Oh Maggie how I loathed thee.....

Simon L2 · June 2007

here we go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulati ... ego_Garcia
so - what was the moral thing to do there? I didn't hear a peep out of any member of any Government from that day to this.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

And Patrick - you're slipping. I accept that squeezing the generals might have borne no rewards at all other than some future condominium arrangement when Argentina found isolation too much. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I can't see that Galtieri would have had sleepless nights fearing being isolated from Britain.

In other words "squeezing the generals" is pretty meaningless save as an excuse for doing nothing while thousands of people are taken prisoner by an evil military regime.

Simon L2 · June 2007

Patrick - they could have stayed or they could have left. Either would have been a disgrace. But killing people to avoid disgrace is wrong.

I'm not a pacifist, but there has to be some degree of proportion about the reasons for war.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

.

I'm not a pacifist, but there has to be some degree of proportion about the reasons for war.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Invasion of one's territory has traditionally been regarded as a good reason for going to war. Would you feel so relaxed about an Israeli invasion of Streatham Hill? Would you feel happy about the government putting the squeeze on Tel Aviv by banning matzos while your house was taken over by settlers?

Simon L2 · June 2007

Patrick - I refer you to my post above. Nobody gave a toss about the inhabitants of Diego Garcia, because they had made the bad taste decision to be black and poor.

The Falklands thing caught hold because the inhabitants were white. It transpired that the Foriegn Office had been trying to offload them. The Argentinians saw this and did what dictators do when they run out of ideas - start a war. Carrington resigned. He was right to resign. Thatcher should have done the same if she judged it to be sufficiently important. She didn't. She sent a light invasion force, poorly equipped for sustained conflict, and then, when the opportunity came, sank a warship that was heading for home, thus kicking off the 'war'. Her motive was simple. Throwing a dice loaded with other people's lives was preferable to doing the decent thing. She had, let it be said, no way of knowing whether the Falkland Islanders were going to be held hostage by the Argentinians (they weren't, nor were they with few exeptions) prisoners), so the risk she took was with their lives as well as everybody else's.

I really do not believe she gave a monkeys about the Falkland Islanders. Sorry, but there you go. It was all about rescuing a Government which was desperately unpopular already. She succeeded in that, but at considerable cost to life and limb. Those men died for her Government, not for the Falkland Islanders.

Simon L2 · June 2007

...and as I wrote a few pages ago...Blair has been worse. There is no anti-Tory rancour here. Just a profound belief in evil. Thatcher and Blair are evil - as evil as it gets.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

I will declare an interest here, having lost 5 friends at the Falklands.
I have posted already the history of claims on the islands, and shown how spurious that of Argentina is. Enough said. I do believe that the Magwitch pursued the war in full understanding and acceptance of the political benefits she could gain, but the war was started by Argentina. As for the Belgrano---bloody hreat warship with big guns, available for being attacked. Any reasonable military person knows exactly what to do--sink it.
A bit like complaining that attacking German troop trains in the last war was wrong because they weren't at the "front".
The suggestion about "cleansing" the Falklands of their inhabitants is a disgusting one. Perhaps the Tibetans can be next?

Flying Monkey, I remember the aftermath of the "Malayan Emergency" from when I lived there in the early 60s. From my knowledge of the area, it was a war fought by one colonial power (Britain) against what was in essence another colonial power (China). The Malayan People's Communist Party was exclusively Chinese, and the main aim of independent Malaya (later Malaysian Federation) was to preserve power in the hands of native Malays, rather than go down the route of Singapore. What was the immoral bit exactly?

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Tourist Tony · June 2007

I should of course add that in Marxist-Leninist rhetoric, those people who fight to liberate a country and join the great brotherhood of Soviet (I mean 'socialist')nations are fighting Wars of National Liberation.
Those who fight wars against an occupier and do not want to join the Soviets are merely bourgeois nationalists and are contemptible.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

ankev1 · June 2007

SimonL2,

I agree with you that the treatment of the Diego Garcians has been a national disgrace. The lack of decent treatment of them doesn't detract from the moral rightness (IMO) of the Falklands campaign.

As for the sinking of Belgrano, wait until the papers get released under the 30 years rule. They will make interesting reading.

Simon L2 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

.

I'm not a pacifist, but there has to be some degree of proportion about the reasons for war.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Invasion of one's territory has traditionally been regarded as a good reason for going to war. Would you feel so relaxed about an Israeli invasion of Streatham Hill? Would you feel happy about the government putting the squeeze on Tel Aviv by banning matzos while your house was taken over by settlers?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
and, Patrick. I eat Matzos. What's your point? Nobody was relaxed about anything. There is a limit to how far you can go with the flaneur thing.

Bear in mind this. Thatcher encouraged Saddam to start a war with Iran. Thatcher encouraged the Taliban. Thatcher encouraged UNITA, one of the most outrageously malevolent and corrupt fighting forces that humanity has conjured up in recent years. It was all about some big global game to do down Islam, to succour Islam at the expense of the Russians, to undermine the ANC - whatever, whenever, it was convenient or expedient to encourage a bit of bloodletting then she did it. And sold weapons to the Saudis (imposing a bit of censorship here to save them embarrasment. And then handed the bit of Hong Kong that still had a while to go on the lease back to the Chinese with the rest of it. All for what? For the greater good? I don't think so. For the good of her chums amongst the very rich. Possibly. For the sake of political expediency? No doubt at all.

Simon L2 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

SimonL2,

I agree with you that the treatment of the Diego Garcians has been a national disgrace. The lack of decent treatment of them doesn't detract from the moral rightness (IMO) of the Falklands campaign.

As for the sinking of Belgrano, wait until the papers get released under the 30 years rule. They will make interesting reading.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ankev - it's always a pleasure (however rare) to agree with you, but in this instance we must disagree. I think my starting point is that the 'morality' of the enterprise was undercut by the motivation and the lack of proportionality. Were we sitting here, in 2007, with the Argentinians still in control of the Falklands, a prospect which I will admit would be quite likely had Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock been Prime Minsister in 1982 then it would be a disgrace. Don't get me wrong on that one. It's just that the disgrace would be preferable to the loss of life.

redcogs · June 2007

Life is cheap for rightwing warmongers.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Simon L2 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Life is cheap for rightwing warmongers.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
excpet that none of us would describe Blair as right wing. And life was cheap to Stalin. The question of proportionality still hangs there...

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
...
Irrelevant- since when did defence cuts justify invasion? Or territorial 'claims' for that matter?

As for the last comment- er, which bits of history do you think have been re-written?

I have to say I am rather shocked by the disregard so many of you seem to have for the rights of the Falkland Islanders or the rule of international law.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

typical Daily Mail inference and unworthy of this distinguished forum

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Dear Simon, you can do better than that! I think we may have to define a new version of Godwins' Law to be invoked whenever the 'Daily Mail reader' charge is made...

My comment was not an 'inference', it was a direct response to redcogs' and others repeated and dismissive references to the isolation and sheep population of the Falklands, but curiously never to their people; followed by glib suggestions that they could have been relocated somewhere else. Sorry Simon, but that is an illiberal suggestion and no more excusable coming from the left than from the right.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

the Argentinian invasion wasn't justified - but the removal of the Endurance gave the Argentinian generals (generals that had been cosied up to by the MOD) the idea that a) the British weren't that bothered and b) they could probably get the job done and get away with it.

Now - post invasion - what was to be done? a)take the islands back with a loss of life equivalent to the entire population? or squeeze the generals for all you've got in the (probably vain) hope that they could be persuaded to make some kind of deal. The latter is an unsatisfactory end, but, dear mjones, what you fail to realise is that mistakes have to be paid for. The MOD (as in our lot) made a mistake. The outcome might have been humbling, might have been wretchedly unfair on the islanders who had said that they would be invaded if the MOD withdrew the Endurance, but there you have it. Thatcher wanted points for being stupid, and got them via the simple expedient of having lots of people killed. That's not exactly commendable.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Unfortunately the punishment for the mistakes in your scenario would have fallen most heavily on the inhabitants of the Falklands. In any case there is also likely to be a price paid for giving in to aggression- what kind of weak and shabby democracy lets a dictator grab some of its people and territory and get away with it? Sounds uncomfortably close to appeasement, "a far away country..." etc. Unprovoked occupation of a peaceful country should most certainly be paid for.

As for causalities: you appear to forget that, at any time, Galtieri, the aggressor, could have called back the troops and avoided further casualties.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Life is cheap for rightwing warmongers.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Indeed it is redcogs, which is one reason why they shouldn't be permitted to get away with unprovoked aggression against other countries, even if doing so would have helped get rid of a much disliked, though democratically elected, prime minister.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

...and as I wrote a few pages ago...Blair has been worse. There is no anti-Tory rancour here. Just a profound belief in evil. Thatcher and Blair are evil - as evil as it gets.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I can't help but feel that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others in the mega-murder league might have a greater claim to that title; not to mention countless lesser tyrants from Saddam to Pinochet and Galtieri. However, as you said in another post: "The question of proportionality still hangs there..." [;)]

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

.

I'm not a pacifist, but there has to be some degree of proportion about the reasons for war.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Invasion of one's territory has traditionally been regarded as a good reason for going to war. Would you feel so relaxed about an Israeli invasion of Streatham Hill? Would you feel happy about the government putting the squeeze on Tel Aviv by banning matzos while your house was taken over by settlers?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
and, Patrick. I eat Matzos. What's your point?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That of all the reasons for going to war, the fact that someone has invaded you is about the best. It is for this reason that we are not conducting this discussion in German.

Simon L2 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
...
Irrelevant- since when did defence cuts justify invasion? Or territorial 'claims' for that matter?

As for the last comment- er, which bits of history do you think have been re-written?

I have to say I am rather shocked by the disregard so many of you seem to have for the rights of the Falkland Islanders or the rule of international law.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

typical Daily Mail inference and unworthy of this distinguished forum

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Dear Simon, you can do better than that! I think we may have to define a new version of Godwins' Law to be invoked whenever the 'Daily Mail reader' charge is made...

My comment was not an 'inference', it was a direct response to redcogs' and others repeated and dismissive references to the isolation and sheep population of the Falklands, but curiously never to their people; followed by glib suggestions that they could have been relocated somewhere else. Sorry Simon, but that is an illiberal suggestion and no more excusable coming from the left than from the right.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

the Argentinian invasion wasn't justified - but the removal of the Endurance gave the Argentinian generals (generals that had been cosied up to by the MOD) the idea that a) the British weren't that bothered and b) they could probably get the job done and get away with it.

Now - post invasion - what was to be done? a)take the islands back with a loss of life equivalent to the entire population? or squeeze the generals for all you've got in the (probably vain) hope that they could be persuaded to make some kind of deal. The latter is an unsatisfactory end, but, dear mjones, what you fail to realise is that mistakes have to be paid for. The MOD (as in our lot) made a mistake. The outcome might have been humbling, might have been wretchedly unfair on the islanders who had said that they would be invaded if the MOD withdrew the Endurance, but there you have it. Thatcher wanted points for being stupid, and got them via the simple expedient of having lots of people killed. That's not exactly commendable.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Unfortunately the punishment for the mistakes in your scenario would have fallen most heavily on the inhabitants of the Falklands. In any case there is also likely to be a price paid for giving in to aggression- what kind of weak and shabby democracy lets a dictator grab some of its people and territory and get away with it? Sounds uncomfortably close to appeasement, "a far away country..." etc. Unprovoked occupation of a peaceful country should most certainly be paid for.

As for causalities: you appear to forget that, at any time, Galtieri, the aggressor, could have called back the troops and avoided further casualties.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
setting aside the response to my Daily Mail jibe (the clue is in the reference to 'distinguised forum) the real fault in this post, as in so many others in Soapbox is its unintended sanctimoniousness. Indeed it is just a little tiny bit like Blair's justification for invading Iraq.

'Unfortunately the punishment for the mistakes in your scenario would have fallen most heavily on the inhabitants of the Falklands.' Absolutely. I didn't suggest anything else. I called it a disgrace. But that is what happens sometimes, and sometimes the remedies are more toxic than the illness. Saddam was a bad man. This we know. But that doesn't mean that invading a country and invoking the hatred of Muslims worldwide, provoking the entirely predictable and predicted refugee crisis, the breakdown of the Iraqi state into armed fiefdoms and setting in train events that have lead to death beyond measure was a good thing to do. It was an outrageous thing to do (we'll pass by on the real motivation on this one). I said simply that if Kinnock or Foot had been Prime Minister then it might well be that the Falkland Islanders would have, to this day, been exiled. That would be a terrible thing, but less terrible by far than killing young men, the majority of whom would have still been less than fifty years old in 2007.

Over and over and over again in this forum there is a presumption that injustice should be righted whatever the cost. Propositions are categorised, and abstract principles applied. Patrick is the master of this. To compare the potential invasion of this country in 1940 (or the actual invasion of Poland or Belgium in 1939) with the invasion of the Falklands is simply daft. Hitler invaded Poland with the avowed intention of wiping out the Polish Jews, and making the non-Germanic Poles into a servant race. That's big stuff, and justifies almost any response. Galtieri killed tens of thousands of Argentinians and 'we' thought he was a nice man. He (or, rather, Menendez, one of his most sinister assistants) invaded the Falklands and, worse case, 1800 people would have been exiled, and, all of a sudden he became a demon who can only be stopped by bloodshed. Yes, Galtieri could have withdrawn the troops, but, being the dictator he was, he didn't. We then had the choice. We (although, in fairness, I cycled down from Buckinghamshire to Parliament Square to protest) got it horribly wrong.

The truth is that Soapboxers are idealists. That, in my book, is unforgiveable. It's a kind of abdication.

It's the twentyfifth anniversary of the Falklands invasion and this, not surprisingly, is in the papers. It's the forty sixth year after the invasion of the deportation of the Chagos Islanders and that doesn't figure. For such an erudite lot the panorama of your concerns is quite narrow and a tad secondhand.

It would be nice to capture all this outrage and to put it to good use. If only I had the wit to do it. Here are a couple of ideas. If deportation makes you angry (as it should) then suggest to your MP that importing goods from those parts of China where people have been deported to make way for hydro electric schemes is wrong. Insist that your local DIY supermart only buys FSC approved timber (B&Q are there already) rather than stuff that has been cut to provide space for palm oil plantations and, at the same time, displacing the locals. In both these cases the fate of the deportees is far worse than the fate that faced the Falkland Islanders. Just don't go killing anybody over it.

I'll return to mjones' post. what kind of weak and shabby democracy lets a dictator grab some of its people and territory and get away with it? Sounds uncomfortably close to appeasement. Yes. It is close to appeasement. Actually it would be giving in. Sometimes it's better to be weak and shabby than strong, shiny and right in all respects.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

Propositions are categorised, and abstract principles applied. Patrick is the master of this. To compare the potential invasion of this country in 1940 (or the actual invasion of Poland or Belgium in 1939) with the invasion of the Falklands is simply daft. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The principle is exactly the same - it's the invasion of sovereign territory. In practical terms as well, it's just the same. It's invasion by a thoroughly vicious regime much given to killing anyone who opposes it.

Simon L2 · June 2007

thankyou, Patrick, you've made my point for me

ankev1 · June 2007

SimonL2,

I genuinely applaud your honesty. I suspect that only a minority of people share your views but that only a minority of them would be prepared to express them so clearly. I find myself flatly disagreeing with you with regards to being prepared to expend life for matters of principle. I joined the Army the year after the Falklands War (although not because of it) and left 18 months ago. One of the reasons I joined was that I have always thought it right that some principles are worth fighting for and being prepared to take the risk to die for. IMO the Falklands provided a classic case in point. In fact I've always felt that had we not gone to war to get them back you could have drawn a line under British history and said that the British ceased to be British from that point.

There are many other disgusting things which go on in the world which are worth fighting for but we do nothing e.g. the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Why don't we fight over that? Well, IMO it's a classic case for a UN genuine multinational campaign to put the Chinese back in their box. It will of course never happen, probably mainly because China is a nuclear power. I suppose that as a nation and as a member of alliances e.g. NATO, we can only get involved in things which can be regarded as rightly "our fights". Again the Falklands was a classic case.

Believe me, there's no pacifist like a soldier, as he has to deal with the sharp end of politics gone wrong, but I suspect that the fact that the British can field a volunteer army of men and women who realise that they may be called on to fight reflects the fact that there is a large body of people in the UK who think that that is the right thing to do. In the end it's all about being prepared to stop terrible injustice on the ground. I've seen real people who at 12 hrs notice have had to put everything they own in cars and leg it from countries where their families have lived for centuries. It's not pleasant and yet while we were confronted with these all to real failure of politics there were metaphorically "gentlemen abed in England" who were prepared to demonstrate that we shouldn't be getting involved.

As I said I respect your stance but reject it utterly because if we all took that view too many innocent people would suffer far too much. The fate of the innocent is worth fighting for. Remember that you live on a comfortable, complacent, little island which has not been conquered by anybody since the poxed Normans invaded over a thousand years ago. I think some of us have forgotten how precious freedom (not in the meaningless American sense) is.

BTW, I wouldn't get worked up about references to "this distinguished forum"; it's almost certainly meant in a gently ironic and humorous way.

Simon L2 · June 2007

Well, Ankev, thankyou.

Let me put another case to you. Serbia invaded, or attempted to invade Kosovo. Here we can rattle the tin can of principle and it means something. Blair and Clinton decided to roll back the Serbian advance, and, in doing so, risk the wrath of the Russians. The Kosovans were saved from the Serbs. It's also true that many Serbs living in Kosovo were killed by Kosovans of Albanian descent - but, when you compare the bloodshed in the 'First Serbian War' on Croatia and the 'Second Serbian War' on Bosnia-Herzogovina with that of the 'Third Serbian War' then you have to accept that Blair did a good and wise thing. For, it must be said, no real reward. There is no oil in Kosovo. And, in this case, the proportionality of the Blair/Clinton response was what made the defence of principle in itself principled. Because the world was a better place for it.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

And that is a great example of how your point of view affects your view of history. The Serbs didn't invade Kosovo---it was, and remains, part of Serbia.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Simon L2 · June 2007

you'll have to persuade the Kosovans of that...

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2
...
setting aside the response to my Daily Mail jibe (the clue is in the reference to 'distinguised forum) the real fault in this post, as in so many others in Soapbox is its unintended sanctimoniousness. Indeed it is just a little tiny bit like Blair's justification for invading Iraq.
...

Over and over and over again in this forum there is a presumption that injustice should be righted whatever the cost. Propositions are categorised, and abstract principles applied. ...

The truth is that Soapboxers are idealists. That, in my book, is unforgiveable. It's a kind of abdication.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Sorry Simon, but I did chuckle somewhat at being accused of sanctimoniousness by someone who then goes on to argue against me from what they clearly consider to be a position of superior morality!

I was also puzzled by your attack against idealism. This is not a criticism, but surely many of your contributions to this forum are arguing from a fairly idealistic position? For example, in another thread you've called for central London to become completely car free. You've applied the description 'evil' to Blair and Thatcher- surely a value judgement made on fairly strong personal values and principles?

Edit- BTW, I should have said that I do agree with you in principle that idealism can be dangerous. Idealists on both the left and the right have all too often used the moral superiority their cause to justify acts of repression. That is something those of us arguing for a more sustainable way of life have to be careful to avoid.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
It's the twentyfifth anniversary of the Falklands invasion and this, not surprisingly, is in the papers. It's the forty sixth year after the invasion of the deportation of the Chagos Islanders and that doesn't figure. For such an erudite lot the panorama of your concerns is quite narrow and a tad secondhand.
...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I don't buy the "well you should be discussing issue X instead, this is much more important/immoral etc" argument. There are many ills in the world; if we applied that to every discussion we wouldn't be able to focus on anything, as there would always be something else somebody felt was more important. This thread was primarily about Thatcher and the decisions she made; she wasn't responsible for Chagos.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

I'll return to mjones' post. what kind of weak and shabby democracy lets a dictator grab some of its people and territory and get away with it? Sounds uncomfortably close to appeasement. Yes. It is close to appeasement. Actually it would be giving in. Sometimes it's better to be weak and shabby than strong, shiny and right in all respects.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
On which I simply have to disagree. You've previously said you are not a pacifist, so we must assume that there are some circumstances in which you would consider war to be morally justifiable. In that case then there is a dividing line somewhere: I've simply placed it in a different position from you, because I think democracy has to be defended.

ankev1 · June 2007

I don't think this has any implications for the larger points being made, but for the record:

Kosovo was and is, to the Serbs the most symbolic part of their homeland. It was there that they stood and fought and took an absolute kicking from the advancing Ottoman empire. Since that point the Serbs saw themselves, with some justification, as holding the front line of Christendom against the Moslem hordes. Over the years many Albanians slipped over the mountains from Albania and settled in Kosovo. The Serbs never got too worked up about this but gradually the Kosovo Albanians outbred the Kosovo Serbs and the province took on an increasingly Albanian character. Milosevic on coming to power, wickedly and consciously exploited Serbian resentment at the Albanianisation (sorry - ugly word) of Kosovo and then went on to kick off the Balkan wars.

Once Slovenia, Croatia had broken off from Yugoslavia and Republika Serbska and Bosnia had been carved out of Bosnia proper, Milosevic turned his attention to Kosovo again although this time he tried to drive his enemies out rather than massacre them. NATO put its foot down and the rest is recent history.

FWIW I was in the HQ of the first brigade to go into Kosovo and I could see both the Albanian and Serb points of view. Milosevic was IMO distorting the Serb view and was not truly representative of it. Although you could argue that the NATO campaign was principled, it led to great injustice against innocent Kosovo Serbs and I remember thinking at the time that while we were well meaning, was it actually our scrap? Would we be able to justify the deaths British soldiers to their families? I'm glad there were none (the few deaths were as a result of ammo and other accidents) and I still can't answer those questions.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I don't buy the "well you should be discussing issue X instead, this is much more important/immoral etc" argument. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This reminds me of the intellectually untenable argument that the pro foxhunting lobby used to deploy of, "Why should Parliament be discussing this, when there are much more important issues they could be discussing?"

mr_hippo · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

Patrick - they could have stayed or they could have left. Either would have been a disgrace. But killing people to avoid disgrace is wrong.

I'm not a pacifist, but there has to be some degree of proportion about the reasons for war.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Simon L2, soon Mrs. Hippo and I are visiting England again and we need a base in the south. With this in mind, we will be taking over your house. Now you and your family are welcome to stay in the garden or you are free to leave. The choice is yours!

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 23/24 June: Update published: Monday 25 June

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mr_hippo

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

Patrick - they could have stayed or they could have left. Either would have been a disgrace. But killing people to avoid disgrace is wrong.

I'm not a pacifist, but there has to be some degree of proportion about the reasons for war.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Simon L2, soon Mrs. Hippo and I are visiting England again and we need a base in the south. With this in mind, we will be taking over your house. Now you and your family are welcome to stay in the garden or you are free to leave. The choice is yours!

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 23/24 June: Update published: Monday 25 June
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The Hippo family have an historical claim on Streatham Hill because of its proximity to Widnes -yes I know it's north of Watford, but it can be found on a map.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I don't buy the "well you should be discussing issue X instead, this is much more important/immoral etc" argument. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This reminds me of the intellectually untenable argument that the pro foxhunting lobby used to deploy of, "Why should Parliament be discussing this, when there are much more important issues they could be discussing?"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Though there was a difference there- foxhunting was taking up lots of parliamentary time and resources, which are finite, whereas on Soapbox it doesn't really matter a stuff what we <s>waste</s> spend time <s>scoring points off each other</s> discussing!

Oh Maggie how I loathed thee.....

Comments

Categories