|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 17, 2024 16:07:25 GMT
Should she have sent British servicemen there at all if the only to do it safely was to lend support to a mass murderer and torturer? How many Chileans lost their lives because of support from the likes of Thatcher? Should we have supported Stalin during WWII? It was known what sort of a man he was and the deaths he was responsible for by 1941 when we started the Arctic Convoys to supply him with the means to fight on. WWII wasn't about a piece of rock in the middle of nowhere. It wasn't a matter of supporting a mass murderer and torturer for the sake of gammon national pride in the same way as the Falklands was. I don't know anything about the history of the Falklands. If it was unoccupied when 'discovered' by Britain, then Britain has as much, more, right to it than anyone else. But moderation in all things. A reasonable person takes a step back and asks himself if maintaining a mass murderer in power is worth it, especially when other options are available. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 17, 2024 16:07:32 GMT
He was a torturer and murderer on an industrial scale. Yep and Thatcher's support for him (and the SA regime) showed what an unprincipled bitch she was. Having Pinochet's support was useful but not critical to regaining the Falklands. In many ways our operations were actually useful to Chile that knew if Argentina won then an invasion of Chile to seize all of Tierra del Fuego would be next. It's hard to say whether it was critical or not. It enabled us to have Harriers in the air to meet incoming Argentinian warplanes. If one of those planes had got through and sunk or severely damaged Hermes or Invincible the campaign would likely have failed. It certainly saved lives. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 17, 2024 16:10:02 GMT
Yep and Thatcher's support for him (and the SA regime) showed what an unprincipled bitch she was. Having Pinochet's support was useful but not critical to regaining the Falklands. In many ways our operations were actually useful to Chile that knew if Argentina won then an invasion of Chile to seize all of Tierra del Fuego would be next. It's hard to say whether it was critical or not. It enabled us to have Harriers in the air to meet incoming Argentinian warplanes. If one of those planes had got through and sunk or severely damaged Hermes or Invincible the campaign would likely have failed. It certainly saved lives. When you say lives were saved, are you talking about British lives or Chilean lives. You can't be talking about Chilean lives because, as has been pointed out, the man that was supported was busy taking them in the thousands. I'm really surprised to find you defending Thatcher on this, Monte. The British servicemen didn't need to be there. There were other options. Unlike the Chileans living in Chile, they didn't have to be there. Yet, you seem to think that saving the lives of British servicemen needlessly put in harm's way by the gammon icon was worth the price paid by the Chilean people. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 17, 2024 16:13:55 GMT
Should we have supported Stalin during WWII? It was known what sort of a man he was and the deaths he was responsible for by 1941 when we started the Arctic Convoys to supply him with the means to fight on. WWII wasn't about a piece of rock in the middle of nowhere. It wasn't a matter of supporting a mass murderer and torturer for the sake of gammon national pride in the same way as the Falklands was. I don't know anything about the history of the Falklands. If it was unoccupied when 'discovered' by Britain, then Britain has as much, more, right to it than anyone else. But moderation in all things. A reasonable person sits back and asks himself if maintaining a mass murderer in power is worth it, especially when other options are available. The history of the Falklands is unimportant in context of an armed invasion by hostile forces. Every single person on the islands in 1982 considered themselves British. It was settled by both Britain and France but the French settlement was short lived while the British settlement was continuous going back some 150 years. Argentina had no legitimate claim to the islands. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Sept 17, 2024 16:14:27 GMT
Yep and Thatcher's support for him (and the SA regime) showed what an unprincipled bitch she was. Having Pinochet's support was useful but not critical to regaining the Falklands. In many ways our operations were actually useful to Chile that knew if Argentina won then an invasion of Chile to seize all of Tierra del Fuego would be next. It's hard to say whether it was critical or not. It enabled us to have Harriers in the air to meet incoming Argentinian warplanes. If one of those planes had got through and sunk or severely damaged Hermes or Invincible the campaign would likely have failed. It certainly saved lives. I agree it's hard to say. My belief is we had other source of that intelligence but I have no evidence. We'll probably never know. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 17, 2024 16:22:17 GMT
WWII wasn't about a piece of rock in the middle of nowhere. It wasn't a matter of supporting a mass murderer and torturer for the sake of gammon national pride in the same way as the Falklands was. I don't know anything about the history of the Falklands. If it was unoccupied when 'discovered' by Britain, then Britain has as much, more, right to it than anyone else. But moderation in all things. A reasonable person sits back and asks himself if maintaining a mass murderer in power is worth it, especially when other options are available. The history of the Falklands is unimportant in context of an armed invasion by hostile forces. Every single person on the islands in 1982 considered themselves British. It was settled by both Britain and France but the French settlement was short lived while the British settlement was continuous going back some 150 years. Argentina had no legitimate claim to the islands. I'm not saying Argentina had a legitimate claim. If the island was uninhabited on 'discovery', Britain has the strongest claim. But that's not the point. The point is that it wasn't of any real strategic or economic value. If it could have been recovered by British armed intervention, then all very well, that's what should have happened and what any reasonable person would expect to happen in the face of the Argentinian invasion. But, given that it was not of any great value, other factors had to be considered. At the very forefront of these was the question: 'What is a reasonable price to pay to defend this essentially valueless (in the great scheme of things) piece of rock. If it means maintaining in power a man known to be killing and torturing in the thousands, is that too high a price to pay relative to the island's worth? Of course, the answer to that question will depend very much on how strong your gammon instinct is. If you believe that saving national pride in the face of what, relatively speaking, was a non-essential loss, was more important than the lives of thousands of Chileans, you have to accept that there is at least a little bit of gammon in you. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 17, 2024 16:23:04 GMT
It's hard to say whether it was critical or not. It enabled us to have Harriers in the air to meet incoming Argentinian warplanes. If one of those planes had got through and sunk or severely damaged Hermes or Invincible the campaign would likely have failed. It certainly saved lives. When you say lives were saved, are you talking about British lives or Chilean lives. You can't be talking about Chilean lives because, as has been pointed out, the man that was supported was busy taking them in the thousands. I'm really surprised to find you defending Thatcher on this, Monte. The British servicemen didn't need to be there. There were other options. Unlike the Chileans living in Chile, they didn't have to be there. Yet, you seem to think that saving the lives of British servicemen needlessly put in harm's way by the gammon icon was worth the price paid by the Chilean people. I'm not really defending Thatcher. I'm explaining the context around her support for Pinochet. Once the Falklands were secured I think she should have distanced herself from Pinochet and certainly shouldn't have sold riot control vehicles equipped with water canon to the regime. The Falklands were legally and morally British though and Britain had a duty to protect its inhabitants who definitely considered themselves British. It would be no different if a hostile force invaded the Chanel Islands or the Isle of Man. A nation's first duty is to protect its citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 17, 2024 16:25:37 GMT
When you say lives were saved, are you talking about British lives or Chilean lives. You can't be talking about Chilean lives because, as has been pointed out, the man that was supported was busy taking them in the thousands. I'm really surprised to find you defending Thatcher on this, Monte. The British servicemen didn't need to be there. There were other options. Unlike the Chileans living in Chile, they didn't have to be there. Yet, you seem to think that saving the lives of British servicemen needlessly put in harm's way by the gammon icon was worth the price paid by the Chilean people. I'm not really defending Thatcher. I'm explaining the context around her support for Pinochet. Once the Falklands were secured I think she should have distanced herself from Pinochet and certainly shouldn't have sold riot control vehicles equipped with water canon to the regime. The Falklands were legally and morally British though and Britain had a duty to protect its inhabitants who definitely considered themselves British. It would be no different if a hostile force invaded the Chanel Islands or the Isle of Man. A nation's first duty is to protect its citizens. I absolutely agree that a nation's duty is to protect its citizens. But there were other options. All on the island could have been evacuated. It wasn't necessary to go creeping to a murderous tyrant to protect the lives of the islanders. The islanders could have been on the first plane out of harm's way. That wasn't true of the people being killed and tortured in Pinochet's custody. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 17, 2024 16:26:39 GMT
It's hard to say whether it was critical or not. It enabled us to have Harriers in the air to meet incoming Argentinian warplanes. If one of those planes had got through and sunk or severely damaged Hermes or Invincible the campaign would likely have failed. It certainly saved lives. I agree it's hard to say. My belief is we had other source of that intelligence but I have no evidence. We'll probably never know. Even now, much of the aid given by Chile is covered by the Official Secrets Act. It was only in the last few years that information concerning the SAS's activities in Chile was released. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 17, 2024 16:30:10 GMT
The history of the Falklands is unimportant in context of an armed invasion by hostile forces. Every single person on the islands in 1982 considered themselves British. It was settled by both Britain and France but the French settlement was short lived while the British settlement was continuous going back some 150 years. Argentina had no legitimate claim to the islands. I'm not saying Argentina had a legitimate claim. If the island was uninhabited on 'discovery', Britain has the strongest claim. But that's not the point. The point is that it wasn't of any real strategic or economic value. If it could have been recovered by British armed intervention, then all very well, that's what should have happened and what any reasonable person would expect to happen in the face of the Argentinian invasion. But, given that it was not of any great value, other factors had to be considered. At the very forefront of these was the question: 'What is a reasonable price to pay to defend this essentially valueless (in the great scheme of things) piece of rock. If it means maintaining in power a man known to be killing and torturing in the thousands, is that too high a price to pay relative to the island's worth? Of course, the answer to that question will depend very much on how strong your gammon instinct is. If you believe that saving national pride in the face of what, relatively speaking, was a non-essential loss, was more important than the lives of thousands of Chileans, you have to accept that there is at least a little bit of gammon in you. Our possession of the Falklands gives Britain a share of the mineral resources of Antarctica. It has huge economic and geopolitical value to Britain. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 17, 2024 16:31:14 GMT
I'm not saying Argentina had a legitimate claim. If the island was uninhabited on 'discovery', Britain has the strongest claim. But that's not the point. The point is that it wasn't of any real strategic or economic value. If it could have been recovered by British armed intervention, then all very well, that's what should have happened and what any reasonable person would expect to happen in the face of the Argentinian invasion. But, given that it was not of any great value, other factors had to be considered. At the very forefront of these was the question: 'What is a reasonable price to pay to defend this essentially valueless (in the great scheme of things) piece of rock. If it means maintaining in power a man known to be killing and torturing in the thousands, is that too high a price to pay relative to the island's worth? Of course, the answer to that question will depend very much on how strong your gammon instinct is. If you believe that saving national pride in the face of what, relatively speaking, was a non-essential loss, was more important than the lives of thousands of Chileans, you have to accept that there is at least a little bit of gammon in you. Our possession of the Falklands gives Britain a share of the mineral resources of Antarctica. It has huge economic and geopolitical value to Britain. More value than the lives of thousands of Chileans, apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 17, 2024 16:36:52 GMT
I'm not saying Argentina had a legitimate claim. If the island was uninhabited on 'discovery', Britain has the strongest claim. But that's not the point. The point is that it wasn't of any real strategic or economic value. If it could have been recovered by British armed intervention, then all very well, that's what should have happened and what any reasonable person would expect to happen in the face of the Argentinian invasion. But, given that it was not of any great value, other factors had to be considered. At the very forefront of these was the question: 'What is a reasonable price to pay to defend this essentially valueless (in the great scheme of things) piece of rock. If it means maintaining in power a man known to be killing and torturing in the thousands, is that too high a price to pay relative to the island's worth? Of course, the answer to that question will depend very much on how strong your gammon instinct is. If you believe that saving national pride in the face of what, relatively speaking, was a non-essential loss, was more important than the lives of thousands of Chileans, you have to accept that there is at least a little bit of gammon in you. Our possession of the Falklands gives Britain a share of the mineral resources of Antarctica. It has huge economic and geopolitical value to Britain. What mineral resources would those be? Oil? Funny to find you defending Juststopoil one moment, and defending lending support to a murderous regime for the sake of oil reserves the next. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 17, 2024 16:40:27 GMT
I'm not really defending Thatcher. I'm explaining the context around her support for Pinochet. Once the Falklands were secured I think she should have distanced herself from Pinochet and certainly shouldn't have sold riot control vehicles equipped with water canon to the regime. The Falklands were legally and morally British though and Britain had a duty to protect its inhabitants who definitely considered themselves British. It would be no different if a hostile force invaded the Chanel Islands or the Isle of Man. A nation's first duty is to protect its citizens. I absolutely agree that a nation's duty is to protect its citizens. But there were other options. All on the island could have been evacuated. It wasn't necessary to go creeping to a murderous tyrant to protect the lives of the islanders. The islanders could have been on the first plane out of harm's way. That wasn't true of the people being killed and tortured in Pinochet's custody. Sure, we could have completely capitulated, evacuated our people and abandoned our possession of the islands. Then what? Give Gibraltar back to Spain, return the Channel Islands to France, give up Northern Ireland and never mind the wishes of the inhabitants? |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 17, 2024 16:45:58 GMT
Our possession of the Falklands gives Britain a share of the mineral resources of Antarctica. It has huge economic and geopolitical value to Britain. What mineral resources would those be? Oil? Funny to find you defending Juststopoil one moment, and defending lending support to a murderous regime for the sake of oil reserves the next. Oil exploration in Antarctica is banned largely because Britain has a seat on the council of nations who determine the continent's future. Britain is an opposition voice against those who wish to exploit the mineral wealth of Antarctica. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 17, 2024 16:46:17 GMT
I absolutely agree that a nation's duty is to protect its citizens. But there were other options. All on the island could have been evacuated. It wasn't necessary to go creeping to a murderous tyrant to protect the lives of the islanders. The islanders could have been on the first plane out of harm's way. That wasn't true of the people being killed and tortured in Pinochet's custody. Sure, we could have completely capitulated, evacuated our people and abandoned our possession of the islands. Then what? Give Gibraltar back to Spain, return the Channel Islands to France, give up Northern Ireland and never mind the wishes of the inhabitants? Spoken like a true gammon  Suppose Putin is successful. Suppose he annexes a large of Ukraine and fills it with Russians to the point that they become the majority. Is that the end of the story, then? The majority is now Russian and it is their will that those parts of it now occupied by them should remain Russian, so, in your world, that is the end of the discussion. Let the Israeli settlers push Palestinians out of large sections of their land. What moral position to take? Let's see: the Israelis are now a majority, so the solution is obvious: let democracy take its course. Bad luck to those who should be the majority in those places. They were pushed out and replaced by another majority. Is that it? Or is it legitimate to ask how come there came be such and such a majority in a given area in the first place? If it isn't, Putin should be fine after he fills eastern Ukraine with his people. |
|
