One for Des

The trouble with that thesis is that if we say that all's fair in love
and war, then we don't need the Geneva Convention, etc, and we accept
that it's okay to torture prisoners of war to get information about the
enemy and so on. Clearly, though, that's sketchy morality. So, we have
rules about how we "do" war.

In the case of the Belgrano, it's always been questionable whether we
broke the rules about how we "do" war.

And there are sub-questions about Thatcher's motivation for the war
(oil, votes).

tallbloke hasn't argued very skillfully, imo - and part of that is
because he is (and admits) not terribly au fait with the technical facts
surrounding the guns on the boats. Well, big deal. I have a certain
amount of sympathy with his point of view. I'm not convinced that it
was morally right to sink the Belgrano. And, to be honest, the
arguments of those think it was seem pretty flimsy.

 

That's fairy nuff. Like I said to him, opinions are opinions. It's where
you get onto matters of fact and getting the facts *wrong* - like
suggesting the Belgrano was sunk in rveenge for the Exocet attack of
Sheffield, like saying the Brit forces had Tornadoes, like saying the
Brits started the shooting match - that I take real issue.

 

No, I specialise in raising one at a time. This infuriates The
Lurking Monobrow, you see ;-)

 

We have rules, but they very regularly get broken when there is a
war/conflict/'aggressive negotiations'. That's why I said "bad things
happen". Obviously it's not an ideal situation.

8<

<Belgrano>
We were right to sink it, just my opinion.

 

Our greasy little EC friends don't like that suggestion up 'em, oh no they
don't.

 

GAF

--
Ian
"reorganising, a wonderful method for creating an illusion of progress"
znvygb: (ROT13 all of it to mail me)
The FAQ is here http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html
98 FZS600, 72 T120R MIB#21 TWA#6

 

I raised this point earlier.

If we said "you're safe outside a 200 mile exclusion zone" then it's not
cricket.

If we said "we'll definitely sink you if you come within 200 miles of
the islands" then well... they should have spent more time arguing on
usenet before they interpreted our intentions.

 

spouted the following in

I sense there are issues here.

Particularly that you snipped my qualifying "that's what NATO's for".

But I'm up for the debate if you want it.

Mebbe we should start a new thread so we can have the benefit of the
whole UKRM gamut of opinion tho'.

Any suggestions for a subject line?

 

Bstard! pre-empted!

 

spouted the following in

Yeah, only about 3 litres of the red stuff per 100,000 barrels.

 

(SteveH) spouted the following in

**** off idiot.

 

I disagree that the European project is merely economic but beyond that?
I'm drawing a complete blank when you mention 'issues'.

Of course, the implication could be that I have a problem with the EC;
well you couldn't be more wrong. I work 'internationally' and spend a
great deal of my time in Europe with other Europeans. IMO the UK's
place is at the heart of Europe, playing a full part in the creation of
a European 'superstate' with the other core players - France, Germany
and Italy; I should probably add Spain to that list too.

Beyond that I'm intrigued. What issues did you sense?

Well, since I wasn't questioning whether or not France should have given
us direct aid, merely that she shouldn't have given our opponents aid I
didn't see NATO had any relevance at all to the question that I'd
raised.

Don't see much point in changing the subject line tbh.

 

Champ, I honestly didn't enter this debate just for a wind up. I just
feel strongly that the sinking of the Belgrano marked a shift for the
worse in world politics and the treatment of regular servicemen.

When the Argies invaded, the British servicemen didn't prevent them from
landing. They did kill a few of them, but none of the brits were killed.

The Argentinians and British Government had been on the brink of a
negotiated settlement for the Malvinas/Falklands for a long time when
this one boiled over.

The submarine attack on a ship outside the exclusion zone, carrying 600
odd seamen and soldiers, was the crass act of a dodgy government. IMO.

It wasn't worth the blood.

That's it really.

 

spouted the following in

sorry, just my late night humour.

Shes a capricious lover is france. Still, when did you ever find a woman
who agreed with all your crass murderous acts?

Ah, still not ready for 'the biggy' then.

Well we'll truly try to make it 'One for Des' Then.

 

Grimly Curmudgeon <> spouted the following
in

Yeah, when did you last see liberia torpedoing other peoples ships?
They're too busy shooting each other with easily imported AK47's aren't
they?

 

And the military invasion of British sovereign territory *wasn't*??

 

Bit like mine; you understand it and no one else?

I think I'll take the 5th on that one.

Well I thought France wasn't a proper member of Nato having stopped
supporting all actions with troops etc. since it was being selfish (as
always) but, this is from memory and could well be wrong.

 

Does it really matter, if anyone does try it on with the French they'll
just wave the white flag before anyone gets hurt anyway.

 

Sir! Please Sir! TOG's changed the subject, Sir!

 

Didn't the negotiations sort of break down when the Argies decided
they'd invade anyway?