OFFICIAL BEEF REPOSITORY: NO HOLDS BARRED (stay out if you're easily offended)

couldn't have said it better myself!

And who can forget the infamous Sun tabloid headline the following day:

"GOTCHA!"

Makes you proud to be British

in a just world at least one national paper would have the guts to run GOTCHA the day thatcher dies

please remember i am the most unpatriotic british citizen the world has ever known!

many arguments have discussed the belgrano incident, but all you need to look at from a military point of veiw was, that the ship was argintinas most deadly naval asset(a 40's cruiser isn't saying much) but did carry exocet anti ship missiles which caused so much damage to the british fleet(the one weapon that could have turned the war) it was out of the exclusion zone, but doesn't mean it wasn't a threat. The men that died were(even those conscripted) were in the military. And most importantly kept the rest of the argentinian fleet away from the conflict- most important of those the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo which would have been a major threat, instead meaning argentinian aircraft were at max range and ineffective(still causing so much damage). I can't find a source right, but i know for a fact that as well as heads of all navies around the world, the head of the argentinian navy has admitted the british were well within their rights to sink the ship, and it was planned to use the belgrano later in the war.

i do not dispute the dispicible nature of the suns headlines, and other propoganda, whilst studying the conflict i have heard many accounts of how british servicemen were sickened the news at home was coming out with such trash, and many to this day will not even look at the sun.Thatcher and Galtieri did benefit polictically, but the falklands was and still is populated by people that did not want to be governed by argentina. The situation is about to come into the headlines again as Britian and argentina are both bringing claims to the UN to take full soverignty of international waters around las malvinas to look for large amounts of oil reserves beleived to be there.

I do not agree with war, i may be interested by military history and capabilities, but this is how we learn to not make the mistakes of the past. I have been/am a strong anti war activist, but i beleive its important to know both sides of any story before bashed propoganda about, in much the way the sun does

MARKZEEEVILDUDE wrote:please remember i am the most unpatriotic british citizen the world has ever known!

many arguments have discussed the belgrano incident, but all you need to look at from a military point of veiw was, that the ship was argintinas most deadly naval asset(a 40's cruiser isn't saying much) but did carry exocet anti ship missiles which caused so much damage to the british fleet(the one weapon that could have turned the war) it was out of the exclusion zone, but doesn't mean it wasn't a threat. The men that died were(even those conscripted) were in the military. And most importantly kept the rest of the argentinian fleet away from the conflict- most important of those the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo which would have been a major threat, instead meaning argentinian aircraft were at max range and ineffective(still causing so much damage). I can't find a source right, but i know for a fact that as well as heads of all navies around the world, the head of the argentinian navy has admitted the british were well within their rights to sink the ship, and it was planned to use the belgrano later in the war.

i do not dispute the dispicible nature of the suns headlines, and other propoganda, whilst studying the conflict i have heard many accounts of how british servicemen were sickened the news at home was coming out with such trash, and many to this day will not even look at the sun.Thatcher and Galtieri did benefit polictically, but the falklands was and still is populated by people that did not want to be governed by argentina. The situation is about to come into the headlines again as Britian and argentina are both bringing claims to the UN to take full soverignty of international waters around las malvinas to look for large amounts of oil reserves beleived to be there.

I do not agree with war, i may be interested by military history and capabilities, but this is how we learn to not make the mistakes of the past. I have been/am a strong anti war activist, but i beleive its important to know both sides of any story before bashed propoganda about, in much the way the sun does

yeah, you REALLY can't compare a fairly sizeable proportion of the Argentine armed forces under a dictator like Galtieri, who scored at least a line on fascist cunt bingo - to the British Navy who, as we all know, had willingly signed up to a job in the military. Not that killing 320 willing soldiers who are out of the exclusion zone and moving away from it, towards Argentine soil would have been any less despicable. I'd love to see a source for that Argentine naval leader's views.

an extract from a book, it says the argentine government in 1984 said the sinking was a legal act of war, i have yet to find the official argentine statement, i am still looking, it was based on a report by several senior argentine naval staff

'Command and control

The sinking of the Belgrano was a necessary part of the successful maritime campaign to repossess the Falklands after its unprovoked seizure by Argentina. The elimination of the latter's fleet inside territorial waters was a precondition for British victory.

Those really responsible for the deaths of the Argentinian sailors on board the old cruiser were the military junta led by General Galtieri. In 1994, Buenos Aires concurred with the Thatcher administration that the Belgrano sinking had been a 'legal act of war', and the Argentinian governments since have not had change of heart on this matter.

The real issues about the sinking were technical ones of command and control. The fact that the affair was blown up out of all recognition in London is more a comment on the dynamics of the contemporary British political system and the weaknesses of Mrs Thatcher's closed approach to government than on the politico-strategic and operational realities of what happened in the south Atlantic.'

Dr Eric Grove is a senior lecturer in politics and international studies at the University of Hull, where he is also director of the Centre for Security Studies. He is the author of a number of books, including Vanguard to Trident, The Future of Sea Power, Fleet to Fleet Encounters, The Price of Disobedience and The Royal Navy 1815-2000 (forthcoming).

hypothetical situation, if a argentine submarine had been sent to the solent to torpedo british ships waiting to be sent to the falklands, that would have been out of the exclusion zone, but still a definate threat, would it of been wrong to sink it?

Several cases brought by familiy members of belgrano crew against the british government looking for compensation have been brought to various courts and these have been thrown out,

have yet to find an actual statement from the people but:

However, the sinking of the Belgrano was justified under international law, as the heading of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. Furthermore, the Hector Bonzo, the captain of the Belgrano, has himself testified that the attack was legitimate for this reason. The fact that the ship was outside the British declared Total Exclusion Zone does not affect this analysis, especially since the British had informed Argentina on April 23rd, that Argentine ships and aircraft outside the Exclusion Zone could be attacked if they posed a threat to the British task force, and senior figures in the Argentine Navy have made clear that they understood this message; for example, Argentine Rear-Admiral Allara who commanded the Belgrano's task group said "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano.". Finally, in 1994, the Argentine government conceded that the sinking of the Belgrano was a "legal act of war."

tell me when to stop finding evidence, source: http://www.operationcorporate.com/p1_battles_belgrano.php

the Argentine government of 1984 - I.E one that loathed Galtieri and got into power on a wave of dislike for him - places a slightly higher portion of the blame on him than most neutral commentators? I am shocked to the very core!

that operation corporate site seems to exist to sell books on a click-through commission, yet manages not to cite it's sources much at all. certainly what you've said there seems a misrepresentation of Dr Grove's views from looking him up elsewhere on the web - he's very critical of Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward, whose decision it ulitmately was, and of the defence secretary and liar John Nott, who shamefully claimed to the house of commons that the Belgrano was heading TOWARDS British ships - why would he do that if attacking retreating ships is just one of things in war?

i did state that these were not the ultimate sources i was looking for, i never stated that the political underpinnings of the situation were not suspect, but never the less, you seem blind to the fact that as far as the 'rules of war' are concerned, this was a legal act of war. You have not commented on my hypothetical situation regarding the exclusion zone, or the fact that the argentine navy got the message that any threat in the south atlantic were legitimate targets as far as the royal navy was concerned. My original argument was that the actual attacking of the ship(she was not sunk, but scuttled) was legal, and that has no bearing on Thatchers record. You could improve your argument by bringing up the pacts that were made with pinochet to support the British war effort, now Britian lining itself with that regime, even to help with the war situation was dispicable, i will have no problems with those facts, but the simple fact is, if you really look and ignore polictics, as far as war is concerned the sinking of the belgrano was legal, it doesn't make it right, and the way it was spun was not right, but it WAS 'a legal act of war'.

A story from the guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2007/may/02/belgranoannive

the captain says it was politically criminal, but not a war crime.

a 'legimate act of war'

MARKZEEEVILDUDE wrote:i did state that these were not the ultimate sources i was looking for, i never stated that the political underpinnings of the situation were not suspect, but never the less, you seem blind to the fact that as far as the 'rules of war' are concerned, this was a legal act of war. You have not commented on my hypothetical situation regarding the exclusion zone, or the fact that the argentine navy got the message that any threat in the south atlantic were legitimate targets as far as the royal navy was concerned. My original argument was that the actual attacking of the ship(she was not sunk, but scuttled) was legal, and that has no bearing on Thatchers record. You could improve your argument by bringing up the pacts that were made with pinochet to support the British war effort, now Britian lining itself with that regime, even to help with the war situation was dispicable, i will have no problems with those facts, but the simple fact is, if you really look and ignore polictics, as far as war is concerned the sinking of the belgrano was legal, it doesn't make it right, and the way it was spun was not right, but it WAS 'a legal act of war'.

mate, I couldn't give a fuck about some ill-defined 'rules of war' - sinking a retreating ship killing hundreds is unnecessary and morally indefensible. your hypothetical situation is so completely different as to be irrelevant - of course in that situation it would probably be justified, but the key point was that it was out of the exclusion zone and moving away from it. if that isn't a key fucking point, why did the Tories and the pro-Tory sections of the press systematically lie that it was a direct threat moving towards British ships? it's almost as if the general public, who were pretty fucking right-leaning in the early 80s, also give no fuck about the 'rules of war' as opposed to some semblance of a moral code where mass killing is involved. "if you really look and ignore polictics" - why the FUCK would you ignore the politics of a situation like that? the link you gave me has a bit on it about Thatcher having to give her approval of the orders to attack the Belgrano, because it was such an incredibly important decision that even Rear Admiral Woodward felt it needed her approval. it's certainly not an 'oh, these things happen in war' thing where they shrug as they press the button, and it absolutely wouldn't have happened in, say, a hypothetical war that was unpopular with the voting public at the time (like Iraq, to an extent). You simply cannot separate 'politics' and war. The only difference between the sinking of the Belgrano and the many other atrocities inflicted by the west during the cold war era was that it was a British ship directly responsible for the killings - normally Reagan, Thatcher et al would simply fund murderous dictators to train militias and lead a bloody coup/torture and kill up to hundreds of thousands of their own people to cow opposition, e.g that nice Mr Pinochet


edit: i took Capt Bonzo's comments there to mean that he doesn't blame the british crew, effectively his opposite numbers, but rather the 'politically criminal' fact that they were in a position to do it - the fact that they were at war and/or the fact that Maggie Thatcher gave specific approval for the sinking. My own views aren't much different - I'm disgusted that 323 enemy soldiers were killed (over 10% of the entire population of the Falklands!) when they represented no current threat, and hold those at the very top (Thatcher, Nott, probably the Naval top brass) responsible more than the British naval forces who couldn't exactly turn round and say no. It's made worse by the sheer callous, inhuman persona of Thatcher - any politician, even Reagan, Kissinger and other monsters, would at least put on a show of "I regret that people had to die, it's a sad necessity of war" etc, yet to Thatcher it was just something else she said yes to - it merited a mere two lines in her bumper memoirs. It's the sheer lack of regard for human life and livelihood at every turn that makes her such a loathsome figure as much as the actual decisions she made. That's why it's so appalling she's seen as an inspiration to many and will get a state funeral - to be perfectly honest hate-fuelled demonstrations/celebrations on her death will be perfectly in the Thatcher spirit.

This is not the thread for respectful debate lads.

Maradona settled this 22 years ago anyway, I hope at least one argentine tabloid ran a gotcha headline.

i have just been walking round a coal pit turned nature reserve that was a huge employer in my area, that was closed in the thatcher era, you will never get me to say anything positive on thatcher, shes a ginger ffs.

but, my argument- i know this is an age old argument, but how was the belgrano thing morally bankrupt? All your argument implies, is that the falklands war, the cold war, all thatcher policy, the conseravtive government, basically the 80's were morally bankrupt, there are so many arguments you can pick out for this, but the belgrano decesion on this is not one of them.

i can't find a source other than bloogging, but i have read this in various documents
Captain Hector Bonzo: "Yes, I agree with that statement. I think we posed a real threat... we never had any intention of going back to shore; we were only waiting for the right moment to act."

a warship, at war, in an area(the whole south atlantic) which enemy combattants could be targeted, legally.

All loss of life in war, is wrong, some wars are wrong, some are right. a militay decesion(made by the commander in chief), during a war that the british did not start.

If you want to slam maggie thatcher, do so, but on the things she did wrong, not right. The whole cold war period was sickening with the throw away allies and enemies, who are we fighting this week, eurasia or eastasia? coz we're always, since the begining of time fighting one or the other, as war is important for keeping moral up at home so that elections can be won.

Your last response seems to show you realise you can't win this argument, whether the falklands was right or wrong, is not my point, whether to kill in war is not my point, my point is, in that situation, at that time, the belgraano was a threat, and like argentine recon aircraft, submarines all outside the exclusion zone, it was made to not be a threat. THAT is my point, i think i have provided enought evidence to agree with that fact.

you can think i am wrong, u can think that i am morally bankrupt, u can swear at me and talk about the reagens, bush's, pinichots, taleban, whatever, my point, that i originally argued has been proved time and time again, in the UN, ECHR, hague, high court and westminster. Agree or give up, so u can go back to arguing that men from mars started 9/11 or however u feel ur day

He hasn't actually sworn at you, and neither has he called you morally bankrupt. I also can't quite see how Geraint has lost an argument here. Neither of you have 'proved' anything. Your reliance on one person's retrospective opinion isn't all that compelling as evidence goes- just because someone was there doesn't mean that person is right in their estimation of hat took place.

when the captain of the ship in question that was sunk says that it was a legal act, his ship was lost, his men killed, then his prospective is quite important. He has sworn in his response to MY argument, they fore its easy to see how i can take that to be swore at. He seems to think as i, as well as every mediated law or elected judgement on the subject immediatly aligns us with the other despciable and unlawful things that thatcher etc did. Therefore thinking i must be morally bankrupt.

My original argument was questioning your(mirandas) statement which mentioned the belgrano incident the fact you mentioned it alone seemed to think it being the worst of thatchers orders, when in fact all the proof and evidence surrounding the subject points to the fact that although it is never nice to kill, for whatever reason, that in this situation the order was a correct one. Like i mentioned, i agree with little of what thatchers government did, and have already stated many worse crimes that the administration commited. But the fact of the matter is as an act of war, the order to sink the belgrano was a correct one, all aspects of it have been argued and all turned away, but despite these blatant facts the socialist leftwing arguments keep being forced out.

I know this is the arrogance area, but i find it overly arrogant to avoid the core facts.

MARKZEEEVILDUDE wrote:when the captain of the ship in question that was sunk says that it was a legal act, his ship was lost, his men killed, then his prospective is quite important. He has sworn in his response to MY argument, they fore its easy to see how i can take that to be swore at. He seems to think as i, as well as every mediated law or elected judgement on the subject immediatly aligns us with the other despciable and unlawful things that thatcher etc did. Therefore thinking i must be morally bankrupt.

My original argument was questioning your(mirandas) statement which mentioned the belgrano incident the fact you mentioned it alone seemed to think it being the worst of thatchers orders, when in fact all the proof and evidence surrounding the subject points to the fact that although it is never nice to kill, for whatever reason, that in this situation the order was a correct one. Like i mentioned, i agree with little of what thatchers government did, and have already stated many worse crimes that the administration commited. But the fact of the matter is as an act of war, the order to sink the belgrano was a correct one, all aspects of it have been argued and all turned away, but despite these blatant facts the socialist leftwing arguments keep being forced out.

I know this is the arrogance area, but i find it overly arrogant to avoid the core facts.

I wouldn't describe myself as a socialist and find it quite annoying when people try and paint my moderate leftist arguments which I think are at least mostly pretty reasoned as MAD COMMIE FREEDOM-HATING etc, that's serious Fox News/The Sun tactics. I'm not sure the Belgrano is the worst thing Thatcher ever did, naval commanders did advise her it was the best course of action so it probably is shaded by Pinochet and some of the other cunts she supported (including mate saddam living up to proud british wartime hero churchill in gassing the fuck out of Kurds) but I really really do find it near impossible to see any perspective or "sometimes in war you've got to be ruthless" type attitude when you're killing equivalent over 1/10 of the population of the territory you're fighting for (and the conflict in total, both sides caused casualties equivalent to nearly half the Falklands population - a damning indictment on both leaders). I understand that during the cold war both 'sides' were able to get away with relative murder in terms of wartime conduct, but, at least in my book, that doesn't make it ok any more than an ill-defined 'war on terror' justifies waterboarding or extraordinary rendition.

as this is the arrogance area, I have to give major props to Raymond Briggs for the wisest kids book ever