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.
0
Lord_SnotЖиву за выходныеAmerican ValhallaRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
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.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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.
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
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
How is exactly is one supposed to hail Brittania, ruler of the waves, without a carrier?
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
"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
0
Lord_SnotЖиву за выходныеAmerican ValhallaRegistered Userregular
"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
"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.
"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.
"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
0
Lord_SnotЖиву за выходныеAmerican ValhallaRegistered Userregular
"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.
"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!
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
(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?
With Love and Courage
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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.
Posts
I haven't seen this thread on page 1 for quite some time.
rayofash is. He said up the top, in one of his posts.
Oh, sorry, missed that.
Blog
Twitter
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.
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.
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.
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.
- John Stuart Mill
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.
it is therefore impossible that the Belgrano was sunk by a British submarine. It must be a conspiracy.
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.
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.
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.
"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!"
However, this is silliness, because Argentina isn't going to invade again.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
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.
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
Blog
Twitter
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.
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
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.
Blog
Twitter
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
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.
Hey look at that! I invented a new game!
Watch a feed of the Argentine Parliament. Whenever someone mentions "imperialismo" take a shot. Most people will be drunk within half an hour.
Blog
Twitter
The exclusion zone actually only applied to neutral shipping. Under international law, enemy ships are thought of as hostile wherever they are deployed.
Blog
Twitter
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.
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.
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.
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?
You don't get to start a war and then run away when it goes south.