Seriously, what the fuck was Argentina thinking?

Basically this.

Attached: Argentine Air Force A-4C, May 1982.jpg (1109x831, 123K)

Is it true that the individual Argentinian soldiers (except crew served weapons) quite often failed to shoot to kill in the conflict?

Where did you heard that?,but answering your question all the Argentine soldiers on the ground were conscripts of 18 and 19 years old so that maybe be true

Killology stuff. Probably On Killing.
>but answering your question all the Argentine soldiers on the ground were conscripts of 18 and 19 years old so that maybe be true
The idea is that it's rather about the lack of realistic training with reactive targets, amongst other things, than about them being conscripted.

Honestly there's not much to be proud about being a bong but it was a fine moment and a big 'fuck you' to virtually everyone, not least to many of the British people themselves.

It might also have been the last great event that involved real British statemen of some worth, rather than the watered down lot that followed them. Lord Carrington (recently deceased), who has won the Military Cross as a tank commander in the war, resigned as Foreign Secretary over the failings of his administration during and prior to the invasion and for presiding over a foreign power invading British territory. Sir John Nott the Defence Secretary did the same, although Thatcher refused his resignation. Admiral Leach, another WW2 man now on the Defence Staff, literally told Thatcher, at the time when few considered it possible, that Britian could and must retake the islands because if they didn't they'd be 'living in a different country, whose word counts for little.' There's been a lot of fuckups in British military history but the reaction to the invasion here was a display of high competency.

Attached: 1277638064542.jpg (1131x700, 185K)

This. They probably would have gotten away with it under a pussy Prime Minister like Callaghan.

>tfw you will never get to own a surplus L1A1 in real fuckin NATO

Attached: 1277638064542.jpg (98x103, 4K)

Attached: maggie fatchah.jpg (638x479, 84K)

That Britain, after willingly giving up most of its colonies worldwide and due to their non-intervention in the Rhodesian Bush War, would be unwilling to defend a handful of colonized islands thousands of miles away from home.

Not all of the Argentine troops were conscripts. Various units, including elements of their Marines that were there, were actually regulars.

But user, I do just that

an they're not that hard to come by here

Attached: 20160416_181309.jpg (4608x2592, 3.37M)

There was no lack of training in the Argentinian Army, and coming back to my main point, they were conscripts some of them were just recently conscripted so i really doubt it (this affirmation is based in my knowledge of the war) that the soldiers had serious training involving reactive targets and the ones that got it (the Argentinian Air Force and the Argentinian Navy) showed to have decent results (mainly the Air Force) so it all comes down to the training (what your point says) that the forces received.

Yep, i just remember that still you can't change the outcome of the war with some regulars when the rest of the ground forces are conscripts.

Attached: A-4 Skyhawk Argentino.jpg (856x640, 90K)

To be perfectly honest, the UK violated the principles of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by using a nuclear-powered submarine against the conventional-only Argentine navy in the illegal sinking of a retreating Belgrano.

That was the turning point of the war, where the British forces were willing to commit war crimes and breach treaties to win at all costs because they looked like losing to the Argentine experience and the devastating Exocet attacks.

Not a popular opinion but its the truth.

Attached: Belt.jpg (617x838, 52K)

You clearly have no idea what the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is about. Hint: it's about proliferation, you idiot.

T.”white”man

>war crimes
Butthurt argie detected

I'm old enough to remember Breszhnev tongue kissing with Ronald Reagan. So yes. Everyone were waiting for the russkis to slam the hammer down on Lech Walesa, the Hinds were filling the Afghan sky and I had just invested my entire savings in a Vic because it had a fucking 5 kilobyte memory. My wrist watch was thicker than my lego and I had just discovered the concept of porn, and what is this? Thatcher going to smash unions with one hand AND smash South Americans over some islands the size of a hankie?

Literally attacking honorable soldiers who are retreating from the field of battle is a war crime and violates the Geneva Conventions!

Attached: 4170fb88ae96ec8d0943ae29e3470374.jpg (650x487, 120K)

Argies deserved it for their illegal occupation. Also stop moaning, Thatcher wanted to drop a nuclear bomb on Buenos Aries but we didnt have to in the end.

What's that got to do with the nuclear non-profileration treaty? Precisely nothing.

>defending war crimes because convenience
>NNPT has nuclear powers pledge not to use nuclear-armed or powered military against non-nuclear parties, ignore that as well

Do you have any principles?

Attached: Urinal.jpg (478x331, 56K)

this

attacking an enemy warship which has not signaled its intention to surrender can not be a war crime, true Bongs declared every Argie vessel isnide certain area to be free game, but I don't recall them promising that Argie warships outside of that area would be guaranteed safety.

>We have declared that we are going to ignore the Geneva Conventions inside this area, so prepare to be tortured

Right, that's not how international law works. Its a shame this wasn't modern times, Thatcher should've been put on trial at The Hague.

Attached: 411995-ipswich-floods.jpg (650x366, 28K)

you do realize Americans have been launching aerial attacks on hostile targets from nuclear-powered super carriers for decades, right?

>NNPT has nuclear powers pledge not to use nuclear-armed or powered military against non-nuclear parties, ignore that as well
No, again, you're completely wrong. You don't know what the treaty is about. You're ignorant. You don't know the facts. You're speaking in falsehoods.

Here is the treaty, second link is to a Spanish version for your convenience:
un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text
un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/pdf/NPTSpanish_Text.pdf

>declaring certain area defined area to be a warzone == torture
wtf

I'm not talking about the strict, literal text of the treaty but the promise given to signatories and the carrot dangled to Latin American powers not to develop their own nuclear capability.

You know that was the intent of the treaty, right? or are you an idiot?

Yes, US has committed genocides, why would they care about minor war crimes? They literally illegally invaded a country causing a million deaths as recently as 2003 without consequence

Attached: rrrmc.jpg (859x611, 116K)

Principles arent used on Monkeys.

a) It hadnt been returning to port, it was part of a pincer movement to attack the islands.
b) we no longer considered the exclusion zone as the limits for action.
c) the previous day the argentinian admiral ordered all argie naval units to seek out our task force and launch a "massive attack".
d)The NNPT does not have that clause.

>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.[6]

When you are in a state of war against another nation you don't let an enemy warship escape and i'm from fucking Argentina and i can asure you that we would have done the same thing if given the chance so that is what it means to be in war.

You're still wrong, no matter where you shift the goalposts to. Nuclear non-proliferation treaty never had anything to do with energy generation at all, whether by literal interpretation, principles, spirit of discussion, gentlemen's agreement, anything. You're completely and utterly wrong.

Again, you cannot give yourself permission to commit war crimes and then use that as evidence for not having committed the war crimes because "we no longer considered" that we were.

It is a war crime to attack retreating or surrendering forces.

Some of the British ships taking part in the falklands had nuclear munitions on board, the majority but not all where removed during the journey south. That is the controversal aspect. The sub sinking the belegrano was only controversal as it was not in the zone designated by the brits as being the limit of operations. The fact such a limit was set is unusual in its restraint and sinking a ship outside of it does not break the rules of war. It was an obviously millitary target.

>argentinian complaining about an illegal invasion
pottery

Were you at the negotiation or?

Attached: 2CAA4A8A00000578-3245782-image-m-20_1442985431804.jpg (634x416, 69K)

its not a war crime. It wasnt then and isnt now. There is nothing to make it a war crime. It was an hostile enemy vessel which posed a threat to British forces. Our exclusion zone was not a legally binding limit of engagement and we didnt consider it as such.

And if you are complaining about it "just running away", an admiral can better explain it :

>The speed and direction of an enemy ship can be irrelevant, because both can change quickly. What counts is his position, his capability and what I believe to be his intention.

Irrelevant. You have no evidence of what you're asserting because there is none. Because you're wrong.

So you acknowledge the UK fought with nuclear weapons on board as well as attacking a retreating ship OUTSIDE the theater of operations?

Attached: CWUNkpKW4AAgcBV.jpg (575x1024, 74K)

which Geneva convention did Bongs supposedly violate by sinking a warship belonging to a country which had committed an act of war towards UK & was clearly not going to let Bongs take the Falklands back?

>to commit war crimes
what war crimes did the Bongs commit by sinking Belgrano?

You can't prove what you believe and I can't prove what I know to be true, so we have to agree to disagree on the NNPT element ONLy.

Attached: post-193-0-12534700-1338779503.jpg (640x399, 39K)

>Again, you cannot give yourself permission to commit war crimes
Well good thing there were no war crimes committed then.

it was not outside the theatre of operations. It was outside the *exclusion zone* that we had designated, exclusion as in anything of yours inside it will be attacked, but we did not consider this to be the limit of our operations if it meant keeping the island safe and made it clear that anything outside that posed a threat would be attacked too, it was not a theatre restriction.

Articles 12 and 18 of the 2nd Geneva Convention

Like dating you?

It wasn't surrendering or retreating.

I already proved it you idiot, I gave you the text of the treaty itself.

>it... it's true in my mind ;_;
No.

Then explain the utility of declaring an exclusion zone if not to limit operations to that theatre? and explain the legality of attacking a retreating force?

Argies ETERNALLY btfo

Attached: 23517789_708267279383795_2472280706703397709_n.jpg (960x876, 111K)

No dipshit. They sent the nukes home before they got to the Falklands. They only threatened nukes because you argies were threatening the use of WP/napalm.

The only war crime was that Argentina renamed a beautiful ship named the Phoenix, a survivor of Pearl Harbor, a vessel that earned 11 battle stars. And Argentina renamed it to something faggy, then to top it off they couldn't be bothered to actually modernize it over the decades, nor could they use it competently.

The Phoenix should have been a fucking museum. And Argentina fucking ruined it and sullied its name and history by desecrating it with their dead bodies.

"Articles 12 and 18 requires all parties to protect and care for the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked."
In that case the Argentinians committed war crimes

>and explain the legality of attacking a retreating force?
By using this guy pointPlease don't, this discussion is already heated enough.

>and explain the legality of attacking a retreating force?
The ship wasn't retreating, it was scurrying back under the metaphorical fridge of Argentina to regroup and attack again. There. Completely legal. Thatcher should've nuked you, except you'd no doubt survive.

And no, that wouldn't violate the NPT either.

i've explained it twice. it was not retreating. Our intelligence showed that your admiral had ordered an attack. Its direction is completely irrelevant. "The speed and direction of an enemy ship can be irrelevant, because both can change quickly. What counts is his position, his capability and what I believe to be his intention."

The exclusion zone was to secure the islands, if there was a something outside the exclusion zone that posed a threat to the exclusion zone then that would be destroyed. We made this absolutely clear.

The exclusion zone was for *all* ships and aircraft, anything unidentified would be fired upon.

Argentine military vessels were always fair game no matter where they were or what they were doing. They could have been sitting in a lake halfway up the andes and it would still have been fine to blow it to fuck.

Crying war crimes over Belgrano is pathetic. "a bloo bloo my warship that was at sea and taking part in military operations got sunk a bloo bloo" It was a military ship on a military mission. What, you wanted the British to phone them up and ask them what they were doing?

"Oh yeah anglais, we're just popping to south africa with this cargo full of kittens and fine china, don't mind us."

>explain the utility of declaring an exclusion zone
"anything that comes in here is probably going to get shot at, so everyone should steer clear"

>explain the legality of attacking a retreating force
This may surprise you, but ships can change direction. Defeat in detail instead of waiting for your enemy to regroup and engage on more even terms is one of the most basic elements of strategy.

You realize even the captain of the Belgrano agrees they were a legitimate and fair target?

Retreat is not surrender

note that a warship is protected from an attack only under very specific circumstances, 'retreating' is not one of them, the only ones that come to mind are active participation in rescue operations & a surrendering ship, Belgrano had received orders to *enter* the exclusion zone, right after the Argentine navy had been ordered to launch a "massive attack" on the British task force, Belgrano was anything but 'retreating'

All of your arguments are basically the same, admitting that I am right and the attack was a war crime BUT:

>it was convenient at the time
>information gathered years later show the ship was not in a "real" retreat
>we can do whatever we want

Great argument, guys, why even have the Geneva Conventions at all?

Attached: pepper spray.jpg (252x360, 9K)

youtube.com/watch?v=jcBkvr_PGaY

@38897869
troll harder

That information is known now but was not known to British forces at the time they launched the attack. It was only discovered after the conflict was over.

Arguably it is.

I haven't seen that but irregardless, he is not an international lawyer, nor are you.

Attached: eotech.jpg (460x199, 37K)

>To be perfectly honest, the UK violated the principles of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by using a nuclear-powered submarine

what

No, wrong, it was not a war crime-it was a legitimate military target and everyone agrees on this.

What *is* a crime is the invasion of the Falklands.

>attacking a retreating force is a war crime.

It is not and never has been, prove otherwise

the British government had already informed the Argentine government of the fact that they did not consider the exclusion zone to be the limit of military action, Argentina did not respond to this message in any way until after Belgrano had been sunk.

You realise that is not a documentary, yes?

And even your own video

>sailing directly away from the islands, can it really be considered a threat?

And even the Naval only argument is

>Sink it, send a message

@38897888
Never claimed it was, but you're trolling - so I shan't be giving you replies.

>That information is known now but was not known to British forces at the time they launched the attack. It was only discovered after the conflict was over.
Brits *did* know that Argentine navy had been ordered to attack the task force, that's the whole reason Belgrano was attacked.

You didn't start with those points in this hole discussion and you only bring them now where you are being cornered by your very own arguments, congratulations you just showed that your trolling.
This debate serves no other intention that to troll people.

Soldiers will always act under Rules of Engagement (ROE). These will change for various operations, and different countries have different ones. UK personnel have an inherent right to self defence when deployed, and can use lethal force when there is a direct and imminent threat to human life, whether their own or someone else’s. Crucially, this boils down to an honest belief about whether there is a threat or not.

This is why that honest belief is so important. If the enemy is retreating, but the soldier believes that either his or someone else’s life is in danger, they are justified to use lethal force to remove that threat. If there is no honest belief, however, then opening fire is not justified.

It is clear to me at least, that the Belgrano was sailing directly for the Argentinean mainland and posed no imminent threat to UK forces and the sinking of it was therefore a war crime.

You are also not allowed to fire on a clearly incapacitated/wounded enemy who is no longer a threat. This is the reason why Sergeant Alexander Blackman, was charged with murder after the 2011 Helmand Province incident.

Attached: E_4b.jpg (788x528, 48K)

you didn't even read my post.

1. the exlusion zone was not aimed at argentinians, it was aimed at everyone else so that we didn't shoot down any non-argies by accident.
2. argentine military target were free to engage no matter where they were or what they were doing
3. belgrano was not flying a flag of surrender, nor was it already sinking and required rescue, therefore it was fair game.

Argentinians died for a shitty, incompetent dictatorship and you're sitting there lapping up it's propaganda and defending it. You're doing modern Argentina a disservice desu.

I didn't start with your points in my first post..? I'm sorry, I don't follow, am I meant to know what your points will be before you've made them?

Errm no.
Those articles merely prohibit us from shooting at or otherwise attacking the sailors after sinking their vessel, which we did not do.

The Belgrano wasn't retreating, it was re-positioning and as a major surface combatant of a hostile power in time of war was a legal and ideal target.

firstly attacking a retreating ship is not a war crime, attacking a SURRENDERING ship is.

Secondly at the time of the sinking Belgrano was to the south-west from the exclusion zone, their orders at the time were to travel to south-east from the zone, in other words they were traveling eastwards, away from Argentina, *HOW* is that 'retreating'?

Your entire argument seems to be based around the Argentine navy being so shit that the continued survival of Belgrano could not be considered a threat to British forces in the future.

It was a warship, it had guns. It was not surrendering and therefore had the ability to damage RN ships in the future. Therefore it was fine to sink.

2010 bongoloid """peacekeeping""" rules of engagement are not international law. If attacking a retreating enemy were illegal then encirclements couldn't happen. "Oh no, the enemy hasn't set up their defenses yet! We can't attack until they're done!"

Neck yourself.

>You're doing modern Argentina a disservice desu.

Not really, I don't think anyone really expects anything great from argies. So far he's being pretty on point with his petrol huffing delirium ranting.

Shit I guess the sinking of the Bismarck was a warcrime too

Well it was clear to us, that the Belgrano had been ordered to attack, had feigned an attack previously, and was likely heading around to perform a pincer movement. The direction of a ship means absolutely nothing and does not reflect upon its ultimate intentions.
For the 3rd time:
"The speed and direction of an enemy ship can be irrelevant, because both can change quickly. What counts is his position, his capability and what I believe to be his intention."

And *even if* it was retreating, that is not a war crime, you dont let your enemy retreat and regroup and its not against the rules. Its only against the rules to attack it while surrendering or if its a hospital ship. It was neither. But it wasnt retreating.

If a soldier is out of ammunition and therefore harmless to you, and you decide to kill him anyway, you have committed a war crime IF

You knew he posed no threat to you at the time you killed him

It is just that simple

The UK knew the Belgrano was out of munitions and in retreat to the mainland.

You're confusing soldiers with ships and planes, attacking an aircraft after it dropped it's payload isn't a warcrime either.

>and explain the legality of attacking a retreating force?
Nothing makes it illegal.

If you know it is empty of munitions and in retreat, yes it is.

>The UK knew the Belgrano was out of ammo

How on earth would they have known that? You are getting pretty upset over this eh?

>the Belgrano was out of munitions
Really, out of munitions, that's a bizarre claim considering it hadn't engaged anyone at gun range - were they so incompetent they forgot to load any before sailing or did they just trip over and push it overboard?

Source?

I'm not a psychopath so yes, the needless killing of 300+ people does grind my gears slightly.

>were they so incompetent they forgot to load any before sailing or did they just trip over and push it overboard?
I mean this is argentina we're talking about here, so...

Citation needed now. You first claimed it was a Geneva convention protocol, now find the passage that says retreat makes one immune to attack.