---

by Biff
(quotes)

Er yeah right, The Argentines invaded a British island. Britain went and took it back, wheres the pointlessness??

---

Try telling that to the relatives of over 1,500 dead British and Argeninians.

---

by Tannhauser
I just want to be called "Captain Strong".

I mean, how cool is that?

Ain't nobody messes with.......Captain Strong!

Ahem. Sorry.

---

I can just see you staying up all night dying your underwear and sewing your bedsheets into a cape to fit your new persona.

Feeling thirsty, malefactor? Try...FIVE FINGERS OF STRONG!

Five fingers as in a drink. But also as in a fist. With which I hit you. Ahem.

Sorry.

---

by Byron
(quotes)

Try telling that to the relatives of over 1,500 dead British and Argeninians.

---

So are you saying it was pointless Byron I'm not sure I understand your meaning sorry

The servicemen's sheer bravery and professionalism in the conflict is certainly beyond doubt; they achieved an almost impossible feat against all the odds, and that cannot be allowed to be forgotten.

But as I said above, considering the circumstances in which the Thatcher government launched into war, and taking into account the appalling loss of life offset against what was at stake, I do believe the government’s actions, and resulting conflict, was a quite senseless loss of life.

---

by Byron
The servicemen's sheer bravery and professionalism in the conflict is certainly beyond doubt; they achieved an almost impossible feat against all the odds, and that cannot be allowed to be forgotten.

But as I said above, considering the circumstances in which the Thatcher government launched into war, and taking into account the appalling loss of life offset against what was at stake, I do believe the government’s actions, and resulting conflict, was a quite senseless loss of life.

---

The circumstances were that another country attacked and and took by force part of the UK. If we wern't to defend ourselves then what should we have done?

Isn't the point here that violence is the last resort after diplomacy has failed?

In this situation, Thatcher deliberately undermined the diplomatic process by ordering the illegal torpedoing of a ship outside the war zone, an act that is still the subject of litigation today. And she did it for domestic political gain.

Whichever way you cut it, it was pretty despicable.

That does not detract from the bravery shown by UK troops once those decisions had been taken.

Inc I maybe be wrong here but what to your knowledge was the first act of war ?
In war things happen that shouldn't happen we will all agree on that if things could be solved diplomaticaly then I would be the first to say No to War but that isn't the case and in my lifetime I doubt it ever will be, we have lost and we always lose very brave men and women fighting for what we believe to the the right thing
During the Falklands conflict my father lost some good friends and my friends lost their fathers .... War isn't a good thing but sometimes its the only thing

(Edited by Sweet-Sange 03/04/2002 23:25)

---

by Sweet-Sange
we have lost and we always lose very brave men and women fighting for what we believe to the the right thing
War isn't a good thing but sometimes its the only thing

---

Very true. We did what we had to to protect our own. Servicemen sign up knowing the day they have to fight may come, and it is always sad that any should lose their lives, but they are aware of the risks and accept them.

There are a lot of people on this topic who didn't pay attention, or who weren't even old enough to follow the war, throwing their twopenneth in, and it's always to bring it down to politics. Maggie bashing. Low. Easy and effective, but low.

It was about War.

Throwing the first punch does not always necessitate a violent response. We should judge ourselves by our own standards and not by those of others.

It has been said that war is politics by other means.

War is not an end to itself. How can it possibly be understood without a grasp of the politics underlying it?

---

by Incandenza
It has been said that war is politics by other means.

---

Isn't the quote 'diplomacy' rather than politics? Either way, it was what I had in mind earlier when I said was isn't the plaything of politicians.

Talk that the Belgrano was outside the exclusion zone may be factually correct, but is misleading in that it implies she was just wandering vaguely through the area without any knowledge there was a war on: in fact she'd been used to test the limits of the zone and gauge the British reaction to incursions into it, unarguably a military mission. I'm prepared to be contradicted on this, but I seem to remember the loss of life would have been lower if her escorting destroyers had stopped to pick up survivors instead of fleeing.

Byron, I respect (as always) the sincerity of your views but I just can't reconcile what happened in the Falklands with your talk of atrocities, and 'appalling' loss of life. If you want atrocities you have to look at things like the bombing of Guernica in the Spanish Civil War, or the mass destruction of villages like Lidice in WW2, or the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, or the use of rape as a weapon against the civilian population in the former Yugoslavia. And you really can't call the number of fatalities appalling in comparison with World War One.

Unless of course you automatically class all war as an atrocity and any number of casualties as appalling - but then what words are you left with to describe the extremes mentioned above?

---

by Incandenza
Throwing the first punch does not always necessitate a violent response. We should judge ourselves by our own standards and not by those of others.

It has been said that war is politics by other means.

War is not an end to itself. How can it possibly be understood without a grasp of the politics underlying it?

---

I do agree, War's are always fought for a reason always have been and always will be. Nowdays we call it for politics Hundreds of years ago wars were fought for what I surpose you could call their equilvalent "valour, saving face, land, property.... the old favorite religion".

The reason I mentioned about the first "act" of war was simple because you said ....

In this situation, Thatcher deliberately undermined the diplomatic process by ordering the illegal torpedoing of a ship outside the war zone, an act that is still the subject of litigation today. And she did it for domestic political gain

Isn't it that the Argentines deliberately underminded the diplmatic process by taking the Falklands by force for the exact same reason? There are and there will always be two sides to this, and to be honest in any War can any of us hope to understand all the reasons behind them?

The final result will always be the same people will lose their lives fighting for what they believe to be true, Some who yes are trained and after all is their "job" others like the 3 Falkland Islanders all women all married who also lost their lives.

If War can achieve anything I hope it's to make us all think and try to make sure we don't make the same mistakes again.

Hooom...at the risk of sounding like an enormous pinko, should a democratic nation have no greater ambition than to hold itself up to the standards of behaviour of a decrepit military Junta?

Random: (Incidentally I haven’t used the word “atrocity” once on this thread – I fully agree in the contexts you’ve used as examples, it wouldn’t be appropriate. )

I don’t describe the Falklands was as an “appalling loss of life” relative to other more expansive and horrific conflicts – I describe it as such on its own terms. Surely something can still be a considered a tragedy even if the raw figures of those who’ve died aren’t that high? The Omar bombing, solely in terms of the death toll, pales in comparison to atrocities visited on civilians around the world. But that’s still referred to as an “atrocity”, and rightly so. Taking into account the Falklands war’s circumstances, I do consider the number of lives lost in the conflict “appalling”. Isn’t it a dangerous road to travel down if we view death’s severity solely in terms of its scale?

Sange: The actions of the Argentinean Junta cannot ever be condoned, period. But surely our supposedly more “civilised” democratic government shouldn’t have automatically lowered itself to the same level in its response? (For example, in taking into account the lives of the Argentinean conscripts, some of who thought they were in Chillie when they surrendered!) I’m not even saying that, eventually, military action wouldn’t have been necessary. What I am saying is that I consider hasty manner, driven by dubious political reasons, in which the Falklands conflict was engaged in to be wrong.

“We sleep soundly at night only because dark men stand ready in the shadows to do the unthinkable.” George Orwel

Yes, service men and women join up in the full knowledge they could be called upon to die for their country, and the willingness to do this if ordered. Someone I know is hoping to become a Royal Marines officer, and the way he articulated this understanding took my breath away. Isn’t that all the more reason for politicians not to be cavalier in the deployment of those willing to die for them?

---

by Byron


Sange: The actions of the Argentinean Junta cannot ever be condoned, period. But surely our supposedly more “civilised” democratic government shouldn’t have automatically lowered itself to the same level in its response? (For example, in taking into account the lives of the Argentinean conscripts, some of who thought they were in Chillie when they surrendered!) I’m not even saying that, eventually, military action wouldn’t have been necessary. What I am saying is that I consider hasty manner, driven by dubious political reasons, in which the Falklands conflict was engaged in to be wrong.

---

Byron : So in your way of thinking we shouldn't have gone into WWII after all why lower ourselves to the same standards and after all it wasn't us that Germany attacked was it?
To use the argument that we are more civilised goes against you, If someone was to attack you should I not come to your aid because I might possibly have to use violence and therefore be lowering myself to their standards? I would hope that being more civilised would mean that we actualy would most certainly come to the aid of others.

As I have said War is War there are no rules in War we do what we have to do. Why carry a big stick if we never intend to use it? and doesn't the fact that a part of the UK was attacked, invaded by such a "uncivilised" (according to what your saying) aggressor mean that infact we were duty bound as a civilised country to insure our fellow countrymen were protected ? or do you feel that if we had played nicely nicely that the Argentinians would have just gone away?
Sometimes we can't bury our heads in the sand and look to politics and talking to give us solutions. I wish we could because if that was the case then there would be people that I cared about alive today.

by Sweet-Sange

Byron : So in your way of thinking we shouldn't have gone into WWII after all why lower ourselves to the same standards and after all it wasn't us that Germany attacked was it?

Well since you mention it, we did try and find a peaceful diplomatic solution before we went to war.

To use the argument that we are more civilised goes against you, If someone was to attack you should I not come to your aid because I might possibly have to use violence and therefore be lowering myself to their standards? I would hope that being more civilised would mean that we actualy would most certainly come to the aid of others.

Hmmm ... so if someone punches Byron in the nose, the justified response is to punch the person who did it back as hard if not harder? Coming to someones aid does not automatically necessitate a violent response.

As I have said War is War there are no rules in War

Well actually... how about the Geneva Convention? War criminals by definition indicate a legal framework within which to judge them.

Why carry a big stick if we never intend to use it?

We hope not to use it.

This discussion seems to be going around in circles. From what I can see, no-one is maligning the actions of the servicemen who fought in the Falklands War. No-one is disputing the right of the inhabitants of the Falklands to be protected by the United Kingdom (well except Maff and that was a while ago).

The only point being made is that, it can be argued that violent conflict should be the last resort not the first and it is debatable whether in this instance the British Government made every effort to secure (what everybody agrees is) the necessary outcome by non-violent methods before employing a military solution.

---

by Incandenza
Well since you mention it, we did try and find a peaceful diplomatic solution before we went to war.

And where did it get us?


Hmmm ... so if someone punches Byron in the nose, the justified response is to punch the person who did it back as hard if not harder? Coming to someones aid does not automatically necessitate a violent response.

But it could ....To quote Jack, 'We live in a world with walls and we need soldiers to protect those walls'. Argentina acted with unprovoked aggression and the United Kingdom had a duty to retaliate. As said in your first post



Well actually... how about the Geneva Convention? War criminals by definition indicate a legal framework within which to judge them.

And you seriously believe that stops it?



We hope not to use it.


Agreed we hope

This discussion seems to be going around in circles. From what I can see, no-one is maligning the actions of the servicemen who fought in the Falklands War. No-one is disputing the right of the inhabitants of the Falklands to be protected by the United Kingdom (well except Maff and that was a while ago).

The only point being made is that, it can be argued that violent conflict should be the last resort not the first and it is debatable whether in this instance the British Government made every effort to secure (what everybody agrees is) the necessary outcome by non-violent methods before employing a military solution.

---

That will never and can never be answered, after everything I've said I'm not for war I've lost people I personaly know in war, if this threads done anything it's maybe at least helped people who were too young to remeber it think and not forget.


(Edited by Sweet-Sange 04/04/2002 18:13)

Originally posted by Sange
Byron : So in your way of thinking we shouldn't have gone into WWII after all why lower ourselves to the same standards and after all it wasn't us that Germany attacked was it?

Appeasement went on for far too long in the late 1930s; understandably enough, with WWI having ended just twenty years previously. But it was clear Hitler would not stop, and force would be needed if the freedom of Europe, and the world, could be maintained. Considering the Falklands situation posed nothing like the same threat, isn't that’s something of a specious comparison?

To use the argument that we are more civilised goes against you, If someone was to attack you should I not come to your aid because I might possibly have to use violence and therefore be lowering myself to their standards? I would hope that being more civilised would mean that we actualy would most certainly come to the aid of others.

If violence was the only option to help someone, then I yes, I would think it was justified. But as I’ve already said, I don’t believe it was the only option open to Margaret Thatcher. (Incidentally Inc, I wouldn't punch anyone in the nose - if I had to respond, an Akido flip would be far more effective and less drastic!)

As I have said War is War there are no rules in War we do what we have to do. Why carry a big stick if we never intend to use it? and doesn't the fact that a part of the UK was attacked, invaded by such a "uncivilised" (according to what your saying) aggressor mean that infact we were duty bound as a civilised country to insure our fellow countrymen were protected ? or do you feel that if we had played nicely nicely that the Argentinians would have just gone away?

Retaking the islands by force in my mind would only be acceptable if the considerable risk this posed to the islanders’ safety was outweighed by the risk taking no action would pose to them. Which at the time the invasion was launched, wasn’t the case. We carry a “big stick” because so we can use it if necessary; so we have the means to defend ourselves. Doesn’t mean it should be the first option. And how does anyone know what the Argentinean Junta’s response to intense diplomatic pressure would have been, seeing as it was never given a chance?

Sometimes we can't bury our heads in the sand and look to politics and talking to give us solutions. I wish we could because if that was the case then there would be people that I cared about alive today.

There undoubtedly comes a point where politics can do no more. All I’m saying is I don’t think it was given a chance of succeeding in the Falklands.

(Edited by Byron 04/04/2002 18:53)

Sometimes one punch is all it takes to stop things dead

---

by Red
Sometimes one punch is all it takes to stop things dead

---

Which is why it's an idea to tencan (to use the Akido term) right out the way before it connects!