Monday, January 07, 2013

'Cameron's Falklands buzz seeks to distract public from domestic woes'




Above you can watch an interview with me on RT  why David Cameron will be hoping that the Falklands issue stays in the news this year. More on this topic here. 

5 comments:

Douglas said...

American historian Walter Russell Mead suggested that Argentina was picking a fight in the Falklands to distract from the fiscal difficulties arising from its mismanagement.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/03/uk-argentine-falklands-row-reignites/

Neil Clark said...

Hi Douglas,
Many thanks for link. As I said when asked in interview, it cld well be that the Argentinian govt is indeed bringing this now up to divert attention from economic problems at home- the interview I did was principally about the UK perspective & no doubt that Cameron wld benefit from Falklands issue being kept on front pages this year to distract us from dire economic situation and falling living standards.

charles austin Yates said...

You're a funny one Neil. By that I mean worm-tongue & snake.About your recent effort on Kremlin TV:- you claim it was Cameron who was desperate to whip up controversy about the Islands to distract attention from a troubled economy. Not a mention of the fact that Kirchner was placing adverts in foreign newspapers or that her economy is in infinitely worse shape; funny how that slipped your mendacious mind.
You could also have mentioned that Kirchner's bunch have been caught falsifying their inflation figures.
I'll go on. I noticed you recently spent time eulogising Peter Shore as some kind of prophet.
Interesting that - because after early unilateralism he became devoted to Polaris & Trident & applauded the Falklands War. Where did I get this information?
The Guardian's obituary of him - you clown.

I hope you get a kick out of Skyping for RT. You're a useful idiot & totally without repute or honour.
I'll wager you think the likes of Peter Lavelle are prophets too. Has he invited you on Crosstalk yet so you can tell him how the world is a poorer place without Gadaffi?
I'm not sure whether you're 1st & foremost despicable or absurd.
I dare you to post this.

Neil Clark said...

thanks for your thoughts, Charles.
1. Interview was principally about about Cameron and why he would be keen for this issue to re-emerge, not about Kirchner. when I was asked about Argentina I agreed that
it could indeed be the case that they were using it to divert attention away from domestic economic situation as well.
2. re Peter Shore, i don't quite get yr point. i think he was a prophet on many issues- that doesn't mean I agree with him on every single stance he took. Shore did support UK's attempt to reclaim the Falklands in 1982, as I did. I said on the interview that if Argentina did invade, the UK would be entitled under i/law to reclaim its territory. It wld be a very different scenario to Iraq, where US/UK were clearly the aggressors.

charles austin Yates said...

1. The interview was principally about the Falklands issue - you doggedly made it about Cameron & his domestic policies & threw Syria into the mix for good measure.
Bill Dodd made the case that it was trouble-making by Kirchner which you merely didn't disagree with before swiftly moving back to implying all kinds of ulterior motives on Cameron's part.
2. Even George Galloway claims he supported the action in '82 to re-take the Islands. It's a thin boast. Even Michael Foot could have claimed that.
However the Guardian did not. Simon Jenkins noted its crisp (& no doubt priggish) opposition to Operation Corporate.
You complain about cuts but never mentioned the defence cuts which are encouraging Kirchner's stunts.

Guardian journalists can't criticise defence cuts can they?
You might note the jobs lost but that's a slightly different point.
You're trying to have both your pork & your pig. It's easy to say you supported the action but the reality is commentators of your stripe have always been fixated with the Belgrano's sinking & Thatcher receiving help from Pinochet. Can you honestly tell me that wouldn't be your territory?
When Denis Healey denounced Thatcher for "glorying in slaughter" & Tam Dalyell started his Belgrano crusade you'd not have been found defending Thatcher the milk snatcher.
If Argentina did invade you'd claim it was what Cameron had always wanted - ignoble cant on your part!

3.About Shore; if you're going to label someone a prophet as you have it's rather essential that you see eye to eye on something as fundamental as Polaris/Trident. It's hardly peripheral.
Unless you do support that policy - well do you? That's my point.
In reality you'd have hated Shore as say Defence Secretary, pro nuke, nationalistic & prone to sabre-rattling. A real Guardian hate figure - along with other Labour Rightists like Roy Mason & Reg Prentice.

4.About RT - while entertaining & rarely dull it's also fundamentally unsavoury. It is anything but progressive & fishes for useful idiots.
Just today 10/01/13 it shows its true colours as it seeks to justify a massive wolf-cull by labelling them 'deadly predators'. It's quite ready to play on ancient prejudices to demonize a threatened species. Is that progressive?

5.Next time you're on RT I dare you to raise the subject of Chechnya. You'll never be invited back.