Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
The Falkland Islands
- Thread starter imperialman
- Start date
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Argentina want to rename their football league after the General Belgrano which was sunk 2 May 1982.
From BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17033735
From BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17033735
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
imperialman is Scottish...
imperialman
Admiral
Ah, yes, the General Belgrano, the sinking of which was a war crime, never mind don't worry, after Mr. Kirchner's death in 2010 the championship was renamed 'Torneo Néstor Kirchner - Copa Malvinas Argentinas'. So far, they're doing this diplomatic war of words. Maybe they're trying some sort of necromancy to bring Mr. Kirchner back to life?
Kan' Sharuminar
Fluffy
So is Britain if we look at it that way.
Falkland's doesn't have wild haggis roaming the fields.
How about to resolve this we get all the sheep, put all the Brits on one side and all the Argentinians on the other, and whoever the sheep go to wins the Falklands?
wanna risk that?
Kan' Sharuminar
Fluffy
We'll get the Scots and the Welsh over.
I see that and raise you St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church (it's so Scottish they even play the bagpipes and the place is cold, draughty and wet during the summer) and
and the [wiki=Y Wladfa]Patagonian Welsh![/WIKI]Kan' Sharuminar said:
Apparently it should be 'Argentine' for stuff (as an adjective) and 'Argentinians' for the people themselves (noun) but I've heard people use both words indiscriminately.
Kan' Sharuminar
Fluffy
imperialman
Admiral
Ah, yes, the General Belgrano, the sinking of which was a war crime, never mind don't worry, after Mr. Kirchner's death in 2010 the championship was renamed 'Torneo Néstor Kirchner - Copa Malvinas Argentinas'. So far, they're doing this diplomatic war of words. Maybe they're trying some sort of necromancy to bring Mr. Kirchner back to life?
It's late here so I'm sorry if I missed the sarcasm, but, do you actually believe that the sinking was a war crime?
imperialman
Admiral
For anyone who is interested in the legal status of the sinking:
"The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands. Exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Héctor Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate (as did the Argentine government in 1994).
Though the ship was outside the 200-mile (370 km) exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British actionon 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read:
In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.
Interviews conducted by Martin Middlebrook for his book, The Fight For The Malvinas, indicated that Argentine Naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be attacked. Argentine Rear Admiral Allara, who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of, said "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano".
Admiral Enrique Molina Pico, head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s, wrote in a letter to La Nación, published in the 2 May 2005 edition, that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, that it was holding off for tactical reasons, and that being outside of the exclusion zone was unimportant as it was a warship on tactical mission. This is the official position of the Argentine Navy.
The modified rules of engagement permitted the engagement of Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking."
"The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands. Exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Héctor Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate (as did the Argentine government in 1994).
Though the ship was outside the 200-mile (370 km) exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British actionon 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read:
In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.
Interviews conducted by Martin Middlebrook for his book, The Fight For The Malvinas, indicated that Argentine Naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be attacked. Argentine Rear Admiral Allara, who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of, said "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano".
Admiral Enrique Molina Pico, head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s, wrote in a letter to La Nación, published in the 2 May 2005 edition, that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, that it was holding off for tactical reasons, and that being outside of the exclusion zone was unimportant as it was a warship on tactical mission. This is the official position of the Argentine Navy.
The modified rules of engagement permitted the engagement of Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking."
The Scots won't come because it's too expensive. And we could lure them over with one of the widest selection of sausages (blood sausages included) that you can find. After last year, I wouldn't challenge Argentina to a game of rugby if I were you.
as for the Welsh… they're Welsh. No threat at all.
Sarcastic, me? Where?
In all seriousness, I was just doing a bit of a mockery of the position of some of the more… recalcitrant sectors of Argentine public opinion.
War itself is a crime but that's not valid from a legal point of view.
Oh, I see you've posted the same thing I was about to rip from Wikipedia just to clarify. Took too long over the post itself.
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
Still more real Welsh than Patagonian Welsh, brah, so unfortunately they'd side with the real'uns on sheer numbers
Kan' Sharuminar
Fluffy
But they're right here. There's a lovely place that does breakfast not a fifteen minute walk from where I live
After last year, I wouldn't challenge Argentina to a game of rugby if I were you.
Whose side are you on, anyway?
Not sure 'bout that. Argentina could offer you a deal: they take in all the Welsh except Mise as a compensation for taking the Falklands away from you. Sort of a zero-sum game.Still more real Welsh than Patagonian Welsh, brah, so unfortunately they'd side with the real'uns on sheer numbers
Could you pay for my fare there?But they're right here. There's a lovely place that does breakfast not a fifteen minute walk from where I live
You still should come here and taste the enormous variety in the selection of sausages, you won't regret it.
How many times do I have to post that I'm Devil's Advocate for Argentina?Kan' Sharuminar said:Whose side are you on, anyway?
The same question applies to you, you're supposed to support Septic and be anti-British Empire. Riiiight?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Wel in that case, I simply don't know what you're talking about, because I haven't met anyone who gives half a damn about the sad little rocks.That I am, that I am.
Well, put it this way: were the British in the habit of naming entire colonies after Irishmen?Sean Penn is just wrong. It's surprising really because there is literally like...no logical, reasonable argument for Argentinian control over the islands (as we have seen in this very thread!). It is probably one of the most clear cut cases of right and wrong in international relations today. Yet he still comes up with silly stuff like that, so i suggest he is either a) stupid, b) utterly ignorant of the actual situation c) anti-British (is Penn an Irish surname)
