"Old boys' drinking club"

[exnihilo]

Quoting Stuart from 19:48, 22nd May 2005However, I stand by my belief that the assistance given by Pinochet during the conflict was of the greatest value. I doubt learning about his motives, whether they were fair or foul, will change this.

WHERE have I said it wasn't?? I said that his motives far far from altruistic as you seem to believe - one country helps another country for reasons beyond fraternal love, really, believe me, you don't need to be an expert on Chilean politics or even an IR student to realise that.

[Stuart]

Quoting Webbie from 19:52, 22nd May 2005

I heard old Pino just got a stroke, i'll drink to that.

What a charming character you must be.

I suppose you would have preferred a backwards communist dictatorship led by a vile anti-semite, who probably wouldn't have given two hoots as to whether or not the Argentinian flag flew proudly over Port Stanley, or rather Puerto Argentinoas hundreds, if not thousands, of British servicemen returned to the UK in body bags?

[BenEsq]

I can assure you he\'s very charming and not in the least anti-Semetic. What would have been preferable is that Maggie darling had carried on with existing plans to cede territorial claims to The Falklands and not wasted lives on a very dishonourable enterprise in the South Atlantic.
Down with empire and monarchy (how very big and clever of me). What was this thread about again? Oh yes, well it is a debating society and we are all arguing...that\'s good, right?

[hr]

Lions and tigers and bears...Oh my!

[Mr Comedy]

Arguably the Falklands War revived belief in our British Armed Forces at a time when confidence was low, and we weren't sure what the point in being a military nation was any more.

[Webbie]

Quoting Mr Comedy from 13:59, 23rd May 2005
Arguably the Falklands War revived belief in our British Armed Forces at a time when confidence was low, and we weren't sure what the point in being a military nation was any more.

Is most people's reason for getting up in the morning related to if their nation has a strong military? Does the notion of not having worldly-powerful armed forces lead to depression and low self-esteem in the majority of the British public?

So, the suffering faced by the friends and families of those K.I.A. is permissable as long as it leads to a nation who will feel confident that their tax money is sending people they don't even know to kill or be killed by other people who they don't even know, maintaining the image of a "Strong Britain"

[BenEsq]

Quoting Mr Comedy from 13:59, 23rd May 2005
Arguably the Falklands War revived belief in our British Armed Forces at a time when confidence was low, and we weren't sure what the point in being a military nation was any more.

The point in being a military nation is to collaborate with dictators and bomb 'enemies' in retreat so you can talk big about your state? Have I understood you there?

[hr]

Lions and tigers and bears...Oh my!

[Tweedle-Dum]

Quoting benesq from 18:45, 23rd May 2005

Quoting Mr Comedy from 13:59, 23rd May 2005
Arguably the Falklands War revived belief in our British Armed Forces at a time when confidence was low, and we weren't sure what the point in being a military nation was any more.

The point in being a military nation is to collaborate with dictators and bomb 'enemies' in retreat so you can talk big about your state? Have I understood you there?

I think I speak for many when I say "Fuck off, you commie scum."

[hr]

Live by the sword, die by the arrow.

[David Bean]

Hang on a minute, there are two issues here. The one that seems to have been spun off is whether or not the Falklands' War was right or just, and I don't think there can really be any debate about the idea that a foreign power invading British sovereign territory and forcing our subjects at gun point to drive on the other side of the road is by any definition a good idea. If any government had ever intended to cede the territory to a foreign power, especially one run by a corrupt junta, that would have been wrong.

The other issue concerns Pinochet's involvement. I argued, as did exnihilo, that his motivation for doing this was selfish - specifically, it involved ongoing negotiations over arms deals - so we can't credit him for acting with a benevolent will towards Britain. But even if we abandon that point and say that we should still think well of him for acting in our interests, I would say no, because the evils he did to his own people morally trump any instrumental good he might have done for the UK, and indeed such greivous human rights violations would have trumped any other good he could have done, which was why I mentioned curing cancer and the cold.

He certainly can't be defended by any argument that appeals to how bad Salvador Allende might have been, because even if Allende had been Hitler himself, it still wouldn't have excused crimes against humanity on the part of his (unelected) successor. Was Idi Amin a better leader of Uganda for having successfully couped the thoroughly rotten Milton Obote? Or was Obote better for eventually replacing Amin again? Hardly.

Any balanced assessment of Pinochet's character must, because of these evils, be overwhelmingly negative - there really is no objective moral basis on which to deny this. The only way to support him in spite of this is essentially to claim that the narrow self-interest of the UK at that point in time ss so much more important to us than the lives of the thousands upon thousands of the Disappeared, a claim that can only be underpinned by the most vicious, narrow-minded variety of racism.

[BenEsq]

The Bean speaks sense.

[hr]

Lions and tigers and bears...Oh my!

[Stuart]

David, nobody is trying to defend Pinochet's domestic policies. What happened in Chile in the early years of his rule is indefensible. His repression of opponents and use of torture cannot be justfied, and I don't see anyone here trying to.

However, I would imagine (and hope) that those toasting Pinochet were doing so on account of his service to this country during the Falklands conflict. But, as I said, I wasn't there, and neither were you.

Quoting David Bean from 19:15, 23rd May 2005
if Allende had been Hitler himself

Funny you should say that! There was an interesting article in one of the Sunday papers about his plans for mass sterilisation of 'degenerates'. Apparently he was being advised by various Nazi scientists who had fled to South America. Coupled with his rampant anti-semitism, I think he would have been as close to Hitler as Latin America's ever going to get.

[Donald Renouf]

Quoting Laura from 11:27, 21st May 2005
Donald, it's a long time since I've been pissed, never mind pissed at a debate- and I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to imply.

I am very sorry; it's a long time since I've been in St Andrews, let alone at a debate.

However (and this is what I was trying to imply) I can remember your presence at at least one debate in really quite an advanced state of intoxication, and now that you are older and wiser I don't think you should expect your juniors in the Society to adhere to standards of behaviour you didn't when you were in their shoes. (Did that make grammatical sense?)

[Anon.]

Quoting David Bean from 03:50, 21st May 2005
- Affectation of certain kinds of mannerism (including strict observance to norms of ettiquette and dress codes) by those who show no compunction in stabbing their friends and colleagues in the back...

Why do one's mannerisms or dress have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not one "stabs people in the back"? Are alleged back-stabbers somehow less entitled to wear certain clothes or behave in a certain kind of way?

...or who believe that these are more important to the overall wellbeing of the Society than efficient organisation

Anyway, the phrase "stab in the back" (famously used, incidentally and as I'm sure you'll know, by those far-right groups who chose to assert that Germany was in fact undefeated in 1918) is usually employed by those who feel betrayed as a result of others' actions, whether or not those actions actually represented any particular change in individual policy.

A few people I know have been hurt by my actions in the past, simply through their own naïveté in their initial assumption that I actually liked them, rather than from any traitorous or duplicitous behaviour on my part. I would not regard myself as having "stabbed them in the back", though they may regard me as having done so.

I have no idea to whom specifically you may be alluding, David, being as I am supremely oblivious when it comes to politicking within the U.D.S., but based on my own experiences as mentioned above I suspect that the stab-ees' poor judgement of motives may be as much to blame as the stabbers' actions for any rancour that may exist.

Sorry for my rather rococo phrasing.

[Anon.]

Quoting David Bean from 17:02, 21st May 2005
Firstly, in response to Will's point, one thing I REALLY hate is when people shout 'shame!' whenever anyone votes aye to the minutes being taken as read. It's a stupid idea, and never used to happen: perhaps one or two used to call it out for a joke, but these days everyone does it as though it's just one of the things that you say, and it isn't.

Actually, I've always thought this rather silly. I have frequently been a protest aye-voter myself, even being rewarded by an outraged "Mr Renouf!" from Mr Joss for my audacity.

[Anon.]

I would say something about the Falklands, but I know absolutely nothing about it.

[Anon.]

or them.

[Anon.]

Quoting Anon. from 20:45, 23rd May 2005

Quoting David Bean from 03:50, 21st May 2005
- Affectation of certain kinds of mannerism (including strict observance to norms of ettiquette and dress codes) by those who show no compunction in stabbing their friends and colleagues in the back...

Why do one's mannerisms or dress have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not one "stabs people in the back"? Are alleged back-stabbers somehow less entitled to wear certain clothes or behave in a certain kind of way?

...or who believe that these are more important to the overall wellbeing of the Society than efficient organisation

Anyway, the phrase "stab in the back" (famously used, incidentally and as I'm sure you'll know, by those far-right groups who chose to assert that Germany was in fact undefeated in 1918) is usually employed by those who feel betrayed as a result of others' actions, whether or not those actions actually represented any particular change in individual policy.

A few people I know have been hurt by my actions in the past, simply through their own naïveté in their initial assumption that I actually liked them, rather than from any traitorous or duplicitous behaviour on my part. I would not regard myself as having "stabbed them in the back", though they may regard me as having done so.

I have no idea to whom specifically you may be alluding, David, being as I am supremely oblivious when it comes to politicking within the U.D.S., but I suspect that the stab-ees' poor judgement of motives may be as much to blame as the stabbers' actions for any rancour that may exist.

Sorry for my rather rococo phrasing.

[Anon.]

Damn; still getting the hang of the new Sinner.

[David Bean]

Hey Donald, how many posts d'you want to make here? ;)

Stuart: Oh, I'm sure you're right that they weren't trying to salute his domestic policies, but I thought the argument had evolved into a discussion of his legacy in general, and that was what I was responding to - particularly your insinuation that there was something wrong with the recent Spanish attempts to try Pinochet through universal jurisdiction. That, and the fact that I never balk at an opportunity to discuss moral philosophy :)

Donald 1: Yes, even I'll admit that Laura was trashed at one debate I convened, but it didn't actually matter since she spent most of the time giggling with her trap shut. She's wiser these days, but even during her mis-spent youth she managed at least not to be disruptive with it. ;)

Donald 2: Back-stabbing, and general unpleasentness towards one's fellow man, irrespective of whether or not one personally likes them, is thoroughly ungentlemenly - you of all people ought to agree with that. My argument was that there's no point affecting scrupulously polite conduct whilst simultaneously breaching every ethical norm ever conjectured.

Donald 3: Good-oh.

Donald 4: Ditto.

Donald 5: Indeed.

Donald 6: No comment.

Donald 7: Yeah, good luck with that.

[Eliot Wilson]

I do admire The Sinner's remarkable ability to hop from one subject to another. Having been away for the weekend and therefore having missed this thread's "development", you'll excuse me for putting in my two penn'orth now.

The subject of the Falklands War is fresh in my mind, having just finished reading Max Hastings' "Going to the Wars". And the argument seems to me a very simple one. British territory, occupied by people who wished fervently (and still wish) to be British, had been invaded and seized by force of arms. There could have been no question of our doing anything but retaking them. Anything else would have been shameful and craven, and a betrayal of the Falkland Islanders. Even Michael Foot accepted that in the Commons in April 1982. Lady Thatcher was quite right to despatch the task force when many around her were saying it couldn't - or, worse, shouldn't - be done, and it speaks volumes about the British armed forces that they responded so magnificently to an awesome challenge, whether it be the Parachute Regiment at Goose Green, the Marines yomping across East Falkland in truly ghastly conditions, the fortitude of the Guards at Mount Tumbledown or the heroism of the Special Air Service under Col. Rose. Nor ought we to forget the service of the Royal Navy. (The RAF's inability to close the runway at Port Stanley we might gloss over, and concentrate instead on the amazing endurance of the Vulcan crews conducting bombing trips which amounted to thousands of miles.) The Falklands War was an example of that rare beast, a truly just and good cause, and we should hold our heads high for doing what was right, especially when our 'allies' in Washington, Gen. Haig especially, were doing everything they could to frustrate us.

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[pelopidas]

Doesn't Hastings lambast the foreign office for a failure to continue to closely communicate with the Junta about the Falklands?