30th Falklands anniversay

Falklands War: A war that Argentina should easily have won had General Galteiri been more ruthless and competent and determined to keep the islands. His exocets might have been used to sink the troop carrying 'Canberra' before our troops disembarked. Our unlawful sinking of the 'Belgrano' led to over 400 sailors drowning and freezing to death. And, then,we rejoiced at our mighty victory and gave thanks to God, in St Paul's Cathedral, for his help! We were actually very, very lucky at having a military government in Argentina that was such an incompetent and corrupt bunch.

Our UK history and politics for centuries has had the Bible at its heart with every Monarch at their Coronation, vowing to abide by its strictures. One such is, "It is more blessed to give than to receive". In fact, like the Falkland Islands, for many centuries we just took and claimed for our own whatever piece of the planet we discovered. And, we fought other European powers over theirs and our territories and dependencies. Most notably, in the 1st World War that was the grand climax of centuries of Western European empire building, piracy and warfare around the globe.

The Christian thing would have been to have admitted we were out-manoeuvred, out-smarted and outplayed in every sphere of intelligence gathering and politics and, so allowed Argentina to keep the islands. Our intelligence services failed to be intelligent and to read the writings in the Argentine newspapers that showed how things were building up to the occupation. The islanders who did not wish to stay could have been re-settled in any part of the UK they wished, such as the islands off Scotland that are similar to the Falklands. Revenge is sweet, however, for every nation and President or Prime Minister. Especially for the Iron Fisted Lady of Downing Street.

Really, I suppose, it was her feelings of outrage that got the better of her. The instinct to hit back overcame the advisers' caution as to what the exocets could do to bring victory to Argentina. Recklessness was the watchword for Mrs Thatcher. She got away with it. She should, but most certainly does not, have on her conscience the deaths of nearly one thousand young people to allow three thousand Falklanders to stay where they should never have been put in the first place.

In early 1982, we let our guard down, withdrew our vessel, had talks at the UN to settle Argentina's claims on the islands and, we failed to read the writing on the wall. Therefore, we were sending a clear message to Galteiri that we would not send a task force to reclaim the islands that natural justice indicates should belong to Argentina - certainly not the UK! Even the US government was, at first, astonished at what Mrs Thatcher decided to do. However, they soon came round to support us against Argentina.

Mrs Thatcher should have done the decent thing and resigned and not sent 908 young men and women, from both nations, to a very early grave. Such is human nature, that Mrs Thatchers poll rating shot up as we Brits honoured a victorious war leader. The following year she was re-elected. Nature, of which we are part is, indeed, red in tooth and claw.

Those in power always use the dishonourable option of coercion, might is right and the sword to get their way - everytime. Things never change, whether we have elected dictatorships or unelected military dictatorships. They are all the same.

Police, PMs, Presidents like to feel that they are untouchable

"To whom more is given, more will be required"

Our culture, our prejudices always tend to give the benefit of the doubt to all authority figures (except, perhaps, social workers!). We all seem to be most sympathetic to our own kith and kin, our own kind, our own class. We are less sympathetic to the stranger, the poor, the immigrant, the classes beneath our own. Hence, our prisons are stuffed full of a disproportionate number of blacks, the poor, the mentally ill and the illiterate - and, now, asylum seekers.

I am always astonished by the number of miscarriages of justice in which the Police are implicated. They tend to go for the old lags, the men already known to them. They go for the likely characters; the men who look as though they are up to no good! Getting the hard evidence is less popular. They also feel that they are entitled to use the tactics of the criminal to beat the criminal. In other words, 'cos they are on the side of the angels, they can use any means to get their good end. They are convinced that, for them, the ends always justify the means. Or, the ends are so important, the means can be stretched, are elastic and ethics can be ignored. Hence, the Police will hide their uniform numbers, be heavy handed and feel they are above the law (they used excessive force - unprovoked attacks, in fact - at the G20 protest in April 2009). No wonder there are so many complaints and so much rough justice. (Remember David Jessell and his 'Rough Justice' TV programmes?).

I think, for men and women of integrity, these sloppy, short-handed methods should be treated more seriously. The Police are so powerful that when they break the law, justice should be applied. It is less popular to do this 'cos we don't like to think that they could possibly be crooks and must, therefore, be charged with a crime. However, the good Lord says, "To whom more is given, more will be required." There should be justice done to deal with lawless Police officers to get the Police to be what we all think they are - upright, clean living, setting a fine example to the rest of us. The problem is, I think, they let themselves down too often and nothing is done. The murder of the Brazilian electrician is one of many examples. General Pinochet also got let off. Margaret Thatcher, in sinking the 'Belgrano', contrary to the rules of engagement when the ship was outside the exclusion zone, killed over 400 Argentinian sailors yet, was unassailable; but, was not beyond criticism on the TV programme, 'Nationwide'.

An extension of this is when our Prime Minister and President think that they can short circuit the UN and international law by deciding they can attack other independent, sovereign nations and, in consequence, be responsible (directly and indirectly) for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. However, even with this enormous war crime, both men are untouchable. Yet, the Lord says that these top men (who both belong to Him) should be required to account for their sins. More is given to them; more is expected of them. Does this not mean that we should be stricter with those in power? But, always justice tempered with mercy, of course.

We are more prepared to forgive those in authority for their crimes because, it seems to me, we are almost all prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the Police and we supported every post-war governments' unethical foreign policies (Robin Cook's phrase when he was Foreign Secretary). For example, although the small majority of the UK seemed to be against the attack and six year war on Iraq, the people were not against our invasion and, so far, eight and a half year war on Afghanistan. The ends still justify the means when it comes to Afghanistan. Incidentally, our present war is the fourth against Afghanistan since 1839; we lost the previous three and we are losing this one. Our foreign policy is not only as unethical as ever but is as incompetent as ever!

Last night's 'Unreported World' on Ch 4 showed how Kabul is a bloodbath and a hell hole thanks to our well intentioned and sincere intervention but, it is wrong, stupid, immoral; simply a war crime. And more troops from the US/UK are pouring in from Obama and Brown! Attack and invade, occupy and fortify, grab and brag is what we do best as the New Colonialists from New Labour.

Summary
Whenever the law makers, enforcers and upholders break their law, behave like criminals and worse, rather than us lot sympathising, excusing and turning a blind eye, prosecution and justice tempered with mercy is essential - in my opinion. "Those to whom more is given; more will be required."

The Right, the Righteous and the Unrighteous

It seems to me that, since the end of the Attlee government in 1951, we have had our right wing electorates voting in right wing governments of either main party.

Right wing is characterised by belligerence of foreign policy in invading and attacking Korea, Egypt, SE Asia, the 'Belgrano' and, more recently, Afghanistan and Iraq. After this, not surprisingly, right wing is characterised by a lack of sympathy for the foreigner. However, this does not include Americans and Canadians and Australians who look like us and speak English almost as well as us! Right wing is characterised by generosity of spirit towards the arms manufacturers and traders with their subsidies from the taxpayer but much less so for those on State benefits of various kinds.

So right wing governments can't help but be right and on the right; always regarding the military and their supply line as the righteous but those on the scrounge as the unrighteous - despite the fact that it is these very right wing governments and their right wing electorates who decide on the 'largesse' going to the benefit claimants.