technically inaccurate...Without meaning to get political... the Belgrano was actually skirting around the total exclusion zone towards a 'holding area' because the weather was too poor to launch the attack they had planned that day.
er, I mean, woo! let's put down those useless Tories! am i right lads? eh! hehe
(er, I mean, woo! let's put down those useless Tories! am i right lads? eh! hehe
pidg,
Wed 20 Apr 2005, 16:10,
archived)
YupAnd the "sailing away" thing is irrelevant, since a ship can change direction pretty easily.
That is superbly done though :)
(That is superbly done though :)
durbster durbster.co.uk,
Wed 20 Apr 2005, 16:39,
archived)
I'm sorry, I can't let that go.That is utter bollocks, and ridiculous bollocks. For example "I hit you because your fist could easily change direction towards me"
(
Zuowan,
Thu 21 Apr 2005, 1:14,
archived)
The Argentines started a warand enemy ships get sunk in times of war.
It's amazing the lengths of distortion some people will go to in order to slag off conservatives.
(,
Thu 21 Apr 2005, 6:51,
archived)
It's amazing the lengths of distortion some people will go to in order to slag off conservatives.
Erm, I don't see the analogy thereThe only reason the direction the ship was going is even mentioned today is because an MP stated it was sailing toward the task force, when it wasn't. If he hadn't said that, nobody would even mention it because strategically, the direction in which a warship is moving at any one time gives no indication of its intention.
The ship was probably manouvering to line up an attack, therefore a military decision was made to sink it. Simple as that.
Blimey, military discussion on b3ta, whatever next :)
(The ship was probably manouvering to line up an attack, therefore a military decision was made to sink it. Simple as that.
Blimey, military discussion on b3ta, whatever next :)
durbster durbster.co.uk,
Thu 21 Apr 2005, 20:56,
archived)
History lessonThe order to sink the Belgrano was given by Margaret "Mother of 1,000 dead" Thatcher the same day she was informed that an acceptable US-brokered peace deal - involving the complete withdrawal of Argentine troops from the Falklands - was on the table at the United Nations. The dispicable cow.
(
Scaryduck LIKES EGG,
Wed 20 Apr 2005, 18:44,
archived)
History lesson from someone who has actually studied the war at degree level (no offence like)"Acceptable" to who? Neither the Argentines nor the British would have accepted it. Had Argentina not invaded in the first place, it was looking likely that Britain would have eventually given them sovereignty over the islands, or at least had joint sovereignty.
Argentina already provided the airport, medical supplies and fresh food for the islands, and Britain was looking to get rid of the place which was a fairly pointless foothold (unless you count its use as a claim to part of Antarctica and/or its oil).
The Junta - even more than Maggie - wanted a diversionary war to take people's minds away from the collapsing Argentinian economy and a military dictatorship in which thousands of people "disappeared" every year.
Britain sent well-trained, professional troops to fight. Argentina sent conscripts, many straight out of school, who had never seen any active service and were poorly trained.
Had the Belgrano not been sunk, not only would it have attacked British troops the next day (and Thatcher would have been mother of 1000 British dead, obviously infinitely preferable to leftist hippies? :) ) but the Argentine Navy would have continued to fight, which would have prolonged the war further and led to the loss of even more lives. As it was, the Navy withdrew from all further battles.
So yes, every life lost was Margaret Thatcher's fault. The sick, twisted bitch that she was.
(Argentina already provided the airport, medical supplies and fresh food for the islands, and Britain was looking to get rid of the place which was a fairly pointless foothold (unless you count its use as a claim to part of Antarctica and/or its oil).
The Junta - even more than Maggie - wanted a diversionary war to take people's minds away from the collapsing Argentinian economy and a military dictatorship in which thousands of people "disappeared" every year.
Britain sent well-trained, professional troops to fight. Argentina sent conscripts, many straight out of school, who had never seen any active service and were poorly trained.
Had the Belgrano not been sunk, not only would it have attacked British troops the next day (and Thatcher would have been mother of 1000 British dead, obviously infinitely preferable to leftist hippies? :) ) but the Argentine Navy would have continued to fight, which would have prolonged the war further and led to the loss of even more lives. As it was, the Navy withdrew from all further battles.
So yes, every life lost was Margaret Thatcher's fault. The sick, twisted bitch that she was.
pidg,
Wed 20 Apr 2005, 21:22,
archived)
n1this post shows that some people are intelligent enough to know that lentil eating slipper wearers are clueless fuckwads.
(
Pew Pew Pew! Lasers! wannabe Gong Farmer,
Fri 22 Apr 2005, 11:46,
archived)