Bush grants interview to the Sun

[Tripledoc]

Another thing I find mysterious was that the Brits captured Alfredo Astiz AKA the Blonde Angel, a torturer and killer of women working for the Junta, on the small Island of Stromness. He was captured without his unit having fired a shot. Clearly British intelligence must have known that he was thug and a human rights abuser. Either they should have gunned him down on the spot or imprisoned him. Astiz is now where he belongs, in prison.

Another thing is that Pinochet provided intelligence to the Brits. That was why Thacther went in and supported him when he was in Britian and had a extradition case hanging iover his head. He was supposed to have gone to spain to be prosecuted for human rights violations.

So the idea that Thatcher was on an anti-Junta crusade is ridiculous.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It certainly is. Who suggested that?

[Tripledoc]

I thought Paiktis hinted at something in that direction.

[David Floyd]

It certainly is. Who suggested that?

Not I

I hate Thatcher, although probably not as much as you Brits who had the misfortune of having her as PM.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No. Victories should be celebrated not because they result in enemy soldiers (who, by the way, are most likely innocent of personal wrongdoing) dying, but because they lead to the cessation of hostilities and a moral conclusion to the war (that is, the aggressor being defeated).

Have you not understood that the sinking of Belgrano, right or wrong, led to the Junta refusing to accept peace.
They would have folded if only the Belgrano had not been sunk.

Instead the Junta let the full force of its frankly suicidal and fanatical airforce be unleashed on the British fleet. As a result a lot of British servicemen were killed. And that was perhaps unneccesary.

[David Floyd]

Have you not understood that the sinking of Belgrano, right or wrong, led to the Junta refusing to accept peace.

I can buy that argument, except for the small matter that Argentina started the war, and as such had a moral imperative to end it, with full compensation for property and loss of life. Sinking the Belgrano did not give Argentina an excuse to reject peace - the sinking of the Belgrano was a result of their decision for war.

[Tripledoc]

That is illogical. There is a 'war' going on. The Brits know that Peru is acting as a negotiator. Peru tell the Brits that the junta in Argentine is folding. Then they sink the Belgrano. Where is the logic in that?

[David Floyd]

I don't know. I wasn't involved with the decision, nor do I have access to first hand materials from that time. All I can tell you is that sinking a military vessel operating at sea during time of war cannot be considered a slaughter, or immoral, or anything of the sort, if the other side started the war.

[Tripledoc]

No it is not immoral. It is criminal.

[David Floyd]

Sinking the warship of an enemy who started a war with you is criminal?

[DinoDoc]

Forgive me as I haven't read the entire thread but what's with the hand wringing about the "sportsmanship" of sinking a military ship during a time of war?

[Tripledoc]

No, deliberately upsetting peace negotiations is.

[Jon Miller]

I would have thought that the British would have learned that sportsmanship was crap before WW1

I guess every generation has to learn it for themselves

Jon Miller

[DinoDoc]

What's to negotiate? They invaded the island. They should have left before the Brits got there.

[Jon Miller]

also

I don't know how Britain risked defeat fighting Argentina

some setbacks I can see, defeat? no

Jon miller