|
U-Know! Forum » Thatch falls |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Jun 17, 2009, 13:27
Jun 17, 2009, 13:25
|
||
|
jshell wrote: The real peace only came about after 9/11. When 'W' & 'Dick' decided to start the War on Terror, they had a problem: The US had been financing terrorism in the UK for years through the Noraid organisation and preventing extradition of IRA suspects to the UK. So, Bushs' speech: "If you feed, clothe, finance or harbour a terrorist - you ARE are a terrorist!" was an exercise in abject hypocracy. Before the WoT started, McGuiness and Adams were hauled in, told their budget was being cut as the US now had to be seen not to sponsor any terrorist activites, and so the money and protection (particularly from extradition) was cut off. The Republicans had no option but drop the violent struggle and pursue other means. Now, that's perhaps a simplistic view, but fairly accurate nontheless. In my experience the simplistic view of complex situations is rarely accurate. There is a sense in which your initial statement had some merit, but I challenge this explanation you've provided. There seems very little doubt that by the end of last century, Sinn Féin and the IRA had committed themselves to a cessation of hostilities. There is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary. That it took them several years after the Good Friday agreement to begin decommissioning isn't difficult to understand given the history of suspicion and double-crossing that prevailed during the troubles. You are, I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) implying that Adams, McGuinness and Sinn Féin were either still engaged in -- or had plans to continue -- an armed conflict by the time Bush was elected (or indeed any time after the July 1997 ceasefire)? Do you have any evidence for that at all? Because as far as I'm aware, there is none. What I would say, however, is that the Real IRA (the splinter group that did continue the violence post-July 1997) were marginalised and found their financial support disappearing after September 11th 2001. It seems likely that the lack of funds they (the Real IRA) were receiving from the United States had an impact upon their ability to function. So in that sense, The War Against Terror probably hampered the ability of the Real IRA to destabilise the peace process. But it was a peace process that included Sinn Féin, and had done for almost four years before Bush stole Florida. I'd be interested in any information you have that demonstrates otherwise. It's also worth pointing out that the Real IRA would have / will eventually disappear on their own -- without the need for an unending global war. Splinter groups are an inevitable consequence of any peace process like Northern Ireland's. But assuming the peace is even vaguely equitable, they eventually disappear as all local support dries up.
|
|||
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Jun 17, 2009, 18:29
|
||
|
Thatchers response to Goulds question was quite correct. The position and course of the Belgrano, when it was attacked, was not an issue under international law. Exclusions zones are set out for the benefit of non-military vessels - the course/heading of a potentially threatening mititary vessel has no bearing on its status. Freedman's official history of the Faluklands war, commissioned by Blair, confirms that the Belgrano was under orders to attack BritisH Naval vessels at the time it was torpedoed - this was backed by intercepts on Argentine naval broadcasts at the time. In fact, in 2003, captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, admitted on TV that the Belgrano's decision to sail away from the Task Force on the morning of 2 May was only a temporary manoeuvre. "Our mission ... wasn't just to cruise around on patrol but to attack.. When they gave us the authorisation to use our weapons, if necessary, we had to be prepared to attack. Our people were completely trained. I would say we were anxious to pull the trigger." Even back in 1994, the Argentine government dropped its claim that the sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime, its defence ministry conceding that it was "a legal act of war". Tragic though the sinking of the Belgarno was..and the subsequent loss of life..I dont think there is any doubt that the Belgrano represented a potential threat and had to be attacked.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jun 17, 2009, 18:37
|
||
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: Even back in 1994, the Argentine government dropped its claim that the sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime, its defence ministry conceding that it was "a legal act of war". Tragic though the sinking of the Belgarno was..and the subsequent loss of life..I dont think there is any doubt that the Belgrano represented a potential threat and had to be attacked. I myself wasn't actually talking about the Belgrano (though others were, and I accept your response was addressed at them). I was talking about the incredible air of contemptuous arrogance that Thatcher exuded, as that clip reminded me. I don't actually know much about the Belgrano incident so wouldn't feel comfortable making claims about it one way or another.
|
|||
|
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Jun 17, 2009, 19:23
|
||
Yes, I know you were on about her manner...which I agree wound many people up.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jun 17, 2009, 22:00
|
||
That was all news to me Geoffrey, and I stand corrected. Thankyou.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 18, 2009, 11:30
|
||
|
"Tragic though the sinking of the Belgarno was..and the subsequent loss of life..I dont think there is any doubt that the Belgrano represented a potential threat and had to be attacked." Oh that's OK then. It was within the Marquis of Queensbury rules so no blame can be pinned on her. On the other hand, you could say that she sent hundreds of 18 year old naive conscripts to the bottom of the ocean as a direct consequence of her face-saving decision to go to war to cover her government's "error" of withdrawing our patrol from the vicinity of islands over which Britain's sovereignty couldn't be less sustainable under international law and which couldn't be named by 99% of British people prior to the crisis. There was a day-long broadcast of a parliamentary debate on whether to go. As I recall, only Tony Benn and Enoch Powell spoke against. Good for them. The people of the Falklands are still getting their kids educated at schools in Buenos Aries, like they always did, and the 18 year olds are still at the bottom of the ocean.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jun 18, 2009, 12:15
|
||
|
When the soldiers came back there was a victory parade in London, with Thatcher taking the salute of the troops (a job normally reserved for royalty). In case it ruined the spectacle they didn't invite the ones who'd come home maimed or disfigured. What honour. (After media outcry the government caved in).
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 18, 2009, 16:29
|
||
|
Another aspect of the aftermath was the Franks Enquiry which exonerated Margaret Thatcher and the government from charges of having failed to heed warning signals of an Argentine invasion. That was held in private, which of course as we have been told is the only sure way to get to the bottom of the run up to wars.
|
|||
|
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Jun 18, 2009, 16:46
|
||
|
I think it is pretty desperate to try and demonise Thatcher over the Falklands War. There can be no doubt that, although Britain and Argentina had been negotiating sovereignty for many years, under direction of the UN (I think)..the islands were/are under British sovereignty...and the islanders position on their self-determination was/is to remain that way. Argentina's military invasion of British sovereign soil had to be fought..
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 18, 2009, 17:10
|
||
|
"I think it is pretty desperate to try and demonise Thatcher over the Falklands War. There can be no doubt that, although Britain and Argentina had been negotiating sovereignty for many years, under direction of the UN (I think)..the islands were/are under British sovereignty...and the islanders position on their self-determination was/is to remain that way. Argentina's military invasion of British sovereign soil had to be fought.." Why would I be desperate to demonise her yer daft lad? "Argentina's military invasion of British sovereign soil had to be fought.." Of course it didn't. The offer to settle the question of sovereignty on the basis of the binding determination of international law was put on the table. Guess who refused?
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
