Liverpool FC Forum

by **Benny The Noon** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:46 pm

Your right a ship can change it's course but when it's going away from the conflict zone and on a course to continue moving away from the conflict zone and reportedly going back to it's own country then there is no threat from the ship and there was no reason to sink it .

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:55 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:Your right a ship can change it's course but when it's going away from the conflict zone and on a course to continue moving away from the conflict zone and reportedly going back to it's own country then there is no threat from the ship and there was no reason to sink it .

Britain made it clear that ANY warships in waters outside Argentina would be considered threats. There was no exclusion zone.

The sinking of the Belgrano also resulted in the elimination of the Argentine navy, because they all returned to port for the rest of the conflict, thus saving British lives.

But, as you said, the war was already over by this stage
:laugh:

by **woof woof !** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:56 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:Your right a ship can change it's course but when it's going away from the conflict zone and on a course to continue moving away from the conflict zone and reportedly going back to it's own country then there is no threat from the ship and there was no reason to sink it .

You've obviously dismissed the thought that she might re-deploy .

With our supply lines stretching over thousands of miles of ocean it was not a time to start fannying about whilst the Argentians played the "Hokey Cokey" .

by **Benny The Noon** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:02 pm

IF they did redeploy then it could be destroyed if it then provided a threat - we were there to liberate the Falklands and NOT declare war on Argentina hence it is always called a conflict and not a war as neither side declared war . The sinking of the Belgrano IMO could of easily been a war crime and IMO an act of cowardice and morally wrong .

by **Benny The Noon** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:05 pm

And Kewell there was an exclusion zone 200 miles around the Falkland islands that is still there now as well as the no fly exclusion zone

by **Reg** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:12 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:IF they did redeploy then it could be destroyed if it then provided a threat - we were there to liberate the Falklands and NOT declare war on Argentina hence it is always called a conflict and not a war as neither side declared war . The sinking of the Belgrano IMO could of easily been a war crime and IMO an act of cowardice and morally wrong .

So as the Paras attacked Goose Green they should have shouted to the Argies, 'ok who's here to fight and which of you are here on holiday?' What if the Argies replied 'You cant shoot me becuase I'm walking towards Argentina?'

By definition, the armed forces of a nation with whom you are at war are on the service of their government and are linked to any conflict. The consequences of war are not nice and the agressor should be aware of the downside before he initiates his first move.

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:12 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:IF they did redeploy then it could be destroyed if it then provided a threat - we were there to liberate the Falklands and NOT declare war on Argentina hence it is always called a conflict and not a war as neither side declared war . The sinking of the Belgrano IMO could of easily been a war crime and IMO an act of cowardice and morally wrong .

it could be destroyed if it then provided a threat

You’re talking rubbish. It was a war ship in a theatre of WAR and was a threat regardless of which direction it was heading. Tactically the sinking was a massive success, because the Argentine navy played no further part in the conflict.

Britain had also made it cleat that it deemed all Argentine warships located between the Argentine coast and the Falklands as targets That’s why Argentina accepts the sinking of the Belgrano as an act of war.

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:14 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:And Kewell there was an exclusion zone 200 miles around the Falkland islands that is still there now as well as the no fly exclusion zone

the exclusion zone was extended during the conflict. Look it up, along with the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE FALKLANDS WAR. :laugh:

by **tonyeh** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:15 pm

Big Niall wrote:In ww2 both sides thought it okay to drop bombs on civilian populations, so I don't see the controversy in sinking a ship which carried troops. These people will be shooting at you later on so sink them when you get the chance.

The Falklands conflict was not the "total war" situation that characterised WWII.

It was limited by agreement to a specific area and if I recall correctly the Belgrano was outside that area when she was attacked. In other words, in neutral waters and therefore not subject to attack, lest neutals be sunk ny accident.

But, I am rusty on this particular conflict.

by **tonyeh** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:26 pm

Reg wrote:
Benny The Noon wrote:it was sunk after Argentina submitted peace plans which Tw.atcher claimed not to have received yet accepted two days later , as well as the ship being out of the exclusion zone and on its way back to Argentina , which Tw.atcher once again claimed she didn't know despite the submarines captain informing Whitehall of it's change of course

They invaded then gave a peace plan?

Like the Germans invading Poland, belgium, Holland and France and suddenly saying 'Ok you cant attack me, here's a peace plan'.

Feckín 'ell son get real.....

War is all about the deployment of total violence to destroy your enemy.

Try playing that on your Wii.

Actually, Germany offered several peace proposals to Britain after the latter declared war on September 3rd, which included at one stage withdrawl from occupied Western Europe.

The final proposal was the "last appeal for reason" statement in July 1940.

Hitler's main interest was in Russia. He wasn't bothered with Western Europe. But, as long as Britain remained a threat, Germany had to maintain a presence there.

by **Benny The Noon** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:27 pm

Bingo Tony - the Belgrano was not in waters subject to the conflict and we were not at WAR with Argentina it was a conflict to liberate the Falkland Islands from Argentina . Go look up your history Kewell and you will see that belgrano was sunk while outside of the exclusion zone and in international neutral waters and not actually in the conflict zone .

by **Reg** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:40 pm

The point is not about peace proposals but that someone expected hostilities would stop because of one. Troops were still being killed in europe whilst the Germans sent off worthless peace plans.

'Hitler wasn't bothered about europe.....' but killed thousands of people to take it then massacred millions of civvies in the camps and ghettos and enslaved millions more. Nice.

'His interest was Russia' by the time we've absorbed the implications of the previous point, this one is immaterial becuiase what would he have done there if he'd won?

by **tonyeh** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:46 pm

Well, that's not entirely correct Benny.

While the Belgrano (or the force she was attched to) wasn't within the agreed zone of conflict, they were on a perceived war footing and "in the way" of the oncoming British forces when HMS Conqueror attacked. Under the rules of engagement, the attack was justified even if it didn't coincide with the previous exclusion zone agreement.

The "heading away" point is moot these days anyway, because the Belgrano's Captain has said the while they were heading toward the Argentine coast at the time, they were not heading for port.

The sinking of the Belgrano remains controversial today, but to me, the sinking was justified at the end of the day.

However, if the shoe was on the other foot as it were, and a British ship had been sunk outside the exclusion zone, you bet your life there would be a huge uproar about .

by **Reg** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:48 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:Bingo Tony - the Belgrano was not in waters subject to the conflict and we were not at WAR with Argentina it was a conflict to liberate the Falkland Islands from Argentina . Go look up your history Kewell and you will see that belgrano was sunk while outside of the exclusion zone and in international neutral waters and not actually in the conflict zone .

The British government considered the presence of the Belgrano and her accompanying support fleet of destroyers which were zig-zagging around the exclusion zone a sufficiently significant threat to need taking out. They sank the Belgrano but did not threaten any other ships who picked up survivors.

The QE2, Canberra, Hermes, Ark Royal etc.. were on their way down crammed with soldiers and equipment. A statement of intent needed to be sent. As someone said, the Argentine navy immediatelky returned to port for the duration of the conflict, mission achieved. I dont think this is the place to talk of cowardice, the relatives of the lads who died on the Antelope, Sheffield, Galahad etc.. might not appreciate that.

by **tonyeh** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:50 pm

Reg wrote:The point is not about peace proposals but that someone expected hostilities would stop because of one. Troops were still being killed in europe whilst the Germans sent off worthless peace plans.

'Hitler wasn't bothered about europe.....' but killed thousands of people to take it then massacred millions of civvies in the camps and ghettos and enslaved millions more. Nice.

'His interest was Russia' by the time we've absorbed the implications of the previous point, this one is immaterial becuiase what would he have done there if he'd won?

They wouldn't have been worthless, if both sides agreed.

But, anyway, this is going well off the point.

Liverpool FC Forum

Maggie

Who is online