Bush grants interview to the Sun

[Whaleboy]

Look at it like this. If the Belgrano wasn't sunk, it could have caused the death of British soldiers. So, the Sun was celebrating the fact that British soldiers would not be killed. Again, the British weren't wrong in this war. Argentina was.

Was sailing away from the Islands, and was initially outside of the exclusion zone and still sailing in the opposite direction. It was not a legitimate target as it was not within that zone (though I believe it was extended... MtG???).

Your argument is like the assertation that people were justified in celebrating after Hiroshima! There are no winners in war, only survivors. The Belgrano was posing no threat at that time, and was not a legitimate target. Understand that I'm not talking about the rights and wrongs of the war itself, as the attacked, Britain had the right to defend itself. However, that does not excuse the issue that war is a tragedy, whether or not, in this case, you are British or Argentine. You are human first.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You have to remember that the Falklands War only became a "war" after it was finished. At the time, it was presented as a military action to re-occupy sovereign British territory. That meant that we defined the rules of the conflict.

Then we promptly broke our own rules. The next step would presumably have been attacking targets on Argentinian soil.

In any event, the Belgrano wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes if it got within gun range of the islands or the task force. 8-inch guns aren't much use at shooting down Sea Harriers.

[David Floyd]

Hiroshima was an attack against civilians - ie, a terror attack. Sinking the Belgrano was an attack on a valid military target. There is no comparison.

As to the exclusion zone, I'm not an expert, but I would rather assume that this exclusion zone applied, like most others, to FOREIGN vessels (ie, non-British, non-Argentine). British naval vessels could of course enter, and Argentine vessels were targets both within and without.

That's just an assumption, though - I don't actually know.

[David Floyd]

In any event, the Belgrano wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes if it got within gun range of the islands or the task force. 8-inch guns aren't much use at shooting down Sea Harriers.

If it got within gun range of a British "carrier", then the 8 inch guns would probably do a bit of damage before the Harriers sunk the Belgrano. Same thing WRT the islands themselves.

[Bereta_Eder]

Wasn't a british ship sunk in the malvidas? By a french rocket or something?

[Whaleboy]

It was a zone within which Britain could attack Argentine military vessels.

My point remains unchanged whether the target is military or civilian. Humans died. The Sun was celebrating this tragedy. I cannot find that acceptable. Yes the war was Argentina's fault. So the Sun was justified in celebrating the deaths of humans? . Has the psyche of the idiot actually changed since the Crusades?

[David Floyd]

OK, fine. Then by that argument, the US wouldn't be justified celebrating the victory at Yorktown, during the Revolution

[Whaleboy]

If it got within gun range of a British "carrier", then the 8 inch guns would probably do a bit of damage before the Harriers sunk the Belgrano. Same thing WRT the islands themselves.

If she ship had entered the exclusion zone, from which it was sailing away, and had been for some time, then it would have been promptly sunk.

Wasn't a british ship sunk in the malvidas? By a french rocket or something?

The HMS Sheffield IIRC, by an Exocet missile fired from an Argentine jet. Stupid RN building their ships out of aluminium .

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Wasn't a british ship sunk in the malvidas? By a french rocket or something?

6 British ships were sunk, or severely damaged. Exocets took out the "Coventry", the "Sheffield", the "Ardent" and the "Antelope". Iron bombs took out the "Sir Galahad" and "Sir Tristram" in Bluff Cove.

[David Floyd]

Having a zone in which you are allowed to attack military vessels of a nation with which you are at war is stupid. In any case, though, the British breaking their own rules does not matter one bit WRT the Sun celebrating the sinking.

[Bereta_Eder]

So it was a full fledged war, wasn't it?

Why the brits are prortrayed as the slaughters on this war?

[Whaleboy]

OK, fine. Then by that argument, the US wouldn't be justified celebrating the victory at Yorktown, during the Revolution

Correct.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd
OK, fine. Then by that argument, the US wouldn't be justified celebrating the victory at Yorktown, during the Revolution

That's up to the Americans. A nation tends to decide on whether its actions are justified according to its own merits, and the "Belgrano" is generally considered rather unsporting.

[Ramo]

Turns out Cheney had repeatedly blown off British ambassador, Meyer, when pressed for planning on post-war Iraq.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...086438,00.html

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'd have to have more info about this.

The action.May 2, 1982

Belaunde Terry, President of Peru, presents a peace proposal to Argentine President Leopoldo Galtieri, who gives a preliminary acceptance with some proposed modifications. Before the Argentine junta ratifies the acceptance, British submarine HMS Conqueror sinks the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano outside the war zone and while sailing away from the islands. Almost 400 crewmen die. At this point the junta rejects the proposal.

And the response. May 4, 1982 and forwards

Argentine air attacks from Super Etendard fighter planes using Exocet air to surface missiles sink the British destroyer HMS Sheffield with twenty men on board. One British Harrier plane is shot down.

The British HMS Ardent is sunk by an Argentine air attack. Nine Argentine aircraft shot down.

The British HMS Antelope is attacked and sinks after unexploded bomb detonates. Ten Argentine aircraft destroyed.

HMS Coventry is hit by 3 1000 lb air bombs dropped from Argentine Skyhawks; 19 British dead. The MV Atlantic Conveyor is hit by an Exocet missile and sinks 3 days later, 12 more British dead.

An Argentine air attack on British landing craft Sir Galahad and Sir Tristam at Port Pleasant south of Bluff Cove. 50 British die.

The cruiser HMS Glamorgan is hit by an Exocet missile as it was bombarding on shore Argentine positions. 13 British die.

Source

Margaet Thatcher refused peace negotiations, risked military defeat, and this to be re-elected

[David Floyd]

Correct.

So you are saying the US was unjustified in celebrating a victory which led to the end of the war and its independence?

Look, that's just plain stupid. Yes, war is a tragedy, but celebrating a victory is not immoral. In many cases, victories lead to the end of the war, so if it makes you feel better, just celebrate the end of the war.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by paiktis22
So it was a full fledged war, wasn't it?

Why the brits are prortrayed as the slaughters on this war?

Like I said, it wasn't called a war at the time.

With the exception of the "Belgrano", I wasn't aware that we were.

[Whaleboy]

Trip: Shocking isn't it. People dying for a flag and a battleaxe. Never have I been so firm in my conviction that war is nothing but a waste.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Damn. Forgot the "Glamorgan". In my defence, I was only 11 at the time.

[David Floyd]

With the exception of the "Belgrano", I wasn't aware that we were.

And I don't see how you can equate the Belgrano incident with "slaughter". The Belgrano was a military target - it's not as if you were torpedoing civilians. Sure, it was outside of that silly exclusion zone, but it was still a military target.

[Spec]

David Floyd, I think you are getting around Whaleboys point on purpose. Let me try a clarify.

Death of poeple should not be celebrated if these poeple do not decide to cause harm or terror, the title on the Sun was inappropriate, either way you put it. Because the soldiers that died were majorly conscripted, they did not choose to be there, thus they died because of argentina's wronglyness, period.

Take it another wa , just to be sure you understand...

Let's say that you have a brother, and that brother is drafted by force by some his home government, while you, David floyd, are working in an other country that happens to be at war with your homeland. So your brother is on a ship, coming ashore and it gets sunken to the bottom of the ocean. The next day, the country where you work at gets a paper out with the title:"GOTCHA!".

Would you feel like celebrating the destruction of the ship....knowing that the soldiers on it, including your brother, were forced to do so?

Now I hope you get Whaleboys point, otherwise your head is as thick as as 5 foot concrete block.

Spec.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Trip: Shocking isn't it. People dying for a flag and a battleaxe. Never have I been so firm in my conviction that war is nothing but a waste.

I'm struggling to agree with that. British citizens were herded out of their homes at gunpoint by soldiers acting on the orders of a military junta.

Even if they were thousands of miles away, they were still British citizens.

[Whaleboy]

So you are saying the US was unjustified in celebrating a victory which led to the end of the war and its independence?

Look, that's just plain stupid. Yes, war is a tragedy, but celebrating a victory is not immoral. In many cases, victories lead to the end of the war, so if it makes you feel better, just celebrate the end of the war.

Bull. Any victory in war is vastly overshadowed by the loss of life. Any military victory leading to the cessation of hostilities would cause me to be deeply saddened that the chasm of death that preceeded it. Humanity in that sense is far worse off at the end of the war than at the beginning, attested to by the children with dead fathers.

Laz: People shotting, bayonetting, shelling and slugging each other. If thats not a war, I don't know what is.

[Bereta_Eder]

Military juntas seem to have a knack for expansion it would seem. That's why it's very important never to give them any support.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd


And I don't see how you can equate the Belgrano incident with "slaughter". The Belgrano was a military target - it's not as if you were torpedoing civilians. Sure, it was outside of that silly exclusion zone, but it was still a military target.

Actually I was equating it with bad sportsmanship and rank pointlessness. Other people may have been equating it with slaughter, but I'm not them.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Laz: People shotting, bayonetting, shelling and slugging each other. If thats not a war, I don't know what is.

It's the reason why we weren't bombing Buenos Aires.

[Whaleboy]

Spec:

[Bereta_Eder]

Well I don't know what happened. All I know was that it was viewed as a slaughter. When did it happen?

[David Floyd]

I've gotten his point all along. Conscription is immoral, starting wars is immoral. And guess what? Argentina did both of those things in the Falklands, and Britain did neither (I don't think Britain had conscription at that time, right?).

In wartime, there are such things as military targets. Unfortunately, as a result of immorality, sometimes those military targets include conscripts. Well, the responsibility for their death does not lie with the people who are attacking those military targets as a result of the leaders of the conscripts starting a war. The responsibility lies with the people who started the war and forced conscripts to become military targets. I would also argue that the conscripts had a moral duty to refuse conscription, but that is another argument, and I don't mean to pass the responsibility off on them.

So let's recap. Argentina manned its military through conscription. Argentina started a war with Britain by invading the Falklands. Argentina chose to sortie the cruiser Belgrano. Argentina chose to immorally hold up peace negotiations, by trying to modify a peace agreement, when the peace agreement, morally, should have involved nothing more than Argentine withdrawal and compensation for any property destroyed and people killed.

So, Britain, with it's volunteer armed forces, engages the military target Belgrano. Britain proceeds to sink the Belgrano, winning what is perceived as a major victory. A British newspaper celebrates this victory.

And I just don't see anything wrong with that.

[David Floyd]

Bull. Any victory in war is vastly overshadowed by the loss of life. Any military victory leading to the cessation of hostilities would cause me to be deeply saddened that the chasm of death that preceeded it. Humanity in that sense is far worse off at the end of the war than at the beginning, attested to by the children with dead fathers.

The Revolutionary War brought about the independence of what became the most free nation in the world, and arguably the most free nation in history. I don't see how this is NOT an improvement.

Laz,

Actually I was equating it with bad sportsmanship and rank pointlessness.

OK, I understand. I agree it may have been "bad sportsmanship", but then again, I don't think that good sportsmanship should even be a consideration in war (just like I don't make it a consideration in fighting - I train to win, not be a good sport). As for pointlessness, maybe it couldn't have damaged the British fleet, but then again, maybe it could have. It was a military target, and it put to sea during wartime. If it was sitting in a port doing nothing, I could accept that bombing it was pointless.