Falklands Islands

[JVKn'CVO 11]

there's also this little gem in that same article..........

In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate[7] (as did the Argentine government in 1994).[8][9][10][11]

And you can't see a relation between the 2?

Saludos,

Caro

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Oh, and don't forget, the same president that said that was so bad that he is the direct cause of the 2001 Argentina crisis.

Good think the last and current presidents have the courage to say things the way they are

Saludos,

Caro

or is it more like the last and current are saying what people want to hear? even the captain of the ship said it was justified. and he probably knows more about maritime law than the last and current president put together.

there's also this little gem in that same article..........

In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate[7] (as did the Argentine government in 1994).[8][9][10][11]

And you can't see a relation between the 2?

Saludos,

Caro

yes, i can. one group sees reality. the current set you champion does not.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Oh, and don't forget, the same president that said that was so bad that he is the direct cause of the 2001 Argentina crisis.

Good think the last and current presidents have the courage to say things the way they are

Saludos,

Caro

or is it more like the last and current are saying what people want to hear? even the captain of the ship said it was justified. and he probably knows more about maritime law than the last and current president put together.

Ok, you obviously don't understand the political pressure to make concessions in order to reach an agreement, that eventually lead to Argentina being able to visit the Falklands again.

ETA: Even though everyone knows it's not true, and I'm trying to find the article because I believe the claim is still in standing with the UN as a crime of war. AND, it still does not justify the fact that the ship was sailing away. or do you think it is ok to shoot people in the back?

Saludos,

Caro

Edited August 2, 2008 by JVKn'CVO

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The sinking of the Belgrano was dodgy on a few levels and the Thatcher government got a lot of criticism for it - but again the questions surrounding it aren't exactly straightforward. That this took place in the overall context of a war declared by a (then) totalitarian government certainly doesn't justify it - but the war itself wasn't exactly justifiable either.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Number 6

[JVKn'CVO 11]

After the apparent repulsion of what they thought was a British landing attempt on May 1 (which included the failed air strike by the ARA 25 de Mayo), the Argentine Junta decided to wait for the decision of the Peruvian peace proposal before continuing hostilities. All Argentine Navy task groups were ordered to withdraw from the area until further notice [4], and the Argentine Air Force did not attempt any major air strikes during the following days. The Belgrano was approximately 35 miles out of the British-declared exclusion zone, heading toward the mainland when the attack occurred...

The Belgrano was detected 48 hours earlier, but when it was sunk it no longer represented a direct threat to the British Task Force. The Argentine point of view is that Thatcher's government (ill-positioned for coming elections) and the Royal Navy (in the midst of a serious budget cut period) took this war as the perfect chance to solve their problems, and with sinking Belgrano they successfully undermined any possible peaceful solution.

Nation Master

Saludos,

Caro

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

After the apparent repulsion of what they thought was a British landing attempt on May 1 (which included the failed air strike by the ARA 25 de Mayo), the Argentine Junta decided to wait for the decision of the Peruvian peace proposal before continuing hostilities. All Argentine Navy task groups were ordered to withdraw from the area until further notice [4], and the Argentine Air Force did not attempt any major air strikes during the following days. The Belgrano was approximately 35 miles out of the British-declared exclusion zone, heading toward the mainland when the attack occurred...

The Belgrano was detected 48 hours earlier, but when it was sunk it no longer represented a direct threat to the British Task Force. The Argentine point of view is that Thatcher's government (ill-positioned for coming elections) and the Royal Navy (in the midst of a serious budget cut period) took this war as the perfect chance to solve their problems, and with sinking Belgrano they successfully undermined any possible peaceful solution.

Nation Master

Saludos,

Caro

There is certainly some merit to this view. But again - it doesn't justify the war itself, which also had its roots in the precarious political position of then dictatorship.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

And this puts Captain Bonzo's declaration in perspective

Captain, Hector Bonzo, said "We were heading towards the mainland but not going to the mainland; we were going to a position to await further orders"

Saludos,

Caro

[JVKn'CVO 11]

After the apparent repulsion of what they thought was a British landing attempt on May 1 (which included the failed air strike by the ARA 25 de Mayo), the Argentine Junta decided to wait for the decision of the Peruvian peace proposal before continuing hostilities. All Argentine Navy task groups were ordered to withdraw from the area until further notice [4], and the Argentine Air Force did not attempt any major air strikes during the following days. The Belgrano was approximately 35 miles out of the British-declared exclusion zone, heading toward the mainland when the attack occurred...

The Belgrano was detected 48 hours earlier, but when it was sunk it no longer represented a direct threat to the British Task Force. The Argentine point of view is that Thatcher's government (ill-positioned for coming elections) and the Royal Navy (in the midst of a serious budget cut period) took this war as the perfect chance to solve their problems, and with sinking Belgrano they successfully undermined any possible peaceful solution.

Nation Master

Saludos,

Caro

There is certainly some merit to this view. But again - it doesn't justify the war itself, which also had its roots in the precarious political position of then dictatorship.

The claim exists since Argentina became independent. It was renewed with the creation of the UN, filing in 1949. Argentina never "forgot" about the Falklands like the UK would like people to believe.

Even though I agree, the political situation that precipitated the war was wrong, it does not mean the CLAIM itself is not valid. Because it is.

Saludos,

Caro

Edited August 2, 2008 by JVKn'CVO

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

After the apparent repulsion of what they thought was a British landing attempt on May 1 (which included the failed air strike by the ARA 25 de Mayo), the Argentine Junta decided to wait for the decision of the Peruvian peace proposal before continuing hostilities. All Argentine Navy task groups were ordered to withdraw from the area until further notice [4], and the Argentine Air Force did not attempt any major air strikes during the following days. The Belgrano was approximately 35 miles out of the British-declared exclusion zone, heading toward the mainland when the attack occurred...

The Belgrano was detected 48 hours earlier, but when it was sunk it no longer represented a direct threat to the British Task Force. The Argentine point of view is that Thatcher's government (ill-positioned for coming elections) and the Royal Navy (in the midst of a serious budget cut period) took this war as the perfect chance to solve their problems, and with sinking Belgrano they successfully undermined any possible peaceful solution.

Nation Master

Saludos,

Caro

There is certainly some merit to this view. But again - it doesn't justify the war itself, which also had its roots in the precarious political position of then dictatorship.

The claim exists since Argentina became independent. It was renewed with the creation of the UN, filing in 1949. Argentina never "forgot" about the Falklands like the UK would like people to believe.

Even though I agree, the political situation that precipitated the war was wrong, it does not mean the CLAIM itself is not valid. Because it is.

Saludos,

Caro

Unfortunately when you declare war over something like this it doesn't exactly facilitate a spirit of concession. The opposite in fact.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Unfortunately when you declare war over something like this it doesn't exactly facilitate a spirit of concession. The opposite in fact.

Argentina became independent in 1816. The UN was created in 1949. Their efforts towards decolonization started in 1962. The war took place in 1982. There was plenty of opportunity for negotiation.

I still oppose war and violence, because I'm catholic. But you can't say the opportunity to negotiate was not there.

Saludos,

Caro

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unfortunately when you declare war over something like this it doesn't exactly facilitate a spirit of concession. The opposite in fact.

Argentina became independent in 1816. The UN was created in 1949. Their efforts towards decolonization started in 1962. The war took place in 1982. There was plenty of opportunity for negotiation.

I still oppose war and violence, because I'm catholic. But you can't say the opportunity to negotiate was not there.

Saludos,

Caro

I didn't say it was - but declaring war damages the practical legitimacy of a claim like this, makes the other side unwilling to make concessions and essentially justifies the idea that possession = ownership (which is essentially where we are today).

Edited August 3, 2008 by Number 6

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Oh, and don't forget, the same president that said that was so bad that he is the direct cause of the 2001 Argentina crisis.

Good think the last and current presidents have the courage to say things the way they are

Saludos,

Caro

or is it more like the last and current are saying what people want to hear? even the captain of the ship said it was justified. and he probably knows more about maritime law than the last and current president put together.

Ok, you obviously don't understand the political pressure to make concessions in order to reach an agreement, that eventually lead to Argentina being able to visit the Falklands again.

ETA: Even though everyone knows it's not true, and I'm trying to find the article because I believe the claim is still in standing with the UN as a crime of war. AND, it still does not justify the fact that the ship was sailing away. or do you think it is ok to shoot people in the back?

Saludos,

Caro

a warship in or near an area that is contested (war zone), whether going to or coming from, is fair game. that's the facts of life.

[Welshcookie 17]

I still oppose war and violence, because I'm catholic.

Saludos,

Caro

wow.....nice statement.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

a warship in or near an area that is contested (war zone), whether going to or coming from, is fair game. that's the facts of life.

Seriously Charles, why are you so hard-headed? How can you fail to see what is obvious? The Manuel Belgrano was outside the war zone, retreating, during a cease of the hostilities, and had 2 civilians aboard!

What is your connection to this subject?

Saludos,

Caro

[JVKn'CVO 11]

I still oppose war and violence, because I'm catholic.

Saludos,

Caro

wow.....nice statement.

"I still oppose war and violence, because that is what I believe in, that is the morals I was brought up with, because I believe nothing justifies the horrors of the war, and I'm a catholic"

Better? happy now?

Saludos,

Caro