Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Well you also have this little thing about the Malvinas are 13,000 kilometers from Britian too but still self proclaimed ¨theirs¨ by 2,000 sheep herders.

I wonder what British attitudes will be if we go up to the Sheffield Islands, drop a couple thousand Gouchos with some cows on one and claim it, then we offer a trade? [:D]

The point is easy to see...it's a geographic absurdidty. Before the war I'm guessing 90% of the British populace didn`t know where the Malvinas were much less ¨theirs¨ Maybe they still don´t. I did see a documentary and at first news of the war most of them thought the Malvinas were an island off Scottland! [&:]

During the war there was a song on the radio that summed it up by Raul Porchetto about a British soldier saying...

¨Estoy en este lugar, tan lejos de casa, que ni el nombre recuerdo...¨-I´m in this place very far from my home and can´t even remember the places name.

But JudgeDredd says this thread is about the conflict itself not the islands soverignty so... It's been said here how the Junta timed the event because the domestic population wanted democracy and it was a ¨wag the dog¨ thing. I agree with that.

But my British mates have not mentioned Mrs.Thatchers own little wag the dog war crime of sinking the Belgrano outside of the publicly stated and agreed upon exclusion zones to get a quick victory, bring up the low war support at home and help her own political future.[;)]

edit-Hi Larry, I've never heard anyone saying the British soldiers mistreated them as a prisoner. I've never heard a British person saying they were mistreated by Argentine soldier.

About the islanders, 3 were killed during the war by British friendly fire accidents. So it was very clean except for the Belgrano sinking. Who knows, maybe one day even they too will recognize the Malvinas as a ¨wrong¨ from their colonial past and return them. If they do as a bonus they should give Northern Ireland back to the Irish too. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Ike99
By sinking the Belgrano outside of the exclusion zone one of the rules was broken and that constitutes a war crime.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

This is why there was a last second attempt by the British commander to have the British exclusion zone made larger prior to sinking Belgrano outside the exclusion zone. He did not want to be comitting a crime. If he felt he was doing nothing wrong he would have simply sunk her no questions asked. But it was a violation and that's why he hesitated.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Who knows, maybe one day even they too will recognize the Malvinas as a ¨wrong¨ from their colonial past and return them. If they do as a bonus they should give Northern Ireland back to the Irish too. [;)]

But my British mates have not mentioned Mrs.Thatchers own little wag the dog war crime of sinking the Belgrano outside of the publicly stated and agreed upon exclusion zones to get a quick victory, bring up the low war support at home and help her own political future.

In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.

"After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano".

ORIGINAL: Tomus

The exclusion zone is about the most misunderstood part of the whole conflict. It was only established to give neutral shipping an idea that they could be targetted by the Royal navy if they strayed within the zone. It had absolutely nothing to do with the engagement of enemy vessels...

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

And on a side note for any South American people here...

The Argentinian pilots showed absolute courage under fire.

The British press incorrectly informed the British public that the armed forces facing the British were ill supplied, ill equiped and low morale conscripts. The truth of the matter was they were brave enough to fight for their country.

Yes they did surrender in large quantities, but they were fighting the cream of the British Army. There were some hard core units sent there. It was widely perceived in the UK that the conflict would amount to nothing...that there would be no fighting. In fact, the British had to fight very hard.

As always, to all who served in both sides, my respect for those who took part goes without saying.

There were some hard core units sent there.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

I know the hard core units were kept to protect the Chilean border.

The point I was making was the general British propaganda at the time which was "As soon as we show up, they'll scarper". That just didn't happen. They did surrender and in large numbers, but they just didn't roll over and have their tummy tickled.

The fight to Goose Green I recall (I read a book specifically about that battle) was a very hard fought affair. Sure they surrendered in big numbers again...but they were facing the cream of the British Army and they still made it a real slog up that little strip of land.

Of course... But the people on those islands are, and have chosen to be, a part of the UK. Too bad for the Argentinians, who aren't exactly 2 miles away either.

Britain sinks a warship during war and that is a war crime? Interesting. Please present the legal statute. Course and verse.

The Islanders will not let Argentines go there, I bet you can guess why. It's pure speculation on my part but I`m guessing they would have 40,000 plus people living on them if they did and not 2,000 inbred sheep herders.

That´s funny. Looks to me like you boys got a little
more than you can handle right now in Iraq mate.

If the British had not taken Mt Kent and bombarded the defensive positions around Stanley, almost down to their last shells, then the Argentinians would have been victourious, the fact is the Argentinians surrenedered one day to soon - Thank God.

The sinking violated the Hague convention of 1907 on the conduct of war. Why else would Mrs.Thatcher consult lawyers before making trips abroad after that?[;)]

I myself find it amazing how 2,000 kelpers trick the British people into paying millions of pounds for their own personal island in defense year after year by throwing a few kisses to the queen and ought loyalty to Britain.[&:]

Of course the kelpers say they want to be part of the UK...they have a very sweet situation. An entire island to themselves with Britain paying for it.[&o]

Before the war Britain almost turned them over several times anyway. That's how ¨soverign¨ they are to the British.

In Argentina they are on all the maps as Argentine, Argentina is constantly reaffirming its claim to its territory. Even the weathermen give the weather for the Malvinas every morning showing them on the map as Argentine.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I myself find it amazing how 2,000 kelpers trick the British people into paying millions of pounds for their own personal island in defense year after year by throwing a few kisses to the queen and ought loyalty to Britain.[&:]

Of course the kelpers say they want to be part of the UK...they have a very sweet situation. An entire island to themselves with Britain paying for it.[&o]

In 150 years or so it has a population, more or less of 2,000 and British people are allowed to go live there whenever they want. Seems obvious, in truth, British could care less.

The Islanders will not let Argentines go there, I bet you can guess why. It's pure speculation on my part but I`m guessing they would have 40,000 plus people living on them if they did and not 2,000 inbred sheep herders.

So saying "the people on those islands are, and have chosen to be, a part of the UK" is not a truly valid point at closer examination.[:-] Of course if you want to be fair you could allow a natural population exchange between Britian, Argentina and Island for a time. Then take a legitimate vote on the issue of self
determination and not a farse of self determination.[:'(]

Once the memory of 1982 fades, the veterans pass away and emotions are gone Britian will eventualy give back the Malvinas. As I said before it's a geographic absudity, it's terribly expensive for them, the people of Britian don`t really want them anyways so what's the point? Before the war Britain almost turned them over several times anyway. That's how ¨soverign¨ [8|]they are to the British.

In Argentina they are on all the maps as Argentine, Argentina is constantly reaffirming its claim to its territory. Even the weathermen give the weather for the Malvinas every morning showing them on the map as Argentine.

It will go the same as the rest of the colonial relics. If I was British when that happened it wouldn`t bother me. I know I could care less if an Island off Scotland ws turned over to the British with 2,000 Argentine farmers on it and half stayed under British rule and the other half came and made their farms in pampas.

The sinking violated the Hague convention of 1907 on the conduct of war. Why else would Mrs.Thatcher consult lawyers before making trips abroad after that?[;)]

Islanders will not let Argentines go there, I bet you can guess why. It's pure speculation on my part but I`m guessing they would have 40,000 plus people living on them if they did and not 2,000 inbred sheep herders.