2007-01-22 23:23:34 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
yes, then hang her like saddam
2007-01-23 01:34:51 · answer #1 · answered by Dave O 2 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Don't be daft. Winston Churchill ordered the sinking of much of the French navy following the surrender of France in World War 2. Was he a war criminal? It didn't matter that the ships were tied up in port - the fact is they could have been used by the nazis. Similarly it doesn't matter what way the bloody Belgrano was steaming, it was a potential threat to British forces and was therefore fair game. If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen. If you don't like your warships being sunk don't start a war.
2007-01-23 15:08:31 · answer #2 · answered by david f 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Should General Galtieri have stood trial for sinking HMS Sheffield?
The Belgrano was a warhsip belonging to a hostile nation and was sailing round the edge of a war zone. Can't believe that people are even asking this question.
2007-01-23 07:44:26 · answer #3 · answered by Michael O 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋
No, and even the Argentine navy don't seem to have thought so:
'Although recognizing that Belgrano was sunk out of the British self impossed exclusion zone, the Argentine Navy, against the Argentine general public belief, always declare her lost as a painful act of war but legitime by the UK...
Argentine Rear-Admiral Allara who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of said, "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano."' and from anothe rsource:
""Earlier this year the ship's captain, Hector Bonzo, admitted that the Belgrano's decision to sail away from the Task Force on the morning of 2 May was only a temporary manoeuvre.
"Our mission ... wasn't just to cruise around on patrol but to attack,'' Captain Bonzo said in a television interview in May. "When they gave us the authorisation to use our weapons, if necessary, we had to be prepared to attack. Our people were completely trained. I would say we were anxious to pull the trigger.''"
2007-01-23 15:15:35 · answer #4 · answered by agneisq 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, it was damned bad luck, by coincidence, every time the Conquerer zigged, so did the Belgrano, and every time she zagged so did the Belgrano. The Belgrano was not aware of the presence of the submarine, but the crew of the the Conquerer (nor Mrs T) could take that risk, and it had to be assumed that the Belgrano was after them.
Sad but true
2007-01-23 07:39:10 · answer #5 · answered by ArskElvis 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No, The Belgrano posed a serious threat, it`s direction was irrelevant to its potential to cause the expeditionary Force cause for concern. We were at war at the time & this was in international waters.
I am no fan of Thatcher but she made the right decision this time. No such thing as an easy decision to make when you are at War.
2007-01-23 07:44:11 · answer #6 · answered by martdfrogman 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
We were at war with Argentina
The falklands war was instigated by Argentina.
The Belgrano was a warship, which was in the vicinity of the falkland islands and had been involved in that conflict.
The Belgrano posed a possible threat to British forces, If not at that immediate moment, then possible in the near future.
It may not have been wise to sink it, but it was not unprecedented and not unwarrented.
2007-01-23 07:32:24 · answer #7 · answered by Vinni and beer 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
No. The Belgrano was an enemy combatant. Even if she was tied up at the pier in Buenos Aries, she was a valid target unless interned in a neutral port.
2007-01-23 09:20:34 · answer #8 · answered by crossbones668 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No - Britain and Argentina were at war. When you are at war your enemy is fair game wherever you find him. The General Belgrano could just as easily have turned round again.
2007-01-23 11:01:21 · answer #9 · answered by john b 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No way. So what if she was sailing away, sooner or later she would've sailed back and potentially been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of our troops. Just say Hitler had somehow ended up in Switzerland after the end of WWII - would you say that we couldn't have gone after him because Switzerland was neutral!? I can't stand people who raise this stupid question.
2007-01-23 07:47:05 · answer #10 · answered by Quickswitch79 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
NO... she should have stood trial for what she did to our industry, but the belgrano... well war is what happens when people are dying.
the argies decided to play at war..and we gave them a lesson theyll not forget.
and the french govt should go on trial for warcrimes. they supplied the exocet missiles...
2007-01-23 07:38:08 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋