Jump to content


Pinochet Dead at last

Recommended Posts

RIP Pinochet - a true friend of our country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RIP Pinochet - a true friend of our country.

 

Are you a relative? :suspect: Or is your name really Margaret Hilda? :suspect:

 

StarSparkle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh really Mr Sidebottom - I sure you know as well as I that politics is a complicated business, and there are often multiple reasons for decisions/actions taken. And very often the publically stated reason is far from the most important reason.

 

The Argies tried exactly the same trick with Jim Callaghan's Labour Government that they later tried with Thatcher's Government, regarding trying to assert their claim over ownership of the Falklands. David Owen, the Foreign Secretary of the time, I believe promptly sent a gunboat down to the Falklands, and warned Argentina in no uncertain terms, that if they tried to invade the Falklands, they would meet military resistance. The Argentinian threat faded away.

 

Thatcher's government, on the other hand, gave no indication whatsoever that they were prepared to defend the Falklands in the event of an invasion - almost as if they wanted the Argies to try it on. Either way - the Thatcher government was either incompetent in not dealing with the Argie threat as competently as the Labour government had - OR they deliberately encouraged the Argies to think they could get away with a full invasion.

 

Either scenario is pretty unimpressive.

 

In any case, once the invasion had occurred, there is no way a woman of Thatcher's temperament was going to allow the Argentinians to get away with it, hence the "War of Thatcher's Nose". The 'plucky little Falklanders' line was just the excuse for us to wage war - in reality, no-one cared about the Islanders for a second.

 

The real reason for the strong defence of the Falklands was to defend the Antarctica mineral rights for Britain - the mineral wealth, of course, being the main reason the Argies also wanted ownership of the 'Malvinas'.

 

Back in those days :D , fighting a good War was a great way to unite the people of a country behind their government (doesn't work so well today - people are perhaps a little more sophisticated?) - but in the 80s the tabloid press whipped the populace up into a frenzy of nationalistic pride. We were an economic embarrassment in the world, but Our Boys could still whup Johnny Foreigner. For many people, Thatcher restored national pride, sad as it may seem to us now.

 

General Gaultieri had exactly the same problem as Thatcher - a crap economy that he wanted to distract the people from with a good war. He just wasn't as good at it as Thatcher was. Fighting a war was a high-risk strategy for both of them - but once Thatcher started fighting that War, there was no way of Earth she was going to allow Britain to lose it.

 

Certainly not with the lure of all that mineral wealth just waiting to be exploited by the winner.

 

Politics is a supremely complicated business, Mr Sidebottom - I suggest you up your game (a lot) if you want to try to understand what's going on in the world.

 

StarSparkle

 

For anyone to suggest that the Argentineans believed that a right wing British government would not defend the Falklands is ridiculous (politics may be comple, but I'm sure that is easy to understand).

 

And to suggest one Gunboat thwarted an invasion of thousands of Argentinean troops and artillery is also ridiculous.

 

To further suggest that to send a Gunboat down again to stop what would have been a mounting threat is also ridiculous (and somewhat suicidal). There would have been nothing that we could have done short term to stop that invasion happening, far short of deploying a task force of a similar size as went down there for the war.

 

The Argies would have been well aware of the consequences should they invade. They had their own agenda - nothing to do with who was in power here at the time.

 

There was little we could do about it other than warn of the consequences and then take action. We did, and most of the country was proud of us for it, regardless of their political standing.

 

Of course I say most, because there will always be some on the ultra left who find some bizarre theory, or some conspiracy, or critical angle (you know the types, the 'Why did we sink the General Belgrano?' types) which is undoubtedly anti British (they also came out with the likes of 'Don't fight Iraq, try sanctions' with the first Iraq war, although now, after we tried it for 10 years after that war and it didn't work, they don't sing so loudly about it).

 

And then you go on to criticise us for defending our mineral rights. And as I said before, why is that something to be ashamed of? A leader wanting to defend something that belonged to us, and would benefit our country. And you find this a critical flaw. Very odd.

 

I agree that politics is a complicated business Ms StartSparkle. Complicated enough to exist without the permanantley outraged and enbittered creating hateful conspiracies to sour what is arguably one of the finest achievements this country has had in recent years.

 

I have said this before, it is so sad that the left cannot get over the fact that they haven't had a governemnet in power since the 1970's, and they have to use all their bitter energy on creating issues where none exist, and twisting history in a sad attempt to discredit what has arguably turned out to be the government that saved our nation from the scrap heap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For anyone to suggest that the Argentineans believed that a right wing British government would not defend the Falklands is ridiculous (politics may be comple, but I'm sure that is easy to understand).

 

And to suggest one Gunboat thwarted an invasion of thousands of Argentinean troops and artillery is also ridiculous.

 

To further suggest that to send a Gunboat down again to stop what would have been a mounting threat is also ridiculous (and somewhat suicidal). There would have been nothing that we could have done short term to stop that invasion happening, far short of deploying a task force of a similar size as went down there for the war.

 

The Argies would have been well aware of the consequences should they invade. They had their own agenda - nothing to do with who was in power here at the time.

 

...........

 

Actually, in the years building up to the conflict, the British government was undergoing the process of downgrading our military capability in the Falklands.

 

There is evidence to suggest that both the Callaghan and Thatcher governments gave serious thought to withdrawing all British military assets from the Islands, and implementing a phased hand over to the Argentineans.

 

Much procrastination followed, and there was a building sense that we were trying to 'offload' the islands peacefully, and this was not lost on the Junta, and the catalyst for invasion seems to have been the plan to withdraw HMS Endurance, the sole British naval asset in the area.

 

So you see, the presence of one 'gunboat' could have made a big difference to the the eventual invasion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For anyone to suggest that the Argentineans believed that a right wing British government would not defend the Falklands is ridiculous (politics may be comple, but I'm sure that is easy to understand).

 

And to suggest one Gunboat thwarted an invasion of thousands of Argentinean troops and artillery is also ridiculous.

 

To further suggest that to send a Gunboat down again to stop what would have been a mounting threat is also ridiculous (and somewhat suicidal). There would have been nothing that we could have done short term to stop that invasion happening, far short of deploying a task force of a similar size as went down there for the war.

 

The Argies would have been well aware of the consequences should they invade. They had their own agenda - nothing to do with who was in power here at the time.

 

There was little we could do about it other than warn of the consequences and then take action. We did, and most of the country was proud of us for it, regardless of their political standing.

 

Of course I say most, because there will always be some on the ultra left who find some bizarre theory, or some conspiracy, or critical angle (you know the types, the 'Why did we sink the General Belgrano?' types) which is undoubtedly anti British (they also came out with the likes of 'Don't fight Iraq, try sanctions' with the first Iraq war, although now, after we tried it for 10 years after that war and it didn't work, they don't sing so loudly about it).

 

And then you go on to criticise us for defending our mineral rights. And as I said before, why is that something to be ashamed of? A leader wanting to defend something that belonged to us, and would benefit our country. And you find this a critical flaw. Very odd.

 

I agree that politics is a complicated business Ms StartSparkle. Complicated enough to exist without the permanantley outraged and enbittered creating hateful conspiracies to sour what is arguably one of the finest achievements this country has had in recent years.

 

I have said this before, it is so sad that the left cannot get over the fact that they haven't had a governemnet in power since the 1970's, and they have to use all their bitter energy on creating issues where none exist, and twisting history in a sad attempt to discredit what has arguably turned out to be the government that saved our nation from the scrap heap.

 

Sit down, breathe in slowly, breathe out slowly. And repeat.

 

Really, Mr Sidebottom, try and think a bit before you post - you're not doing your intellectual credibility much good with all this garbage you spout.

 

Politics is complex, and subtle when it's being done well, but obviously it has to be of the 'brick over the head' type politics before you can see what's going on.

 

ok, where do I start.... I wasn't for one moment suggesting the gunboat was sent by Dr David Owen to fight the entire Argentine navy :rolleyes: Our military are good, very good, but even they can't attempt the impossible. It was sent as a GESTURE, as an indication of the Labour government's intentions. We were fully prepared to use military force to protect our interests in the region was the message sent by the gunboat. And it worked like a dream - the Argies immediately backed off, without us having to send a fleet down there.

 

The Thatcher government could have done exactly the same thing when the Argies started kicking off again about the Malvinas, but it didn't. It completely ignored what was going on. As I said before, either that was gross incompetence, not simply repeating what worked so successfully for the Labour government - or the Thatcher administration WANTED the Argies to call our bluff. Unfortunately, General Gautieri wasn't the brightest of men, so he fell right into Thatcher's trap.

 

If you read my posts a bit more carefully, you'll see that nowhere have I criticised the Thatcher government for fighting the War to protect our mineral rights in Antarctica. It could be argued that was a legitimate use of our military forces, protecting this country's genuine interests abroad. What I do criticise is the dishonesty of the Thatcher government in pretending the War was all about the 'plucky little Falklanders' and their sheep. Awww! How cute... B******* was it about the Falklanders.

 

I might have had some respect for Thatcher if she admitted the War was about protecting our mineral rights for the future - whilst also serving a vital purpose in uniting the country under her leadership. At that point in Britain, the economic situation was so catastrophic that only a traditional 'Good War' would save the government, as explained in a post of mine above.

 

Exactly the same reasons as General Gautieri went to war over the Falklands - Argentina's economy was also in an appalling mess, and the General wanted to distract the population with a 'Good War'. And, of course, he wanted to grab the Antarctica mineral rights belonging to the Falkland Islands for Argentina's future use.

 

Same tactics, different outcomes. Thatcher won everything - Gaultieri lost everything. High risk strategy, but deliciously successful for the winner.

 

Shame it sentenced this country to the tender mercies of Thatcher. Thank you, General Gaultieri - you moron.

 

Is there anything else you'd like me to explain to you, Mr Sidebottom, or is that sufficiently clear?

 

StarSparkle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been much talk of hypocrisy on this thread regarding the policies of the British and other Western governments towards Pinochet when he was in power. Regardless of whether or not this is true, there have certainly been many glaring examples of hypocrisy in the torrent of bile directed against Pinochet in recent days, not least from those (including, sadly, certain forumers) who have been known to eulogise Fidel Castro.

 

Pinochet was essentially an authoritarian military dictator, of which Latin America has produced all too many. Brutal yes, but no more so (indeed considerably less so) than the feted tyrant Castro. The number of deaths attributed to Pinochet or his regime appear to be around 3,200 according to the most authoritative sources (most put it in the range of between three and five thousand). Conversely, the megalomaniacal Castro is essentially a totalitarian tyrant. The number of deaths attributed to him and his regime varies tremendously depending on the sources consulted, but it is almost certainly considerably higher (at the lower end 5,000, at the higher end many tens of thousands, excluding those who have died in his prisons and also excluding the drowned boat people seeking to flee his socialist paradise). Indeed, as a practitioner of summary executions and brutal repression of dissent, including incarceration for years in terrible prison camps, Castro makes Pinochet look like an amateur and a dilettante.

 

Moreover, Pinochet returned the country to democracy in the late 1980s and voluntarily relinquished power. Conversely, Castro has denied the Cuban people free elections for almost half a century and appears to be seeking to create a Castro dynasty. Among his many other flagrant abuses of human rights, he has also denied the Cuban people the right to leave the country freely. Pinochet played a not insignificant role in laying the foundations for a functioning market economy in Chile, which, after an admittedly shaky start, enabled the country to become one of the best economic performers in Latin America. Conversely, Castro has held the Cuban economy back by decades and has reduced it to one of the poorest countries in the whole of Latin America. No wonder so many Cubans have risked their lives (through drowning, prison sentences or summary execution) to escape the role Castro has assigned for them as bit part players in his revolutionary fantasies.

 

No doubt when Castro finally dies, at least some of those currently enjoying a moral thrill by participating in the hatefest directed against Pinochet will gain another cheap thrill by eulogising Castro. No doubt some of them, including Ken Livingstone and George Galloway, will even attend the wake. :gag:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course the vast majority of the British population were behind the Falklands War - nobody's denying that - Thatcher wouldn't have won the Election on it if the public hadn't been so strongly behind it.

 

I said it was very different from how the public view our involvement in Iraq today.

 

ONE of the reasons for the War was to distract the population from the results of Thatcher's economic policies at home - it's a well-worn, often-tried political tactic that can be outstandingly successful - usually if the War is short and seen as a triumph. As per the Falklands. As you say, KenH, the Falklands War was the perfect War.

 

StarSparkle

 

 

But if she hadn't gone to war in the Falklands then surely she would have lost the election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if she hadn't gone to war in the Falklands then surely she would have lost the election?

 

Without the Falklands Factor it is virtually certain Thatcher would have lost the following British General Election.

 

Not quite sure what you're getting at here?

 

StarSparkle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conversely, Castro has held the Cuban economy back by decades and has reduced it to one of the poorest countries in the whole of Latin America.

 

Castro and the US, whose economic embargo prove that you can't even have "Stalinism in one country", let alone socialism.

 

I for one will crack open a bottle of vintage (a week last Tuesday) Cava when the bearded one goes. Do they let you into Cubana on Trippet Lane if you're gay or a trade unionist? And if they do, do they beat you up in the toilets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to be reading posts about mineral rights in the Falklands. It seems to suit some people to think that there must be some hidden treasure and that the war was about money. The truth is that the Falklands is a God forsaken hole of no real value but the people thought of themselves as British and were invaded by foreigners. The war had nothing to do with money and the Islands probably never will be of any value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I seem to be reading posts about mineral rights in the Falklands. It seems to suit some people to think that there must be some hidden treasure and that the war was about money. The truth is that the Falklands is a God forsaken hole of no real value but the people thought of themselves as British and were invaded by foreigners. The war had nothing to do with money and the Islands probably never will be of any value.

 

If you're referring to my posts, I'm not suggesting there's anything of any value on the Falkland Islands themselves.... what I'm talking about are the mineral rights to Antarctica, a percentage of which would apparently belong to the Falkland Islands, due to their geographical position.

 

StarSparkle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Starsparkle, but you are wrong.

 

Nobody has any sovereignty or rights to the (well known) natural resources of Antarctica. This is enshrined in international treaties and the Antarctic remains as a continent where only scientific research is allowed. The future may change, but that's been the position for decades and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.