Bush grants interview to the Sun

[David Floyd]

Correct.

So you are saying the US was unjustified in celebrating a victory which led to the end of the war and its independence?

Look, that's just plain stupid. Yes, war is a tragedy, but celebrating a victory is not immoral. In many cases, victories lead to the end of the war, so if it makes you feel better, just celebrate the end of the war.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by paiktis22
So it was a full fledged war, wasn't it?

Why the brits are prortrayed as the slaughters on this war?

Like I said, it wasn't called a war at the time.

With the exception of the "Belgrano", I wasn't aware that we were.

[Whaleboy]

Trip: Shocking isn't it. People dying for a flag and a battleaxe. Never have I been so firm in my conviction that war is nothing but a waste.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Damn. Forgot the "Glamorgan". In my defence, I was only 11 at the time.

[David Floyd]

With the exception of the "Belgrano", I wasn't aware that we were.

And I don't see how you can equate the Belgrano incident with "slaughter". The Belgrano was a military target - it's not as if you were torpedoing civilians. Sure, it was outside of that silly exclusion zone, but it was still a military target.

[Spec]

David Floyd, I think you are getting around Whaleboys point on purpose. Let me try a clarify.

Death of poeple should not be celebrated if these poeple do not decide to cause harm or terror, the title on the Sun was inappropriate, either way you put it. Because the soldiers that died were majorly conscripted, they did not choose to be there, thus they died because of argentina's wronglyness, period.

Take it another wa , just to be sure you understand...

Let's say that you have a brother, and that brother is drafted by force by some his home government, while you, David floyd, are working in an other country that happens to be at war with your homeland. So your brother is on a ship, coming ashore and it gets sunken to the bottom of the ocean. The next day, the country where you work at gets a paper out with the title:"GOTCHA!".

Would you feel like celebrating the destruction of the ship....knowing that the soldiers on it, including your brother, were forced to do so?

Now I hope you get Whaleboys point, otherwise your head is as thick as as 5 foot concrete block.

Spec.

[Whaleboy]

So you are saying the US was unjustified in celebrating a victory which led to the end of the war and its independence?

Look, that's just plain stupid. Yes, war is a tragedy, but celebrating a victory is not immoral. In many cases, victories lead to the end of the war, so if it makes you feel better, just celebrate the end of the war.

Bull. Any victory in war is vastly overshadowed by the loss of life. Any military victory leading to the cessation of hostilities would cause me to be deeply saddened that the chasm of death that preceeded it. Humanity in that sense is far worse off at the end of the war than at the beginning, attested to by the children with dead fathers.

Laz: People shotting, bayonetting, shelling and slugging each other. If thats not a war, I don't know what is.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Trip: Shocking isn't it. People dying for a flag and a battleaxe. Never have I been so firm in my conviction that war is nothing but a waste.

I'm struggling to agree with that. British citizens were herded out of their homes at gunpoint by soldiers acting on the orders of a military junta.

Even if they were thousands of miles away, they were still British citizens.

[Bereta_Eder]

Military juntas seem to have a knack for expansion it would seem. That's why it's very important never to give them any support.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd


And I don't see how you can equate the Belgrano incident with "slaughter". The Belgrano was a military target - it's not as if you were torpedoing civilians. Sure, it was outside of that silly exclusion zone, but it was still a military target.

Actually I was equating it with bad sportsmanship and rank pointlessness. Other people may have been equating it with slaughter, but I'm not them.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Laz: People shotting, bayonetting, shelling and slugging each other. If thats not a war, I don't know what is.

It's the reason why we weren't bombing Buenos Aires.

[Whaleboy]

Spec:

[Bereta_Eder]

Well I don't know what happened. All I know was that it was viewed as a slaughter. When did it happen?

[David Floyd]

I've gotten his point all along. Conscription is immoral, starting wars is immoral. And guess what? Argentina did both of those things in the Falklands, and Britain did neither (I don't think Britain had conscription at that time, right?).

In wartime, there are such things as military targets. Unfortunately, as a result of immorality, sometimes those military targets include conscripts. Well, the responsibility for their death does not lie with the people who are attacking those military targets as a result of the leaders of the conscripts starting a war. The responsibility lies with the people who started the war and forced conscripts to become military targets. I would also argue that the conscripts had a moral duty to refuse conscription, but that is another argument, and I don't mean to pass the responsibility off on them.

So let's recap. Argentina manned its military through conscription. Argentina started a war with Britain by invading the Falklands. Argentina chose to sortie the cruiser Belgrano. Argentina chose to immorally hold up peace negotiations, by trying to modify a peace agreement, when the peace agreement, morally, should have involved nothing more than Argentine withdrawal and compensation for any property destroyed and people killed.

So, Britain, with it's volunteer armed forces, engages the military target Belgrano. Britain proceeds to sink the Belgrano, winning what is perceived as a major victory. A British newspaper celebrates this victory.

And I just don't see anything wrong with that.

[David Floyd]

Bull. Any victory in war is vastly overshadowed by the loss of life. Any military victory leading to the cessation of hostilities would cause me to be deeply saddened that the chasm of death that preceeded it. Humanity in that sense is far worse off at the end of the war than at the beginning, attested to by the children with dead fathers.

The Revolutionary War brought about the independence of what became the most free nation in the world, and arguably the most free nation in history. I don't see how this is NOT an improvement.

Laz,

Actually I was equating it with bad sportsmanship and rank pointlessness.

OK, I understand. I agree it may have been "bad sportsmanship", but then again, I don't think that good sportsmanship should even be a consideration in war (just like I don't make it a consideration in fighting - I train to win, not be a good sport). As for pointlessness, maybe it couldn't have damaged the British fleet, but then again, maybe it could have. It was a military target, and it put to sea during wartime. If it was sitting in a port doing nothing, I could accept that bombing it was pointless.