The Falklands

[Anon Mouse]

Well, yes that is true. But as the Islanders wish to remain British makes my idealistic viewpoint a bit muddied as we need to respect their wishes. However I wont be taken in by the right wing press viewpoint and Goverment Tubthumping harking back to the days of The British Empire....

 

[Lampshade]

BTW I'm not taking sides here, politically I feel the Falklands are just one last outpost of Empire and should belong to Argentina.

So the Faroe Islands should be ours and Greenland should be handed over to Canada?

However given that 99%, if not 100% of the population there wish to remain British so its their views that should be respected. I have another solution, allow the Falkland residents to govern themselves as their own Independent Country but I doubt we would like that as it would be a further part of the British Empire gone and theat the new found oil would have to be paid for.

An independent Falklands would have a population of less than half of that of Nauru yet be the richest people per capita in the world thanks to the oil revenue. There would be no military and no membership of NATO... and you trust Argentina to just leave them to it?

 

[ainsworth74]

well, it did save Thatchers bacon

Perhaps, but we'll never know as the decision was taken out of her hands and to not respond as she did would certainly have cost her the election.

The difference was, the Bismark, The U Boats etc were in the war zone. The Belgrano was not.

The Total Exclusion Zone was for neutral shipping only it did not apply to the ships of belligerent nations. The war zone was the South Atlantic (or do you consider South Georgia to be outside of the war zone?).

I have another solution, allow the Falkland residents to govern themselves as their own Independent Country but I doubt we would like that as it would be a further part of the British Empire gone and theat the new found oil would have to be paid for. I also doubt the Argies would want that as they would have to buy the oil thats just been found and they would lose a hell of a lot of pride and face if it happened. Or maybe we could have a compromise where the Country is split and jointly governed by both Argentina and the UK?

I would rather maintain the situation as the Islanders want it to be maintained . They have the right to self-determination and they have determined that they like being a self-governing British Overseas Territory in all matters except foreign relations and defence (though the FIDF is not to be sniffed at).

However I wont be taken in by the right wing press viewpoint and Goverment Tubthumping harking back to the days of The British Empire....

Which government officials and which members of the press are harking back to the days of Empire? Because all I've seen are people stating that the Islanders wish to remain British and as long as that is the case their sovereignty is non-negotiable.

 

[Butts]

War is a terrible thing, and people die. I can guarantee that your thought went through the minds of the men on the submarine as they sank the ship; but I can also guarantee they thought that is what they were there for, and, by ending lives they might well be saving more. Complex

Unfortunately there is no room for sentiment in War - it's often kill or be killed.

Havng served in the Royal Navy I can tell you as distasteful as you may find it the submariners would probably have been cheering as The Belgrano went to the bottom. When you are thousands of miles from home putting your life on the line the subtle niceties of exclusion zones and other semantics are the last thought running through your mind.

Survival is what its all about

 

[Oswyntail]

Unfortunately there is no room for sentiment in War - it's often kill or be killed.

Havng served in the Royal Navy I can tell you as distasteful as you may find it the submariners would probably have been cheering as The Belgrano went to the bottom. When you are thousands of miles from home putting your life on the line the subtle niceties of exclusion zones and other semantics are the last thought running through your mind.

Survival is what its all about

I agree completely - that is what they were there for, and they did their job well. But, talking to an old chum who was an officer on the sub, he at least did think of the moral and legal aspects, but nonetheless did his job.

 

[kylemore]

Much has been said about the rights of the Islanders well when the USA needed that island in the Indian Ocean (cant remember the name!) for an airbase to use against targets in the mid east the British Govt cleared out the islanders pronto - they're still fighting to get back!
So don't kid yourselves that the powers that be are in the slightest bit concerned about the rights of the islanders.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, I can see why it would cause something of a storm. The Belgrano was outside of the exclusion zone (though that was for neutrals not belligerents) and was probably at the time sailing away from the Falklands. It also was the single largest loss of life and ensured that any diplomatic solution was off of the table.

.

Exactly! As it was designed so to do - the last thing that Thatcher wanted (or rather the people pulling her strings!) was a diplomatic solution.

 

[ainsworth74]

Much has been said about the rights of the Islanders well when the USA needed that island in the Indian Ocean (cant remember the name!) for an airbase to use against targets in the mid east the British Govt cleared out the islanders pronto - they're still fighting to get back!
So don't kid yourselves that the powers that be are in the slightest bit concerned about the rights of the islanders.

Diego Garcia.

If they didn't care why did we fight a war over them in 1982? Why do we keep 1500 armed forces personnel garrisoned on the islands? Why do we keep a guard ship permanently deployed to the islands? Why did we build a massive airbase on the islands? Why do we have four Typhoons, a C130, a VC10, two Sea Kings and until they were needed in Afghanistan two Chinooks deployed to Mount Pleasant? Why do we keep another warship permanently deployed in the South Atlantic? Why do we often deploy an SSN to the South Atlantic? Why do we continue to refuse to even discuss the islands sovereignty?

Yeah we clearly don't care one bit about what happens to those islands...

Exactly! As it was designed so to do - the last thing that Thatcher wanted (or rather the people pulling her strings!) was a diplomatic solution.

Yeah sinking the Belgrano had absolutely nothing to do with the clear and present military threat that such an asset posed to the Royal Navy task force in the ongoing military conflict it was solely to ensure that Thatcher would get re-elected.

 

[Anon Mouse]

The sinking of the Belgrano was soley political, it was heading AWAY from the Falklands crewed by young conscripts. If a diplomatic solution had of been found Thatcher would never have remained our PM and not have been as cosy with General Pinochet over in Chile....

 

[ainsworth74]

The sinking of the Belgrano was soley political, it was heading AWAY from the Falklands crewed by young conscripts.

International Law does not care which direction a warship of a belligerent power is sailing in. Belgrano was a legitimate military target that represented a threat to the Royal Navy task force and was therefore sunk. The loss of life was regrettable but their being conscripts or not has no baring on our decision or the legitimacy of the Belgrano as a target. By that logic if the Warsaw Pact had invaded Western Europe we should not have resisted as the WP troops were conscripts.

Also I think you'll find that pretty much every single Royal Navy officer would have agreed with the decision to sink the Belgrano. Sandy Woodward said after the war that if HMS Spartan had been able to get a shot off at Veinticinco de Mayo he would have recommended in the strongest terms sinking both it and Belgrano. Sinking the Belgrano was the correct military decision.

 

[Anon Mouse]

massive loss of life for no reason other that it flying the Argentinian flag?

So I am sure you would have agreed if the Argentinians had of sunk one of our vessels heading away from the Islands?

 

[ainsworth74]

massive loss of life for no reason other that it flying the Argentinian flag?

So I am sure you would have agreed if the Argentinians had of sunk one of our vessels heading away from the Islands?

It was a war. Ships get sunk. I'm perfectly sure that if the Argentines could have sunk one of our ships heading away from the islands they would have done so but they were concentrating on trying to sink the aircraft carriers and the ships in Falkland Sound.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It was a war. Ships get sunk. I'm perfectly sure that if the Argentines could have sunk one of our ships heading away from the islands they would have done so.

But would you have considered it a correct, legitimate military action if a British ship was sunk when heading away from the Islands?

 

[Anon Mouse]

It was a war. Ships get sunk. I'm perfectly sure that if the Argentines could have sunk one of our ships heading away from the islands they would have done so.

but they did not. I am sure all those that rejocied along with The Sun's 'Gotcha' headline would have been outraged, disgusted and burning Argie flags if the same had of happened with one of 'our' vessels with 'our boys' onboard.....just a thought

 

[ainsworth74]

But would you have considered it a correct, legitimate military action if a British ship was sunk when heading away from the Islands?

The entire South Atlantic was considered a war zone so if they had a chance to sink a ship heading away from the islands then yes it would have been.

but they did not. I am sure all those that rejocied along with The Sun's 'Gotcha' headline would have been outraged, disgusted and burning Argie flags if the same had of happened with one of 'our' vessels with 'our boys' onboard.....just a thought

Was there flag burning after Sheffield or Ardent or Coventry or Atlantic Conveyor or Glamorgan or Antelope or Argonaut or Sir Galahad or Sir Tristram?

 

[Anon Mouse]

and would you have accepted the massive loss of life of young lads with families while the ship was sunk heading away from the Islands en route home?

I doubt people would have accepted it, and I am sure the majority of people would have been outraged and demanding severe retribution

 

[ainsworth74]

Okay at this point I have to ask what is the point of this? Why are you hounding me? The Belgrano was sunk, it was a legitimate target the loss of life was regrettable just as that whole sorry war was but arguing about what I think about the possibility of the sinking of a British warship has precisely what to do with anything?

 

[DarloRich]

But would you have considered it a correct, legitimate military action if a British ship was sunk when heading away from the Islands?

Yes - i am afraid so.

I dont care which direction the ship was heading. It might have been following a race track pattern, for all we know waiting for the carriers to be located, and this is a crucial point, IT CAN CHANGE DIRECTION!

The ship could have swung north west, raced over the Burwood bank ( which would have meant the submarine would have had difficulty in tracking them) and attacked the British Task force. This would have causdght the task force i npincer between the Belgrano group and the Argentian ciricraft carrier group

The Belgrano was armed with 15 x 6" guns. Her two escorts were armed with Exocet. They could have fired both weapons from miles away and inflicted death and damage on the ships of the task force.

Further, during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Héctor Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate as did the Argentine government in 1994.

As i said, the right choice was made. If it were my call i would make the same call in seconds.

(and much as i HATE Thatcher with a passion, she was right about the Falklands Islands.)

 

[kylemore]

Diego Garcia.

If they didn't care why did we fight a war over them in 1982? Why do we keep 1500 armed forces personnel garrisoned on the islands? Why do we keep a guard ship permanently deployed to the islands? Why did we build a massive airbase on the islands? Why do we have four Typhoons, a C130, a VC10, two Sea Kings and until they were needed in Afghanistan two Chinooks deployed to Mount Pleasant? Why do we keep another warship permanently deployed in the South Atlantic? Why do we often deploy an SSN to the South Atlantic? Why do we continue to refuse to even discuss the islands sovereignty?

Yeah we clearly don't care one bit about what happens to those islands...



Yeah sinking the Belgrano had absolutely nothing to do with the clear and present military threat that such an asset posed to the Royal Navy task force in the ongoing military conflict it was solely to ensure that Thatcher would get re-elected.

Yes Diego Garcia - thankyou. John Pilger has written some brilliant articles over this.

I did'nt say they (not "we" thank you) don't want to hang on to islands. I am saying that you are kidding yourself if you think this is done to protect the rights of the islanders.
If that was the case then what was wrong with the rights of the islanders of Diego Garcia?

 

[Anon Mouse]

Okay at this point I have to ask what is the point of this? Why are you hounding me? The Belgrano was sunk, it was a legitimate target the loss of life was regrettable just as that whole sorry war was but arguing about what I think about the possibility of the sinking of a British warship has precisely what to do with anything?

I aint hounding anyone, and I am sorry if you think so.

I was just trying to offer another viewpoint and highlight the hypocracy that all of us have in relation to war especially when we are one of the sides. I was just offereing a viewpoint of the senario of a British ship illegally being sunk while leaving the war zone.

Obviosly we have a different opinion and thats quite alright, we live in a Democracy after all. It highlights how dangerous this type of thread is due to people having vastly different opinions.

I don't wishto offend by offering my opinion and I certainly don't want to be thought of as hounding someone, for that reason alone I am no longer going to comment any further on the topic of the Falklands and stick to non confrontational topics.

 

[ainsworth74]

I did'nt say they (not "we" thank you) don't want to hang on to islands. I am saying that you are kidding yourself if you think this is done to protect the rights of the islanders.

My apologies I misinterpreted you

If that was the case then what was wrong with the rights of the islanders of Diego Garcia?

I'm not gonna lie the whole business of DC leaves a very very sour taste in the mouth and I can only hope that the islanders do get some sort of compensation (because I can't see them ever getting their home back again).

Another ugly chapter in colonial history.

 

[Butts]

and would you have accepted the massive loss of life of young lads with families while the ship was sunk heading away from the Islands en route home?

I doubt people would have accepted it, and I am sure the majority of people would have been outraged and demanding severe retribution

Does the name HMS Sheffield ring any bells ?

In times of war ships (of either side) are sunk and people die. Most of the serviceman have families or mothers and fathers. Age or being conscripts has no bearing on the matter.

Next you'll be telling us U-Boats should not have sunk allied shipping crossing the atlantic in WWII - they were thousands of miles from land.

The Argentinians would have sunk the QE2 if they could have as it was a legitimate target and we could have had no complaints.

War is not a game of tiddleywinks its about killing the opponents before they kill you.

 

[ainsworth74]

Obviosly we have a different opinion and thats quite alright, we live in a Democracy after all. It highlights how dangerous this type of thread is due to people having vastly different opinions.

I don't wishto offend by offering my opinion and I certainly don't want to be thought of as hounding someone, for that reason alone I am no longer going to comment any further on the topic of the Falklands and stick to non confrontational topics.

I'm certainly not offended and if we all agreed all the time then life would be very boring. And please don't stop contributing to this thread unless you want to!

I also see a bit more what you're trying to get at but I maintain my position both on the Belgrano and on this hypothetical British warship. Both were/would have been legitimate targets.

 

[Anon Mouse]

ok, last comment on this thread. WW2 was a different kettle of fish to the Falklands War. U Boat targets were on both sides of the Atlantic and passed through or nearby to allied waters.

no more posts from me on this thread

 

[DarloRich]

the ship wasn't "illegally sunk" leaving the exclusion zone becuase:

a) the exclusion zone applied only to neutral vessels
b) during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status
c)We informed Argentina on April 23rd, that Argentine ships and aircraft would be attacked if they posed a threat to the British task force,


Have a read of Sink the Belgrano by Mike Rossiter. It is iinformative and well written

 

[Anon Mouse]

I'm certainly not offended and if we all agreed all the time then life would be very boring. And please don't stop contributing to this thread unless you want to!

I also see a bit more what you're trying to get at but I maintain my position both on the Belgrano and on this hypothetical British warship. Both were/would have been legitimate targets.

Cheers for that

Emotions run quite high on this topic especially when its quite an emotive one for us Brits. I think I'm best leaving it at that!

 

[IanXC]

The entire South Atlantic was considered a war zone so if they had a chance to sink a ship heading away from the islands then yes it would have been.

Was there flag burning after Sheffield or Ardent or Coventry or Atlantic Conveyor or Glamorgan or Antelope or Argonaut or Sir Galahad or Sir Tristram?

And indeed, there is of course never any mention of the direction any of the RN ships were sailing in when attacked, its just not relevant.

"The Falklands Play" shown on BBC4 from time to time, gives a good account of the specifically political aspects of the decision, from the point of view of the War Cabinet.

 

[kylemore]

I hope that I could not be described as "hounding".
Controversial subjects can be debated without it descending into a slanging match!
All that is required is a bit of respect.

Back to the topic I'm not slagging the people at the sharp end the officers who had to do what their political masters told them within the bounds of their conscience. Once war has been decided upon then alls' fair in love and war as they say, whether warships are sailing this way or that, I just question the motives and integrity of the politicians and others at the very highest level.

 

[DarloRich]

I hope that I could not be described as "hounding".
Controversial subjects can be debated without it descending into a slanging match!
All that is required is a bit of respect.

Back to the topic I'm not slagging the people at the sharp end the officers who had to do what their political masters told them within the bounds of their conscience. Once war has been decided upon then alls' fair in love and war as they say, whether warships are sailing this way or that, I just question the motives and integrity of the politicians and others at the very highest level.

What in protecting people who wished and still wish to remian British? In ejecting a facist governemnt and thier hencemen who had invaded a part of British territory?

As i said much as i HATE Thatcher, she was right about this ( may god forgive me!)

 

[Butts]

What in protecting people who wished and still wish to remian British? In ejecting a facist governemnt and thier hencemen who had invaded a part of British territory?

As i said much as i HATE Thatcher, she was right about this ( may god forgive me!)

It did the Argentinians a favour ,as a result of the aftermath of the conflict ,was the fall of Galteri and his cohorts and a return to Democracy.

 

[kylemore]

My apologies I misinterpreted you



I'm not gonna lie the whole business of DC leaves a very very sour taste in the mouth and I can only hope that the islanders do get some sort of compensation (because I can't see them ever getting their home back again).

Another ugly chapter in colonial history.

Which only goes to show that "Rights" are expedient when push comes to shove.
If Thatcher had stood up to the Americans and defended the rights of the Diego Garcians (sic?) I would have admired her (as well as being completely gob-smacked with surprise).
Anyway this has certainly livened up a dull sunday afternoon!