Margaret Thatcher

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Margaret Thatcher

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 100 of 126 < 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 >

Kermit8 Hevon 15 Apr 13 1.14pm
Interesting fact about the Belgrano: She survived the Japanese onslaught at Pearl Harbour when part of the US Navy. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 15 Apr 13 1.14pm

Interesting fact about the Belgrano:

She survived the Japanese onslaught at Pearl Harbour when part of the US Navy.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 15 Apr 13 1.24pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 1.12pm The United Nations went to war in Korea, not the US or UK. No one 'fights' for the United Nations......I know you can't really understand this as you're opposed to flags and nationalism. I can't imagine if you were engaged in staffing an army upon those lines you'd get very far. In the army you fight for your mates, unit, regiment and general and by proxy your nation. We went in under the UN but that's just a collective term. We fought in the same WW2 fashion. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Apr 2013 1.27pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

15 Apr 13 1.24pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 1.12pm

The United Nations went to war in Korea, not the US or UK.

No one 'fights' for the United Nations......I know you can't really understand this as you're opposed to flags and nationalism.

I can't imagine if you were engaged in staffing an army upon those lines you'd get very far.

In the army you fight for your mates, unit, regiment and general and by proxy your nation.

We went in under the UN but that's just a collective term. We fought in the same WW2 fashion.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Apr 2013 1.27pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 15 Apr 13 1.38pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 15 Apr 2013 1.24pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 1.12pm The United Nations went to war in Korea, not the US or UK. No one 'fights' for the United Nations......I know you can't really understand this as you're opposed to flags and nationalism. I can't imagine if you were engaged in staffing an army upon those lines you'd get very far. In the army you fight for your mates, unit, regiment and general and by proxy your nation. We went in under the UN but that's just a collective term. We fought in the same WW2 fashion. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Apr 2013 1.27pm) Thats not what you were suggesting, the British and US forces (among others) were under UN declaration of war, not as individual nation states. Its more than just the collective term, its the legal ratification by which they could intervene. The British army commits troops to UN peace keeping operations around the world. It would be absurd to say they are thus occupying nations on behalf of the United Kingdom, US and pakistan etc. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 15 Apr 13 1.38pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 15 Apr 2013 1.24pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 1.12pm

The United Nations went to war in Korea, not the US or UK.

No one 'fights' for the United Nations......I know you can't really understand this as you're opposed to flags and nationalism.

I can't imagine if you were engaged in staffing an army upon those lines you'd get very far.

In the army you fight for your mates, unit, regiment and general and by proxy your nation.

We went in under the UN but that's just a collective term. We fought in the same WW2 fashion.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Apr 2013 1.27pm)

Thats not what you were suggesting, the British and US forces (among others) were under UN declaration of war, not as individual nation states. Its more than just the collective term, its the legal ratification by which they could intervene.

The British army commits troops to UN peace keeping operations around the world. It would be absurd to say they are thus occupying nations on behalf of the United Kingdom, US and pakistan etc.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 15 Apr 13 1.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 1.38pm Thats not what you were suggesting, the British and US forces (among others) were under UN declaration of war, not as individual nation states. Its more than just the collective term, its the legal ratification by which they could intervene. The British army commits troops to UN peace keeping operations around the world. It would be absurd to say they are thus occupying nations on behalf of the United Kingdom, US and pakistan etc. As I stated the fighters were Koreans, China, America and the UK. Maybe you should look at the list of combatants on the wiki page. [Link] The 'UN' is just a collective term operating under a rule base. It's basically a human rights convention that the US bleeding pay for. Counties commit troops to the 'UN' not because the UN is in control of those troops....They don't give them away. They are still American troops, they are still British troops. They are being paid for by their nations. To go back to my point. The use of the words 'war' or 'conflict' means little in reality. It's a legal definition which only really applies in practice to the scale of the conflict.....For all intents and purposes it's a war within the conflict zone. In practice the US and the UK ended up being at war with China in Korea....But not outside it. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Apr 2013 1.56pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

15 Apr 13 1.52pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 1.38pm

The British army commits troops to UN peace keeping operations around the world. It would be absurd to say they are thus occupying nations on behalf of the United Kingdom, US and pakistan etc.

As I stated the fighters were Koreans, China, America and the UK.

Maybe you should look at the list of combatants on the wiki page.
[Link]

The 'UN' is just a collective term operating under a rule base. It's basically a human rights convention that the US bleeding pay for.

Counties commit troops to the 'UN' not because the UN is in control of those troops....They don't give them away. They are still American troops, they are still British troops.

They are being paid for by their nations.

To go back to my point. The use of the words 'war' or 'conflict' means little in reality. It's a legal definition which only really applies in practice to the scale of the conflict.....For all intents and purposes it's a war within the conflict zone.

In practice the US and the UK ended up being at war with China in Korea....But not outside it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Apr 2013 1.56pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

corkery Cork City 15 Apr 13 3.07pm
Not sure if you'll be able to see this but there was a party before Cliftonville won the league on the weekend. [Link] width="720" height="1280" frameborder="0 We'll never die
Alert a moderator to this post

corkery

Cork City 15 Apr 13 3.07pm

Not sure if you'll be able to see this but there was a party before Cliftonville won the league on the weekend.

[Link] width="720" height="1280" frameborder="0

We'll never die

Alert a moderator to this post

Moose In the sewer pipe... 15 Apr 13 3.37pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 11.30am Quote Plane at 15 Apr 2013 9.50am Quote Ouzo Dan at 15 Apr 2013 8.51am f*** the belgrano, it was an enemy vessel, when at war you kill the enemy. I would have been disgusted if Thatcher hadn't given the order to sink it. ...Is the correct answer. Is the wrong answer - IT WAS NOT A WAR - The UK specifcally declined a declaration of war that was its right, under UN agreement on soverign nations which we signed and help draft. It was thus designated a conflict with an exclusion zone. It would be a crime to attack any vessel outside of the exlcusion zone. Tactically, of course it was the right military decision to sink the Belgrano, but that doesn't mean there isn't a case to answer. Much like its tactically astute to utilise black operations against your enemy's - doesn't prevent it being murder. I agree with her decision, but it was technically a 'war crime' and she should have been investigated for it, and potentially faced trial if there was a case to be answered. Call me silly, but I can't understand why, when the Argentinians involved in the conflict are happy to admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, so many British are still making a massive deal about it. Sorry for all the Wiki copy / pasting: Captain Bonzo, Captain of the Belgrano, wrote his memories about the sinking in the book "1093 Tripulantes del Crucero ARA General Belgrano", published in 1992. In this book he wrote that it is "improper to accept that the attack by HMS Conqueror was a treason". During an interview in 2003 he had stated that the General Belgrano was only temporarily sailing to the west at the time of the attack, and his orders were to attack any British ships which came within range of cruiser's armament. In August 1994, an official Argentine Defence Ministry report written by armed forces auditor Eugenio Miari was released which described the sinking of the Belgrano as "a legal act of war", explaining that "acts of war can be carried out in all of the enemy's territory" and "they can also take place in those areas over which no state can claim sovereignty, in international waters." La Nación published a reader's letter from Admiral Enrique Molina Pico (head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s) in 2005 in which Pico wrote that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, but was holding off for tactical reasons. Pico added that "To leave the exclusion zone was not to leave the combat zone to enter a protected area". Methinks if it hadn't been Thatcher who had given the order, the brouhaha might never have been so great... Goodness is what you do. Not who you pray to.
Alert a moderator to this post

Moose

In the sewer pipe... 15 Apr 13 3.37pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 11.30am

Quote Plane at 15 Apr 2013 9.50am

Quote Ouzo Dan at 15 Apr 2013 8.51am

f*** the belgrano, it was an enemy vessel, when at war you kill the enemy.

I would have been disgusted if Thatcher hadn't given the order to sink it.

...Is the correct answer.

Is the wrong answer - IT WAS NOT A WAR - The UK specifcally declined a declaration of war that was its right, under UN agreement on soverign nations which we signed and help draft.

It was thus designated a conflict with an exclusion zone. It would be a crime to attack any vessel outside of the exlcusion zone.

Tactically, of course it was the right military decision to sink the Belgrano, but that doesn't mean there isn't a case to answer. Much like its tactically astute to utilise black operations against your enemy's - doesn't prevent it being murder.

I agree with her decision, but it was technically a 'war crime' and she should have been investigated for it, and potentially faced trial if there was a case to be answered.

Call me silly, but I can't understand why, when the Argentinians involved in the conflict are happy to admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, so many British are still making a massive deal about it. Sorry for all the Wiki copy / pasting:

Captain Bonzo, Captain of the Belgrano, wrote his memories about the sinking in the book "1093 Tripulantes del Crucero ARA General Belgrano", published in 1992. In this book he wrote that it is "improper to accept that the attack by HMS Conqueror was a treason". During an interview in 2003 he had stated that the General Belgrano was only temporarily sailing to the west at the time of the attack, and his orders were to attack any British ships which came within range of cruiser's armament.

In August 1994, an official Argentine Defence Ministry report written by armed forces auditor Eugenio Miari was released which described the sinking of the Belgrano as "a legal act of war", explaining that "acts of war can be carried out in all of the enemy's territory" and "they can also take place in those areas over which no state can claim sovereignty, in international waters."

La Nación published a reader's letter from Admiral Enrique Molina Pico (head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s) in 2005 in which Pico wrote that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, but was holding off for tactical reasons. Pico added that "To leave the exclusion zone was not to leave the combat zone to enter a protected area".

Methinks if it hadn't been Thatcher who had given the order, the brouhaha might never have been so great...

Goodness is what you do. Not who you pray to.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 15 Apr 13 3.52pm
We have had so many years of accusations and exclamations of illegality and 'war crimes' waffle over this action. All of them were talking nonsense. It's a practice so many of them are well versed in. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

15 Apr 13 3.52pm

We have had so many years of accusations and exclamations of illegality and 'war crimes' waffle over this action.

All of them were talking nonsense.

It's a practice so many of them are well versed in.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

SloveniaDave Tirana, Albania 15 Apr 13 4.08pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 1.09pm Quote SloveniaDave at 15 Apr 2013 12.19pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 11.30am Quote Plane at 15 Apr 2013 9.50am Quote Ouzo Dan at 15 Apr 2013 8.51am f* the belgrano, it was an enemy vessel, when at war you kill the enemy. I would have been disgusted if Thatcher hadn't given the order to sink it. ...Is the correct answer. Is the wrong answer - IT WAS NOT A WAR - The UK specifcally declined a declaration of war that was its right, under UN agreement on soverign nations which we signed and help draft. It was thus designated a conflict with an exclusion zone. It would be a crime to attack any vessel outside of the exlcusion zone. Tactically, of course it was the right military decision to sink the Belgrano, but that doesn't mean there isn't a case to answer. Much like its tactically astute to utilise black operations against your enemy's - doesn't prevent it being murder. I agree with her decision, but it was technically a 'war crime' and she should have been investigated for it, and potentially faced trial if there was a case to be answered. I do not see that there was any crime - even a 'technical' one. As you say, there was a case to answer, but that has been done since it is accepted that the Belgrano was a threat. The establishment of an exclusion zone was just one declaration made and at the time almost without precedent, certainly in naval conflicts, and there were no 'rules' about how it should be applied. It was imposed to make it very clear that ANY ship within the zone would automatically be considered hostile and subject to possible attack. But the creation of an exclusion zone did not prevent us from taking action outside of it, as we clearly stated we would, if we believed our fleet to be in danger. It was not therefore automatically a crime to engage outside of that zone, provided a threat was perceived. When I say 'war crime' I mean a potential war crime. That we stated something, doesn't necessarily mean that we had legal right - Thats for an independent body to ascertain, not a single nation by its own words. The problem is by not addressing the case, that remains a legal limbo. What constitutes a 'viable threat' - Is a ship you've been tailing in and out the zone all day a threat, if it hasn't engaged? Etc. The idea that a legal status can be simply confirmed by the statement of the accused is absurd,** and a crime can be committed even if the accused believes they are responding correctly. UK law is built on precident. The failure of the Government to address international concerns regarding the legality of the sinking of the Belgrano is a failure of the country to engage in jts responsibilities to international law. I agree, but it is also absurd to subject every military act to a legal action, especially when there is no substantive case to answer. Once the true facts were known, no one other than ambulance-chasing lawyers have thought fit to pursue it. Serious international concerns have been addressed and satisfied. Its suits many agendas (anti-thatcher, anti-war, anti-imperialist etc.) to try to make something of the sinking but there really is no case to answer. Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand! My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right. (Member of the School of Optimism 1969-2016 inclusive)
Alert a moderator to this post

SloveniaDave

Tirana, Albania 15 Apr 13 4.08pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 1.09pm

Quote SloveniaDave at 15 Apr 2013 12.19pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 11.30am

Quote Plane at 15 Apr 2013 9.50am

Quote Ouzo Dan at 15 Apr 2013 8.51am

f*** the belgrano, it was an enemy vessel, when at war you kill the enemy.

I would have been disgusted if Thatcher hadn't given the order to sink it.

...Is the correct answer.

Is the wrong answer - IT WAS NOT A WAR - The UK specifcally declined a declaration of war that was its right, under UN agreement on soverign nations which we signed and help draft.

It was thus designated a conflict with an exclusion zone. It would be a crime to attack any vessel outside of the exlcusion zone.

I agree with her decision, but it was technically a 'war crime' and she should have been investigated for it, and potentially faced trial if there was a case to be answered.

I do not see that there was any crime - even a 'technical' one. As you say, there was a case to answer, but that has been done since it is accepted that the Belgrano was a threat.

The establishment of an exclusion zone was just one declaration made and at the time almost without precedent, certainly in naval conflicts, and there were no 'rules' about how it should be applied. It was imposed to make it very clear that ANY ship within the zone would automatically be considered hostile and subject to possible attack.

But the creation of an exclusion zone did not prevent us from taking action outside of it, as we clearly stated we would, if we believed our fleet to be in danger. It was not therefore automatically a crime to engage outside of that zone, provided a threat was perceived.

When I say 'war crime' I mean a potential war crime. That we stated something, doesn't necessarily mean that we had legal right - Thats for an independent body to ascertain, not a single nation by its own words.

The problem is by not addressing the case, that remains a legal limbo. What constitutes a 'viable threat' - Is a ship you've been tailing in and out the zone all day a threat, if it hasn't engaged? Etc.

The idea that a legal status can be simply confirmed by the statement of the accused is absurd, and a crime can be committed even if the accused believes they are responding correctly.

UK law is built on precident. The failure of the Government to address international concerns regarding the legality of the sinking of the Belgrano is a failure of the country to engage in jts responsibilities to international law.

I agree, but it is also absurd to subject every military act to a legal action, especially when there is no substantive case to answer. Once the true facts were known, no one other than ambulance-chasing lawyers have thought fit to pursue it. Serious international concerns have been addressed and satisfied.

Its suits many agendas (anti-thatcher, anti-war, anti-imperialist etc.) to try to make something of the sinking but there really is no case to answer.

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!

My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.

(Member of the School of Optimism 1969-2016 inclusive)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 15 Apr 13 4.13pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 15 Apr 2013 3.52pm We have had so many years of accusations and exclamations of illegality and 'war crimes' waffle over this action. All of them were talking nonsense. It's a practice so many of them are well versed in. Its why a proper investgation/hearing/enquiry was required. I'm assuming there was a reason why the submarine commander required prime ministerial clearence to fire, rather than just that of his immediate superiors. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 15 Apr 13 4.13pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 15 Apr 2013 3.52pm

We have had so many years of accusations and exclamations of illegality and 'war crimes' waffle over this action.

All of them were talking nonsense.

It's a practice so many of them are well versed in.

Its why a proper investgation/hearing/enquiry was required. I'm assuming there was a reason why the submarine commander required prime ministerial clearence to fire, rather than just that of his immediate superiors.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 15 Apr 13 5.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 4.13pm Quote Stirlingsays at 15 Apr 2013 3.52pm We have had so many years of accusations and exclamations of illegality and 'war crimes' waffle over this action. All of them were talking nonsense. It's a practice so many of them are well versed in. Its why a proper investgation/hearing/enquiry was required. I'm assuming there was a reason why the submarine commander required prime ministerial clearence to fire, rather than just that of his immediate superiors. You state this as though PMs haven't been asked about attacks for hundreds of years during wars. There was a question of whether the vessel was a threat. The decision was taken the vessel sunk. It was an action during conflict/war. This wasn't a civilian ship. Nonsense has been talked about this for decades. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Apr 2013 5.11pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

15 Apr 13 5.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 4.13pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 15 Apr 2013 3.52pm

We have had so many years of accusations and exclamations of illegality and 'war crimes' waffle over this action.

All of them were talking nonsense.

It's a practice so many of them are well versed in.

You state this as though PMs haven't been asked about attacks for hundreds of years during wars.

There was a question of whether the vessel was a threat. The decision was taken the vessel sunk.

It was an action during conflict/war. This wasn't a civilian ship.

Nonsense has been talked about this for decades.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Apr 2013 5.11pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 15 Apr 13 6.21pm
Apparently Big Ben is to be silenced during HER funeral.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 15 Apr 13 6.21pm

Apparently Big Ben is to be silenced during HER funeral.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 15 Apr 13 6.32pm
Quote nickgusset at 15 Apr 2013 6.21pm Apparently Big Ben is to be silenced during HER funeral. yeah but only cos the police found out it was gonna be retuned to 'Ding Dong...' Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 15 Apr 13 6.32pm

Quote nickgusset at 15 Apr 2013 6.21pm

Apparently Big Ben is to be silenced during HER funeral.

yeah but only cos the police found out it was gonna be retuned to 'Ding Dong...'

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 100 of 126 < 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Margaret Thatcher

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors