More Argie Bargie
Discussion
davepoth said:
SPS said:
Sorry man you are wrong.
In terms of the frame of reference we're talking about (A country going into another country and taking land off them that is internationally recognised as not belonging to them) I don't think I am.SPS said:
UN founded 1945 post WW11.
Founded October 1945, first meeting 1946.SPS said:
Conflicts of the sort you outlined;
Korean War
As a result of the Moscow Conference of 1945, this was (and is) a civil war.Korean War
SPS said:
Russian Invasion of Hungary
Happened in WW2.SPS said:
Sino Tibetan War
Sino Indian Conflict
Both based upon the McMahon line from the 1914 Simla Accord, which has been disputed by all parties involved since it was drawn. Before then there wasn't a fixed border so it's impossible to tell whether land has been taken or not.Sino Indian Conflict
SPS said:
Russian Afghan Conflict
I can't find any reference to the USSR retaining any of Afghanistan once it left.SPS said:
Iran Iraq Conflict
Borders returned to those set by the 1975 Algiers Agreement at the end of the war, so no border changed.SPS said:
Iraq invasion of Kuwait
Borders remained unchanged after the Iraqis were evicted.SPS said:
Literally dozens of conflicts in Africa
All of which are considered civil wars without changing borders.SPS said:
And that is all I can recall without researching.
Then we have the "sanctioned" UN conflicts and of course not forgetting the Vietnam!
Vietnam remained within its borders, as have all of the UN interventions.Then we have the "sanctioned" UN conflicts and of course not forgetting the Vietnam!
It may have been a "civil" war but two major issues debunk that. One China Invaded in massive strength and the UN again mainly the US and British and Commonwealth forces intervened!
There was also a MacArthur plan to to interdict with bombers and fighters as well as a concerted plan to invade China which was only stopped by political developments.
Russia invaded Hungary in 1956 as well.
Tibet was invaded by China in 1951 is still to all intense and purposes occupied by China! Just ask the Dalai Lama.
Iran - Kuwait - borders only returned because we and the yanks kicked them out, well if we had not they would still be there!
Your premise about boarders not changing is fragile at best. I know you mentioned the Israeli war but to be fair it's been numerous wars across decades so does allow for precedents. In the various Middle East conflicts Israel took territory that obviously did not belong to them. The Sinai was captured and returned to Egypt in 1949 then they took it again in 1967 as well as taking The Golan heights, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem as well as the West Bank. Anyway enough proof that there are indeed precedents since the UN formed and not all of them based on the Israeli conflicts. But these in themselves are no less valid because it's generally been the same protagonists..
Edited by SPS on Sunday 6th January 13:56
Edited by SPS on Sunday 6th January 17:38
Neat list of all invasion based war conflicts since WWII - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions#194...
All of which took land that didn't belong to them and either kept it, had to give it back, were beaten back or had other political outcomes that effected the borders, land or people.
All of which took land that didn't belong to them and either kept it, had to give it back, were beaten back or had other political outcomes that effected the borders, land or people.
thinfourth2 said:
ViperPict said:
Apart from Scotland's not very close to Japan...
Are you going an answer the questions in the independence thread?Plus, not good forum etiquette cross-posting between threads. Play by the rules, there's a good chap...
FourWheelDrift said:
Neat list of all invasion based war conflicts since WWII - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions#194...
All of which took land that didn't belong to them and either kept it, had to give it back, were beaten back or had other political outcomes that effected the borders, land or people.
I'm really struggling to find any on that list where a country took territory in a war that wasn't their land to start with, aside from Israel. That's what the question is. All of which took land that didn't belong to them and either kept it, had to give it back, were beaten back or had other political outcomes that effected the borders, land or people.
Ordinary_Chap said:
robmlufc said:
Regiment said:
That's a disgusting joke you're trying to make. Just because they weren't British sailors that died doesn't make it ok to laugh at their grave.
Somebody is tired. I thought it was quite funny and I'm ex-RN if that helps!
You get my point?
im said:
Ordinary_Chap said:
robmlufc said:
Regiment said:
That's a disgusting joke you're trying to make. Just because they weren't British sailors that died doesn't make it ok to laugh at their grave.
Somebody is tired. I thought it was quite funny and I'm ex-RN if that helps!
You get my point?
The most offensive thing about that 'joke' is that the Government of Argentina sent its troops to the FI in the first place.
War is what it is - You achieve objectives through extreme violence. I'm happier to see an image of the sea with the Belgrano than the HMS Sheffield, for instance, but I understand how it works.
Hillsborough was a tragedy with many innocents - Those on the Belgrano sailed into an exclusion zone where the rules of engagement were extremely clear.
Served 6 years with stints at the pointy end.
im said:
Playing Devils advocate for a moment, how would you feel if it were a picture of an empty Leppings Lane terrace at Hillsborough football ground with the caption "Liverpool Supporters" or maybe a primary school playground in the USA....
You get my point?
hardy the same thing is it?You get my point?
Liverpool supporters were not engaged in an actual WAR in a WAR zone....
if you want to make analogies, use the Atlantic Conveyor/Sheffield or the like...
Scuffers said:
im said:
Playing Devils advocate for a moment, how would you feel if it were a picture of an empty Leppings Lane terrace at Hillsborough football ground with the caption "Liverpool Supporters" or maybe a primary school playground in the USA....
You get my point?
hardy the same thing is it?You get my point?
Liverpool supporters were not engaged in an actual WAR in a WAR zone....
if you want to make analogies, use the Atlantic Conveyor/Sheffield or the like...
Innocent men are innocent men.
But OK - the school playground analogy still stands though.
im said:
Scuffers said:
im said:
Playing Devils advocate for a moment, how would you feel if it were a picture of an empty Leppings Lane terrace at Hillsborough football ground with the caption "Liverpool Supporters" or maybe a primary school playground in the USA....
You get my point?
hardy the same thing is it?You get my point?
Liverpool supporters were not engaged in an actual WAR in a WAR zone....
if you want to make analogies, use the Atlantic Conveyor/Sheffield or the like...
Innocent men are innocent men.
But OK - the school playground analogy still stands though.
Edited to add that the British had also declared that the total exclusion zone did not represent the teritorial limit within which military action against hostile forces would be undertaken.
Edited by andymadmak on Monday 7th January 09:55
Argentine Rear-Admiral Allara said:
....... who was in charge of the task force of which the Belgrano was a part 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".
im said:
Sorry the ship was well outside the 200 mile 'Total Exclusion Zone' that the British had declared around the Falklands and was on a westerly heading at the time it was attacked - and a Peruvian peace proposal was still on the table at the time of the attack.
The point of the exclusion zone was that any ships inside it would be sunk, not that ship outside it wouldn't be, so it's irrelevant.The westerly course was to a temporary holding point until the weather had improved sufficiently for the Argentine carrier to launch an attack.
The Peruvian peace proposal involved British forces withdrawing and leaving the Argentinian occupation in situ pending 'negotiations'. So was a non starter.
im said:
andymadmak said:
you honestly think that they would have hesitated to attack the UK carrier group if they had found it? (Peruvian plan or not!)
What - and commited suicide? 
im said:
andymadmak said:
I suggest you read something other than the Guardian
I suggest you stop making stupid assumptions.Ozzie Osmond said:
Questions: Round One
1. Would you be willing to die for the Falklands?
2. Would you be willing to send your children to die for the Falklands?
3. Would you be willing to send your felloe citizens to die for the Falklands?
To imperialists, the loss of life in a conflict is unimportant, providing it is not one of their own, and it is of little concern to them that 255 British servicemen and women were killed in what we call the Falklands’ War.
Questions: Round Two
1. Would you be willing to die for Las Malvinas?
2. Would you be willing to send your children to die for Las Malvinas?
3. Would you be willing to send your felloe citizens to die for the Las Malvinas?
To some Argentines, the loss of life in a conflict is unimportant, providing it is not one of their own, and it is of little concern to them that 649 Argentinian servicemen and women were killed in what they call Guerra De Las Malvinas.
Let's hope the answer to all of the six questions above is "NO".
What is your point? Genuine question, because you have lost me.1. Would you be willing to die for the Falklands?
2. Would you be willing to send your children to die for the Falklands?
3. Would you be willing to send your felloe citizens to die for the Falklands?
To imperialists, the loss of life in a conflict is unimportant, providing it is not one of their own, and it is of little concern to them that 255 British servicemen and women were killed in what we call the Falklands’ War.
Questions: Round Two
1. Would you be willing to die for Las Malvinas?
2. Would you be willing to send your children to die for Las Malvinas?
3. Would you be willing to send your felloe citizens to die for the Las Malvinas?
To some Argentines, the loss of life in a conflict is unimportant, providing it is not one of their own, and it is of little concern to them that 649 Argentinian servicemen and women were killed in what they call Guerra De Las Malvinas.
Let's hope the answer to all of the six questions above is "NO".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff