OT: Chilcot Report

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramspride

So if you had been a part of the aircrew that dropped the atomic bombs on Japan would you have refused to go? These bombs were horrific but did bring an earlier end to the war against Japan. But more importantly IMO was it has probably stopped any other world war.

---

Yes that is how they justify murdering millions of innocents in two drops, but did it bring an end to war ? Vested interests in arm sales and chemical weaponry has put paid to that. Any American guilt about Hiroshima was soon forgotten when the crops and forests of Vietnam were defoliated by Agent Orange and more recently destruction of harvests and water supplies polluted in Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramspride

So if you had been a part of the aircrew that dropped the atomic bombs on Japan would you have refused to go? These bombs were horrific but did bring an earlier end to the war against Japan. But more importantly IMO was it has probably stopped any other world war.

---

Basie would have flown himself. He has more white feathers than a chicken coop XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akwesasne

Yes that is how they justify murdering millions of innocents in two drops, but did it bring an end to war ? Vested interests in arm sales and chemical weaponry has put paid to that. Any American guilt about Hiroshima was soon forgotten when the crops and forests of Vietnam were defoliated by Agent Orange and more recently destruction of harvests and water supplies polluted in Afghanistan.

---

Come up with a way of dealing with it Basie and implement it. Then you'll have my undivided attention, if you can make all the "bad people" go away.
Until you do, I'll keep my base ball bat close to hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Completely accept that they were totally different Andy...except for those who lost lives and limbs. Think the cartoonist Steve Bell described it at the time as 'a bloody victory snatched from the jaws of a diplomatic solution' or something like that. Either way, at the time Thatcher was deeply unpopular and needed some sort of unifying 'crusade'. The Falklands fitted the bill and, imo, whatever the rights and wrongs of the whole campaign, the sinking of the Belgrano...outside the exclusion zone and moving further away...was as much of an individual 'war crime' as any in recent history. As one of the 'lucky' generation that has never been sent to war, I regard it as something littered by acts of cruelty and bravery in almost equal measure but it seems our leaders - Blair, Bush or Thatcher alike - sure as hell don't often cover themselves in 'glory'.

P.S. Don't agree with Tricky that often Awks, but the points he has made do not make him a 'war junkie' imo, and I'm not sure you can compare what now look like atrocities from WW2 in quite the same way as more recent acts of war. Not sure that people, even politicians, fully understood the implications of their actions at, for example, Dresden, Coventry or Hiroshima in the same way as we have now become familiar with battles, campaigns or acts of terrorism unfolding live in our front rooms to the extent that 'The News' is now the single TV programme most in need of parental guidance.

---

Ram, the Belgrano had to go. It was the least of two evils.
It was part of a pincer movement from the South, while a larger battle group including the flat top 25th of May approached from the North.

The British fleet was in real danger and something had to give. The choice was made to sink the cruiser. The two escort destroyers were left alone and allowed to pick up survivors.
Harsh truth, but the same situation faced the RN. Whilst everyone is flinging mud at the UK forces here, lets mention the fact that the Military dictatorship of Argentina had "invaded" British soil here. Diplomatic solutions or not. They was in the wrong and refused to budge, holding British citizens hostage.
People talk about Thatcher using this war, there were no bigger war Pirates than the Junta who were facing revolution back home, as the country self destructed.
The Yanks had the power and political leverage to move them, but didn't because they were after more influence in South America,
Partners my arse and makes Blairs Fawning look even worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Think the cartoonist Steve Bell described it at the time as 'a bloody victory snatched from the jaws of a diplomatic solution'...the sinking of the Belgrano...outside the exclusion zone and moving further away...was as much of an individual 'war crime' as any in recent history.

---

I don't know what constitutes a war crime but the Belgrano thing was nothing to be proud of thats for sure.

I don't think there would ever be a diplomatic solution though, Argentina wanted a scrap even more than we did. I had a small window into the Argentine world at the time through an Argentine living down the road from me (that might sound like a load of *******s but its a fact, he shared a house in Sinfin with some workmates of mine) who, well before the Falklands conflict, had been called up for military service as soon as he returned to Argentina, which being a non-brave type, he'd declined to do! The Argentine military, in his words, 'needed a war somewhere' to consolidate their power base. He also offered the opinion that the Argentine army would get hammered in any conflict, whoever they took on, which was a good call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds

Come up with a way of dealing with it Basie and implement it. Then you'll have my undivided attention, if you can make all the "bad people" go away.
Until you do, I'll keep my base ball bat close to hand.

---

Yes it is hard making the bad people go way. There are still people about that have been fighting terrorism since 1492. Also what places you with the good people and not bad people where by nature and belief you firmly belong ? Also don't forget Gandhi found a way of dealing with and implementing it, but that took real guts and real solidarity instead of the cannon fodder who take the softer option, keep a low profile and hope that the next bullet is not earmarked for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

I don't know what constitutes a war crime but the Belgrano thing was nothing to be proud of thats for sure.

I don't think there would ever be a diplomatic solution though, Argentina wanted a scrap even more than we did. I had a small window into the Argentine world at the time through an Argentine living down the road from me (that might sound like a load of *******s but its a fact, he shared a house in Sinfin with some workmates of mine) who, well before the Falklands conflict, had been called up for military service as soon as he returned to Argentina, which being a non-brave type, he'd declined to do! The Argentine military, in his words, 'needed a war somewhere' to consolidate their power base. He also offered the opinion that the Argentine army would get hammered in any conflict, whoever they took on, which was a good call.

---

Yep, find that entirely believable. Two leaders both seeking to enhance their reputations via a very 'convenient' small war imo. As ever it was the 'pawns' that paid the price of political ambition. 'Twas ever thus.

There will of course obviously always be inevitable casualties of war but, to me, a 'war crime' is an act committed by the participants or ordered by the leaders which, even within the awful context of the 'theatre of war', leads to unnecessary suffering and/or death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds

Ram, the Belgrano had to go. It was the least of two evils.
It was part of a pincer movement from the South, while a larger battle group including the flat top 25th of May approached from the North.

The British fleet was in real danger and something had to give. The choice was made to sink the cruiser. The two escort destroyers were left alone and allowed to pick up survivors.
Harsh truth, but the same situation faced the RN. Whilst everyone is flinging mud at the UK forces here, lets mention the fact that the Military dictatorship of Argentina had "invaded" British soil here. Diplomatic solutions or not. They was in the wrong and refused to budge, holding British citizens hostage.
People talk about Thatcher using this war, there were no bigger war Pirates than the Junta who were facing revolution back home, as the country self destructed.
The Yanks had the power and political leverage to move them, but didn't because they were after more influence in South America,
Partners my arse and makes Blairs Fawning look even worse.

---

Hang on Tricky...I don't think 'everyone's flinging mud at the UK forces' and I'm certainly not. Personally I would have done everything in my power to prevent the forces getting their hands on any of my sons and I am sometimes a little puzzled by the sudden outpouring of hand wringing when soldiers die. Understand the sadness completely but did the parents and local dignitaries who applauded the nice smart parade ground uniforms, the shiny boots and brass buttons not realise that going to war, death, mental and physical injury all kind of goes with the territory?
I know that sounds harsh but it is usually down to choice and is not unlike paramedics saying they didn't realise they'd have to deal with horrendous road accidents or teachers believing every child will be compliant.
That's not belittling the armed services in any way. There is much to admire most of them for and I save my condemnation for the politicians who all too willingly send such young people into situations which they know to be futile and ultimately where the outcome is likely to involve tragedy.
As for the Belgrano, it may well be that you know more than me. Would certainly seem so, but...sinking a ship that was outside the exclusion area, moving further away the combat zone and crewed largely by 'sea cadets' always seemed unjustified to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

As for the Belgrano, it may well be that you know more than me. Would certainly seem so, but... crewed largely by 'sea cadets'

---

I think that ties in with what my Argie friend believed - that The Argentine army was only fit for giving the impression to their countrymen that they were a honed machine, when in fact they were ill-trained for real conflict, an as conscripts pretty unenthusistic/unmotivated, so primed for a beating

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Hang on Tricky...I don't think 'everyone's flinging mud at the UK forces' and I'm certainly not. Personally I would have done everything in my power to prevent the forces getting their hands on any of my sons and I am sometimes a little puzzled by the sudden outpouring of hand wringing when soldiers die. Understand the sadness completely but did the parents and local dignitaries who applauded the nice smart parade ground uniforms, the shiny boots and brass buttons not realise that going to war, death, mental and physical injury all kind of goes with the territory?
I know that sounds harsh but it is usually down to choice and is not unlike paramedics saying they didn't realise they'd have to deal with horrendous road accidents or teachers believing every child will be compliant.
That's not belittling the armed services in any way. There is much to admire most of them for and I save my condemnation for the politicians who all too willingly send such young people into situations which they know to be futile and ultimately where the outcome is likely to involve tragedy.
As for the Belgrano, it may well be that you know more than me. Would certainly seem so, but...sinking a ship that was outside the exclusion area, moving further away the combat zone and crewed largely by 'sea cadets' always seemed unjustified to me.

---

I wasn't having a go at you personally, I get exactly where you are coming from.
My whole anger at this, is the usual clap trap I hear, about troops getting slated for doing the fighting. Yes, they signed up. But they didn't sign up to get duped and then blamed, which was what Ratty was implying.
I have two friends who served in that conflict. One in 3 para and the other was on one of the ships. You don't need to know which.
Both are changed men, but very honest in their opinion, that they did the job they was sent to do.
They also get angry reading garbage like being compared to the German 3rd Reich.
The Belgrano, was outside an exclusion zone. Yet I explained the situation. She was zigg zagging all over the place and the Conqueror could only exchange sporadic information updates at periscope depth. She couldn't guarantee that she would be able to keep shadowing the attack force(that's exactly what it was) and DOF rushed from Whitehall, to ask Thatchers cabinet to act before it was too late. The fleet WAS IN DANGER and lives would be lost.
Outside or in, that cruiser was there for a reason. To implement an encirclement of the fleet. Considering the packed troop ships in that fleet, it was too much to ignore. They called it right.
The Argies started the fight, they should have stayed in port, which is exactly what their fleet did after the Belgrano went down.