One for Des

Never let a day go by

 

Lifted straight from Kurt Cobain's suicide note although I doubt he was
the first to say it.

 

Well since I didn't type that bit you ought to have put that bit in a
follow up to Hog.

Which they continued to test. And to be honest the Argentinians had
invaded our Sovereign terittory so what the **** did they think we were
going to do?

Which it had been steaming towards, away from etc. The request for the
order to fire was made (I seem to remember) by the forces and they
needed to wait for the war cabinet to approve the action. I'd suspect
the General Belgrano was in a different position when they requested
permission to sink it.

It wasn't her decision alone.

 

I agree about the "Gotcha" headline.

I don't have strong feelings about the sinking though; it was a
conflict, the Sheffield had been sunk and we were fighting a war[1].
The Belgrano was a heavily armed ship which was flanked by two other
ships; what did they expect would happen eventually given that they had
invaded our territory.


[1] war/conflict whatever.

 

Also two argentinian ships fled rather
than trying to save the six hundred
or so soldiers in the cold water.

So to the British Submarine, the troops should
have mostly been rescued.

 

Odd that.
I'd assumed you'd lifted it from the baddie in Highlander.

--
Alex
BMW R1150GS
DIAABTCOD#3 MSWF#4 UKRMFBC#6 Ibw#35 BOB#8
http://www.team-ukrm.co.uk
Windy's "little soldier"

 

I thought she was sunk because she was carrying exocet missiles?

--
SimonB - South Wales. BOF#32
email simonb@zapikdotcodotuk
Triumph Sprint ST,
ZXR750L2 Wazimbaki.
Kawasaki Z1R For Sale

 

Neil Young - Rust Never Sleeps, 1978/79.

 

The Belgrano was sunk *before* Sheffield, YTTC. For ****'s sake, stay
out of arguments like this if you're that ignorant.

Talk about brainwashed by bloody propaganda. Jeez. No wonder you've got
Des saying "thank you" to you.

 

?

 

(The Older Gentleman) spouted the
following in :

My mishtake, Makes it worse really.

**** off. Since when was not being in command of the facts a bar to
entry into an argument on UKRM.

The crews of the Belgrano and Sheffield were more the victims of the
effects of propoganda than I.

He hasn't. What the **** are you on about?

Are you sure you don't want ToSSER#1?

 

spouted the following in

Heh, pity the sub's log was 'lost' eh? You seem to remember that that
Maggies spin doctor (Ingram?) *claimed* that the request to fire came
from the sub.
Think about it. Sub commanders observe and report. War cabinets take
decisions which affect political situations.

Oh yes, Maggie was always deferring to the wishes of her cabinet wasn't
she?

 

Post event justification by the Tories. The ship was a very old vessel
without modern weapons delivery systems. It had been pulled out of
retirement for use as a troop carrier.

 

You obviously know much more about this than anyone else.

 

Yup. Good ol' Neil.

 

ITHM under normal circumstances the other ships would have picked up
survivors or at least dropped liferafts rather than fucking off sharpish.
Still, they came back 24 hours later, Conquerer noted that even though one
was a destroyer, the other was a hospital ship and took no further action.

 

Bad form post -

Sorry for that outburst, on reflection, but still, really.....

And it begs the question - would you now call the attack on the
Sheffield a revenge attack? And regard it as iniquitous as you
previously considered the attack on the Belgrano?

 

Which would be entirely appropriate. HMS Conquerer reported that it had made
contact with Belgrano and tracked it for 36 hours whilst running quiet. At
this point they are listening only, since to transmit they would have to
break off pursuit and approach periscope depth to transmit.

Utter cobblers. Submarine commanders have more autonomy than any other area
of the forces. Usually they are given rules of engagement along with
criteria where they may act with autonomy, then left to it.


Seeing as you seem to be a bit light on the facts:

323 of the crew were killed, not 400.

The British Governments claim that it was a legitimate act of war was
accepted by both the captain of the Belgrano and Argentina's Defence
Ministry.

If you want to get all pissy about legitimate actions, ask yourself why we
were there in the first place? Argentina took over a territory by force,
gambling that we wouldn't take any action.


In a supreme bout of irony, the reason they did it was because they were
unpopular at home and wanted a good old war to rally the support of the
people. If they hadn't done so, the Conservative Government of the time
(unpopular at home) couldn't have had a good old war and rallied the support
of the people...

 

said...

Taken from :

http://www.waikato.ac.nz/wfass/subjects/history/waimilhist/1999/falkland
s.htm

"It is also sometimes said that for a war to be just it must be formally
declared and by legitimate authority. In many ways, the first condition
has become obsolete. Wars are no longer formally declared and it may be
that this is no bad thing. Conflicts that are entered into without
formality may be easier to end. The requirement of legitimate authority
may also be inappropriate. There may well be representatives of social
aggregations who we may think to be morally justified in committing
their people to war despite their apparent inability to pass a formal
legitimacy test (insurgent leaders, generally, would seem to fall into
this category). In the case of the Falklands war there was no formal
declaration of war by either party. In line with the immediately
preceding comments, we do not need to inquire whether the Argentine
Junta was, indeed, legitimate in this sense. On the other hand, it might
be noted here that some writers have argued that only wars entered into
with the full knowledge and consent of the people of the state concerned
are legitimate. The example often used is that of the Vietnam War where
it is asserted that United States participation would not have passed
this test. This is a very complex matter to determine raising as it does
difficult questions that go well beyond the justice of a particular war.
In the present case, it seems that the Falklands War enjoyed at various
times a substantial degree of popular support in both of the countries
concerned. On the whole it may be better to treat the matter of jus ad
bellum directly rather than through uncertain constitutional niceties."

We didn't need to declare war, the mere fact that Argentina invaded
British soveriegn territory was a declaration in itself.

--
Lozzo : The anti-Timo
ZZR1100D, GPZ500S, CB250RS x3
BOTAFOT#57/70a, BOTAFOF#57, two#49(suspended), MIB#22, TCP#7,
ANORAK#9, DIAABTCOD#14, UKRMT5BB, IBW#013, MIRTTH#15a/16,
BotToS#8, GP#2, SBS#10, SH#3, DFV#14, BONY#9.
Url for ukrm newbies : http://www.ukrm.net/faq/ukrmscbt.html
http://www.glfuk.com/ for MJK Leathers in the UK.

 

Bet He wasn't in this case though.

Well, since the Tories 'lost' the sub's log, I guess we all are.

Whatever. Still unnecessary IMO.

As Champ pointed out. There was no declaration of war.

I'm getting pissy about needless loss of life is all.

This is certainly true.