History's Greatest Phonies

[Caledfwlch]

so you think that leaders of democracies don't agonise about sending young men out to die? No it's not being 'in the fox-holes' but for the most part it can't be an easy thing to do... nor should it be

I did not say that, and Maggie wasn't talking about making difficult decisions like sending young men to die, and making those decisions is certainly a lot easier than being one of the young men a decision involves.

I loathe and hate the "Sainted Margaret" as she is to Tories, but I actually think she was absolutely right in using military force to defend and/or liberate People and Land who are under the Protection of the British Crown. I have never understood the Belgrano issue, and don't see how its sinking was in any way wrong - had the Belgrano been sunk whilst in for example French territorial waters, the only "crime" committed would be violating sovereign French waters. We were at war, the Belgrano was a Warship, and thus a valid target, so what if it was sailing away, boats can be turned round.

The Liberation of the Falklands was also vital for important reasons. An argument that it was important in order to preserve global security. and prevent more wars sparking off could perhaps be made. But it was mostly vital in the future protection of both British and Crown Citizens, whether living in a Colony such as the Falklands or Gibralter, or Foreign Nationals/Crown Citizens in the Independent/Sovereign Nations within the British Commonwealth.

Belize for example is a former Crown Territory turned sovereign Nation, but Britain is obligated by Treaty with Belize to assist in it's defence, as Guatamala traditionally claimed big chunks of Belize, and seeing Britain unwilling to even protect its own Citizens, may well have invaded. Equally, friendly or not, Spain might have annexed Gibraltar under a nationalist/right wing government, not to mention various other places around the world.

 

[WaylanderToo]

I did not say that, and Maggie wasn't talking about making difficult decisions like sending young men to die, and making those decisions is certainly a lot easier than being one of the young men a decision involves.

I loathe and hate the "Sainted Margaret" as she is to Tories, but I actually think she was absolutely right in using military force to defend and/or liberate People and Land who are under the Protection of the British Crown. I have never understood the Belgrano issue, and don't see how its sinking was in any way wrong - had the Belgrano been sunk whilst in for example French territorial waters, the only "crime" committed would be violating sovereign French waters. We were at war, the Belgrano was a Warship, and thus a valid target, so what if it was sailing away, boats can be turned round.

The Liberation of the Falklands was also vital for important reasons. An argument that it was important in order to preserve global security. and prevent more wars sparking off could perhaps be made. But it was mostly vital in the future protection of both British and Crown Citizens, whether living in a Colony such as the Falklands or Gibralter, or Foreign Nationals/Crown Citizens in the Independent/Sovereign Nations within the British Commonwealth.

Belize for example is a former Crown Territory turned sovereign Nation, but Britain is obligated by Treaty with Belize to assist in it's defence, as Guatamala traditionally claimed big chunks of Belize, and seeing Britain unwilling to even protect its own Citizens, may well have invaded. Equally, friendly or not, Spain might have annexed Gibraltar under a nationalist/right wing government, not to mention various other places around the world.

apart from your view on the sainted Maggie T we're in total agreement

 

[JunkMonkey]

The Liberation of the Falklands was also vital for important reasons. An argument that it was important in order to preserve global security. and prevent more wars sparking off could perhaps be made. But it was mostly vital in the future protection of both British and Crown Citizens, whether living in a Colony such as the Falklands or Gibralter, or Foreign Nationals/Crown Citizens in the Independent/Sovereign Nations within the British Commonwealth.

As a fellow loather I just would like to point out that the fact that there was the certainty of sh*tloads of oil in the Falklands' waters might have made her decision a little easier. But then that's the reason the Argentinians want them anyway.

 

[Caledfwlch]

As a fellow loather I just would like to point out that the fact that there was the certainty of sh*tloads of oil in the Falklands' waters might have made her decision a little easier. But then that's the reason the Argentinians want them anyway.

Absolutely, but the British Government also has a duty of care to protect its citizens, whether that is medically via something like the NHS, or militarily when they are attacked by a totalitarian regime. Mitterand or whoever was President of France was playing a dangerous game by appearing to not support Britain during the Falklands - remember the common name to describe France in Europe is, "Metropolitan France" because, France too still has various colonies around the world, which like the Falklands are literally in legal terms no different to the isle of Wight, or Ynys Mon/Anglesey - and a British decision to not fight might have opened French overseas territorys up to danger too. Though, behind the scenes, I believe senior French military officers, and Defence Department Ministers, quietly filled Britain in on the capabilities etc of what Argentina's French bought equipment and vehicles could do, the same way that whilst the US Presidency/Government took an official neutral view, and if anything appeared to be against Britain protecting its rights and people (Big Oil probably thought they could deal with the Argies and get a good deal, not to mention the power of the Latin American Lobby in the US) but the US Military possibly without official permission from the White House, quietly assisted Britain with intelligence resources.

I just read a ridiculously daft book by Patrick Robinson. The man is very right wing, worships and idolises Maggie, and presumably with an eye on US Readers very, very pro american in his books. In around 2006, when some cuts and reorganisation of British Forces were going on, he decided that New Labour had basically committed Treason and left Britain unable to defend itself, or protect its territories, dependencies and colonies. And he wrote a novel where with secret Russian help (via a Russian Akula Nuclear Sub) the Argies invade the Falklands, and then destroy the British Fleet sent to liberate them. For someone supposedly an expert on military affairs, and a big supporter of the British Armed Forces, his book does those servicemen a massive disservice and is very insulting to them.

The Chiefs of the Navy & Army meet up, decide that due to the cuts a successful liberation is impossible, but then tell the Minister of Defence however, that they will not tell the PM that they cannot go, because they "took the Queen's Shilling" they will instead lead thousands of servicemen and women to their doom instead. Disgraceful. Not to mention the cuts were not half as bad as he made out, in order to make a political point.

He has the Senior Admirals and the Army's most senior General tell the PM they will go and fight, even though according to Robinson, the RN did not have any Air support, whatsover. No Officer would risk thousands of deaths on a mission that is suicidal and not ever going to be a success. Then, when the fleet arrives, the anti air vessels etc don't even stop Argie planes and exocets missiles. Yet the RN will have the best of such vessels outside of the US Navy, the whole book is a total joke.