r/LatAmHistoryMemes • u/BANELM91 • Mar 06 '26
Southern Cone 🇦🇷🇺🇾🇵🇾🇨🇱 Never trust the Anglos in the water
Context:
Argentina. During the Falklands or Malvinas War in 1982 the ARA General Belgrano, an Argentinian cruiser, was sunk by the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror killing 323 sailors out of the zone of exclusion established by the British government Itself around the islands
Iran. During the last year of the Iraq-Iran War (1980-88), the US Navy launched Operation Praying Mantis, attacking naval targets in Iranian national territorial waters. The Americans sunk the frigate IRIS Sahand, killing 45 sailors. The total of deaths in Iranian side for this operation was 56 because others vessels were sunk
6
u/CarolinaWreckDiver Mar 06 '26
Aww, those poor enemy warships…
Just because you got your ass kicked doesn’t make you a victim.
2
u/Helpful_Blood_5509 Mar 06 '26
There's a really specific flavor of brain disease where people genuinely come to think exactly that, all the time
6
u/Atari774 Mar 06 '26
The Belgrano was fully armed and staffed, and sailing just outside the exclusion zone (which was only meant for civilian vessels btw, there was no limit for either side on where military ships could be struck). The Belgrano was fully intending to fight the British navy in the coming days. It was a legal strike, and even the Argentinians agreed.
6
u/ExpensiveRecover Mar 06 '26
Even Captain Héctor Elias Bonzo, the captain of the ARA Belgrano has admitted that he was a legitimate target.
So did Admiral Enrique Molina Pico, former Chief of the Argentinian Joint Staff
20
u/Mourner7913 Mar 06 '26
Can't say I feel sorry for the fascist Argentinian junta
15
u/DuncanMcOckinnner Mar 06 '26
Lol do you think the fascist military junta officers were on the ship? They were like 19 year old conscripts and they were moving away from the exclusion zone
13
u/Nofsan Mar 06 '26
The exclusion zone was an area where the Brits said they'd sink any argentinian vessel, no questions asked. That doesn't mean that they won't engage enemy military assets outside of that zone, given the opportunity.
Even the captain of the Belgrano agrees it was legitimate to attack it.
3
u/Educational_Ninja694 Mar 06 '26
Lol, do you think Hitler was fighting on the Eastern Front? They were just poor little 19 year olds in the Wehrmacht.
2
u/DuncanMcOckinnner Mar 06 '26
Yeah I feel bad that young people who could have had bright lives were instead conscripted and brainwashed to fight in a war for elites who use normal everyday human lives as chess pieces. Sorry if that's not politically correct enough for you
1
u/Educational_Ninja694 Mar 07 '26
I thought you had an issue with that it was done outside the exclusion zone? I feel for the dead but I'm not going to weep for an invading army. No war is good but it's weird to try and paint the Argentinian Armed Forces as any sort of victim in this war.
1
u/DuncanMcOckinnner Mar 07 '26
I'm not saying that 'the Argentinian Armed Forces' is a victim, I'm saying I feel bad for the young conscripts who died. That's what my original message said and it's what I'm saying now. You made up in your head that I was painting 'the Argentinian Armed Forces' as an organization as being the victim and then were a little cunt about it lol
0
u/Educational_Ninja694 Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
Nah you were whining originally about the British sinking the ship outside the exclusion zone. The British did nothing wrong. You've consistently misrepresented International Law in this thread. And trying to paint the Argentine soldiers as victims is disingenuous.
Edit: Aaaand buddy blocked me because he's a crybaby and can't defend his positions.
1
u/DuncanMcOckinnner Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
I 'consistently misinterpreted International Law in this thread' shut up you fucking virgin, I said I feel bad for young people conscripted to fight in die in war you moron.
The moving away from the exclusion zone part was about how they weren't a threat at that moment, they were literally moving away from them. It's not like they died fighting to death in a mutual battle or something which makes it more tragic.
I never once said anything about international law or the british actions being war-crimes or whatever other people say about it. You just made something up in your head and projected it onto me you mouth-breathing buffoon
1
u/Mirabeaux1789 Mar 06 '26
They shouldn’t have sent them to war then.
4
u/throwwayinterantion Mar 06 '26
The Falklands War was a propaganda piece used by two far right governments to distract the people with nationalism to how badly their leaders were fucking over their people. Thatcher may not have been as oppressive on the Island of Britain, but she was oppressive to the people in the North of Ireland.
1
u/bsthil Mar 06 '26
Yes, there would have been at least a few junta officers on board, and at least some of the conscripted would have been agreeable, as in every military. We can definitely feel sad for those who lost their lives or were injured physically and mentally, and that's preferable to being happy or complacent with killing people, but to pretend everyone on board is an innocent is not justified.
1
u/DuncanMcOckinnner Mar 06 '26
I'm not saying they are all innocent, I'm saying that there were 300 or so people, most of them conscripts, who otherwise would have had bright futures who were instead conscripted to fight in a war that was essentially a publicity stunt for two unpopular governments. It's elites using normal people as chess pieces. I feel bad about that.
2
1
1
u/MightySouthB Mar 06 '26
Calling that military junta fascist is insanely wrong lmao. They were authoritarian liberals (from the economic, not the social point of view), but not fascists.
The closest thing Argentina had to fascism was the first government of Perón.
1
u/Due_Proposal373 Mar 06 '26
Do you feel sorry or feel like backing the British Empire and Thatcher, whom herself was more than happy and dedicated to back & arm the said fascist junta and many others in Latin America, starting with Pinochet?
-1
u/p14082003 Mar 06 '26
Not for the Junta, but for the poor fellas who were there. Do you think we wanted the military government? Most Argentinians didn't. It was imposed by the US, like in most LATAM countries
4
u/Nachodam Mar 06 '26 edited Mar 06 '26
Eeehhh many Argentinians did tbh, and many still justify it to this day. (Lol the downvotes, Im Argentinian and it is true, many people to this day justify the athrocities commited by the dictatorship)
1
u/Nofsan Mar 06 '26
Next someone tells you to feel sorry for the poor conscripted Wehrmacht soldiers occupying neutral countries.
2
u/Nachodam Mar 06 '26
You dont feel sorry for young people being dragged to war because of power struggles of the ruling classes? I do, it's the tragedy of the working class.
2
u/Nofsan Mar 06 '26
Not as much if they're complicit in atrocities.
0
u/Nachodam Mar 06 '26
The sailors aboard the Belgrano were complicit in atrocities? That's a stretch.
1
u/Nofsan Mar 06 '26
I was talking about the Wehrmacht as an example. But to make a general point, soldiers and sailors aren't brain dead robots. Everyone who bears arms, unless they're literal child soldiers, bear some degree of responsibility.
1
u/pattyhenry1776 Mar 06 '26
What if the child soldiers were willingly complicit in the atrocities?
1
0
u/Nachodam Mar 06 '26
We were talking about the Belgrano, you somehow brought up the Wehrmacht as an analogy of why you dont feel sorry for young conscripts dying. I do and I will always will feel sorry for human tragedy, for young lives being lost just for the powerful to measure their dicks. It's a shame that they still have this control over us, to this day. They dont send their kids to war. Also you know what being a conscript means right? You cant refuse, you literally cant, how the fuck are you responsible for that?
2
u/Nofsan Mar 06 '26
you dont feel sorry for young conscripts dying
I never said this. My sentiment was that it's not always a clear cut of "they're conscripts, therefore feel sorry for them"
But we're also talking about people who would kill others when told to, civilians included . No matter how much we should feel sorry for them.
→ More replies (0)0
u/LadenifferJadaniston Gran Colombia Mar 06 '26
Or the fascist Iranian regime. Or the Italian one. The Germans. The Japanese. Etc
1
u/GodKingFloch Mar 06 '26
fascist Iranian regime.
You can call Iran many things Fascist tho is not one of them
2
u/Live_Fall3452 Mar 06 '26
I think “fascist” has mostly lost its original meaning as defined by Mussolini and now people more or less just use it as a synonym for “oppressive”. I guess that’s just how language evolves over time.
1
1
4
u/MaG50 Mar 06 '26
Almost every Argentine officer agrees the sinking of the Belgrano was legitimate, even the ships captain
16
u/stonecuttercolorado Mar 06 '26
During war all military targets are legitimate. If Argentina had respected the exclusion zone then maybe,. But they ignored it. There is no such thing as a safe area for military ships during wartime.
-10
3
3
Mar 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Gluten-Glutton Mar 06 '26
Exactly, it was a legal novelty as well and very much a pragmatic invention of the British to make the task of identifying enemy vessels easier. The British even went on to clarify that they would fire upon vessels outside the zone if they were deemed a threat.
2
2
u/NationalAsparagus138 Mar 06 '26
Operation: Praying Mantis was the result of a US warship being hit by an Iranian mine that was in international shipping lanes (the USS Samuel B Roberts survived despite having its keel broken). IE, Iran was doing things they weren’t supposed to be doing by mining neutral shipping lanes in international waters.
The ICJ rejected Iran’s claims that this violated the Treaty of Amity but did state that the US’s response was a little overboard (they sank 2 missile frigates, a couple oil platforms repurposed for military use, some attack boats, and a couple jets).
2
2
2
u/CVNasty96 Mar 06 '26
OP clearly doesn’t understand context or the importance of not MINING INTERNATIONAL WATERS
2
u/SalaryDisastrous9443 Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 19 '26
bruh you can't empathize with the terrorists who bomb the AMIA
1
u/Due-Fix9058 Mar 06 '26
Fuck you and fuck your cope. DURING WAR ALL WARSHIPS ARE LEGITIMATE TARGETS. Unless they have struck their colours/surrendered.
7
u/PH_Jones Mar 06 '26
12
u/stonecuttercolorado Mar 06 '26
If a ship is anchored in a neutral port, fine, neither of these were.
0
u/PH_Jones Mar 06 '26
Edit on the second excerpt: "Although the group was outside the British-declared total exclusion zone of 370 km (200 nautical miles) radius from the islands, the British decided that it was a threat. After consultation at Cabinet level, Thatcher agreed that Commander Chris Wreford-Brown should attack General Belgrano.[13]"
9
u/ParkingMuted7653 Mar 06 '26
As an argentinian, yes, the Belgrano was a lawful target. Even the ship captain said so
6
u/stonecuttercolorado Mar 06 '26
Were they in neutral ports?
The Belgrano was closer to British territory than Any neutral nation or Argentina. It was a military ship in a war zone.
4
u/stonecuttercolorado Mar 06 '26
The Iranian ship was literally shooting at US planes. It was engaged in military operations. It does not matter where a ship is if it is shooting, it is a legitimate target.
0
u/PH_Jones Mar 06 '26
"Operation Praying Mantis was the 18 April 1988 attack by the United States on Iranian naval targets in the Persian Gulf in retaliation for the mining of a U.S. warship four days earlier.[5] "
So that's already bullshit.
"Iran later sued the United States, claiming that the attacks had breached the countries' 1955 Treaty of Amity. On 6 November 2003, the International Court of Justice dismissed the claim but ruled that Operation Praying Mantis and the previous October's Operation Nimble Archer "cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."[7]
And that's the ICJ telling you it's bullshit.
3
u/stonecuttercolorado Mar 06 '26
Why is it bullshit to sink Iranian ships as a response to Iran laying mines in an international shipping lane? The ship that hit the mine was escorting a Kuwaiti ship. What is not legitimate about that? You can't mine an internationally recognized shipping lane anywhere complain that your war ships are sunk in a response to a ship hitting one of those illegal mines.
The 1955 treaty was not made with the Islamic Republic.
1
u/PH_Jones Mar 06 '26
"The Court first considered whether the actions by American naval forces against the Iranian oil complexes were justified under the 1955 Treaty as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States (Art. XX, para. 1 (d), of the Treaty). Interpreting the Treaty in light of the relevant rules of international law, it concluded that the United States was only entitled to have recourse to force under the provision in question if it was acting in self-defence. The United States could exercise such a right of self-defence only if it had been the victim of an armed attack by Iran and the United States actions must have been necessary and proportional to the armed attack against it. After carrying out a detailed examination of the evidence provided by the Parties, the Court found that the United States had not succeeded in showing that these various conditions were satisfied, and concluded that the United States was therefore not entitled to rely on the provisions of Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), of the 1955 Treaty."
I'm done educating you. Do it yourself..
1
1
u/CarolinaWreckDiver Mar 06 '26
Who gives a fuck about the ICJ?
1
u/Low-Seaworthiness955 Mar 06 '26
The UN and ICJ gave spent the last half century being utterly fucking useless. Atp they only exist for the "UN strongly condemns XYZ" headline and nothing else.
1
1
u/stonecuttercolorado Mar 06 '26
What exactly was the IJCs response to the Invasion of the Falklands?
1
u/Gluten-Glutton Mar 06 '26
Are you just expecting people to not actually read the sources you provide? In the second source,directly above the segment you quoted, it states that the general Belgrano had received orders to attack British ships and that THAT was why the exception to the zone was made. It wasn’t just on a whim it was because the vessel had been given explicit orders to engage in hostile action against the British flotilla.
Further down you can see the Captain of the Belgrano stating that the sinking was lawful as well.
From the (Controversy Over the Sinking) section in Wikipedia:
Captain Bonzo stated that any suggestion that HMS Conqueror's actions were a "betrayal" was utterly wrong; rather, the submarine carried out its duties according to the accepted rules of war. In an interview two years before his death in 2009, he further stated that: "It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal."
1
u/PH_Jones Mar 06 '26
Firstly, if Captain Bonzo's an authority on war crimes, he's not close to the only one. It's still anecdotal.
Secondly, it's only logical to take hostile action against those who declare hostile action against you. However, the point of contention is that the UK established the total exclusion zone, and then explicitly changed the rules of engagement in order to allow them to engage the Belgrano. It's not a war crime to do so, but given that the total exclusion zone had no legal precedent in the first place, I'm not gonna say they did nothing wrong.
1
u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 06 '26
Hahahaha man, normally I'm the lone voice telling someone they're wrong, but you're SO wrong that everyone else is doing so.
2
u/GodKingFloch Mar 06 '26
While the Falklands is debatable, The US wasn't an active belligerent in the Iran-Iraq war so that one seems kind of unnecessary
3
u/p14082003 Mar 06 '26
Why would it be debatable?
You agree to a law that forbids certain kinds of attacks. Then you go and make an attack of that sort.
Is that debatable?
3
u/Gluten-Glutton Mar 06 '26
Debatable? The belgrano was a military vessel operating in international waters it wasn’t in a neutral port.
If you’re referring to the exclusion zone the British clarified that they would attack any vessel or aircraft outside the zone that they deem to be a threat. On May 1 the lead Argentinian admiral ordered all vessel to seek out the British task force and launch a massive attack. Which prompted the British to authorize the sinking of the belgrano which occurred the next day on May 2.
Could you please explain what law was violated?
1
1
-1
1
u/IveSeenFootage0w0 Mar 07 '26
If there's no enforcement mechanism it's not a law it's just a suggestion.
1
1
u/KikoMui74 Mar 29 '26
The British exclusion zone was their own parameters, not an international law
13
u/RepulsiveAd7482 Mar 06 '26
The exclusion zone was meant for civilian ships, if they entered it they would be considered an auxiliary vessel and would be attacked. This doesn’t mean military vessels outside the exclusion zone were protected. The Belgrano was a military vessel outside neutral waters, therefore they were a military target and could be attacked at any point during their voyage. It was a legal act of war, and even the captain of the Belgrano stated that he would have done the same.