egafd.com

turanhosting wrote:

> So you suggest an entirely different scenario, which never
> actually happened and use it to justify what actually did
> happen, no logic there I'm afraid. A barracks would have had a
> night-watch, so a surprise attack would have been resisted.
>
> No UK troops had been killed by the 2nd of May 1982 and again
> all I said was that the decision to sink the Belgrano was taken
> without waiting for complete information. The decision seems to
> have been taken in great haste and the admiral's military
> justification seems very general, almost text book, as though
> he wasn't really involved in it.
>
>

The point I'm making is that the Argies knew the war had started when they invaded the islands. They tried to kill the Royal Marines in their barracks, and tried to launch a carrier strike the day before the Belgrano was sunk, they were under no illusions. To his credit, the captain of the Belgrano accepts it was a legitimate act of war to sink his ship, he would have done the same to us given the chance.

I am glad that you have fuckall input to any Operational requirement that our forces are involved in.

How wrong you are, but it's something you would never know about.

turanhosting wrote:

> It is true now and was true back in 1982 that the location &
> heading of the Belgrano would have made no difference to the
> legality of sinking her. However it is of historical fact that
> Mrs T. and the Rear Admiral did not even wait for all the
> information before sinking her. It smacks of haste and a lack
> of discretion. No actual war conflict between armed forces was
> taking place before the 2nd of May because it took a couple of
> weeks to send a task force to engage the enemy and it is also
> of historical fact that it was still possible to avoid an
> all-out war. Alexander Haig was still flying backwards and
> forwards conducting peace negotiations. All of that ended on
> the 2nd of May. There was no need for a war and the way Mrs T.
> blatantly indulged herself as the victor after the conflict
> showed her to be a warmonger and opportunist. The Falklanders
> relied on Argentina for things like postal and medical services
> pre-1982 so the idea of an independent last outpost of Empire
> was mis-represented to say the least. Please don't tell me that
> we were too proud or too good to work with dictators, our
> current PM is doing a little PR in the middle east for his
> arms-dealer friends. He had the cheek to criticise the Libyans,
> whom we have had a good working relationship with in recent
> years, all terrorist outrages forgotten and he did it while
> visiting Kuwait, hardly a beacon of democracy and freedom.
>
>

To repeat, the war started the day the Argentines invaded the Falklands. They never doubted it, and if there had been a bit of wind the day before, an air strike from their carrier could have sunk or damaged several of our ships. Sinking the Blegrano ensured the Argentine fleet sailed home, and we didn't have to worry about their surface fleet for the rest of the war. If the order to sink the Belgrano had not been given then, it may never have happened, there is a limit to the length of time a submarine can follow a surface task force before it risks either losing them or being detected. As proof of this, another of our subs had been shadowing the Argentine carrier group, and lost them. Given the chance to sink a major Argentine warship, it had to be taken.

Well you know what you are writing about. Good on yer.

turanhosting wrote:

> South Georgia was invaded before the Falklands.
>
> A lot of 'could have, would have' which never actually
> happened. Mrs T was very unpopular by 1982. Lets agree to agree
> on the importance of the Belgrano sinking as an event which
> made a full scale war and not just 'a war' a certainty. The
> historical fact is that Mrs T, gave the order to sink it
> without even having all the info to hand. It means that the
> decision was taken in haste. There was not one and only one
> opportunity to sink this ship, you speculate again.
>
> Anybody who was around in 1982-83 would have to have been
> living under a rock not to notice certain events. I recall that
> the maimed personnel were not even allowed to attend the
> victory parade because that would have looked bad on TV. A
> sanitised version of the war in the form of 'Task Force South'
> from the BBC disguised the ferocity of the land battle and the
> Murdoch media stoking up the jingo were all contrived to
> guarantee a second term. That is historical fact.
>
> You fail to mention that the Argentine air force, though flying
> 26 year old F4 planes were still able to inflict singnificant
> damage and really disrupt the landings onto the islands. A
> great deal of bravery and incredible flying skill as I remember
> well.
>
>


The full scale war was a certainty, the Argentines were already trying it. It is rare not to have a stiff breeze in the South Atlantic, and if there had been enough wind, they would have launched a carrier air strike at our task force the very day before the Belgrano was sunk. The fact of the Belgrano's sinking meant their carrier sailed back to port and took no further part in the war. So but for an unusual meteorological event, we wouldn't be talking about the sinking of the Belgrano, but the sinking of British ships by an Argentine air strike. Which would you prefer?