Was it just to defend the Falklands went argentine attacked

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

Manic Moran wrote: »

The population either wished to be Her Britannic Majesty's subjects, or they did not. Why should the absolute numbers enter into it?

NTM

Why should they!? Because the inhabitants affected were absolutely tiny and the number of people killed in taking it sum it to a considerable fraction of their population. You compared a small barren rock with less than 4 thousand inhabitants to an island far larger than Ireland which is sovereign, independent and home to almost 4 million. Do you contiunue to stand over that or will you admit the comparison is not valid? Do you want to comment of the assertation mae by many here that the war wasn't fought for shale oil or 4 thousand kelpies but to give maggie a boost in a forthcoming election.

Manic Moran wrote: »

OK, so we've concluded then that your principles are sufficiently malleable that we're not entirely sure where you make your stands.


NTM

I'd sooner be known as a pragmatist than as a principled idiot lashing out with the big stick at the slightest provocation. But I do have morals. I happen to beileve that waging a war instead of letting peaceful diplomacy take its course is immoral. I also believe waging war to boost election results is not just immoral, its obscene.

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

BTW:
US security resolution 502 http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1982/scres82.htm
Demands an imediate witthdrawl of all Argentinan forces from the Falklands.

The subsequant sanctions or diplomatic moves were hardly given the time to take effect that these slow, non-sexy of necessity require to be effective.

Belfast

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Huh? There was no cause for war. The 99 year agreement ran out.:rolleyes:

The 99 year agreement only applied to the New Territories.

ejmaztec

I can think of over a billion reasons for the UK not declaring war on China over HK.

Manic Moran

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Shutuplaura wrote: »

The subsequant sanctions or diplomatic moves were hardly given the time to take effect that these slow, non-sexy of necessity require to be effective.

Right, and I'm sure that the islanders would have been perfectly happy to live under the occupation of the Junta for a year or two while people tried to figure out whether or not the diplomatic methods were working. And by the way, those methods would be affecting the islanders as well.

The military option was only viable for a few months. The Argentine admirals knew it as much as the British ones did.

Because the inhabitants affected were absolutely tiny and the number of people killed in taking it sum it to a considerable fraction of their population

Which is not the problem of the islanders or caused by the islanders. I would submit that their desires for life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (or whatever the British equivalent is) should not be devalued simply because they have chosen to live in a less densely populated area. It is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to treat -all- Her subjects equally, no? Now, are you saying that you do think that sending a Task Force would be justified in the case of a 4-million-inhabitant island?

I'd sooner be known as a pragmatist than as a principled idiot lashing out with the big stick at the slightest provocation

I can see it later... "Hey, the British did feck-all when that island of a few thousand was involved. I think we can get away with capturing this island of a few tens of thousands..." Then.. "Well, how about this island of a few hundred thousand, then? Surely the British wouldn't go to war over those either." If the principle of "we're not going to meet force with force" is not kept, eventually you're going to have one of two situations: Either you will never use force, or the point at which you do decide to use it will result in even greater casualties than would have occured had you simply stomped on the first incident.

NTM

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can see it later... "Hey, the British did feck-all when that island of a few thousand was involved. I think we can get away with capturing this island of a few tens of thousands..." Then.. "Well, how about this island of a few hundred thousand, then? Surely the British wouldn't go to war over those either." If the principle of "we're not going to meet force with force" is not kept, eventually you're going to have one of two situations: Either you will never use force, or the point at which you do decide to use it will result in even greater casualties than would have occured had you simply stomped on the first incident.

NTM

You are making the assumption that going to the UN would be seen as a sign of weakness. Who exactly would have thought that? The Argentines may have but big deal, they are hardly going to invade the UK. The USSR didn't consider the UK anyway as the US was her only rival. You are also forgetting that Britain has and still has a nuclear deterrant. Finally, its also slipped your mind that the Falklands were based on exceptional circumstances - The reaction of the junta to the actions of scrap merchants, the fact that the UK was and is in possession of very few disputed territories etc.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Right, and I'm sure that the islanders would have been perfectly happy to live under the occupation of the Junta for a year or two while people tried to figure out whether or not the diplomatic methods were working. And by the way, those methods would be affecting the islanders as well.


Which is not the problem of the islanders or caused by the islanders. I would submit that their desires for life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (or whatever the British equivalent is) should not be devalued simply because they have chosen to live in a less densely populated area. It is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to treat -all- Her subjects equally, no? Now, are you saying that you do think that sending a Task Force would be justified in the case of a 4-million-inhabitant island?

NTM

This is actually a good point. The only answer I can give is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The human cost of retaking the islands outweighs the cost of resettling the islanders or leaving them under Argentine control pending peaceful resolution. In absolute terms about a thousand people were killed in the war. How many people did each death touch, how many impermanently disabled people did the war create, how many suicides resulted? Forced resettlement of what would have been in effect refugees would have been terrible and I wouldn't wish that on anyone but Its preferable to death or the loss of a father, son or brother. And the refugees could have been comfortably accomodated by the British at a fraction of the cost of sending the task force. As someone also added, the British government in 1971 resettled a similar number of inhabitants from the island of Diego Garcia. Why should it try to claim the high moral ground in the fight for a few more islanders in another island in the middle of nowhere?

You are ignoring and have failed to address a hugely important point though. The war was fought for the political benefit of the Conservative party, not the islanders or not for south Atlantic oil deposits.

McArmalite

Pride Fighter wrote: »

It may have been a facist junta but one of the many reasons the Brits wanted the islands was to support an even worse facist junta in Chile. Just look at the islands on a map. They are 10,000 miles from Britain and about 100 miles of Argentina, who should own them?

Agreed.

dresden8 wrote: »

Ireland is less than 100 miles from the UK.

Does that mean we should own the UK

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Probably just as well they didn't, it would have the first direct conflict between two nuclear powers.

Can you stop beleiving in imperial fairy tales, a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world wouldn't even think of threatening a super power like China with nukes, never mind use them.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and why Britain didn't go to war over Hong Kong, Huh? There was no cause for war. The 99 year agreement ran out.

Complete bollox, nothing to do with agreements or leases, the massive Chinese army could have easily strolled into Hong Kong at a moment's notice and britan could do zero about it. Less hassle in the long term for the Chinese to take it when the agreement ran out. Neither did they rush to war against America for invading Grenada in 1983 either, no Royal Marines v US Marines - that's for sure. Oh how the mighty have fallen

Fratton Fred

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

McArmalite wrote: »

Agreed.



Does that mean we should own the UK

how was it to support Chile? the only reason Thatcher had anything to do with Galtieri was because he offered assistance during the Falklands.

Fratton Fred

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

McArmalite wrote: »

Can you stop beleiving in imperial fairy tales, a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world wouldn't even think of threatening a super power like China with nukes, never mind use them.



Complete bollox, nothing to do with agreements or leases, the massive Chinese army could have easily strolled into Hong Kong at a moment's notice and britan could do zero about it. Less hassle in the long term for the Chinese to take it when the agreement ran out. Neither did they rush to war against America for invading Grenada in 1983 either, no Royal Marines v US Marines - that's for sure. Oh how the mighty have fallen

err, the second quote was not me, so you may want to either quote me correctly, or change the name.

What exactly is a fairy tale? do you not believe Britain has a nuclear arsenal? it's all hypothetical because it was never going to happen, which was my point in the first place.

dresden8

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

McArmalite wrote: »

Agreed.



Does that mean we should own the UK

With the amount of the new rich buying property in the UK, we own a significant portion of it. But the point was facetious.

Manic Moran

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Shutuplaura wrote: »

You are making the assumption that going to the UN would be seen as a sign of weakness. Who exactly would have thought that?

There's an issue of posession being nine tenths of the solution. I am at a loss offhand to find any examples of any UN sanctions which have had the desired effects in a reasonable period of time and without affecting those they were emplaced to try to serve in the first place.

Finally, its also slipped your mind that the Falklands were based on exceptional circumstances - The reaction of the junta to the actions of scrap merchants, the fact that the UK was and is in possession of very few disputed territories etc.

It hasn't slipped my mind, I simply don't think it matters. From my point of view, the issue is one of simple principle and is extremely black and white. Unusual or not, those are the circumstances which existed.

The only answer I can give is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Most Western societies pride themselves on the fact that the rights of the minorities are protected despite the majority. And as it happened, it seems the majority of the Falklanders and the majority of the Brits seemed to rather agree on the course of action to be followed, so there was no conflict between the two anyway.

In absolute terms about a thousand people were killed in the war. How many people did each death touch, how many impermanently disabled people did the war create, how many suicides resulted? Forced resettlement of what would have been in effect refugees would have been terrible and I wouldn't wish that on anyone but Its preferable to death or the loss of a father, son or brother.

If I were to be killed in action, I would certainly hope it was in the effort to help people who were not in a position to help themselves. For the sake of the point of view of the British serviceman, the islanders were in that position, and they were subjects of the same Queen to whom the servicemen swore allegiance. Dying is what soldiers do. It sucks, but the code is that if ten servicemen are killed to help one civilian, then that's the price it costs.

And the refugees could have been comfortably accomodated by the British at a fraction of the cost of sending the task force. As someone also added, the British government in 1971 resettled a similar number of inhabitants from the island of Diego Garcia. Why should it try to claim the high moral ground in the fight for a few more islanders in another island in the middle of nowhere?

So they should compound an earlier error by repeating it in an effort to at least be consistent? In any case, a major difference here, however, is that the British re-settled D.G., the Argentinians attempted to force the issue upon the British in the case of the Falklands. The British had been in some negotiations with the Argentinians on the status of the islands for some time. The UK government wasn't particularly interested in keeping the islands on their own merit, but reasonably enough, they refused to have the change dictated to them at the point of a gun.

You are ignoring and have failed to address a hugely important point though. The war was fought for the political benefit of the Conservative party, not the islanders or not for south Atlantic oil deposits.

With respect, that's a supposition on your part. There is no doubt that the war raised Conservative opinion in the polls, but that does not mean that the war was not fought primarily on the basis of principle.

NTM

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

That the war was fought for political gain is not just the theory of a lone history nerd on boards.ie. Its a fairly accepted theory. Of course unless someone involved in the decision making process comes out and says so it will always remain such. But still, to believe that the war was fought over such appealingly attractive idealogical reasons that you painted is questionable. That isn't black and white by any means.

"Most Western societies pride themselves on the fact that the rights of the minorities are protected despite the majority. And as it happened, it seems the majority of the Falklanders and the majority of the Brits seemed to rather agree on the course of action to be followed, so there was no conflict between the two anyway."

To take concerted diplomatic action against the Argentines would also have been to protect the islanders. To shelter the islanders while sanctions etc did their stuff would also have been to protect them. It was eminently possible to protect the islanders without going to war.

Also, there was no consensus in Britain about whether the war should have been fought. It was popular because the British ultimately won. Remember Maggie telling the reporters in Downing St that they should rejoice that South Georgia was after being retaken? Enthusiasm wouldn't have required such a stren order to manifest itself surely.

"If I were to be killed in action, I would certainly hope it was in the effort to help people who were not in a position to help themselves. For the sake of the point of view of the British serviceman, the islanders were in that position, and they were subjects of the same Queen to whom the servicemen swore allegiance. Dying is what soldiers do. It sucks, but the code is that if ten servicemen are killed to help one civilian, then that's the price it costs."

Dying may be what solders do and I'm not a military man and you are I believe so I'm mostly going to defer to you on this point. It is a very noble sentiment. I believe though that the British solders who were clearly highly motivated and eager to do their job were put in a dangerous position unnecessarily. There has to be a point where you say that lives are not worth the effort, even motivated, trained, willing soldier's lives. I believe that in this case the solders lives could have been spared to the same effect, this being so, they should have been.
One the other side, the Argentines were undermotivated conscripts who often didn't even want to be in the army let alone fighting for some rock in the south atlantic. Perhaps there lives should also be considered?

"There's an issue of posession being nine tenths of the solution. I am at a loss offhand to find any examples of any UN sanctions which have had the desired effects in a reasonable period of time and without affecting those they were emplaced to try to serve in the first place."

Hmm. They are a blunt tool its true. Their effectiveness can be very subjective. That being said though, an unpopular Junta being hit with a round of sanctions in response to an ill judged aggression - who's to say what would have happened? It should have been given a chance though. The 1970's saw a series of quasi-fascist dictatorships coming to an end, in Portugal, Greece, Spain and I'm sure elsewhere. There was a definite precedent for the people of Argentina to take their cue from.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

err, the second quote was not me, so you may want to either quote me correctly, or change the name.

What exactly is a fairy tale? do you not believe Britain has a nuclear arsenal? it's all hypothetical because it was never going to happen, which was my point in the first place.

Never implied britain hadn't a nuclear arsenal, just stated it was a fairy tale in proposing that britian would throw one at a superpower like China.

Fratton Fred

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

McArmalite wrote: »

Never implied britain hadn't a nuclear arsenal, just stated it was a fairy tale in proposing that britian would throw one at a superpower like China.

It's a fairy tale (hopefully) tht Britain is going to throw nuclear missile at anyone, which is why it is not a relative comparison between the Falklands and Hong Kong.

Manic Moran

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Shutuplaura wrote: »

That the war was fought for political gain is not just the theory of a lone history nerd on boards.ie. Its a fairly accepted theory. Of course unless someone involved in the decision making process comes out and says so it will always remain such. But still, to believe that the war was fought over such appealingly attractive idealogical reasons that you painted is questionable. That isn't black and white by any means.

I'm wondering if you're not attributing 'effect' towards 'cause'. Certainly there was a direct correlation between the Falklands War and Thatcher's re-election, I'm just not convinced that it wasn't simply a beneficial side-effect to what they (as Conservatives particularly) considered to be the morally correct thing to do. There were other side-effects as well, for example the USSR undertook a serious upwards re-evaluation of UK military capability, which I'm sure was another factor being considered in terms of how seriously other countries took the UK's military. In any case, it seems that we are not going to come to an agreement on this one.

To take concerted diplomatic action against the Argentines would also have been to protect the islanders. To shelter the islanders while sanctions etc did their stuff would also have been to protect them. It was eminently possible to protect the islanders without going to war.

How could they have sheltered the islanders from the sanctions, when the islanders were under Argentinian occupation?

Also, there was no consensus in Britain about whether the war should have been fought. It was popular because the British ultimately won. Remember Maggie telling the reporters in Downing St that they should rejoice that South Georgia was after being retaken? Enthusiasm wouldn't have required such a stren order to manifest itself surely.

It wasn't unanimous, but the voices against were in a decided minority. After WWII, I cannot think of any 'send-offs' such as the Task Force had. And a large majority of those were not so much because they thought the war should not be fought as much as they thought it could not be fought. As Admiral Woodward puts it, "Several entirely competent organisations were of the opinion that an operation to recapture the Falklands was a military impossibility" (to include the RAF and the US Navy... and, of course, Admiral Anaya), and that they'd simply be sending ships and troops to fight, get sunk/killed and lose.

There are other possible reasons for the emphasis in Downing St over Operation Paraquet. Over three weeks had passed since the Argentine invasion, and there was quite a clamour over "What the hell do we have a Navy for, what are they doing, just bobbing about in the mid-Atlantic, sunbathing on the decks?" It was also important to send a pointed message to Argentina. Note that Haig's diplomatic actions were still ongoing, but until South Georgia, the Argentinians flat believed that the UK was not going to make a fight of it, and they told point blank told Haig as much. By making such a big public deal of retaking S. Georgia, a message is sent to Buenos Aires which cannot be ignored. There was still time to resolve the issue before the British launched an attack on the Falklands proper, which Argentina did not take advantage of.

There has to be a point where you say that lives are not worth the effort, even motivated, trained, willing soldier's lives. I believe that in this case the solders lives could have been spared to the same effect, this being so, they should have been.

What is that point? Where is your line in the sand? Are you arguing that the 1991 War over Kuwait should not have taken place? How about the actions against Serbia in 1999? Sanctions had been in place against Serbia for seven years at that point, and were still not bringing the country to obedience.

One the other side, the Argentines were undermotivated conscripts who often didn't even want to be in the army let alone fighting for some rock in the south atlantic. Perhaps there lives should also be considered?

Think about that for a second. You've just put across the most novel argument in favour of international bullying I've ever heard of. "We'll go and use military force to invade this really weak group of people, but don't attack us in return because all you'll be doing is killing people who had no choice about it! The inhumanity and brutality of it all!" Most Iraqi soldiers were conscripts, who, given their surrender rates, certainly didn't seem to have much of an interest in the Kuwait jaunt; should this have provided immunity to Iraq's military from attack?

Absolutely, their lives should be considered. By their chain of command who sent them there in the first place. The lives of Argentinian servicemen, conscript or otherwise, are not, and should not be the concern of the British until they have surrendered and are in their care.

That being said though, an unpopular Junta being hit with a round of sanctions in response to an ill judged aggression - who's to say what would have happened? It should have been given a chance though. The 1970's saw a series of quasi-fascist dictatorships coming to an end, in Portugal, Greece, Spain and I'm sure elsewhere. There was a definite precedent for the people of Argentina to take their cue from.

On the other hand, most Argentinians believe that the Falklands are rightfully theirs. If the nation is being punished for something which they think is their right in the first place, they're more likely to rally in support of the Junta than go against it. I don't hear much about the protests in B.A. saying "it's not worth fighting over, let the British have the islands back before someone else gets killed"

NTM

wasper

No. It should have gone to the UN to decide the matter

Belfast wrote: »

I say Yes the British were right to defend the islands

By comparison. The natives of Diego Garcia were forced from their island & moved to different country to make a USA air force base. This happened 1965. The British rulers of the island did that. But the sent 97 ships to fight the Argentinians in 1982. One wonders if the poor of Diego were not of black skin they would have fared better.

dresden8

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

wasper wrote: »

By comparison. The natives of Diego Garcia were forced from their island & moved to different country to make a USA air force base. This happened 1965. The British rulers of the island did that. But the sent 97 ships to fight the Argentinians in 1982. One wonders if the poor of Diego were not of black skin they would have fared better.

The Americans wanted Diego Garcia. The Brits do what they're told when it comes to the US.

ejmaztec

dresden8 wrote: »

The Americans wanted Diego Garcia. The Brits do what they're told when it comes to the US.

"The Special Relationship" (you scratch my back and I'll steal your wallet):pac:

meathstevie

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Without a shadow of a doubt was it just for the British to defend the Falklands/Malvinas, for the following reasons :

- Under international law a country has the right to defend it's territory
against invasion and aggression. Last time I checked the islands in
question were British territory in 1982 and Brittain has the right to uphold
territorial integrity against foreign aggression. This rule applies to every
country in the world.

- The population of the islands by far preferred to be ruled by London rather
than by a bunch of wannabe Nazi's in Buenos Aires.

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

meathstevie wrote: »

Without a shadow of a doubt was it just for the British to defend the Falklands/Malvinas, for the following reasons :

- Under international law a country has the right to defend it's territory
against invasion and aggression. Last time I checked the islands in
question were British territory in 1982 and Brittain has the right to uphold
territorial integrity against foreign aggression. This rule applies to every
country in the world.

- The population of the islands by far preferred to be ruled by London rather
than by a bunch of wannabe Nazi's in Buenos Aires.

Legally they had every right in the world. Morally, the war was about nothing and amounted to a waste of money, and life.

Well Manic, I respect your views because they are clearly thought out but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. A few points though.

ManicMoran wrote: »

There are other possible reasons for the emphasis in Downing St over Operation Paraquet. Over three weeks had passed since the Argentine invasion, and there was quite a clamour over "What the hell do we have a Navy for, what are they doing, just bobbing about in the mid-Atlantic, sunbathing on the decks?" It was also important to send a pointed message to Argentina. Note that Haig's diplomatic actions were still ongoing, but until South Georgia, the Argentinians flat believed that the UK was not going to make a fight of it, and they told point blank told Haig as much. By making such a big public deal of retaking S. Georgia, a message is sent to Buenos Aires which cannot be ignored. There was still time to resolve the issue before the British launched an attack on the Falklands proper, which Argentina did not take advantage of.

An excellent point, hadn't even considered it.

ManicMoran wrote: »

It wasn't unanimous, but the voices against were in a decided minority. After WWII, I cannot think of any 'send-offs' such as the Task Force had.

The send off the task force was given doesn't mean the war was popular, just the servicemen going off to fight it were. I'm guessing it was mostly families and friends of the servicemen. It was probably the biggest single embarkation of British Troops since WWII which may explain why you can't think of any other examples. Anyway, oponants of the war are hardly going to go down to the docks and boo.

ManicMoran wrote: »

How could they have sheltered the islanders from the sanctions, when the islanders were under Argentinian occupation?

The Islanders could easily have been protected from sanctions by physically moving them to the UK. There is only a few thousand of them remember.

ManicMoran wrote: »

On the other hand, most Argentinians believe that the Falklands are rightfully theirs. If the nation is being punished for something which they think is their right in the first place, they're more likely to rally in support of the Junta than go against it. I don't hear much about the protests in B.A. saying "it's not worth fighting over, let the British have the islands back before someone else gets killed"

Argentinians may believe that the Falklands belong to them but that wouldn't necessarily translate into support for an unpopular governments attempts to take them from the British by force. If this lead to a worsening domestic situation, its would be even more the case. Perhaps its the same as Ireland - quite a number of reasonable people who abhor the violence of the provo's believe the north should be governed from Dublin.

ManicMoran wrote: »

Think about that for a second. You've just put across the most novel argument in favour of international bullying I've ever heard of. "We'll go and use military force to invade this really weak group of people, but don't attack us in return because all you'll be doing is killing people who had no choice about it! The inhumanity and brutality of it all!" Most Iraqi soldiers were conscripts, who, given their surrender rates, certainly didn't seem to have much of an interest in the Kuwait jaunt; should this have provided immunity to Iraq's military from attack?
Absolutely, their lives should be considered. By their chain of command who sent them there in the first place. The lives of Argentinian servicemen, conscript or otherwise, are not, and should not be the concern of the British until they have surrendered and are in their care.

You mentioned how soldiers seem to accept their lot and that the loss of life in this case was therefore acceptable, a point I disagree with but as your in the army and I'm not I'll defer to you on. Its a fact though, proved by the presence of those conscripts that a fairly high proportion of the solders involved in the war didn't think as you claimed they ought to.

As regards the First Gulf war - Actually the allies should perhaps have considered the fleeing conscripts more before killing tens of thousands of them on the highway out of Kuwait. That act fairly shocked a lot of western observers.

ManicMoran wrote: »

There were other side-effects as well, for example the USSR undertook a serious upwards re-evaluation of UK military capability, which I'm sure was another factor being considered in terms of how seriously other countries took the UK's military.

Of course the UK has Nukes so nothing else matters. The Soviets I'm guessing would have been more concerned about those than her ability of send a task force to the south atlantic. Anyway, the British army's function was to fight the Soviets in Central Europe should WWIII ever break out. The Soviets would be more interested in that again than her ability to mount a task force.

ManicMoran wrote: »

What is that point? Where is your line in the sand? Are you arguing that the 1991 War over Kuwait should not have taken place? How about the actions against Serbia in 1999? Sanctions had been in place against Serbia for seven years at that point, and were still not bringing the country to obedience.

Yes, in a nutshell, that is my point. A line in the sand. From the Falkland Islands the line is only a dot to me. About Serbia and Kuwait, there is no comparison, they are not small sparsely populated isalnds in the south atlantic.

Manic Moran

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Narrowing down a bit.

Shutuplaura wrote: »

The send off the task force was given doesn't mean the war was popular, just the servicemen going off to fight it were. I'm guessing it was mostly families and friends of the servicemen. It was probably the biggest single embarkation of British Troops since WWII which may explain why you can't think of any other examples

Fair enough, I'll conceed the distinction. That said, I've seen little indication that it was not representative of the overall mood of the country. (That the Conservatives won so heavily in the immediate aftermath of "the wasteful and un-necessary war" may be another indicator of the general popularity of the move, albeit with the benefit of hindsight: "Hey, we won! She was right!")

The Islanders could easily have been protected from sanctions by physically moving them to the UK. There is only a few thousand of them remember.

Utterly unacceptable. You're talking about forced relocation. The example of Deigo Garcia was brought up earlier as an example of the government trampling individual rights. You suggest compounding the problem? Besides, posession is nine tenths of the law. If the islanders are gone, there's no urgency to settle anything. You will note that none of the proposed diplomatic solutions, be they by the UN, the OAS, or Haig even suggested the possibility of the Islanders leaving. Even the Argentinians weren't overly concerned about the islanders leaving, as long as they started driving on the right and learned Spanish.

Argentinians may believe that the Falklands belong to them but that wouldn't necessarily translate into support for an unpopular governments attempts to take them from the British by force.

You are correct that it won't necessarily be the case, but it seems that it actually was the case. On 30MAR82 there were mass protests against the government called by the unions, they were pretty violently cracked down upon, and over 1,500 were arrested. But on 03APR82, there were huge demonstrations of solidarity with the government, many of the demonstrators had been protesting four days earlier. Remember that the whole instigation for the jaunt was the fact that the Junta was getting pretty unpopular, and they figured they had to do something pretty resoundingly popular, and it seems they guessed right. Might I recommend reading "The Argentine Fight for the Malvinas" by Martin Middlebrook? It's his counterpoint book to "The Falklands War 1982" and is written almost entirely from the Argentine side. I highly recommend it for anyone studying up on the Falklands War who (like me) doesn't speak Spanish.

Its a fact though, proved by the presence of those conscripts that a fairly high proportion of the solders involved in the war didn't think as you claimed they ought to.

Either you mis-understood, or I failed to make myself clear. I have little doubt that the conscripts weren't overly enthused about the whole deal. Conscripts rarely are. My point is that whether they wanted to be there or not was totally irrelevant to the British. They were there, they were wearing the uniforms of the government that sent them. Ergo, they were the enemy and to be killed or captured. I submit that the proper people to be concerned about the conscripts are their government: Those who have some say over what their military does.

Actually the allies should perhaps have considered the fleeing conscripts more before killing tens of thousands of them on the highway out of Kuwait. That act fairly shocked a lot of western observers.

Not many military observers though, I should note. The 'tens of thousands' is actually on the order of 200 and they were perfectly legitimate military targets. The rules are simple. Are they enemy soldiers yes/no? Have they indicated any desire or intent to surrender, yes/no? If yes to the first, and no to the second, kill them. End of. Thus is the brutal and nasty nature of war. (There's actually a school of thought that says that war should be as horrid and destructive as possible: That all these talks of 'humane weapons' and 'precision bombing' -encourage- people to wage war: That if it were as brutal as possible, more people would think twice before engaging in it)
As an aside, my current Squadron Commander was there as a company-grade officer (By there, I mean physically present on the road's aftermath), he tells me that it really wasn't as bad as popular belief has it. The popularly distributed photographs are basically a case of 'selective editing.'

From the Falkland Islands the line is only a dot to me

Your home is only a dot on Google Earth to me as well. But I'll submit that the Islands are rather important to the Islanders. It also seems rather important to the Argentinians. Who are we to belittle them?

NTM

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

Manic Moran wrote: »

Your home is only a dot on Google Earth to me as well. But I'll submit that the Islands are rather important to the Islanders. It also seems rather important to the Argentinians. Who are we to belittle them?

NTM

Now now Manic, I never said that Falklands were only a dot to me. Your line in the sand is the dot. As to the islands importance to its inhabitants I have no doubt.

It in the end comes down to cost. In pure hard material terms the war cost Britain 800 million or thereabouts - and thats in '82 sterling. Military action was only one option open to Thatchers government. The whole nub of my argument is that the money would have been better spent on many many other things than that war and that diplomatic moves could have probably achieved the same effect. If the junta proved more resilient that expected, the British even then had options open to her to alleviate any suffering caused by them, ranging from food parcels to the admittedly drastic option of resettlement. My guess though is that the sanctions wouldn't have inculded basic essentials for life and that the Argentine government for propaganda reasons would have ensured the sanctions didn't have much bite on the islands anyway.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Either you mis-understood, or I failed to make myself clear. I have little doubt that the conscripts weren't overly enthused about the whole deal. Conscripts rarely are. My point is that whether they wanted to be there or not was totally irrelevant to the British. They were there, they were wearing the uniforms of the government that sent them. Ergo, they were the enemy and to be killed or captured. I submit that the proper people to be concerned about the conscripts are their government: Those who have some say over what their military does.

NTM

I'm not sure, your confusion has confused me a little bit. I maintain that the humanitarian cost of the war wasn't worth the islands, you mentioned that it was almost all solders that died and its okay because solders accept it as part of the job, i pointed out that solders lives matter too even if they don't think so and that anyway, the argies as conscripts probably didn't think of war in your terms.

Anyway, leaving that aside, your submission that the proper people to be concerned about the Argentine solders was their government is correct. Certainly they should have been last on British list of humanitarian concerns in the conflict. However, I'm not the government of Britain, I'm a neutral third party and that Civvie/our lads/Argie etc list doesn't apply to me. I'm puzzled why you can't accept that I happen to feel a bit sorry for the dead conscripts on goose green or where ever else.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not many military observers though, I should note. The 'tens of thousands' is actually on the order of 200 and they were perfectly legitimate military targets. The rules are simple. Are they enemy soldiers yes/no? Have they indicated any desire or intent to surrender, yes/no? If yes to the first, and no to the second, kill them. End of. Thus is the brutal and nasty nature of war. (There's actually a school of thought that says that war should be as horrid and destructive as possible: That all these talks of 'humane weapons' and 'precision bombing' -encourage- people to wage war: That if it were as brutal as possible, more people would think twice before engaging in it)
As an aside, my current Squadron Commander was there as a company-grade officer (By there, I mean physically present on the road's aftermath), he tells me that it really wasn't as bad as popular belief has it. The popularly distributed photographs are basically a case of 'selective editing.'

NTM

I originally though it was something like 200k too but I had a look on Wikipedia and it gave a death toll of less than 100 for the entire conflict. Either way it was a hell of a lot. Solders know what war looks like and are therefore less likely to be shocked. Everyone else doesn't.

By the way I was too young to have much of an opinion on the Gulf war at the time. I though the TV footage war fairly cool and assumed until I was older that not many were killed on either side.

Briefings by the US military at the time were also 'selectively edited' to show it as a push button luckiest guy in iraq he made it across before we blew the bridge type stuff.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Thus is the brutal and nasty nature of war.

NTM

Exactly my point. Wars are brutal, dehumanising and nasty. They are also expensive. The British could have tried to retake the Falklands without one but hardly tried. The government was fairly unpopular, gambled and won.

Manic Moran wrote: »

(There's actually a school of thought that says that war should be as horrid and destructive as possible: That all these talks of 'humane weapons' and 'precision bombing' -encourage- people to wage war: That if it were as brutal as possible, more people would think twice before engaging in it)

NTM

This final part is completely off topic but the fact your aware of wars horrid brutal nature yet are continue to serve in the military disproves this point. Its not meant as a criticism of yourself or the US military by the way, just an observation on huuman nature (and not an original one, read in John Ellis' excellent book, The Sharp End).

Manic Moran

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Shutuplaura wrote: »

I'm puzzled why you can't accept that I happen to feel a bit sorry for the dead conscripts on goose green or where ever else.

Oh, I can fully understand your pity for them. I'm just pointing out that such sentiments are irrelevant when it comes to the decision-making process on the use of military force.

This final part is completely off topic but the fact your aware of wars horrid brutal nature yet are continue to serve in the military disproves this point. Its not meant as a criticism of yourself or the US military by the way, just an observation on huuman nature (and not an original one, read in John Ellis' excellent book, The Sharp End).

Famous Dead Guy Quote

John Stuart Mill wrote:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

I guess you can also look at it from the point of view of the bad guy in Serenity.

Cool Movie wrote:

The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.

See also another famous dead guy

Winnie Churchill wrote:

We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.

We do not live in a utopia. Unpleasant though war is, there are times when it is required, and someone's got to do the job.

The problem is that the people sending the soldiers to do the job are perhaps a little isolated from the reality. There's little difference to an artilleryman on the ground firing an Excalibur round or a general unguided HE round. He's living in a trench regardless. Neither is there much difference to whoever's on the other end of the round, wherever it lands. Many of the 'laws of war' are frankly, from the soldier's point of view, stupid. "No weapons which cause un-necessary suffering." We're trying to kill people for crying out loud. How much worse can you want to get? Does anyone think I really care if I lose an arm due to a 155mm HE shell (legal) vs a 14.5mm HE shell (illegal)? The rules are not there for the soldiers. They're there so that the politicians and their populace can live in blissful ignorance and pat themselves on the back saying that "we are morally superior, for we have elevated war to a level above a vulgar brawl. Because of this, 'our' form of warfare is less repugnant, so we have fewer inhibitions against it."

However, that's what we've got, and that's what we're stuck with. My wishing for a reality check isn't going to make any difference in the larger scheme of things, so I'll just continue living out of my Bradley and hoping nothing manages to penetrate the turret. In the meantime, I will continue to rely on my government to use its best judgement in the use of its military powers. Not to never use them, but to use them when causing violence is the right thing to do.
I submit that for a case such as the Falklands, that would indeed have been such situation.

NTM