's OK to regret the loss of life amongst enemy troops if they were, say, conscripts (as I believe that the Argentinians were, at least to some extent) without feeling bad about going to war or, indeed, excusing the regime running the other side.
The regime were scummy, but that doesn't mean that the people doing the actual dying neccessarily were. My preferred option is to regret those deaths* but not the war itself.
I think that the government were right to react quickly and violently, personally; how you react to an invasion of your territory is something that the whole world watches, so it has importance beyond the immediate business of getting foreign troops orf moi laaand.
*But I wouldnt apologise for them; there aren't many ways to conduct a war without people dying, and bullets and shrapnel don't pick out the meanies and leave the nice guys standing.
Additionally and importantly, we didn't go to war with Argentina because it was a fascist dictatorship. We went to war with Argentina because it invaded our territory.
It's not as if we were above being friendly to nasty South American dictators (such as Pinochet) at that time, so long as they stayed the hell off the lawn.
When an offense against sovereignty occurs, such as the invasion of the Falklands or the grabbing of 15 of our sailors, we have to measure our actions. In the case of the Falklands and with our military capacity at that time and the military capacity of Argentina at that time, plus the blessing of the US, I think that the response of the Thatcher government was appropriate. I don't think that it would be appropriate to simialrly launch a big attack against Iran, incidentally, because the current circumstances are different.
"we didn't go to war with Argentina because it was a fascist dictatorship."
I didn;t say we did. I was pointing out hwo the Left, when the Falklands happened, were quick to ignore their anti-fascists credentials and fail to support Britain.
Also, our support for Pinochet was wrong.
Our support for US stances (particularly the anti-communist stance that was used to justify support for Pinochet), however, didn't do us any harm at all in getting significant and valuable assent and assistence from the US when the Falklands was invaded.
The Richard Gott article in the Grauniad today is quite telling - a Marxist putting property rights ahead of civil rights. Amazing the contortions that the west hating left will tie itself into given half a chance.
They were scummy right enough. Thatcher was scummy - too right. Nothing was quick as it was a long way. And Dizzy, deaths were far, far greater among British troops in a couple of months than in Iraq in a couple of years.
WTF has Iraq got to do with anything? It wasa war for christ sakes.
Actually, I'm going to run with that intellectually puerile and might say childish comparison between Iraq and the Falklands.
The Falklands can be lost under a biscuit crumb on an atlas and has a total area of approximately 4,700sq miles. Iraq, on the other hand, is mostly desert covering 169,234sq miles.
The Argentinians had approximately 10,000 troops massed on those 4,700sq miles. The British contingenet in the fight was approximately the same. That's 20,000ish troops fighting each other in 4700sq miles.
Iraq's same period, that is the March to May, was essentially a walk. Literally, cross the border, walk to somewhere, and secure. Literally no-resistence. We invaded a country that wasn't prepared. IN the Falklands, we tried to retake somehwere that had been invaded by 10,000 troops over a miniscule area.
So basically, making the comparison with Iraqi deaths is not only stupid, its pointeless too. Unless of course you're one of those titty type people that actually thinks that you can have a war without casualities.
Oh, yes, and we lost 258 of 10000 troops in the Falklands offensive. Which, simply doesn't compare to any military operation we've done in Iraq in any way.
Dizzy, you don't have to be left or right to regret the deaths of young men sent into a battle which could have been avoided months beforehand.
Showing regret for the deaths of your "enemy" is not a political stance, it's a human stance.
Perhaps you should try and look at it from that viewpoint rather than the seemingly-bitter one you presently hold.
Post a Comment