Shares in a U.K. oil company with interests in the Falklands have slumped

[Gonzalez]

Half the argentine casualties of the war occured during the sinking of the Belgrano, when no one had yet died and the British decided to take the path of no return. Half the reason we want the islands back more than ever is to collect from that blood. So go ahead, bring it on.

You see, the problem of internet forums is that everyone is trying to win a pointless argument speaking all sorts of crap about stuff they are totally and utterly ignorant about, like they knew ANYTHING.

I likned you the official page of the claim in case you want to peruse the argentine argument, I expressed my personal feelings and my willingness to figth should there be another war. Everything else is just talking out of one's ass. You don't like it? Too bad. In the meantime I shall continue to support any and every action that my country takes in order to recover the islands, and demand my representatives do everything and anything in ther power to do so.

Anyone else thinks they can change my mind?

 

[Hassknecht]

Anyone else thinks they can change my mind?

Haha, nobody can change your mind. You're a patriot with a national hemorrhoid. "Changing your mind" is just not something you do.
You go fight your war over your precious piece of dirt. If that's what your life is worth to you, you don't even have my pity, as it would just be wasted.

 

[Gonzalez]

It's not just a piece of dirt, like I told you. People died and we want to collect. Before the Belgrano was sunk no one died in the war, and there were negotiations to withdraw the Argentine forces, no one even thougth there would be actual figthing, we were actually about to reach an agreement.

And then the british went and murdered 323 sailors in one stroke. Just like that.

So go on and behave like a cynical prick all you like, you think that makes you better than me? Is that it?

 

[Ragemage]

Personally I don't see anything wrong with nationalism. Can nationalism go too far? Of course it can, that's what led to WWII. But having pride in where you grew up and loving your country is nothing to be ashamed of and it's certainly not an "infection of the mind". I don't think nationalism is worth dying over however. Be proud of your country, fight for your country, even die for your country if you so wish it, but I would certainly hope you have more reasons when it comes to laying down your life for your country other than it just being where you hailed from.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Haha, nobody can change your mind. You're a patriot with a national hemorrhoid. "Changing your mind" is just not something you do.
You go fight your war over your precious piece of dirt. If that's what your life is worth to you, you don't even have my pity, as it would just be wasted.

Falkland = Argentisch Lebensraum, mein Freund. Ze Brite haz to understand that! Once und fur all!

It's not just a piece of dirt, like I told you. People died and we want to collect. Before the Belgrano was sunk no one died in the war, and there were negotiations to withdraw the Argentine forces, no one even thougth there would be actual figthing, we were actually about to reach an agreement.

Was there a peace treaty signed? Or anything official? You know how many people died in the last month of WW1? Despite the fact that everyone was about to reach an agreement. When will people actually learn something from history ... all this national pride ... it's always the same.

And then the british went and murdered 323 sailors in one stroke. Just like that.

So go on and behave like a cynical prick all you like, you think that makes you better than me? Is that it?

Mhmm. Just like that. Imagine that. Britain attacked an enemy, without warning. In a war! Which was started by Argentina. Even you said that much, they didn't expect a lot of resistance, and no casulaties, well they have been wrong and their soldiers, which I consider more or less innocent, had to pay the price. What ever if the Brits provoked you or if you had a right to that rock, it has lead to a war. Your leaders opened Pandoras Box.

Seriously. Believe this, or don't, it doesn't matter. But know this, I am sorry to hear about the sailors, no one here, as far as I can tell, want to see Soldiers dieing, doesn't matter if they are from Argentina or Britain, and I think most of the Soldiers didn't march in to that fight, with the goal to die either, at least most Soldiers don't. If you think that's cynical ... well you are the one here talking about taking back ze Motherland on the Falklands. No one here has so far cried for war on Argentina or what ever, actually most of us would be happy not to see one. It's pretty simple really, most of us here just don't see a reason why there should be a fight over the Falklands, particularly when the outcome would not be much different to the first war.

 

[Gonzalez]

Was there a peace treaty signed?

There was a state of peace between the two nations and there wasn't a war yet, and there was a clearly delimited exclusion zone the ship was not inside of and moving away from while the negotiations were being conducted.

I mean, if you don't even know this, why are you even talking about it?

Oh, yeah, it's an internet forum and anyone can talk about any topic like they know anything about it. Me bad.

Britian is economically stronger,technologically stronger,militarily stronger. There is literally no way you would win muzzle to muzzle and guerilla warfare isn't an option since the people who live on the Island all consider themselves British.

Yeah, whatever military expert dude, because you know about these things and can actually make an assesment. Tell you what, Birtain has nothing to worry about. Hell, they might also want to withdraw some of the forces defending the island already, I mean, save some money, since Argentina can't ever be a threat. All you guys from Britan should go and tell your representatives to do exactly that by the way.

 

[Crni Vuk]

There was a state of peace between the two nations and there wasn't a war yet, and there was a clearly delimited exclusion zone the ship was no inside of and moving away from while the negotiations were being conducted.

I mean, if you don't even know this, why are you even talking about it?

Again, was there a FORMAL(!) peace treaty, Jesus. You attacked British Soil, at least from a British point of view. Again. What. Did. You. Expect. What does that even mean a state of peace. Is it a cease fire? Negotiations? Has Thatcher send mails to your President demanding her Falklands back, in this bag? Seriously ...
Turns out your leaders have been even shitty tacticians. OMG! Turns out the Brits attacked you, even though there was some kind of cease fire! In war! The horror!

 

[Hassknecht]

It's not just a piece of dirt, like I told you. People died and we want to collect. Before the Belgrano was sunk no one died in the war, and there were negotiations to withdraw the Argentine forces, no one even thougth there would be actual figthing, we were actually about to reach an agreement.

And then the british went and murdered 323 sailors in one stroke. Just like that.

So go on and behave like a cynical prick all you like, you think that makes you better than me? Is that it?

Pretty sure argentinian soldiers died before the sinking of the General Belgrano.
And the General Belgrano was sailing very close to the total exclusion zone when they were explicitly warned that ships this close might be attacked. They knew the dangers, and they still did it. There's a reason Argentina never officially complained about the attack. Don't try to spin it as some sort of warcrime.

 

[Crni Vuk]

See, Hass, the issue is, the Brits tricked the Belgrano in doing it ...

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

Again, was there a FORMAL(!) peace treaty, Jesus. You attacked British Soil, at least from a British point of view. Again. What. Did. You. Expect. What does that even mean a state of peace. Is it a cease fire? Negotiations? Has Thatcher send mails to your President demanding her Falklands back, in this bag? Seriously ...
Turns out your leaders have been even shitty tacticians. OMG! Turns out the Brits attacked you, even though there was some kind of cease fire! In war! The horror!

You don't get it. It's not okay for countries that aren't Argentina to attack people without declaring war.

 

[Gonzalez]

Pretty sure argentinian soldiers died before the sinking of the General Belgrano.

Yes, that's rigth, a navy infantry captain, because orders were to avoid British casualties at cost of own casualties if necessary.

Again, was there a FORMAL(!) peace treaty

If there is no state of hostilities there is no need of a peace treaty, or am I missing something? I'm not going to go into the technicalities of war crimes, the families of the dead already have something going on about that. But you got to admit, that during negotiations to withdraw the Argentine troops from the islands, which the Argentines already said they were willing to do, sinking a ship and killing 323 people is a dick move. Hell, it's almost as if they didn't wanted a peaceful resolution at all.

So while they might have been in their "right" to do it, was it necessary to actually do it? While negotiations were being conducted and no shots being fired?

 

[Hassknecht]

Yes, that's rigth, a navy infantry captain, because orders were to avoid British casualties at cost of own casualties if necessary.



If there is no state of hostilities there is no need of a peace treaty, or am I missing something? I'm not going to go into the technicalities of war crimes, the families of the dead already have something going on about that. But you got to admit, that during negotiations to withdraw the Argentine troops from the islands, which the Argentines already said they were willing to do, sinking a ship and killing 323 people is a dick move. Hell, it's almost as if they didn't wanted a peaceful resolution at all.

Argentina was about to attack, and only didn't do so because the winds didn't allow the planes to start from their aircraft carrier. They sailed close to the exclusion which they were warned A WEEK EARLIER that they'll be attacked out of self defense if they get to close.
To me, an attack order during negotiations kinda sounds like a dick move, too.
Well, you could also call the landing of troops and occupation a dick move to begin with...

 

[Crni Vuk]

If there is no state of hostilities there is no need of a peace treaty, or am I missing something? I'm not going to go into the technicalities of war crimes, the families of the dead already have something going on about that.

Hmm, yeah, the fact that your nation started the whole war. Again, I understand the loss, but calling it a war crime? That's really a bit of a strech ... as far as I can read, but I am hardly a historican, so keep that in mind:

At no time during the Falklands conflict did either the United Kingdom or Argentina declare war against the other country. Combat was confined to the area around and on the islands themselves. General Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands, delimited by the UK. Through a message passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government on 23 April, the UK made clear that it no longer considered the 200-mile (370 km) exclusion zone as the limit of its military action. The message 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​

That's what Wikipedia says about it. If that's true, here again, what did you expect would happen in war? It doesn't matter anyway, since both nations enganged in open hostilities. Seriously, did you never cared to study SOME history? How things actually escalate? What "combat" and "war" actually mean? And why official documents are so important ... where both parties agree to get their troops home.

 

[Gonzalez]

Argentina was about to attack

Because the British were bombing Port Stanley with their ships, during negotiations. Once they stopped the bombimg the return order was given. So no, no dick move there.

Actually, now you mention it, perhaps they were bombing Port Stanley to provoke some kind of action and have an excuse to start hostilities. Never thought of that, thanks.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I give up ... I swore that I would NEVER EVER get in a Falkland discussion again, but here I am. I am such a fool.

 

[Hassknecht]

Because the British were bombing Port Stanley with their ships, during negotiations. Once they stopped the bombimg the return order was given. So no, no dick move there.

The return order was given because they couldn't launch their aircraft.
You don't get to play victim when you just recieved an attack order and loiter around an exclusion zone where you know that you'll be attacked when you get too close.
Especially when there's no cease fire.(edit: what was I smoking)
Now I'm not saying that the Brits were without blame here. It's just that Argentina wasn't just this poor little oppressed country that was suddenly attacked out of nowhere, and who had to send out their brave heroes to rescue their kinsmen from the Falklands.

/edit:

I give up ... I swore that I would NEVER EVER get in a Falkland discussion again, but here I am. I am such a fool.

It's a bit like talking to Tagz (or any other Polish) about Russia. Patriots with national hemorrhoids, and no Preparation H can soothe their butthurt.

 

[Gonzalez]

If I was playing victim I would by crying "war crime!", but I'm not. But the British made a decision, and that decision led to the withdrawal of Argentina from the negotioations table and the end of all hope for peaceful resolution. They made a choice, and you live with the consequences of your choices. I DO NOT play victim, and I am not one, but you don't get to tell me if I should or should not be angered at the killing of 323 of my compatriots. YOU. JUST. DONT.

I'm sorry if my decision to deffend my nation's interest offend you in some way, but it is what it is, I told you my reasons, and again, you can either take them or leave them, but you cannot argue your way around them. For someone who is not trying to convince me of anything you are sure trying.

And if recovering the islands was not in my nation's best interest then we wouldn't be litigating in the UN nor we would had gone to war for them, nor we would be willing to go to war for them again, but we are.

 

[Ragemage]

So quick question on this whole situation, is Argentina actually getting this land after that UN decision or is it staying with the British? The article's wording was pretty damn spotty.

Goddamn this whole thread is making me want to play Civilization V. I'll do Gonzales a solid and find an Argentina mod then play as them in Duel Mode VS the United Kingdom on the hardest difficulty. Whoever wins in that game wins the Falklands.

 

[Gonzalez]

is Argentina actually getting this land after that UN decision or is it staying with the British?

Sadly no, but it's really good news to our claim, and could end up with the loss of Britains sea territory if not land. Of course that would also depend on them respecting UN rulings, but you know, they are the UK, so they don't really have to, since it's not a security council ruling, plus if it were to get to the security council they can just veto any decision that doesn't pleases them.

Just one example: The UN has ruled that self-determination cannot be applied to the inhabitants of Port Stanley, but the main and only reason the UK refuses to negotiate is preserving the self-determination of the inhabitants. (DAFAQ? Rigth?)

 

[Crni Vuk]

/edit:

It's a bit like talking to Tagz (or any other Polish) about Russia. Patriots with national hemorrhoids, and no Preparation H can soothe their butthurt.

Tell me about it ... see, that's even what I never understand. It's not that I don't see their point, what ever if we talk about the Falklands or Russia. But when ever such emotional topics come up, it's always "they vs us!", it's always like live or death! And I am like, com on? There is no possible room for a bit of midle ground here? Or at least SOME gray areas? All nations are made up of humans after all. And in the end, we can all do the same mistakes. I learned that lesson from the history of my own roots, in Serbia, a nation that has been both, in the role of the criminals and victims. Situations like the tensions between Russia - Poland, the Yugoslavian civil, Kosovo or the Falklands are usually never so easy that you can just simply blame one side as the absolute evil and the other one as saints.
What I always find interesting how some veterans, two people who fought in 1945 in Berlin, a Russian and a German, could later come together, and call each other friends, and both agree, wars are shit. But no, we normal people who sit comfortabily in our chairs as google generals and forum soldiers ... have always to get in those extremes.