Bush grants interview to the Sun

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Other than the fact that it wasn't wartime, that we defined the rules of engagement and promptly broke them, and did so against a target presenting no serious risk?

[Whaleboy]

Laz: Britain had the right to defend itself and the Falklands come under that. Argentina did not have the right to start the war, but who started on who is of little significance to me. It is the lives of the men on the ground that matter to me more than petty political or economic issues.

DF: You have not answered my point. You argument (and I am assuming here because you have not set it out clearly and logically), is that when in a state of war, particularly one you have not started, you are justified in celebrating victories that involve the death of an enemy. Feel free to tell me if that is a strawman.

I refute your argument by saying that it relies on the assumption that one makes the distinction by nationality. In other words, because I am British and Juan Sanchez del Guano is Argentinian, I am justified in celebrating his death, when my flag is at odds with his. However, are we not both human? Do we not share all but physical appearance, personality and life? Do we not have the same blood running through our veins? In a peacetime situation, do we not have the capacity to become lifelong friends, and contribute fully and meaningfully to each others lives? Why, therefore, am I celebrating because someone, with whom I merely share a flag, has launched three torpedoes at his ship and killed him? My refutation is the proposition that my common humanity is far more valuable than my national alliegiance or some fallacious principle, and that because I am aware of that, I find the notion of celebrating his, or anyones death in war, wholly unacceptable and frankly sickening.

[David Floyd]

1)Argentina invaded the Falklands. I consider that "war time" in fact if not in name.

2)The rules of engagement were not the result of an international law - Britain didn't HAVE to set those rules up, and by extension didn't HAVE to follow them. If Argentina intentionally sorties a cruiser and sails it OUTSIDE the exclusion zone, I think a strong argument can be made that the RoE should be violated.

3)Did the Belgrano have the capability and the potential to kill a single British soldier or sailor? Yes. Did the British undertake a risk of loss of life in going after the Belgrano with a submarine? No. So in that sense, the cost-benefit analysis of sinking the Belgrano vs. letting it stay afloat is clearly in favor of the British decision to sink it.

[David Floyd]

You argument (and I am assuming here because you have not set it out clearly and logically), is that when in a state of war, particularly one you have not started, you are justified in celebrating victories that involve the death of an enemy.

No. Victories should be celebrated not because they result in enemy soldiers (who, by the way, are most likely innocent of personal wrongdoing) dying, but because they lead to the cessation of hostilities and a moral conclusion to the war (that is, the aggressor being defeated). I would not celebrate a US military victory in a war the US started or entered with no provocation; for example, I would not celebrate Belleau Wood, or Argonne Forest, or Chattanooga, or Inchon.

[Whaleboy]

1)Argentina invaded the Falklands. I consider that "war time" in fact if not in name.

Agreed

2)The rules of engagement were not the result of an international law - Britain didn't HAVE to set those rules up, and by extension didn't HAVE to follow them. If Argentina intentionally sorties a cruiser and sails it OUTSIDE the exclusion zone, I think a strong argument can be made that the RoE should be violated.

Agreed

3)Did the Belgrano have the capability and the potential to kill a single British soldier or sailor? Yes. Did the British undertake a risk of loss of life in going after the Belgrano with a submarine? No. So in that sense, the cost-benefit analysis of sinking the Belgrano vs. letting it stay afloat is clearly in favor of the British decision to sink it.

Agreed

None of which addressed my argument.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd
1)Argentina invaded the Falklands. I consider that "war time" in fact if not in name.

2)The rules of engagement were not the result of an international law - Britain didn't HAVE to set those rules up, and by extension didn't HAVE to follow them. If Argentina intentionally sorties a cruiser and sails it OUTSIDE the exclusion zone, I think a strong argument can be made that the RoE should be violated.

3)Did the Belgrano have the capability and the potential to kill a single British soldier or sailor? Yes. Did the British undertake a risk of loss of life in going after the Belgrano with a submarine? No. So in that sense, the cost-benefit analysis of sinking the Belgrano vs. letting it stay afloat is clearly in favor of the British decision to sink it.

1- You're entitled to your opinion.

2- You're entitled to your opinion.

3- You're entitled to your opinion, even though I have to point out that the Belgrano would have had to have moved several hundred miles in the opposite direction to pose a threat to absolutely anything. There may have been soldiers on the Argentine mainland, but we rather pointedly left them alone.

[David Floyd]

None of which addressed my argument.

No ****. I was addressing Laz. My next post addressed you.

[David Floyd]

1- You're entitled to your opinion.

2- You're entitled to your opinion.

Sure, and you to yours, but I'm not sure how what I am saying is inaccurate.

There may have been soldiers on the Argentine mainland, but we rather pointedly left them alone.

Three good reasons for this:
1)They posed no threat to the British invasion fleet. What are they gonna do, swim out with mines attached to their backs?

2)They had no way to be transported to the islands themselves.

3)The cost-benefit ratio of attacking them would not have been in Britain's favor.

[Whaleboy]

No. Victories should be celebrated not because they result in enemy soldiers (who, by the way, are most likely innocent of personal wrongdoing) dying, but because they lead to the cessation of hostilities and a moral conclusion to the war (that is, the aggressor being defeated). I would not celebrate a US military victory in a war the US started or entered with no provocation; for example, I would not celebrate Belleau Wood, or Argonne Forest, or Chattanooga, or Inchon.

Chasm of death. Far more significant than any moralistic victory, though a continuation of hostitilies is no more valid, a cessation is the point at which grieving should start for the pain and suffering preceding it.

Nonetheless, I must return to the ether from whence I came, lest I become a statistic of the brutal reign of a frankly very attractive psychology teacher. Foresooth!!

[David Floyd]

Chasm of death. Far more significant than any moralistic victory, though a continuation of hostitilies is no more valid, a cessation is the point at which grieving should start for the pain and suffering preceding it.

So you are saying that the end of hostilities is no more positive than the beginning or continuation of hostilities, and as a result, not worth celebrating?

[Spec]

Yup. I made a mistake.

10 foot concrete block.


Spec.

[General Ludd]

I haven't been following this thread... but people aren't talking about that "GOTCHA!" headline as 'celebrating victory', are they? It was gloating. Gloating about killing the enemy. (as I understand, anyways. This thread is the first I've ever heard of it. )

[David Floyd]

Heh. Very true. I'm open minded, I just think everyone else is WRONG

[Whaleboy]

*Whaleboy briefly rematerialises*

I am saying that the cessation of hostilities is the breathing space from which grieving should start. One should celebrate when one has gained something, not when one has merely ceased losing something. "Yay, I'm not going to get thrust into a life or death situation every day". Its not worthy of celebration, its worthy of relief, and grief for those that weren't so lucky to have the opportunity to experience it.

EDIT: @David Floyd

*Whaleboy once more disappears. When shall he return? Nobody knows. What new revelations shall he bring? We live in fear...*

[David Floyd]

I am saying that the cessation of hostilities is the breathing space from which grieving should start. One should celebrate when one has gained something, not when one has merely ceased losing something. "Yay, I'm not going to get thrust into a life or death situation every day". Its not worthy of celebration, its worthy of relief, and grief for those that weren't so lucky to have the opportunity to experience it.

I disagree. Grief at the loss of life should take place throughout, not start when loss of life ceases. When loss of life ceases, you are correct, that is a time for relief, but celebration is not inappropriate, either.

[Tripledoc]

Another thing I find mysterious was that the Brits captured Alfredo Astiz AKA the Blonde Angel, a torturer and killer of women working for the Junta, on the small Island of Stromness. He was captured without his unit having fired a shot. Clearly British intelligence must have known that he was thug and a human rights abuser. Either they should have gunned him down on the spot or imprisoned him. Astiz is now where he belongs, in prison.

Another thing is that Pinochet provided intelligence to the Brits. That was why Thacther went in and supported him when he was in Britian and had a extradition case hanging iover his head. He was supposed to have gone to spain to be prosecuted for human rights violations.

So the idea that Thatcher was on an anti-Junta crusade is ridiculous.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It certainly is. Who suggested that?

[Tripledoc]

I thought Paiktis hinted at something in that direction.

[David Floyd]

It certainly is. Who suggested that?

Not I

I hate Thatcher, although probably not as much as you Brits who had the misfortune of having her as PM.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No. Victories should be celebrated not because they result in enemy soldiers (who, by the way, are most likely innocent of personal wrongdoing) dying, but because they lead to the cessation of hostilities and a moral conclusion to the war (that is, the aggressor being defeated).

Have you not understood that the sinking of Belgrano, right or wrong, led to the Junta refusing to accept peace.
They would have folded if only the Belgrano had not been sunk.

Instead the Junta let the full force of its frankly suicidal and fanatical airforce be unleashed on the British fleet. As a result a lot of British servicemen were killed. And that was perhaps unneccesary.

[David Floyd]

Have you not understood that the sinking of Belgrano, right or wrong, led to the Junta refusing to accept peace.

I can buy that argument, except for the small matter that Argentina started the war, and as such had a moral imperative to end it, with full compensation for property and loss of life. Sinking the Belgrano did not give Argentina an excuse to reject peace - the sinking of the Belgrano was a result of their decision for war.

[Tripledoc]

That is illogical. There is a 'war' going on. The Brits know that Peru is acting as a negotiator. Peru tell the Brits that the junta in Argentine is folding. Then they sink the Belgrano. Where is the logic in that?

[David Floyd]

I don't know. I wasn't involved with the decision, nor do I have access to first hand materials from that time. All I can tell you is that sinking a military vessel operating at sea during time of war cannot be considered a slaughter, or immoral, or anything of the sort, if the other side started the war.

[Tripledoc]

No it is not immoral. It is criminal.

[David Floyd]

Sinking the warship of an enemy who started a war with you is criminal?

[DinoDoc]

Forgive me as I haven't read the entire thread but what's with the hand wringing about the "sportsmanship" of sinking a military ship during a time of war?

[Tripledoc]

No, deliberately upsetting peace negotiations is.

[Jon Miller]

I would have thought that the British would have learned that sportsmanship was crap before WW1

I guess every generation has to learn it for themselves

Jon Miller

[DinoDoc]

What's to negotiate? They invaded the island. They should have left before the Brits got there.

[Jon Miller]

also

I don't know how Britain risked defeat fighting Argentina

some setbacks I can see, defeat? no

Jon miller