Irish policy on the Falklands war

tac foley

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If only life were that simple.

My neighbour has a gun.
I have no intention to issue him with a warning or to eliminate him as a threat.

Presumably your neighbour has not invaded your house and killed members of your family.

Perhaps if he had your opinion might differ somewhat.

tac

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

Presumably your neighbour has not invaded your house and killed members of your family.

Perhaps if he had your opinion might differ somewhat.

tac

Fair comment, my point was that it is not as simple as described- maybe my analogy was poor! The dispute would be who owned the house in the first place.

snafuk35

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If only life were that simple.

My neighbour has a gun.
I have no intention to issue him with a warning or to eliminate him as a threat.

Seriously though- if the 2 options were
1./ Consider a plan for peace that avoids conflict and may give a positive outcome but could endure criticism at home
2./ Attack ship to begin war/ conflict that will gain popular support at home.

I think that there was a choice.

Rubbish.
The Argentines invaded the Falkland Islands.
From day one the British were at war with them until such time as they forced to withdraw.
The Argentines has the upper hand - they had troops on the island, they were trying to establish an air base and they had a carrier to provide air cover and air superiority and the Belgrano was part of the fleet.
The sinking of the Belgrano unbalanced the Argentine junta, forced them to withdraw their aircraft carrier and to depend on land based aircraft which could not loiter for long over the archipeglo to engage the British fleet.
The British could then establish air superiority, land their forces virtually unopposed, cut off the Argentine garrison and retake the islands.
The Peruvian peace plan was just a smoke screen.
The British had to act and act quickly to frustrate the Argentinian plan to prevent the British task force from reaching the islands.
The British had no choice.
If the Belgrano was sailing in the Pacific it was still a legitimate target.
If it was tied up at a port in Argentina it was still a legitimate target.

snafuk35

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If only life were that simple.

It is that simple.
Big boys games big boys rules.
You invade the sovereign territory of another country you cannot boohoo when you get a kick in the nuts.

My neighbour has a gun.
I have no intention to issue him with a warning or to eliminate him as a threat.

If he comes over to my house with that gun and holds members of my family hostage then I can be sure talking is over.

Seriously though- if the 2 options were
1./ Consider a plan for peace that avoids conflict and may give a positive outcome but could endure criticism at home

Talk peace when your territory is occupied and the enemy is building up his forces? You must be joking?

2./ Attack ship to begin war/ conflict that will gain popular support at home.

The war had already begun when the Argies invaded. They fired the opening shots.

I think that there was a choice.

What other options was there except to get the Falklands back by force? Were the Argies going to just say: "Oh I'm very sorry old boy. Here's your islands back. We jumped the gun. Won't do it again. Friends again.' ?

jonniebgood1

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Peruvian peace plan was just a smoke screen.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Peruvian peace plan was not genuine. I ask this with an open mind.

snafuk35 wrote: »

The British had to act and act quickly to frustrate the Argentinian plan to prevent the British task force from reaching the islands.
The British had no choice.

Of course they had a choice. It is not realistic to say that they had no choice and the very fact that the action is debated shows that there was indeed a choice. This is equivalent to saying that there is never a choice in conflict which is rarely the case.

snafuk35 wrote: »

If the Belgrano was sailing in the Pacific it was still a legitimate target.
If it was tied up at a port in Argentina it was still a legitimate target.

Well what was the point of the TEZ then if everywhere was a legitimate target.

snafuk35

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Peruvian peace plan was not genuine. I ask this with an open mind.

If the British accepted the peace plan there would be nothing to stop the Argies from building up their forces in the mean time. The Argies would have their airbase built on the Falklands and the British would have had a much harder time taking the islands back. The Argies would have said half way through the talks once their position was strengthened militarily : 'Stick your peace plan up your backsides. We are keeping the islands.'

War is a game of bluff and double bluff.

Of course they had a choice. It is not realistic to say that they had no choice and the very fact that the action is debated shows that there was indeed a choice. This is equivalent to saying that there is never a choice in conflict which is rarely the case.

Once the Argies had taken the islands the only option remaining to the British if they wanted their sovereignty returned was to remove the Argentinian presence. The mere fact that Argies invaded the islands demonstrated they would use force to stop the British from retaking them.

The British were vulnerable - if they lost a carrier to Argie air power or a few more supply ships or a few more destroyers or if a troop ship was sunk they would have to give up and turn back and the window to retake the islands would be gone.

That is why they had to force the Argies to withdraw their fleet to port - the sinking of the Belgrano demonstrated the vulnerbility of their carrier. This meant that Argie jets had to be land based with seriously dimished their ability to prevent the British fleet from retaking the islands.

Well what was the point of the TEZ then if everywhere was a legitimate target.

It was an attempt to demonstrate to the Argentines that they meant business before they had forces in the area and as PR talk tough morale booster at home.

cruasder777

Intresting fact about the Belgrano,

She is the only ship ever to have been sunk in anger by a nuclear-powered submarine[1] and the second sunk in action by any type of submarine since World War II, the first being the Indian frigate INS Khukri by the Pakistani Hangor during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War.

slowburner

Was there a rumour that the Belgrano was fired at by mistake?
Obviously, it would have been political suicide to admit that such an action was a mistake.

tricky D

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is normal for forum users to back up their opinion/ views, particularly when requested. I have checked your sources.

Nowhere in the linked pieces is your initial comment substantiated

Your initial comment which I queried was:

To which I asked
"What is your source for it only applying to "neutral" vessels. I don't see your point..."

The reason I asked was simply because I did not see what point you were making. The TEZ statement stated "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." Its just a query, I thought maybe you mistated your point?

You've got your references, the logic and conclusions are obvious. It's more than clear enough from them. The notion that an enemy ship can't be sunk anywhere during wartime is bizarre.

tac foley

Dear Mr johniebgood1 - I'm betting that surfacing and advising the Argentine Captain of the Belgrano to go away and not be such a silly person would not have had the same effect as blowing the almighty sh!te out his ship without a by-your-leave. That, Sir, is called submarine warfare.

Losing your major capital ship from under you has a resonance that goes all the way back to Buenos Aires, and of course, the Argentinians had no such compunction about doing the same to the British wherever they found them, a point that seem to have eluded you totally.

tac

jonniebgood1

tricky D wrote: »

You've got your references, the logic and conclusions are obvious. It's more than clear enough from them. The notion that an enemy ship can't be sunk anywhere during wartime is bizarre.

Nowhere did anybody state this.

What was in question was your post

Originally Posted by tricky D View Post
The exclusion zone only applied to neutral vessels.

It applied to all vessels.

Best to leave it at that as this is getting tiresome.

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

Dear Mr johniebgood1 - I'm betting that surfacing and advising the Argentine Captain of the Belgrano to go away and not be such a silly person would not have had the same effect as blowing the almighty sh!te out his ship without a by-your-leave. That, Sir, is called submarine warfare.

Losing your major capital ship from under you has a resonance that goes all the way back to Buenos Aires, and of course, the Argentinians had no such compunction about doing the same to the British wherever they found them, a point that seem to have eluded you totally.

tac

Balance is required. Take North Korea at the moment as a modern equivalent. America could deliver its message by " blowing the almighty sh!te" out of them.

In any case it is better to stick to looking at the history of the incident and the course of action as you describe is what happened. It is widely questioned, not least in the UK itself.

tricky D

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Balance is required. Take North Korea at the moment as a modern equivalent. America could deliver its message by " blowing the almighty sh!te" out of them.

So is an armistice now the equivalent of war?

Really?

jonniebgood1

tricky D wrote: »

So is an armistice now the equivalent of war?

Really?

Well what constitutes a war in your view. Do you need a declaration?

Is it more that enemies? etc, etc

snafuk35

I'll let the late great Dan Breen have the last word.
The same logic applies in the case of the Argentinian invasion.
The Argentinians invaded and the consequences were all their fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTS09G__CqQ

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

Mr johnniebgood1 - 'tiresome' it may be, but the deafening silence of your protestation against the many deadly Argentinian missile and bomb attacks on the the Royal Naval and Fleet Auxiliary task force vessels and the loss of many British lives both on the high seas and in Falklands Island home waters speaks for you.

You are, of course, not expected to cheer for the 'home team' as you are not British, but a small nod in their direction, acknowledging their suffering and losses at the hands of the Argentinians would not have gone amiss.

Tac- first of all, 'tiresome' was a direct reference to an element of the discussion, not the discussion itself. Any implication that loss of lives is described as 'tiresome' is incorrect. Similarily I am not 'cheering' for any team. This is a discussion on history so cheerleading is irrelevant. If we base our discussion on the evidence before us there should be no problem. It is normal to discuss the evidence and question it but this is not the same as cheering for a team. Any lives lost on either side are regrettable but they have not formed a significant part of this thread thus far so I don't see how they are not acknowledged.

Now as you bring it up, was the sacrifice of British lives worth it for the outcome of the conflict? Could a similar outcome have been reached under different circumstances?

snafuk35

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Tac- first of all, 'tiresome' was a direct reference to an element of the discussion, not the discussion itself. Any implication that loss of lives is described as 'tiresome' is incorrect. Similarily I am not 'cheering' for any team. This is a discussion on history so cheerleading is irrelevant. If we base our discussion on the evidence before us there should be no problem. It is normal to discuss the evidence and question it but this is not the same as cheering for a team. Any lives lost on either side are regrettable but they have not formed a significant part of this thread thus far so I don't see how they are not acknowledged.

Now as you bring it up, was the sacrifice of British lives worth it for the outcome of the conflict? Could a similar outcome have been reached under different circumstances?

The Argentinian junta invaded the islands and would not remove their forces. They did so believing the British could not or would take them back from thousands of miles away. The British had to remove that illusion by force which was the only thing that thugs with gold braid on their uniforms who ordered political dissidents thrown out of airplanes would understand.
The Argentines had demonstrated quite clearly they were prepared to use force rather than peaceful methods to persuade the islanders to accept their sovereignty. If a sadistic dictatorship was seen to defy a key member of the democratic Western world in this way and to make a mockery of international stability, diplomacy and niceties it was intolerable. The law of the jungle had to be confronted with civilisation and that means sending men to their deaths to prove a point. You can live in fantasy world if you like but the world is as it is. Force is needed to right grevious wrongs and defeat bullies who commit them.

tac foley

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Tac- first of all, 'tiresome' was a direct reference to an element of the discussion, not the discussion itself. Any implication that loss of lives is described as 'tiresome' is incorrect. Similarily I am not 'cheering' for any team. This is a discussion on history so cheerleading is irrelevant. If we base our discussion on the evidence before us there should be no problem. It is normal to discuss the evidence and question it but this is not the same as cheering for a team. Any lives lost on either side are regrettable but they have not formed a significant part of this thread thus far so I don't see how they are not acknowledged.

Now as you bring it up, was the sacrifice of British lives worth it for the outcome of the conflict? Could a similar outcome have been reached under different circumstances?

Yes, of course it could have been different. Talking to a group of Soviet officers in East Germany at the time, they noted that they would probably have offered the Argentine government 24 hours to quit the Falkland Islands, failing which they would have sent a nuclear-armed ballistic missile or two onto Buenos Aires and Punta Arenas. They all wondered why a nuclear power like the UK hadn't done the same thing.

My comment was based on your somewhat one-sided viewpoint and what seems to me - and to other posters here - to be an apologia for a dictator-led nation who were the belligerents in the conflict. Sure, getting your nice big Argentinian Navy cruiser blown up is upsetting, but then again, so is losing half a dozen Royal Navy and Fleet Auxiliary ships, too. I lost a couple of close friends in the Falklands War, like many of us over here did. As did many Argentinians, of course. But the British did not ask them to invade United Kingdom sovereign territory and, as in any conflict, there is a price to pay for recovering it, one that the Argentinians had to pay in far larger numbers. That is generally what happens when nations go to war, even a 'small war' like the Falklands War - the one that loses less men is generally the winner.

tac

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

Yes, of course it could have been different. Talking to a group of Soviet officers in East Germany at the time, they noted that they would probably have offered the Argentine government 24 hours to quit the Falkland Islands, failing which they would have sent a nuclear-armed ballistic missile or two onto Buenos Aires and Punta Arenas. They all wondered why a nuclear power like the UK hadn't done the same thing.

Come on- Same for Korean war, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
you are suggesting that a nuclear bomb was an option. Maybe the Peruvian peace plan was more realistic than that.

tac foley wrote: »

My comment was based on your somewhat one-sided viewpoint and what seems to me - and to other posters here - to be an apologia for a dictator-led nation who were the belligerents in the conflict. Sure, getting your nice big Argentinian Navy cruiser blown up is upsetting, but then again, so is losing half a dozen Royal Navy and Fleet Auxiliary ships, too. I lost a couple of close friends in the Falklands War, like many of us over here did. As did many Argentinians, of course. But the British did not ask them to invade United Kingdom sovereign territory and, as in any conflict, there is a price to pay for recovering it, one that the Argentinians had to pay in far larger numbers. That is generally what happens when nations go to war, even a 'small war' like the Falklands War - the one that loses less men is generally the winner.

Fair enough. I am looking at the event through what sources are availiable. I have no personal involvement with the conflict. I would suggest that you having lost friends in this conflict may have a more one-sided view (understandably). As you have personal loss in this area I would prefer to respect this and withdraw from arguing points of opinion on options, etc.

dubhthach

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Come on- Same for Korean war, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
you are suggesting that a nuclear bomb was an option.

McArthur was fired by Truman as he suggested dropping Nuke's on Beijing and other chinese targets after the Chinese invaded across the Yalu River and pushed the UN forces back. Given that the Soviets had just successfully tested their own Nuclear weapon in 1949 and the fact that Soviets were giving support to both the Chinese and North Koreans (Soviet manned aircraft flying in N.Korean colours), Truman no doubt feared it would escalate to full scale war between Soviet and Western forces.

Eisenhower used the threat of the bomb to force the Chinese to agree to an armistice in 1953.

slowburner

tac foley wrote: »

That is generally what happens when nations go to war, even a 'small war' like the Falklands War - the one that loses less men is generally the winner.

tac

That way of evaluating victory or loss, originated in the war in Vietnam.
The USA certainly had less casualties than the NVA. Nazi Germany killed many more men than the Allied forces.
The US moved away from that way of viewing 'success' after Vietnam. General Tommy Franks is reputed to have said 'We don't do body counts', in relation to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. (see here)
The policy of using 'body count' as a means of evaluating success in battle or war may have resurfaced in Afghanistan.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124380078921270039.html

tac foley

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

As you have personal loss in this area I would prefer to respect this and withdraw from arguing points of opinion on options, etc.

Thank you.

I withdraw from this thread.

tac

OS119

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Peruvian peace plan was not genuine. I ask this with an open mind....

err, yes, there is.

shortly after the peace-loving Peruvians tabled their peace-loving plan, the peace-loving Peruvians flew 10 of their peace-loving, and spangly new Mirage 5P's to Argentina, where, to the astonishment of all, the nasty, underhand Argentines washed off the markings of the Peace-loving Peruvian Air Force off the peace-loving Mirage 5P's, painted new Argentine markings on them, and flew them off to the South Atlantic with nasty, entirely unforseen bombs hanging off them.

all of which is well documented, as well as being well publicised within the various histories of the conflict.

InTheTrees

Lunacy.

The level of atrocities committed by the Spanish settlers on the indigenous populations on south america have been the stuff of legend.

And to some extent continue to this day.

And yet suddenly we're all sympathetic to argentina over some islands FIVE hundred miles off their coast that they really dont have any right to anyway?

Just because some crazed right wing despot used it as a nationalistic rallying cry in the 60's to divert attention from his own corruption. I'm really not a big fan of british imperialist expansion but these really were a clump of barren rocks in the middle of nowhere so it seem reasonable to let the brits keep them.

France has a far more supportable case then argentina anyway.

pedroeibar1

InTheTrees wrote: »

but these really were a clump of barren rocks in the middle of nowhere so it seem reasonable to let the brits keep them.

The War had nothing to do with the rocks, it had (& has) to do with the fishing and oil rights in the territorial waters attached thereto.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/15/us-argentina-falklands-oil-idUSBRE82E10M20120315

Judgement Day

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The War had nothing to do with the rocks, it had (& has) to do with the fishing and oil rights in the territorial waters attached thereto.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/15/us-argentina-falklands-oil-idUSBRE82E10M20120315

I'd be more impressed if the article was pre-Falklands War, as at the time Britain seemed to have very little interest in fishing rights or oil exploration in the area. It was the gradual withdrawal of the Royal Naval presence in the area that sent the wrong signals to the Argentinian regime in the first place - hardly the actions of a country interested in oil exploration and fishing rights.

pedroeibar1

Judgement Day wrote: »

I'd be more impressed if the article was pre-Falklands War, as at the time Britain seemed to have very little interest in fishing rights or oil exploration in the area.

The Oil/fishing interests always were there; it is not something that was (or would be) highlighted unless very necessary. I agree that oil was not high on the agenda in 1982, but it was on that agenda because there were those who believed that oil was there. Same in Ireland at that time, I remember c 1982 the MD of Atlantic Resources*stating that there was oil in the Kish basin - and that has become 'news' only recently. The Oil Crises of 1973/74 had focussed a lot of minds on the economic cost of oil and downstream production.

Fisheries were one of the key factors. Think of Britain's Cod War with Iceland; also, Rockall has been a topicof conflict for decades. Oil is (and has been) an integral part of the Rockall row.

FWIW, if you recently ate :pac::pac::pac: any baby squid the chances are that they came from the Falklands.

*found a source http://politico.ie/component/content/article/3461.html Don S was a fascinating guy, also found a mystery WW2 plane in N Africa.

bwatson

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Nowhere did anybody state this.

What was in question was your post

It applied to all vessels.

Best to leave it at that as this is getting tiresome.

You are overplaying the exclusion zone. There was no statement from the British government that enemy ships would only be sunk should they cross the imaginary line. Nor was it the belief of the Argentine navy that they would be perfectly safe should they remain outside the zone until they were instructed to attack. The Belgrano was a legitimate military target in a time of war - a fact acknowledged by the Argentine government and the commander of the ship.

The submarine service are still very proud of the skill and professionalism shown by the crew of conqueror that day.

getzls

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Well what constitutes a war in your view. Do you need a declaration?

Is it more that enemies? etc, etc

Pretty sure the U.K. did not declare war even during the fighting. Likely the Argies didn't either. Didn't matter in the end i guess.

Lemming

getzls wrote: »

Pretty sure the U.K. did not declare war even during the fighting. Likely the Argies didn't either. Didn't matter in the end i guess.

As someone else has pointed out in either this thread, or the long running one on the politics forum (I can't be @rsed checking which right now ...), invading another country's sovereign territory tends to suffice as a clear and rather unambiguous statement of intent. There aren't many other ways to interpret such an act other than as an open act of war (whether spelt with a 'w' or a 'W')