Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Falkland Islands: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Tell Argentina to STFU

11820222324

Posts

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    How many weeks later are you coming back to this?

    I haven't seen this thread on page 1 for quite some time.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Lord_Snot wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    I never understand the point of playing Devil's advocate.

    It just means you advance arguments you don't agree with, that make no sense, for the sake of arguing.

    You can't really even debate someone who is playing Devil's advocate, because they will then just shift to another flawed argument in order to continue arguing.

    Who's playing Devil's advocate? I'm certainly not, I'm just defending the fact that his political theory is a thing, that no one else recognized.

    rayofash is. He said up the top, in one of his posts.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Lord_SnotLord_Snot Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Lord_Snot wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    I never understand the point of playing Devil's advocate.

    It just means you advance arguments you don't agree with, that make no sense, for the sake of arguing.

    You can't really even debate someone who is playing Devil's advocate, because they will then just shift to another flawed argument in order to continue arguing.

    Who's playing Devil's advocate? I'm certainly not, I'm just defending the fact that his political theory is a thing, that no one else recognized.

    rayofash is. He said up the top, in one of his posts.

    Oh, sorry, missed that.

  • CasualCasual flap flap flap wiggle wiggle wiggle Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    No offence but this is absolute prize grade horse manure. Every word. The UK's war against Argentina was extremely restricted and contained. Not one shell or missile was fired outside the combat zone around the island itself.

    So basically you're calling Coporal Bramley, who was actually there and fighting for your country, a liar. Because you know better than someone who in the trenches (so to speak), I guess?
    I agree. It is completely irrelevant whether she was advancing in to the British flotilla all guns blazing or steaming away on fire with everyone waving their arms and screaming. There is no international law or convention saying you can't shoot at military targets if they're not advancing. Yes ender, war is shitty and people die, but I find your entire attitude painfully naive.

    So it was also fine for the Argentinians to shoot at the unarmed British soldiers at Goose Green who were waving a white flag, then? Because I don't think so.

    In any case, Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says it's illegal to attack a surrendering or fleeing enemy, and Articles 12 & 18 of the Second Geneva Convention expressly forbid the attacking of shipwrecked crew. I mean, maybe you don't give a shit about international law or the Geneva Conventions - but if that's the case, you don't have any moral high ground from which to pronounce the legitimacy of the operation in the first place.

    Who am I calling a liar? What am I disagreeing with? Read my post. I didn't say the ship wasn't maneuvering away, I said it was completely irrelevant whether it was or not. You could accuse the UK of war crimes if we had dropped bombs on schools or hospitals but as I said, not one shot was fired at Argentinian soil. And you can quote the Geneva convention all you like but in real life you don't get to deploy a military asset, let it take its shots, and then steam away flying a white flag laughing manically while shouting "No strike backsies! White flag!". War wouldn't really work if that were the case. In any case it's already been mentioned that the captain of the Belgrano himself agreed that the sinking was fair game and it was not shipwrecked or flying a white flag when it was fired on, it was a military vessel in a war zone, it got sunk in combat, get over it.

    And yes shooting at surrendering soldiers is different from sinking a ship in combat. If you can't tell the difference I'm not sure we have much to talk about.

    Once again your failure to grasp the realities of a war makes you ill equipped to have this debate.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    The Belgrano was neither fleeing nor surrendering. "Fleeing" would be heading in a straight line as far and fast away as possible, not skirting the edge of the exclusion zone with obvious intent to engage (as confirmed by signal intercepts, naval analysis, and of course eventually the Argentines themselves). If an active, offensive warship half a day's sail from your invasion force isn't a valid war target it's hard to imagine what is.

  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    No offence but this is absolute prize grade horse manure. Every word. The UK's war against Argentina was extremely restricted and contained. Not one shell or missile was fired outside the combat zone around the island itself.

    So basically you're calling Coporal Bramley, who was actually there and fighting for your country, a liar. Because you know better than someone who in the trenches (so to speak), I guess?
    I agree. It is completely irrelevant whether she was advancing in to the British flotilla all guns blazing or steaming away on fire with everyone waving their arms and screaming. There is no international law or convention saying you can't shoot at military targets if they're not advancing. Yes ender, war is shitty and people die, but I find your entire attitude painfully naive.

    So it was also fine for the Argentinians to shoot at the unarmed British soldiers at Goose Green who were waving a white flag, then? Because I don't think so.

    In any case, Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says it's illegal to attack a surrendering or fleeing enemy, and Articles 12 & 18 of the Second Geneva Convention expressly forbid the attacking of shipwrecked crew. I mean, maybe you don't give a shit about international law or the Geneva Conventions - but if that's the case, you don't have any moral high ground from which to pronounce the legitimacy of the operation in the first place.

    This is the same Argentinian military that 'pretended' to surrender by waving a white flag, then when the Brits went to take the surrender the Argentinians opened fire on them? Yeah, I don't think they following the Geneva convention to the letter there.

    steam_sig.png
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Hey Guys Guess What
    Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
    provisions:

    (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

    To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
    (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
    (b) taking of hostages;
    (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
    (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

    (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

    An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

    The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

    The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.


    Says absolutely fuck all about "fleeing"(and they weren't fleeing anyways), nor were they shipwrecked. Your arguing about a point he completely made up.

    but then again Article 420 of the 69th Geneva convention says whitey is always wrong, so maybe he has a point.

  • CasualCasual flap flap flap wiggle wiggle wiggle Registered User regular
    Wow, been a while since I saw the 'ol "throw out a random treaty subsection number to validate my crock of shit argument and hope nobody bothers to check and call me on it" used in this forum.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    I'd wager he's referring to those who've laid down their arms.

    Which is not the same as fleeing.

    Which the Argentinians of the time didn't appear to be doing either of which anyway during their fairly unjust war on the British.

    PSN: allenquid
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    It is possible that Ender is thinking of some other treaty; Geneva Convention IV details the treatment of civilians in war. Either way, I would love to know what the Belgrano was supposed to be fleeing from...penguins?

    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • CasualCasual flap flap flap wiggle wiggle wiggle Registered User regular
    It is possible that Ender is thinking of some other treaty; Geneva Convention IV details the treatment of civilians in war. Either way, I would love to know what the Belgrano was supposed to be fleeing from...penguins?

    The submarine that sunk it probably. All the same I doubt there were many civilians on board the Belgrano. Nor were the soldiers and sailors on board surrendering, so it's hard to see any justification for claiming the treaty applies. I'd also wager that Ender doesn't understand the difference between withdrawing away from the fight to attack again another day, and surrendering unconditionally, which is what the treaty applies to.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    It is possible that Ender is thinking of some other treaty; Geneva Convention IV details the treatment of civilians in war. Either way, I would love to know what the Belgrano was supposed to be fleeing from...penguins?

    The submarine that sunk it probably. All the same I doubt there were many civilians on board the Belgrano. Nor were the soldiers and sailors on board surrendering, so it's hard to see any justification for claiming the treaty applies. I'd also wager that Ender doesn't understand the difference between withdrawing away from the fight to attack again another day, and surrendering unconditionally, which is what the treaty applies to.

    Argentina doesn't know how to run a Navy if they had civilians on their ships in the middle of a war.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Call these nuts the Sword of Damocles 'cause they're hanging over your headRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    It has been well-established for over 100 years, per Admiral the Lord Fisher, that Submarine Warfare is un-English

    it is therefore impossible that the Belgrano was sunk by a British submarine. It must be a conspiracy.


    Argentina doesn't know how to run a Navy if they had civilians on their ships in the middle of a war.

    well

    Dongs Galore on
    Enc wrote: »
    Everything written by Dongs is read in Michael Palin's voice from the Romans skit.
    New forum rule, let it be known.
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    It has been well-established for over 100 years, per Admiral the Lord Fisher, that Submarine Warfare is un-English

    it is therefore impossible that the Belgrano was sunk by a British submarine. It must be a conspiracy.


    Argentina doesn't know how to run a Navy if they had civilians on their ships in the middle of a war.

    well

    The Royal Navy is building 2 new aircraft carriers and is then immediately moth balling one due to budget cuts. So its not like we can mock.

    Spoiler:
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Call these nuts the Sword of Damocles 'cause they're hanging over your headRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Karl wrote: »
    It has been well-established for over 100 years, per Admiral the Lord Fisher, that Submarine Warfare is un-English

    it is therefore impossible that the Belgrano was sunk by a British submarine. It must be a conspiracy.


    Argentina doesn't know how to run a Navy if they had civilians on their ships in the middle of a war.

    well

    The Royal Navy is building 2 new aircraft carriers and is then immediately moth balling one due to budget cuts. So its not like we can mock.

    We were actually only about a year away from decomming the carrier fleet and scrapping the rest of the planned Invincible-class, without any planned replacements, when Argentina invaded the Falklands.

    If they'd waited another year the RN would have been incapable of an effective counterattack. It's basically the entire reason the Thatcher administration decided to retain and expand the carrier fleet.

    ...or that's what I've read, anyway.

    Dongs Galore on
    Enc wrote: »
    Everything written by Dongs is read in Michael Palin's voice from the Romans skit.
    New forum rule, let it be known.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Karl wrote: »
    It has been well-established for over 100 years, per Admiral the Lord Fisher, that Submarine Warfare is un-English

    it is therefore impossible that the Belgrano was sunk by a British submarine. It must be a conspiracy.


    Argentina doesn't know how to run a Navy if they had civilians on their ships in the middle of a war.

    well

    The Royal Navy is building 2 new aircraft carriers and is then immediately moth balling one due to budget cuts. So its not like we can mock.

    As an American I get to mock all other navies.

    Wait, you guys are building a carrier, just to moth ball it. oO? confused pirate is confused as to the logic of this decision

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Karl wrote: »
    It has been well-established for over 100 years, per Admiral the Lord Fisher, that Submarine Warfare is un-English

    it is therefore impossible that the Belgrano was sunk by a British submarine. It must be a conspiracy.


    Argentina doesn't know how to run a Navy if they had civilians on their ships in the middle of a war.

    well

    The Royal Navy is building 2 new aircraft carriers and is then immediately moth balling one due to budget cuts. So its not like we can mock.

    As an American I get to mock all other navies.

    Wait, you guys are building a carrier, just to moth ball it. oO? confused pirate is confused as to the logic of this decision

    Because the current government is all about the slash and burn of government spending.

    Le sigh. Bloody tories. But then again, the MoD under the Labour government signed a contract with the people making the aircraft carriers that means it would cost us more to cancel building one in progress then to finish it and then mothball it.

    Karl on
    Spoiler:
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    How is exactly is one supposed to hail Brittania, ruler of the waves, without a carrier?

    Stupid austerity boners.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    At least our conservative slash-and-burners didn't exempt the military budget. I take some comfort in that.

  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    How is exactly is one supposed to hail Brittania, ruler of the waves, without a carrier?

    Stupid austerity boners.

    I'd take cuts in the military over cuts in the NHS any day. However the fact that they've found oil in the area around the falklands means it will still be an important strategic location and will get sufficient attention.

    I believe the current military situation in the Falklands is the opposite of what it was right before Argentina invaded. Now we have a great defense there. But if that fails, our options to retake the Island are severely limited.

    Spoiler:
  • CasualCasual flap flap flap wiggle wiggle wiggle Registered User regular
    At least mothballing the second carrier means it can be completed and put into service at some point when funds allow. Having one carrier is utterly pointless since the damn things spend 6 months of every year in port.

    "Ah right, could you guys please hold off invading the Falklands for a few more months? We need time to warm the ol girl up!"

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • BogartBogart Registered User regular
    From what (very) little I understand of navy tactics you can't effectively do something like retake an island chain in the middle of the Pacific when the nearest country is your enemy with only one carrier. You need at least two, one to act as a reserve landing platform if the first is hit and rendered incapable of receiving planes. Otherwise, all your planes crash into the sea or on a hostile landing strip when they run out of fuel. So having one is only going to be useful when used alongside a carrier supplied by France or whoever. That might well happen on a UN mission, but I sincerely doubt France (or the US) are going to sail one of theirs alongside ours to retake the Falklands. The idea behind the current defence of the Falklands is to stop an invasion ever taking place, rather than plan for retaking them.

    However, this is silliness, because Argentina isn't going to invade again.

  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Karl wrote: »
    It has been well-established for over 100 years, per Admiral the Lord Fisher, that Submarine Warfare is un-English

    it is therefore impossible that the Belgrano was sunk by a British submarine. It must be a conspiracy.


    Argentina doesn't know how to run a Navy if they had civilians on their ships in the middle of a war.

    well

    The Royal Navy is building 2 new aircraft carriers and is then immediately moth balling one due to budget cuts. So its not like we can mock.

    As an American I get to mock all other navies.

    Wait, you guys are building a carrier, just to moth ball it. oO? confused pirate is confused as to the logic of this decision

    The really ironic thing is for the carrier that did not get mothballed most of the planes they intended to use on it got cancelled as well. At this time I am not sure their active carrier actually has much/any of its complement of aircraft.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    This conversation has taken an inadvertent turn for the hilarious.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • CasualCasual flap flap flap wiggle wiggle wiggle Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    kaid wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    It has been well-established for over 100 years, per Admiral the Lord Fisher, that Submarine Warfare is un-English

    it is therefore impossible that the Belgrano was sunk by a British submarine. It must be a conspiracy.


    Argentina doesn't know how to run a Navy if they had civilians on their ships in the middle of a war.

    well

    The Royal Navy is building 2 new aircraft carriers and is then immediately moth balling one due to budget cuts. So its not like we can mock.

    As an American I get to mock all other navies.

    Wait, you guys are building a carrier, just to moth ball it. oO? confused pirate is confused as to the logic of this decision

    The really ironic thing is for the carrier that did not get mothballed most of the planes they intended to use on it got cancelled as well. At this time I am not sure their active carrier actually has much/any of its complement of aircraft.

    If you're talking about the UK then no, our remaining carrier has zero planes. The sea harriers were scrapped last year. It has helicopters but that's all.

    It's a moot point though, the island as an air strip housing four euro fighters, that combined with the Type 45 Dauntless is more than Argentina can handle. We may be outnumbered in our defences but the UK has cutting edge millitary hardware while the Argentinians have the same shit they did in the 80's, just a lot less of it.

    Casual on
    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    I'll just leave this here as another example of Argentinian stupidity

    Argentinian ambassador ambushes William Hague at press conference on Human Rights. Brings up the Falklands. Sounds like a twat.

    This is my favorite quote:

    "Ms Castro’s immediate focus, however, is the Falklands: “They keep on about self-determination, but not everyone can have self-determination. A province in my country can’t decide to vote and join China for example.”"

    What the fuck is this I don't even know

    Karl on
    Spoiler:
  • Lord_SnotLord_Snot Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Karl wrote: »
    I'll just leave this here as another example of Argentinian stupidity

    Argentinian ambassador ambushes William Hague at press conference on Human Rights. Brings up the Falklands. Sounds like a twat.

    This is my favorite quote:

    "Ms Castro’s immediate focus, however, is the Falklands: “They keep on about self-determination, but not everyone can have self-determination. A province in my country can’t decide to vote and join China for example.”"

    What the fuck is this I don't even know

    Firstly, any area can have self-determination in a democratic society

    Secondly, what the flying fuck is she on about? O_o

    Lord_Snot on
  • CasualCasual flap flap flap wiggle wiggle wiggle Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Lord_Snot wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    I'll just leave this here as another example of Argentinian stupidity

    Argentinian ambassador ambushes William Hague at press conference on Human Rights. Brings up the Falklands. Sounds like a twat.

    This is my favorite quote:

    "Ms Castro’s immediate focus, however, is the Falklands: “They keep on about self-determination, but not everyone can have self-determination. A province in my country can’t decide to vote and join China for example.”"

    What the fuck is this I don't even know

    Firstly, any area can have self-determination in a democratic society

    Secondly, what the flying fuck is she on about? O_o

    And this is why most countries don't hire air hostesses as international diplomats.

    Here's the best part IMO

    "She wanted to stress, however: “We do not want to take away the Britishness of the people in the Malvinas, they are proud to be British and we respect that. But why keep a thousand soldiers, aircraft, boats there? For an invasion that will never happen. It was a cruel, stupid war carried out by our cruel military junta which was killing its own people while killing British soldiers in the Malvinas. Do you think we approve of that?”

    If you don't want to invade why do you care if we have troops there? If you don't want to take away their "Britishness" then why ignore their wishes and try to force them out of the UK? If you don't think self determination is a human right then why work as an ambasador for a supposedly democratic government? So many questions, so much stupidity.

    Casual on
    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Lord_Snot wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    I'll just leave this here as another example of Argentinian stupidity

    Argentinian ambassador ambushes William Hague at press conference on Human Rights. Brings up the Falklands. Sounds like a twat.

    This is my favorite quote:

    "Ms Castro’s immediate focus, however, is the Falklands: “They keep on about self-determination, but not everyone can have self-determination. A province in my country can’t decide to vote and join China for example.”"

    What the fuck is this I don't even know

    Firstly, any area can have self-determination in a democratic society

    Secondly, what the flying fuck is she on about? O_o

    Well the British response to any discussion on the Falklands is "The people of the Falklands want to remain part of the United Kingdom. We will protect their right to self determination. When the people of the Falklands want to leave the United Kingdom, we'll talk with all relevant parties about how this will work. Until then, there is no discussion".

    Argentina is trying to argue that self-determination is not a reason to not talk about this. But fuck those guys.

    Karl on
    Spoiler:
  • CasualCasual flap flap flap wiggle wiggle wiggle Registered User regular
    Karl wrote: »
    Lord_Snot wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    I'll just leave this here as another example of Argentinian stupidity

    Argentinian ambassador ambushes William Hague at press conference on Human Rights. Brings up the Falklands. Sounds like a twat.

    This is my favorite quote:

    "Ms Castro’s immediate focus, however, is the Falklands: “They keep on about self-determination, but not everyone can have self-determination. A province in my country can’t decide to vote and join China for example.”"

    What the fuck is this I don't even know

    Firstly, any area can have self-determination in a democratic society

    Secondly, what the flying fuck is she on about? O_o

    Well the British response to any discussion on the Falklands is "The people of the Falklands want to remain part of the United Kingdom. We will protect their right to self determination. When the people of the Falklands want to leave the United Kingdom, we'll talk with all relevant parties about how this will work. Until then, there is no discussion".

    Argentina is trying to argue that self-determination is not a reason to not talk about this. But fuck those guys.

    Ah yes, but Spain cannot be China.

    /discussion

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • Lord_SnotLord_Snot Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Karl wrote: »
    Lord_Snot wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    I'll just leave this here as another example of Argentinian stupidity

    Argentinian ambassador ambushes William Hague at press conference on Human Rights. Brings up the Falklands. Sounds like a twat.

    This is my favorite quote:

    "Ms Castro’s immediate focus, however, is the Falklands: “They keep on about self-determination, but not everyone can have self-determination. A province in my country can’t decide to vote and join China for example.”"

    What the fuck is this I don't even know

    Firstly, any area can have self-determination in a democratic society

    Secondly, what the flying fuck is she on about? O_o

    Well the British response to any discussion on the Falklands is "The people of the Falklands want to remain part of the United Kingdom. We will protect their right to self determination. When the people of the Falklands want to leave the United Kingdom, we'll talk with all relevant parties about how this will work. Until then, there is no discussion".

    Argentina is trying to argue that self-determination is not a reason to not talk about this. But fuck those guys.

    Yeah, I know that, I just mean her arguments are groundless and based on:
    "Aren't the British evil? Yeah, fuck those guys."

    Also, whenever someone mentions imperialism, it's always good to remember that all the countries in both of the Americas are founded on imperialism.

    Lord_Snot on
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    Lord_Snot wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Lord_Snot wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    I'll just leave this here as another example of Argentinian stupidity

    Argentinian ambassador ambushes William Hague at press conference on Human Rights. Brings up the Falklands. Sounds like a twat.

    This is my favorite quote:

    "Ms Castro’s immediate focus, however, is the Falklands: “They keep on about self-determination, but not everyone can have self-determination. A province in my country can’t decide to vote and join China for example.”"

    What the fuck is this I don't even know

    Firstly, any area can have self-determination in a democratic society

    Secondly, what the flying fuck is she on about? O_o

    Well the British response to any discussion on the Falklands is "The people of the Falklands want to remain part of the United Kingdom. We will protect their right to self determination. When the people of the Falklands want to leave the United Kingdom, we'll talk with all relevant parties about how this will work. Until then, there is no discussion".

    Argentina is trying to argue that self-determination is not a reason to not talk about this. But fuck those guys.

    Yeah, I know that, I just mean her arguments are groundless and based on:
    "Aren't the British evil? Yeah, fuck those guys."

    Also, whenever someone mentions imperialism, it's always good to remember that all the countries in both of the Americas are founded on imperialism.

    Well sure, but there are differing classes of ex colony or imperial possession. I think we should accept that a country like Haiti, which was a former colony who happened also to gain independence after a slave revolt is different from an expansionary former colonies who's white (principally Spanish) settlers (and their descendants) gained independence after a revolt. Anyway

    The Belgrano is as much an issue because it was sunk outside the initial Exclusion Zone even though Britain never said they wouldn't attack threats outside the zone. The zone was a creation of the British that didn't follow any particular international agreements or the like, so at least at the time (or so I recall) it was really for the imposing country to set and enforce whatever terms they thought necessary. Perhaps Britain should have been more clear whenever it set the terms? Anyway, while the Belgrano was sunk outside of the zone, it wasn't done so in the context of a retreat. The Argentinians were still untouched on the islands, their planes had sighted and I believe attacked the main convoy/fleet and iirc there were other Argentinian ships possibly or actually deployed within close proximity. So for the British to order an attack seems both reasonable and sensible, at the time, although of course our historical hindsight may cause us to disagree as to whether it was necessary

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    People who think that the sinking of the Belgrano wasn't justifiable are silly geese.

    If the British said they wouldn't attack outside of the exclusion zone, that makes them silly geese as well.

    Pro Tip: Don't want your ships attacked? Don't invade another country.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CasualCasual flap flap flap wiggle wiggle wiggle Registered User regular
    Lord_Snot wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Lord_Snot wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    I'll just leave this here as another example of Argentinian stupidity

    Argentinian ambassador ambushes William Hague at press conference on Human Rights. Brings up the Falklands. Sounds like a twat.

    This is my favorite quote:

    "Ms Castro’s immediate focus, however, is the Falklands: “They keep on about self-determination, but not everyone can have self-determination. A province in my country can’t decide to vote and join China for example.”"

    What the fuck is this I don't even know

    Firstly, any area can have self-determination in a democratic society

    Secondly, what the flying fuck is she on about? O_o

    Well the British response to any discussion on the Falklands is "The people of the Falklands want to remain part of the United Kingdom. We will protect their right to self determination. When the people of the Falklands want to leave the United Kingdom, we'll talk with all relevant parties about how this will work. Until then, there is no discussion".

    Argentina is trying to argue that self-determination is not a reason to not talk about this. But fuck those guys.

    Yeah, I know that, I just mean her arguments are groundless and based on:
    "Aren't the British evil? Yeah, fuck those guys."

    Also, whenever someone mentions imperialism, it's always good to remember that all the countries in both of the Americas are founded on imperialism take a shot of your favorite spirit.

    Hey look at that! I invented a new game!
    People who think that the sinking of the Belgrano wasn't justifiable are silly geese.

    If the British said they wouldn't attack outside of the exclusion zone, that makes them silly geese genius strategists.

    ;)

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • Lord_SnotLord_Snot Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    Lord_Snot wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Lord_Snot wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    I'll just leave this here as another example of Argentinian stupidity

    Argentinian ambassador ambushes William Hague at press conference on Human Rights. Brings up the Falklands. Sounds like a twat.

    This is my favorite quote:

    "Ms Castro’s immediate focus, however, is the Falklands: “They keep on about self-determination, but not everyone can have self-determination. A province in my country can’t decide to vote and join China for example.”"

    What the fuck is this I don't even know

    Firstly, any area can have self-determination in a democratic society

    Secondly, what the flying fuck is she on about? O_o

    Well the British response to any discussion on the Falklands is "The people of the Falklands want to remain part of the United Kingdom. We will protect their right to self determination. When the people of the Falklands want to leave the United Kingdom, we'll talk with all relevant parties about how this will work. Until then, there is no discussion".

    Argentina is trying to argue that self-determination is not a reason to not talk about this. But fuck those guys.

    Yeah, I know that, I just mean her arguments are groundless and based on:
    "Aren't the British evil? Yeah, fuck those guys."

    Also, whenever someone mentions imperialism, it's always good to remember that all the countries in both of the Americas are founded on imperialism take a shot of your favorite spirit.

    Hey look at that! I invented a new game!
    People who think that the sinking of the Belgrano wasn't justifiable are silly geese.

    If the British said they wouldn't attack outside of the exclusion zone, that makes them silly geese genius strategists.

    ;)

    Watch a feed of the Argentine Parliament. Whenever someone mentions "imperialismo" take a shot. Most people will be drunk within half an hour.

  • Lord_SnotLord_Snot Registered User regular
    People who think that the sinking of the Belgrano wasn't justifiable are silly geese.

    If the British said they wouldn't attack outside of the exclusion zone, that makes them silly geese as well.

    Pro Tip: Don't want your ships attacked? Don't invade another country.

    The exclusion zone actually only applied to neutral shipping. Under international law, enemy ships are thought of as hostile wherever they are deployed.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Lord_Snot wrote: »
    People who think that the sinking of the Belgrano wasn't justifiable are silly geese.

    If the British said they wouldn't attack outside of the exclusion zone, that makes them silly geese as well.

    Pro Tip: Don't want your ships attacked? Don't invade another country.

    The exclusion zone actually only applied to neutral shipping. Under international law, enemy ships are thought of as hostile wherever they are deployed.

    Well that was my point, I don't know enough about the specifics of the exclusion zone (for some reason in all my naval history courses we never covered the falklands, americalol), but anyone saying that during a war a country was out of order for sinking an enemy vessel, wherever it is, is a loon.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

    I'd think that most people would understand that a ship cannot physically 'lay down it's arms', and that making for port as best possible speed is the rough equivalent. But hey, whatever.
    Who am I calling a liar? What am I disagreeing with? Read my post. I didn't say the ship wasn't maneuvering away, I said it was completely irrelevant whether it was or not. You could accuse the UK of war crimes if we had dropped bombs on schools or hospitals but as I said, not one shot was fired at Argentinian soil. And you can quote the Geneva convention all you like but in real life you don't get to deploy a military asset, let it take its shots, and then steam away flying a white flag laughing manically while shouting "No strike backsies! White flag!". War wouldn't really work if that were the case. In any case it's already been mentioned that the captain of the Belgrano himself agreed that the sinking was fair game and it was not shipwrecked or flying a white flag when it was fired on, it was a military vessel in a war zone, it got sunk in combat, get over it.

    And yes shooting at surrendering soldiers is different from sinking a ship in combat. If you can't tell the difference I'm not sure we have much to talk about.

    Once again your failure to grasp the realities of a war makes you ill equipped to have this debate.

    The Belgrano didn't fire any shots. And In order to claim that men were not executed at Goose Green you'd have to be calling Bramley, who claims that there were, a liar.

    "The victim said it was okay, so I no longer have any moral responsibility for the outcome," is an interesting stance (particularly for me, since it's being juxtaposed over my viewing of Milgram experiment replications). As is your position in the other thread that you're right so long as the majority of British posters here agree with you, and that it's not immoral to to perpetuate war crimes so long as you can cite that other countries have done the same.
    This is the same Argentinian military that 'pretended' to surrender by waving a white flag, then when the Brits went to take the surrender the Argentinians opened fire on them? Yeah, I don't think they following the Geneva convention to the letter there.

    Yes, the same Argentinian military that did this (I hadn't heard of this particular incident, but I mentioned the incident where Argentinian troops fired on British soldiers attempting to surrender and waving a white flag).

    So, it's alright in your eyes to engage in criminal behavior so long as other people are also engaging in it?

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    You know how a ship can surrender? By radioing in to the other fleet and surrendering.

    You don't get to start a war and then run away when it goes south.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    The Belgrano did not surrender, so why was it a crime? Also, apparently yesterday was the anniversary.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
Sign In or Register to comment.