Falklands Islands

[Welshcookie 17]

I still oppose war and violence, because I'm catholic.

Saludos,

Caro

wow.....nice statement.

"I still oppose war and violence, because that is what I believe in, that is the morals I was brought up with, because I believe nothing justifies the horrors of the war, and I'm a catholic"

Better? happy now?

Saludos,

Caro

no, not really...happy now?

[JVKn'CVO 11]

I still oppose war and violence, because I'm catholic.

Saludos,

Caro

wow.....nice statement.

"I still oppose war and violence, because that is what I believe in, that is the morals I was brought up with, because I believe nothing justifies the horrors of the war, and I'm a catholic"

Better? happy now?

Saludos,

Caro

no, not really...happy now?

well, I did everything I could to ease your concerns about my statement, so...yes

Saludos,

Caro

[Welshcookie 17]

I still oppose war and violence, because I'm catholic.

Saludos,

Caro

wow.....nice statement.

"I still oppose war and violence, because that is what I believe in, that is the morals I was brought up with, because I believe nothing justifies the horrors of the war, and I'm a catholic"

Better? happy now?

Saludos,

Caro

no, not really...happy now?

well, I did everything I could to ease your concerns about my statement, so...yes

Saludos,

Caro

Well it just confirms to me that where there is religion there is war....so that you are Catholic does not "ease my corncerns" one bit...was it supposed to?

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Well it just confirms to me that where there is religion there is war....so that you are Catholic does not "ease my corncerns" one bit...was it supposed to?

So, I say I oppose war, and that I'm a catholic, and for you that confirms that where there is religion there is war?

Saludos,

Caro

[Welshcookie 17]

Well it just confirms to me that where there is religion there is war....so that you are Catholic does not "ease my corncerns" one bit...was it supposed to?

So, I say I oppose war, and that I'm a catholic, and for you that confirms that where there is religion there is war?

Saludos,

Caro

I don't know....did you support the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands?

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Well it just confirms to me that where there is religion there is war....so that you are Catholic does not "ease my corncerns" one bit...was it supposed to?

So, I say I oppose war, and that I'm a catholic, and for you that confirms that where there is religion there is war?

Saludos,

Caro

I don't know....did you support the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands?

No, as I said earlier. I support the CLAIM. Not the war.

Saludos,

Caro

[Welshcookie 17]

Well it just confirms to me that where there is religion there is war....so that you are Catholic does not "ease my corncerns" one bit...was it supposed to?

So, I say I oppose war, and that I'm a catholic, and for you that confirms that where there is religion there is war?

Saludos,

Caro

I don't know....did you support the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands?

No, as I said earlier. I support the CLAIM. Not the war.

Saludos,

Caro

Oh well...good. I am happy to hear that...after all the "claim" did not justify the loss of life on either side...did it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well it just confirms to me that where there is religion there is war....so that you are Catholic does not "ease my corncerns" one bit...was it supposed to?

So, I say I oppose war, and that I'm a catholic, and for you that confirms that where there is religion there is war?

Saludos,

Caro

I don't know....did you support the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands?

No, as I said earlier. I support the CLAIM. Not the war.

Saludos,

Caro

Oh well...good. I am happy to hear that...after all the "claim" did not justify the loss of life on either side...did it?

I would say it certainly didn't.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Oh well...good. I am happy to hear that...after all the "claim" did not justify the loss of life on either side...did it?

I would say it certainly didn't.

Nothing justifies the loss of lives. No one said otherwise.

Saludos,

Caro

Edited August 3, 2008 by JVKn'CVO

[Ban Hammer 14,636]

a warship in or near an area that is contested (war zone), whether going to or coming from, is fair game. that's the facts of life.

Seriously Charles, why are you so hard-headed? How can you fail to see what is obvious? The Manuel Belgrano was outside the war zone, retreating, during a cease of the hostilities, and had 2 civilians aboard!

What is your connection to this subject?

Saludos,

Caro

i could ask you the same thing that is bolded.

inmaterial if outside this "zone" - again, refer to the wikipedia link:

Legal situation

The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands. However, 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.

furthermore, civilians on a war vessel do not change it's status as a warship.

and do i need a "connection" to this thread?

[JVKn'CVO 11]

a warship in or near an area that is contested (war zone), whether going to or coming from, is fair game. that's the facts of life.

Seriously Charles, why are you so hard-headed? How can you fail to see what is obvious? The Manuel Belgrano was outside the war zone, retreating, during a cease of the hostilities, and had 2 civilians aboard!

What is your connection to this subject?

Saludos,

Caro

i could ask you the same thing that is bolded.

My reason is: I believe I have presented enough arguments to show you that the attack to the Manuel Belgrano was not legitimate. From the Geneva convention "Military necessity requires combat forces to engage in only those acts necessary to accomplish a legitimate military objective". We have established that the Manuel Belgrano was not a threat to the British forces. You make emphasis in only 1 point, but there are 3 reasons that support my argument

*The location of the ship (ok, for the sake of argument, let's leave that open for discussion)

*that fact that it was sailing away

*That there was a peace treaty in negotiation and the hostilities were "on hold"

and do i need a "connection" to this thread?

I find it interesting that not being British or Argentinian, 1)You know so much 2)you are so passionate about it

So that is why I'm asking. My connection is obvious.

Saludos,

Caro

Edited August 3, 2008 by JVKn'CVO

[Heracles 417]

Do you mean the Malvinas?

Yes, thats a different name for the same place.

It's the actual name.

Falklands is the imperialistic oppressor name.

England! England! England! England!

[pedroh 21]

Do you mean the Malvinas?

Yes, thats a different name for the same place.

It's the actual name.

Falklands is the imperialistic oppressor name.

England! England! England! England!

says one of the serfs of the crown

lol

[Heracles 417]

God Save the Queen!!

Commonwealth! Commonwealth! Commonwealth!

[Ban Hammer 14,636]

My reason is: I believe I have presented enough arguments to show you that the attack to the Manuel Belgrano was not legitimate. From the Geneva convention "Military necessity requires combat forces to engage in only those acts necessary to accomplish a legitimate military objective". We have established that the Manuel Belgrano was not a threat to the British forces. You make emphasis in only 1 point, but there are 3 reasons that support my argument

*The location of the ship (ok, for the sake of argument, let's leave that open for discussion)

*that fact that it was sailing away

*That there was a peace treaty in negotiation and the hostilities were "on hold"

no, we have not established that the manuel belgrano was not a threat to the british forces. in fact, you already stated the ship was not retreating, just moving to another location (see below quote). again, being outside the zone has no bearing on it being fair game or not as it's already been established by the links i've posted from wikipedia that it was, in fact, fair game.

After the apparent repulsion of what they thought was a British landing attempt on May 1 (which included the failed air strike by the ARA 25 de Mayo), the Argentine Junta decided to wait for the decision of the Peruvian peace proposal before continuing hostilities. All Argentine Navy task groups were ordered to withdraw from the area until further notice [4], and the Argentine Air Force did not attempt any major air strikes during the following days. The Belgrano was approximately 35 miles out of the British-declared exclusion zone, heading toward the mainland when the attack occurred...

The Belgrano was detected 48 hours earlier, but when it was sunk it no longer represented a direct threat to the British Task Force. The Argentine point of view is that Thatcher's government (ill-positioned for coming elections) and the Royal Navy (in the midst of a serious budget cut period) took this war as the perfect chance to solve their problems, and with sinking Belgrano they successfully undermined any possible peaceful solution.