Most of them are uninhabited and have been for millennia. Fair game for anyone who wants to pitch up?
Falklands
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
There are no legal or ethical nuances here, you are either at war or you are not, a war that your country started, there is no such thing as a low intensity conflict or a confined conflict except in strategic contexts.
In a war where naval superiority and integrity of the task force was central to whether it was won or lost, Argentine vessels whether at sea or in port are going to be legitimate targets. Irrespective of that any military forces under the Argentine flag regardless of what they were doing were targets.
I actually had a blazing argument about it with two posh wankers in the tube at Earl's Court in 1982, who were exulting over the 'Gotcha' headline in the Sun. Guy came on the train and settled it by saying 'they've just sunk the Sheffield you tossers, rejoice in that'.
Why wouldn't the Falklands have just as valid a claim to Argentina as vice versa? On behalf of the Falklanders, UK can annex Messi and Patagonia.
Are you saying there are no rules at all in war?
There is a difference between being overjoyed by such an event and believing it was justified though saying that, would British opinion have been any different when the Bismarck or the Graf Spee were sunk?
Did I say that? No I didn't.
I said you are either at war or you are not, there are no classifications or categories of intensity or scope and scale, in law there is nothing but war and peace.
That has been the longstanding position of many in Taiwan with regard to Mainland China, though of course the situation of the PRC and ROC comes out of the Chinese Civil War.
Well that appears to be exactly what you are saying (again).
I remember being sorry for the Argentinians at the time...I mean the losses they took.
They were led into the war by a failed junta...
They were led into the war by a failed junta...
Well I don't. Are you saying shoot prisoners in war, machine-gun the red cross in case they save potential combatants, kill civilians?
What part of 'in law' do you not understand?
Any part of the law covered by the Hague conventions for a start. Are you being stupid again?
Now we are getting comical, I am clear to everybody except the chief wummer.
Seriously, what can you not figure out about there being no scale of conflict where 1 on a scale is low intensity and 5 is total war? In law there is no differentiation and there never has been.
Seriously, what can you not figure out about there being no scale of conflict where 1 on a scale is low intensity and 5 is total war? In law there is no differentiation and there never has been.
I think what Brian is trying to say is you can't be 'a little bit at war', you're just 'at war'. (Though you always hear about these odd cases where some old war is technically still going on because a peace treaty wasn't signed, so I'm not sure how true that is in reality. Myth Or Reality? Berwick Revisits Its 'War With Russia' | Culture24)
It should be noted that while an act of war (e.g. the sinking of the Belgrano) may be legal, that does not necessarily mean it is morally correct or legitimate.
It should be noted that while an act of war (e.g. the sinking of the Belgrano) may be legal, that does not necessarily mean it is morally correct or legitimate.
i know what you mean, but sinking the belgrano forced the war
till that moment the military junta was waiting for the UN to tell them to withdraw the troops and sit and negotiate, maggie knew this but she needed the war
No it wasn't, it was a military master stroke. It scared the shit out of the Argentinian Navy, and psychologically it was the single most important moment of the conflict.
The retaking of the Falkland Islands was considered extremely difficult: the main constraint was the disparity in deployable air cover. The British had 34 Harrier aircraft against approximately 122 serviceable jet fighters, of which about 50 were employed as air superiority fighters and the remainder as strike aircraft, in Argentina's air forces during the war.[19] The U.S. Navy considered a successful counter-invasion by the British to be 'a military impossibility'.
it had a crucial strategic effect: the elimination of the Argentine naval threat. After her loss, the entire Argentine fleet, with the exception of the conventional submarine ARA San Luis,[36] returned to port and did not leave again for the duration of hostilities. The two escorting destroyers and the battle group centred on the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo both withdrew from the area, ending the direct threat to the British fleet that their pincer movement had represented
This.
Morality by not being codified is always open to interpretation, you can talk about just war principles etc. and the one such clause people often forget is that you must be able to win a war in order for it to be just. Britain's strategy was dependent on maintaining and defending a taskforce which few around the world thought to be possible, which came under heavy attack on multiple occasions and got desperate. How therefore sinking the Argentine navy's most gun laden vessel is considered to be immoral I do not know.
How would we have felt if we had lost track of the Belgrano and 72 hours later the taskforce got caught in a pincer movement and multiple vessels were sunk killing thousands, and it was revealed that we were trailing it days previously? Where does morality come into the question then?
who needed the war??
maggie
Mrs T. She was low in the polls but the war carried her to a general election victory. She would have probably won anyway because the Labour party were a diabolical mess back then.
There are a whole shitload of laws and principles surrounding war including proportionality, treatment of prisoners and civilians, war crimes etc etc. I don't see why you want to fall back to the atavistic anything goes 'you're at war or you're not' apart from having little or no sense of morality.
I'm no fan of Thatcher...but it was clear the junta started it and caused the unnecessary loss of life.
Argentina should never have invaded the islands.
They caused every death that happened afterwards.
the argentinian claim about the belgrano is that england stated an exclusionary zone where any argentinian ship would be attacked, bet the belgrano was out of that zone
Are you intentionally being stupid? How many times have I said within the law, and quoting myself saying within the law - why therefore are you talking about treatment of prisoners and war crimes?
The exclusion zone was with regard to vessels registered to third parties, warning them to stay away.
there's no need to insult
Really?
The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands. Exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Héctor Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate (as did the Argentine government in 1994).
No, you clearly implied that 'in law' there's war=anything goes, or peace. And went on to justify actions that were clearly disproportionate on that basis.
It is a fair point, I was clear from the beginning and then to make it clearer by stating that within the law there is only war and peace, no more and no less yet he keeps coming back regarding criminality within war, ignoring the fact I am talking about within the law.
i just read that in wikipedia, i was about to post it but you beat me to it
anyway, that's not what was taught to us, but i guess you and TBGB are right
come on mate, we are having a discussion about a war between our countries in a very adult manner
let's keep it that way
Well you're either backtracking or made a meaningless statement in the first place. It was quite clear to me (and Mike) that you were saying war=anything goes and using that as a justification for sinking the Belgrano.
To be fair, you did muddle things by saying "There are no legal or ethical nuances..."
There are ethical nuances aplenty in war. Legal ones too.
The easy answer is the Falkland Islanders should remain British but an agreement should be reached regarding oil exploration. Its fecking nuts to be arguing and basing relations between the two countries over the Islands.
if england says that they will sit to negotiate, they'll be able to kick the problem two hundred years in the future
Britain was restrained during the war given the circumstances, it did the least necessary to regain the islands - and yes, sinking the Belgrano was part of that.
We were well within our rights to attack the Argentine mainland yet we only fought against Argentines on the seas, in the air or on the Falklands themselves, despite the fact that most of their navy remained ready to sail and their fighter aircraft were coming from there yet we didn't.
Of the other great powers of the day or today, would you trust them not to carpet bomb Buenos Aires in such a circumstance - if you attacked and occupied an American territory don't be surprised if shock and awe were to find its way to your cities.
We were well within our rights to attack the Argentine mainland yet we only fought against Argentines on the seas, in the air or on the Falklands themselves, despite the fact that most of their navy remained ready to sail and their fighter aircraft were coming from there yet we didn't.
Of the other great powers of the day or today, would you trust them not to carpet bomb Buenos Aires in such a circumstance - if you attacked and occupied an American territory don't be surprised if shock and awe were to find its way to your cities.
I'll accept what you say about legal and ethical nuances since I pretty much contradicted that quickly after, though what I meant with regard to that is once you are at war and act within law then what comes next is open to military strategy in order to win it.