Thatcher died

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Actually maybe we should ask the people of Argentina how they feel about the "Iron Lady"...

The Falklands chose to be a UK territory.

I was thinking more of her sinking the Belgrano, but as for residents choosing to be a UK territory, they certainly did that last month, but in the run up to the Falklands War?

[Art Vandelay]

I was thinking more of her sinking the Belgrano, but as for residents choosing to be a UK territory, they certainly did that last month, but in the run up to the Falklands War?

What about the Belgrano? The Belgrano was an Argentinean warship and was sunk by the British while Argentina and Britain were at war. A war that Argentina started to try and take a territory that was British and had been for quite some time, largely for the sake of shoring up public support for the military dictatorship of the time. There's plenty of legitimate criticisms of Thatcher and her government that can be made, but this one is little more than a load of bleeding heart nonsense.

[kefkaownsall]

It was because the ship was retreating out of the combat zone making it a war crime

[Art Vandelay]

Oh sure, just let your opponent's warship retreat to port. It's not like it could possibly refuel, resupply and come right back into the fight. Possibly even going on to hinder the war effort or even kill British military personnel. No, it's not like that could possibly happen.

[kefkaownsall]

Regardless of the tactics it is still illegal

[Art Vandelay]

Maybe so, but the laws it violated are just plain retarded.

[ironbite]

.....what?  No seriously what?  Because a ship is leaving a war zone it's now a non-valid target?

Ironbite-and war crime?  CITATION NEEDED!

[mellenORL]

Um yeah. There would have to be something mighty specific to make that a true war crime. Were they disabled and trying to signal surrender and still kept getting hit? Then they tried to run?

In any case, the Falklands was a truly vicious bloody war started for no good reason what so ever by a vicious shitty illegitimate dictatorship. Fuck 'em. They started a War Crime Vs. a legit War to begin with.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I doubt many people regard what happened to the Belgrano as anything more than an act of war. It was, indeed, zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone in an effort to provoke a response from British naval forces. That was unquestionably a stupid move, since they most certainly got a response. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the decision to torpedo it as it turned around to sail away, resulting in the deaths of over three hundred Argentinians.

[Art Vandelay]

I doubt many people regard what happened to the Belgrano as anything more than an act of war. It was, indeed, zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone in an effort to provoke a response from British naval forces. That was unquestionably a stupid move, since they most certainly got a response. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the decision to torpedo it as it turned around to sail away, resulting in the deaths of over three hundred Argentinians.

So you'd prefer that they willingly leave an enemy warship afloat based on something as arbitrary as which direction it was heading? In light of this, would you classify the sinking of the Bismarck in WWII to be a war crime as well? After all, by the time the final bomb took it down, it had been trying to limp back to Germany for quite a while.

[Lt. Fred]

Um yeah. There would have to be something mighty specific to make that a true war crime. Were they disabled and trying to signal surrender and still kept getting hit? Then they tried to run?

In any case, the Falklands was a truly vicious bloody war started for no good reason what so ever by a vicious shitty illegitimate dictatorship. Fuck 'em. They started a War Crime Vs. a legit War to begin with.

Quite right. Agreed.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I doubt many people regard what happened to the Belgrano as anything more than an act of war. It was, indeed, zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone in an effort to provoke a response from British naval forces. That was unquestionably a stupid move, since they most certainly got a response. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the decision to torpedo it as it turned around to sail away, resulting in the deaths of over three hundred Argentinians.

So you'd prefer that they willingly leave an enemy warship afloat based on something as arbitrary as which direction it was heading? In light of this, would you classify the sinking of the Bismarck in WWII to be a war crime as well? After all, by the time the final bomb took it down, it had been trying to limp back to Germany for quite a while.

I never even called the sinking of the Belgrano a war crime in the first place.

[Art Vandelay]

I doubt many people regard what happened to the Belgrano as anything more than an act of war. It was, indeed, zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone in an effort to provoke a response from British naval forces. That was unquestionably a stupid move, since they most certainly got a response. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the decision to torpedo it as it turned around to sail away, resulting in the deaths of over three hundred Argentinians.

So you'd prefer that they willingly leave an enemy warship afloat based on something as arbitrary as which direction it was heading? In light of this, would you classify the sinking of the Bismarck in WWII to be a war crime as well? After all, by the time the final bomb took it down, it had been trying to limp back to Germany for quite a while.

I never even called the sinking of the Belgrano a war crime in the first place.

Ah, my bad. I was thinking of Kefka. Let me rephrase that. Do you object to the sinking of the Bismarck on similar grounds as the General Belgrano?

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I doubt many people regard what happened to the Belgrano as anything more than an act of war. It was, indeed, zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone in an effort to provoke a response from British naval forces. That was unquestionably a stupid move, since they most certainly got a response. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the decision to torpedo it as it turned around to sail away, resulting in the deaths of over three hundred Argentinians.

So you'd prefer that they willingly leave an enemy warship afloat based on something as arbitrary as which direction it was heading? In light of this, would you classify the sinking of the Bismarck in WWII to be a war crime as well? After all, by the time the final bomb took it down, it had been trying to limp back to Germany for quite a while.

I never even called the sinking of the Belgrano a war crime in the first place.

Ah, my bad. I was thinking of Kefka. Let me rephrase that. Do you object to the sinking of the Bismarck on similar grounds as the General Belgrano?

I'm answering this with what little knowledge I have on the subject of the Belgrano, so I'm going by what my understanding of the situation is. If it's true that the Belgrano was merely zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone, had not fired any shots but had simply been trying to provoke a violent response by being where it was, and then turning around to retreat back to Argentina, then I would say it wouldn't be right to sink it just for that. So from what I can gather the situation with the Bismarck was different as the Bismarck exchanged fire with other ships during a battle.

Let's see how horrifically rusty I am on WWII history (I'm guessing quite a bit).

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I should also add that I'm not actually trying to actively defend Argentina on this either. If someone shows that the Belgrano was really a threat, actually fired on UK forces or even was under orders to fire on UK forces, that would be enough to change my mind on it being a necessary action (in what I still call a completely unnecessary war fought by two sides trying to lay claim to a small set of islands).