argie Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 Originally posted by Sirocco: The Belgrano was skirting the edge of the exclusion zone. It was sunk because the submarine tracking it wasn't confident that it could maintain contact. At any point it could have changed course and engaged the Task Force. And for what purpose was it there, other than to do just that? If it had stayed in port it would have been perfectly safe. All true. But the fact remains that was engaged outside the exclusion zone, that the SSN tracking it would have been very unlucky to lose his track (is a sub designed to track another SSNs, which have a lot less signature and a lot more sustained speed than the pre WWII cruiser), that the political timing was perfect and that the order comes directly from London. Wars are not only fight in the military arena, you know. Haig was trying desperately to keep his useful allies in the Central America dirty affairs, and Thatcher wanted the war eagerly for her own political reasons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 Originally posted by Ariel: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco: The Belgrano was skirting the edge of the exclusion zone. It was sunk because the submarine tracking it wasn't confident that it could maintain contact. At any point it could have changed course and engaged the Task Force. And for what purpose was it there, other than to do just that? If it had stayed in port it would have been perfectly safe. All true. But the fact remains that was engaged outside the exclusion zone, that the SSN tracking it would have been very unlucky to lose his track (is a sub designed to track another SSNs, which have a lot less signature and a lot more sustained speed than the pre WWII cruiser), that the political timing was perfect and that the order comes directly from London. Wars are not only fight in the military arena, you know. Haig was trying desperately to keep his useful allies in the Central America dirty affairs, and Thatcher wanted the war eagerly for her own political reasons. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 Originally posted by Sirocco: The fact remains that only unconditional withdrawal by Argentine forces could have averted war, and that was highly unlikely. That is a fact imposed by the UK government, right? Haig was trying an UN agreement that could have had the Junta approval. From there, whatever the UK government wanted - total withdrawal or whatever - would have been against UN resolutions on an already considered by UN a disputed territory. After Belgrano sinking, the Junta just dismissed the Peace Plan. Those torpedoes sunk the ship and the last peace chance altogether. Don't get me wrong, for me, a Junta's victory could have been worse in the short time, but that was just the sequence of happenings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 Originally posted by Ariel: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco: The fact remains that only unconditional withdrawal by Argentine forces could have averted war, and that was highly unlikely. That is a fact imposed by the UK government, right? Haig was trying an UN agreement that could have had the Junta approval. From there, whatever the UK government wanted - total withdrawal or whatever - would have been against UN resolutions on an already considered by UN a disputed territory.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 Originally posted by Sirocco: Anything else would have rewarded aggression. And War was inevitable once the first Argentinian set foot on the island. There was simply no mediation for the UN to do. Argentina chose the path to war, with the obvious consequences. Well, the territory was in dispute, thus, diplomatically, an UN arrangement can have been done, and almost was. One of the proposed solutions was a shared government between UK, Argentina and the USA. In fact, the Junta's plan didn't expected to have to deal with UK. The plan was to retake the islands and make an arrangement with the support of the US State Department and the UN. And that arrangement was almost closed the same night the Belgrano was torpedoed outside the exclusion zone. Then the ball to accept a settlement could have been on UK court. Of course, that action forced the hand of the Junta to not accept. May have been by sheer chance, but, with all due respect, I doubt it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 Originally posted by Ariel: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco: Anything else would have rewarded aggression. And War was inevitable once the first Argentinian set foot on the island. There was simply no mediation for the UN to do. Argentina chose the path to war, with the obvious consequences. Well, the territory was in dispute, thus, diplomatically, an UN arrangement can have been done, and almost was. One of the proposed solutions was a shared government between UK, Argentina and the USA. In fact, the Junta's plan didn't expected to have to deal with UK. The plan was to retake the islands and make an arrangement with the support of the US State Department and the UN. And that arrangement was almost closed the same night the Belgrano was torpedoed outside the exclusion zone. Then the ball to accept a settlement could have been on UK court. Of course, that action forced the hand of the Junta to not accept. May have been by sheer chance, but, with all due respect, I doubt it.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted December 25, 2003 Author Share Posted December 25, 2003 Originally posted by Sirocco: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ariel: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco: Anything else would have rewarded aggression. And War was inevitable once the first Argentinian set foot on the island. There was simply no mediation for the UN to do. Argentina chose the path to war, with the obvious consequences. Well, the territory was in dispute, thus, diplomatically, an UN arrangement can have been done, and almost was. One of the proposed solutions was a shared government between UK, Argentina and the USA. In fact, the Junta's plan didn't expected to have to deal with UK. The plan was to retake the islands and make an arrangement with the support of the US State Department and the UN. And that arrangement was almost closed the same night the Belgrano was torpedoed outside the exclusion zone. Then the ball to accept a settlement could have been on UK court. Of course, that action forced the hand of the Junta to not accept. May have been by sheer chance, but, with all due respect, I doubt it.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 Well Kitty does have a point. The rights and wrongs of the South Atlantic War (SAW) ought to be on the General Forum. Not polluting this fine and valuable thread. But while I'm here... Ariel made a good point about the SAW when he said that it was largely fought without breaches of the Law of Armed Conflict. The reason why the old friendship between the UK and Argentina was not completely destroyed by the War was that each side felt that the other had, by and large, 'fought by the rules'. I heartily agree with that sentiment. I disagree though with the label 'gentlemanly' being applied to any war. War is, as an Israeli soldier once put it,'murder and fear, murder and fear'. It is never gentlemanly. I also disagree with the assertion that the sinking of the Gen Belgrano was 'blurry'. She was a major combat unit of the Argentinian Navy on the High Seas while a state of international armed conflict existed between Argentina and the UK. That international armed conflict had been triggered by the illegal Argentinian occupation of the Islands. The Belgrano was thus a perfectly valid object of attack. That does not mean that I do not feel the greatest pity for the hundreds of Argentinian conscript sailors who died horrifying deaths in the frozen wastes of the Southern Ocean. But the only men who bear responsibility for those deaths are the men who ordered the Invasion of the Islands and then sent the Belgrano to sea. But this is a sad topic for Christmas time. We are all, I hope, friends now and friends we will remain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 Originally posted by Sirocco: Argentina itself made the issue much more unresolvable than it might have been by its actions. Absolutely. But the equation the Junta did almost worked, if not by the decision to sink the Belgrano. think it not in military but geopolitical terms: the UN saw (and sees) the territory as a territory in dispute, not UK properly and the Junta was doing favors to the US State Department in Central America. The plan was never to fight for the islands, but to reach a convenient settlement for all the parties. Just happened that UK government at the time did the same calculus than the Junta: retaking the islands will help us to keep power in a time of struggle. Thus, the total withdrawn position. If the agreement put forward by the UN sponsored by USA would have been approved by the Junta, then UK would have been in a very bad position to continue the 'needed' retaking. The sinking was the 'point of no return' for war: the Junta was forced to keep the islands or to absolutely lose the little face they have internally, which was the reason for what they started the whole thing, and started it earlier than their own plans stated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted December 25, 2003 Author Share Posted December 25, 2003 Originally posted by Ariel: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco: Argentina itself made the issue much more unresolvable than it might have been by its actions. Absolutely. But the equation the Junta did almost worked, if not by the decision to sink the Belgrano. think it not in military but geopolitical terms: the UN saw (and sees) the territory as a territory in dispute, not UK properly and the Junta was doing favors to the US State Department in Central America. The plan was never to fight for the islands, but to reach a convenient settlement for all the parties. Just happened that UK government at the time did the same calculus than the Junta: retaking the islands will help us to keep power in a time of struggle. Thus, the total withdrawn position. If the agreement put forward by the UN sponsored by USA would have been approved by the Junta, then UK would have been in a very bad position to continue the 'needed' retaking. The sinking was the 'point of no return' for war: the Junta was forced to keep the islands or to absolutely lose the little face they have internally, which was the reason for what they started the whole thing, and started it earlier than their own plans stated. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 I agree with Kitty also. For the record, I don't think was 'unfair' to sink the Belgrano, nor I think that the retaking by Argentina was the right thing to do at the moment (of course, this after more than 20 years. At the time, we all were supporting the action as mindlessly as any mass of people in such situation). But the sinking had a far more reaching political aspect than just military. And was done outside of the exclusion zone determined by UK, something that required an specific authorization from London. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 Originally posted by Kitty: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ariel: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco: Anything else would have rewarded aggression. And War was inevitable once the first Argentinian set foot on the island. There was simply no mediation for the UN to do. Argentina chose the path to war, with the obvious consequences. Well, the territory was in dispute, thus, diplomatically, an UN arrangement can have been done, and almost was. One of the proposed solutions was a shared government between UK, Argentina and the USA. In fact, the Junta's plan didn't expected to have to deal with UK. The plan was to retake the islands and make an arrangement with the support of the US State Department and the UN. And that arrangement was almost closed the same night the Belgrano was torpedoed outside the exclusion zone. Then the ball to accept a settlement could have been on UK court. Of course, that action forced the hand of the Junta to not accept. May have been by sheer chance, but, with all due respect, I doubt it.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 Originally posted by Ariel: Just happened that UK government at the time did the same calculus than the Junta: retaking the islands will help us to keep power in a time of struggle.You seem to assume that the UK government was operating in a vacuum. The act of invasion was a slap in the face to the British as a whole. It was seen as a national catastrophe, and honour had to be restored. And the US knew better than to stand in the way of that. The junta simply made a grave miscalculation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ales Dvorak Posted December 26, 2003 Share Posted December 26, 2003 Originally posted by Kitty: Hey, since we can't have a CM Pacific can we please have a CM Vietnam?........and CM Iraq......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted January 4, 2004 Author Share Posted January 4, 2004 Originally posted by Ales Dvorak: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kitty: Hey, since we can't have a CM Pacific can we please have a CM Vietnam?........and CM Iraq......... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Hickwicker Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Combat Mission: Patriots to Arms, which would be about the Grenada war i think would actually be a big hit with allot of people here for some reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted January 4, 2004 Author Share Posted January 4, 2004 Originally posted by Hank Hickwicker: Combat Mission: Patriots to Arms, which would be about the Grenada war i think would actually be a big hit with allot of people here for some reason. Please stop calling, Grenada a war. Kitty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Hickwicker Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Originally posted by Kitty: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hank Hickwicker: Combat Mission: Patriots to Arms, which would be about the Grenada war i think would actually be a big hit with allot of people here for some reason. Please stop calling, Grenada a war. Kitty </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Originally posted by Hank Hickwicker: Originally posted by Kitty: [qb] IF, and only if you stop calling yourself Kitty. At least she doesn't need to hide behind multiple nicknames, hey Gaylord? Mace 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Hickwicker Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Originally posted by Mace: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hank Hickwicker: Originally posted by Kitty: [qb] IF, and only if you stop calling yourself Kitty. At least she doesn't need to hide behind multiple nicknames, hey Gaylord? Mace </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mamluke256 Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Banana! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Hickwicker Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Originally posted by Mamluke256: Banana! Some people just can't resist the silent urge to injest 5 cylinders of play-doh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Is this where Iron Chef Focker will self destruct? Don't wanna miss it this time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 I think it's all Seanachai's fault. In fact, I even considered that it is Seanachai pretending to be GF pretending to be HH in order to divert attention from himself. But the whole idea of Seanachai wanting to divert attention from himself is so ludicrous that the entire concept collapses under examination. So what's the OWB up to then? Well, as I figure it, the OWB is so desperate for a Mortal Enemy that is annoying and persistent but also brain dead. Ergo, he encourages (no doubt through promises of gifting him a magical ring that when he wears it will bestow on him powers beyond his wildest imagination, possibly even rational thought) this Wank Wicklicker person to register on the board and to deluge us with...er...posts, shall we say. Then at the moment when we are all thoroughly fed up with the dingbat (wasn't that a while ago?), up pops the OWB and performs a daring and heroic slay-the-dragon-with-my-omnipotent-wit number and we are all supposed to cheer and vote him an ovation (in the tradition of old Rome). To such depths of depraved duplicity has our glory-hungry hero descended. Alas for the pride of Mudville...er, Minnesota. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: So what's the OWB up to then?Ski trip... I can hardly wait to kick him while he's hobblin' aboot on his new crutches. This'll be better'n spittin' on him 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.