www.ditl.org

You know her decision to fire on the Sycorax ship as it retreated was meant to be a criticism of Margaret Thatcher's decision to sink the Belgrano as it retreated during the Falkland's war?

Captain Seafort wrote:

Blackstar the Chakat wrote:Well, they were reborn once or twice. Once using humans I think, and now with this Darvos dude, and whatever time you're mentioning.

I'm not talking about the race being rebuilt from near extinction - I'm talking about the original creation of the Daleks. By Davros.

Isn't that the new freaky dude who rebuilt the species?

Yeah. Davros invented the Daleks originally, many years ago. Sarah Jane and the Doctor were there at the time.

You know her decision to fire on the Sycorax ship as it retreated was meant to be a criticism of Margaret Thatcher's decision to sink the Belgrano as it retreated during the Falkland's war?

Hm, didn't know that. Though I can see it now that you've mentioned it.

Didn't the Captain of the Belgrano later testify that the attack on the ship was legitimate?

GrahamKennedy wrote:You know her decision to fire on the Sycorax ship as it retreated was meant to be a criticism of Margaret Thatcher's decision to sink the Belgrano as it retreated during the Falkland's war?

No, I did not know that.

...

The Falkland's War?!!??? Wasn't that in the 1980's? The early 1980's? That's... why? I am legit confused here...

GrahamKennedy wrote:You know her decision to fire on the Sycorax ship as it retreated was meant to be a criticism of Margaret Thatcher's decision to sink the Belgrano as it retreated during the Falkland's war?

That's something I've never understood - how is blowing up a ship that's surrendered and in retreat a criticism of sinking a ship that's prowling around waiting to launch a coordinated attack on your fleet?

Yup, destroying the Sycorate ship was meant as a warning, and a demonstration to other alien races that the Earth will defend itself.

The Belgrano, regardless of the direction it was sailing in, was a threat to the British fleet.

Saying that the sinking of Belgrano is even remotely controversial simply shows an ignorance of reality. Whatever direction it was heading in is irrelevant; within sixty seconds or so it could be heading in any direction it wanted. As it happens it was not "retreating" anyway, in the sense of giving up the fight. It was going to a holding area to await further orders.

But the real kicker is that there seems to be some unspoken assumption that you shouldn't fire on retreating forces. There's nothing whatsoever in the rules of war to forbid that. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to do to fire on a retreating enemy, and it has been done in virtually every conflict in history. I think people get confused between a retreating enemy and a surrendering enemy. A retreating enemy is still armed, still a combatant. If his nation is not defeated then he is retreating to a place where he will recuperate and return to the battle.

If the Belgrano had run up the white flag and surrendered, it would be an issue. It did not. It was a perfectly legitimate target. And yes it's a great tragedy that 320 men were killed, but you know what? If you don't want your sailors to die, don't invade my bloody country.

I am still trying to figure out why it was a bad thing for Jones to blow up the ship. Sometimes I really wanna punch the Doctor with brass knucks.

In the Sycorax case I can see his point. They effectively HAD surrendered when the Doctor won his sword fight. He'd negotiated an apparently permanent end to hostilities at the very least, and while I'm sure she was under no obligation to accept the deal he'd brokered from a legal point of view, it's hard to argue that she was morally right to continue hostilities under those circumstances.

Completely different from the Belgrano case.

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:You know her decision to fire on the Sycorax ship as it retreated was meant to be a criticism of Margaret Thatcher's decision to sink the Belgrano as it retreated during the Falkland's war?

No, I did not know that.

...

The Falkland's War?!!??? Wasn't that in the 1980's? The early 1980's? That's... why? I am legit confused here...

What is this Falkland war? I never heard about it until I saw people on this site talking about it, and I thought it was just one of the more famous wars that happened a few hundred years ago that the British seemed to get in, since they seemed to fight just about everyone in the past. So what was the war about, and where is Falkland?

As far as I can recall, Blackstar, it was between Argentina and Great Britain, like I said, back in the first half of the 1980's. Beyond that... not sure, sorry.

Blackstar the Chakat wrote:

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:You know her decision to fire on the Sycorax ship as it retreated was meant to be a criticism of Margaret Thatcher's decision to sink the Belgrano as it retreated during the Falkland's war?

No, I did not know that.

...

The Falkland's War?!!??? Wasn't that in the 1980's? The early 1980's? That's... why? I am legit confused here...

What is this Falkland war? I never heard about it until I saw people on this site talking about it, and I thought it was just one of the more famous wars that happened a few hundred years ago that the British seemed to get in, since they seemed to fight just about everyone in the past. So what was the war about, and where is Falkland?

The Falkland islands are a group of islands a couple of hundred miles off the coast of Argentina. Both Britain and Argentina have claimed ownership of them for hundreds of years, but everyone actually living there is British, and that's the way it has been for a very long time.

In 1982 an unpopular Argentine government invaded the islands, which were very little defended, to boost their popularity, which it did. They expected the British wouldn't care all that much because only a few hundred people live there and it's 7000 miles from mainland Britain.

They counted without Margaret Thatcher. She ordered most of the Royal Navy to assemble in a giant task force and sent them south. The British equipment was not really designed for this kind of operation, but we went ahead anyway. One of the first major actions of the war was the sinking of an Argentine cruiser, the Belgrano, with great loss of life. Their entire navy basically gave up after that. They sank quite a few of our ships with aircraft, but we pressed on and landed troops on the islands.

Our troops were outnumbered and low on equipment - the ship carrying most of the helicopters was sunk so the soldiers had to walk everywhere for instance. But our were proper professional soldiers, up against conscripts who for the most part didn't especially want to be there. After a series of savage battles we wore them down, and recaptured the islands. They remain British to this day.

It was notable for being one of the first times a war was fought in which both sides had quite modern equipment. Many very important lessons were learned from it.

So why did you go to war over a couple of islands thousands of miles away? They don't seem to provide any tactical advantage or at least that's the impression I get from that they were poorly defended.