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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 103 of 126 < 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 >

Kermit8 Hevon 16 Apr 13 10.06am
Quote DanH at 16 Apr 2013 9.17am Quote gambler at 16 Apr 2013 8.56am Quote Penge Eagle at 16 Apr 2013 12.02am So Nick, are you "profiteering" out of this then??? I'm sorry Nick, but how can anyone take you seriously if you don't practice what you preach. Your views are utterly irrelevant. Plus you cannot back up in your own words the countless links to left wing propaganda when challenged. It's all becoming a bit of a joke now. Absolute rubbish. So cos he didnt agree with thatchers/tory policy, he shouldn't buy his own home, or at the very least an ex council house? What nonsense. His views are "irrelevant"?! Why cos they're not the same as yours?! You can disagree with policies but you still have to live your life after they are implemented. Penge has a weird thing about "practicing what you preach" in that he believes if you are remotely left wing you should give anything above the median wage you earn away, not profit from anything in the slightest and live life like a communist. He's turned into a comedy frothing Tory from the 80's somehow in the last few years on here. A Spitting Image like puppet. Very entertaining tho'. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 16 Apr 13 10.06am

Quote DanH at 16 Apr 2013 9.17am

Quote gambler at 16 Apr 2013 8.56am

Quote Penge Eagle at 16 Apr 2013 12.02am

So Nick, are you "profiteering" out of this then???

I'm sorry Nick, but how can anyone take you seriously if you don't practice what you preach. Your views are utterly irrelevant.

Plus you cannot back up in your own words the countless links to left wing propaganda when challenged. It's all becoming a bit of a joke now.

Absolute rubbish.
So cos he didnt agree with thatchers/tory policy, he shouldn't buy his own home, or at the very least an ex council house?
What nonsense.
His views are "irrelevant"?! Why cos they're not the same as yours?!
You can disagree with policies but you still have to live your life after they are implemented.

Penge has a weird thing about "practicing what you preach" in that he believes if you are remotely left wing you should give anything above the median wage you earn away, not profit from anything in the slightest and live life like a communist.

He's turned into a comedy frothing Tory from the 80's somehow in the last few years on here. A Spitting Image like puppet. Very entertaining tho'.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Moose In the sewer pipe... 16 Apr 13 10.16am
Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings. Are you suggesting these people didn't say the things attributed to them? Wiki may not be the fount of all knowledge but the article on there is not biased in my view. If you want me to find another dozen reference points for my argument I'm sure I can, but how about arguing your point rather than belittling others? Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am And Mr Stirlings point that no-one fights for the UN HMMM! My father represented the UN during the Congo crisis of 1961, one of a hotch-potch of soldiers from non aligned countries that were sent to establish a peace in central Africa. 'Fighting to keep the peace may be a contradiction but so is an army that refuses to defend itself or civilians....as per Srebenica where Dutch UN soldiers basically stood aside when 700 muslim men and boys were massacred. My fathers UN force were told that they could not fire unless fired upon......and then they were fired on. So they fought back to prevent the civilian population they were serving from being wiped out. It ended up in a 5 day continuous siege (no sleep) and was only ended by a brokered ceasefire when Dag Hammerskjold's plane got shot down. My father was then a POW for 5.5 weeks. During that time they were informed by amnesty international that a suspected 'war crime' had been committed against the Kantanganese army by a group of Indian UN personnel where they allegedly captured three of the soldiers (all boy soldiers) that had 'allegedly' killed one of their brothers' breaking their limbs then throwing them off the 4-storey PO building in Elizabethville....leaving them 3 days to die. My father (who was 17 cos he forged his birth certificate) and the 200 or so others that were imprisoned at the time realised that this put them in incredible danger as an atrocity committed by one side is equally likely to be committed by the other - which in the case of the Congo included male rape and cannibalism - THAT'S WHY THE GENEVA CONVENTION WAS SET UP. In my fathers case they were told they would be shot dead by firing squad. The leaders of the UN and Amnesty pleaded with the Katangan secession leaders (Moise Tshombie) that it was a rogue element that allegedly committed the war crime and would be dealt with by military tribunal - Tshombie eventually backed down as he wanted future international recognition for his Katangan state. I have researched this conflict and indeed WW1 extensively and have indeed written a book about it, interviewing many of those who were caught up in the active service for the UN, also questioning them about the alleged war crime by the Indian UN personnel...nb.its actually quite difficult to find soldiers who have genuinely been involved in active service as it is estimated that only one in 28 sent off to theatres of war actually engages in combat (it was 1 in 23 in the Korean war) And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am The answers I received and my point is that a war crime or atrocity puts the soldiers at risk and that is why I question Thatcher's rationale and reason for an alleged atrocity as she put British soldiers lives at more risk and arguably extended the war. Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am When Thatcher was alive it was impossible to bring her to an international court, the UK would just never have allowed it but now that she is dead I think it appropriate that there is an independent judicial review. I am reasonably convinced (85% which is about as sure as you can be in law) that she would be found guilty....and that compensation should be paid to the victims families. Lastly can I just re-iterate that I supported the Falklands war, and was as relieved as anyone when the Falklands were reclaimed, but I will never support a war crime or an atrocity....and although some Holmesdale front or armchair generals may support them I can assure you that any sane soldier sent on active service prays that both sides upholds the Geneva convention. And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK! Goodness is what you do. Not who you pray to.
Alert a moderator to this post

Moose

In the sewer pipe... 16 Apr 13 10.16am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am

I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings.

Are you suggesting these people didn't say the things attributed to them? Wiki may not be the fount of all knowledge but the article on there is not biased in my view. If you want me to find another dozen reference points for my argument I'm sure I can, but how about arguing your point rather than belittling others?

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am
And Mr Stirlings point that no-one fights for the UN HMMM! My father represented the UN during the Congo crisis of 1961, one of a hotch-potch of soldiers from non aligned countries that were sent to establish a peace in central Africa. 'Fighting to keep the peace may be a contradiction but so is an army that refuses to defend itself or civilians....as per Srebenica where Dutch UN soldiers basically stood aside when 700 muslim men and boys were massacred. My fathers UN force were told that they could not fire unless fired upon......and then they were fired on. So they fought back to prevent the civilian population they were serving from being wiped out. It ended up in a 5 day continuous siege (no sleep) and was only ended by a brokered ceasefire when Dag Hammerskjold's plane got shot down. My father was then a POW for 5.5 weeks. During that time they were informed by amnesty international that a suspected 'war crime' had been committed against the Kantanganese army by a group of Indian UN personnel where they allegedly captured three of the soldiers (all boy soldiers) that had 'allegedly' killed one of their brothers' breaking their limbs then throwing them off the 4-storey PO building in Elizabethville....leaving them 3 days to die. My father (who was 17 cos he forged his birth certificate) and the 200 or so others that were imprisoned at the time realised that this put them in incredible danger as an atrocity committed by one side is equally likely to be committed by the other - which in the case of the Congo included male rape and cannibalism - THAT'S WHY THE GENEVA CONVENTION WAS SET UP. In my fathers case they were told they would be shot dead by firing squad. The leaders of the UN and Amnesty pleaded with the Katangan secession leaders (Moise Tshombie) that it was a rogue element that allegedly committed the war crime and would be dealt with by military tribunal - Tshombie eventually backed down as he wanted future international recognition for his Katangan state. I have researched this conflict and indeed WW1 extensively and have indeed written a book about it, interviewing many of those who were caught up in the active service for the UN, also questioning them about the alleged war crime by the Indian UN personnel...nb.its actually quite difficult to find soldiers who have genuinely been involved in active service as it is estimated that only one in 28 sent off to theatres of war actually engages in combat (it was 1 in 23 in the Korean war)

And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though.

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am
The answers I received and my point is that a war crime or atrocity puts the soldiers at risk and that is why I question Thatcher's rationale and reason for an alleged atrocity as she put British soldiers lives at more risk and arguably extended the war.

Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties.

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am
When Thatcher was alive it was impossible to bring her to an international court, the UK would just never have allowed it but now that she is dead I think it appropriate that there is an independent judicial review. I am reasonably convinced (85% which is about as sure as you can be in law) that she would be found guilty....and that compensation should be paid to the victims families. Lastly can I just re-iterate that I supported the Falklands war, and was as relieved as anyone when the Falklands were reclaimed, but I will never support a war crime or an atrocity....and although some Holmesdale front or armchair generals may support them I can assure you that any sane soldier sent on active service prays that both sides upholds the Geneva convention.

And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK!

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

Alert a moderator to this post

JohnyBoy 16 Apr 13 10.29am
Quote Stirlingsays at 16 Apr 2013 9.11am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am And Mr Stirlings point that no-one fights for the UN HMMM! My father represented the UN during the Congo crisis of 1961, one of a hotch-potch of soldiers from non aligned countries that were sent to establish a peace in central Africa. Well, maybe your father saw himself as 'fighting' for the UN but he's more the exception than the rule. My family is closely connected to the military since WW2, specifically the 17/21 Lancers before they became apart of the Royal Armoured core. It's been the norm for males down two of our family lines to join up... usually since the seventies choosing that regiment, which one of my uncles was in during WW2. My eyesight was the only thing that kept me out of it. My older brother has been on several peace keeping missions and I can ensure you.....It's the same as it ever was. He and his unit regard themselves as very much British soldiers not UN soldiers as such...It's a role they are performing. What they are doing is fulfilling a commitment made by their government....Their paymasters. The structure is the same, your commanders at unit level are the same....The UN are a political/human rights institution....I know those lefties who hate nationalism or flag waving don't like it but the reality is that no one 'fights' for the UN.....Your frigging 'peacekeeping soldiers' are paid by their own Governments...Well, the western ones are. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Apr 2013 9.21am) I think you will find that all soldiers seconded to the UN represent the UN and not their national governments. They continue to be paid their standard wages + an incentive for overseas duty by their own armies and are most often kept in their companies from which they came from. But the rest of the costs, logistics ETC are paid for by the UN (about 80% funded by the US). However, they are often put on joint patrols, re-organised into joint units mainly for support operations and are explicitly under the control of a UN appointed commander and representative to whom all serving soldiers report to. nb 2400 UN soldiers have been killed in action since WW2......AND I QUOTE While the term "peacekeeping" is not found in the United Nations Charter, Dag Hammarskjöld, the second UN Secretary-General, found a way to define it within the framework of the Charter, saying that peacekeeping falls under “Chapter VI and a half” of the Charter, somewhere between traditional methods of resolving disputes peacefully (outlined in Chapter VI), on the one hand, and more forceful, less “consent-based” action (Chapter VII), on the other. Over the years, UN peacekeeping has evolved to meet the demands of different conflicts and a changing global political landscape.
Alert a moderator to this post

JohnyBoy

16 Apr 13 10.29am

Quote Stirlingsays at 16 Apr 2013 9.11am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am

And Mr Stirlings point that no-one fights for the UN HMMM! My father represented the UN during the Congo crisis of 1961, one of a hotch-potch of soldiers from non aligned countries that were sent to establish a peace in central Africa.

Well, maybe your father saw himself as 'fighting' for the UN but he's more the exception than the rule.

My family is closely connected to the military since WW2, specifically the 17/21 Lancers before they became apart of the Royal Armoured core. It's been the norm for males down two of our family lines to join up... usually since the seventies choosing that regiment, which one of my uncles was in during WW2. My eyesight was the only thing that kept me out of it.

My older brother has been on several peace keeping missions and I can ensure you.....It's the same as it ever was. He and his unit regard themselves as very much British soldiers not UN soldiers as such...It's a role they are performing. What they are doing is fulfilling a commitment made by their government....Their paymasters.

The structure is the same, your commanders at unit level are the same....The UN are a political/human rights institution....I know those lefties who hate nationalism or flag waving don't like it but the reality is that no one 'fights' for the UN.....Your frigging 'peacekeeping soldiers' are paid by their own Governments...Well, the western ones are.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Apr 2013 9.21am)

I think you will find that all soldiers seconded to the UN represent the UN and not their national governments. They continue to be paid their standard wages + an incentive for overseas duty by their own armies and are most often kept in their companies from which they came from. But the rest of the costs, logistics ETC are paid for by the UN (about 80% funded by the US). However, they are often put on joint patrols, re-organised into joint units mainly for support operations and are explicitly under the control of a UN appointed commander and representative to whom all serving soldiers report to. nb 2400 UN soldiers have been killed in action since WW2......AND I QUOTE
While the term "peacekeeping" is not found in the United Nations Charter, Dag Hammarskjöld, the second UN Secretary-General, found a way to define it within the framework of the Charter, saying that peacekeeping falls under “Chapter VI and a half” of the Charter, somewhere between traditional methods of resolving disputes peacefully (outlined in Chapter VI), on the one hand, and more forceful, less “consent-based” action (Chapter VII), on the other.

Over the years, UN peacekeeping has evolved to meet the demands of different conflicts and a changing global political landscape.

Alert a moderator to this post

JohnyBoy 16 Apr 13 10.35am
Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings. Are you suggesting these people didn't say the things attributed to them? Wiki may not be the fount of all knowledge but the article on there is not biased in my view. If you want me to find another dozen reference points for my argument I'm sure I can, but how about arguing your point rather than belittling others? Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am And Mr Stirlings point that no-one fights for the UN HMMM! My father represented the UN during the Congo crisis of 1961, one of a hotch-potch of soldiers from non aligned countries that were sent to establish a peace in central Africa. 'Fighting to keep the peace may be a contradiction but so is an army that refuses to defend itself or civilians....as per Srebenica where Dutch UN soldiers basically stood aside when 700 muslim men and boys were massacred. My fathers UN force were told that they could not fire unless fired upon......and then they were fired on. So they fought back to prevent the civilian population they were serving from being wiped out. It ended up in a 5 day continuous siege (no sleep) and was only ended by a brokered ceasefire when Dag Hammerskjold's plane got shot down. My father was then a POW for 5.5 weeks. During that time they were informed by amnesty international that a suspected 'war crime' had been committed against the Kantanganese army by a group of Indian UN personnel where they allegedly captured three of the soldiers (all boy soldiers) that had 'allegedly' killed one of their brothers' breaking their limbs then throwing them off the 4-storey PO building in Elizabethville....leaving them 3 days to die. My father (who was 17 cos he forged his birth certificate) and the 200 or so others that were imprisoned at the time realised that this put them in incredible danger as an atrocity committed by one side is equally likely to be committed by the other - which in the case of the Congo included male rape and cannibalism - THAT'S WHY THE GENEVA CONVENTION WAS SET UP. In my fathers case they were told they would be shot dead by firing squad. The leaders of the UN and Amnesty pleaded with the Katangan secession leaders (Moise Tshombie) that it was a rogue element that allegedly committed the war crime and would be dealt with by military tribunal - Tshombie eventually backed down as he wanted future international recognition for his Katangan state. I have researched this conflict and indeed WW1 extensively and have indeed written a book about it, interviewing many of those who were caught up in the active service for the UN, also questioning them about the alleged war crime by the Indian UN personnel...nb.its actually quite difficult to find soldiers who have genuinely been involved in active service as it is estimated that only one in 28 sent off to theatres of war actually engages in combat (it was 1 in 23 in the Korean war) And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am The answers I received and my point is that a war crime or atrocity puts the soldiers at risk and that is why I question Thatcher's rationale and reason for an alleged atrocity as she put British soldiers lives at more risk and arguably extended the war. Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am When Thatcher was alive it was impossible to bring her to an international court, the UK would just never have allowed it but now that she is dead I think it appropriate that there is an independent judicial review. I am reasonably convinced (85% which is about as sure as you can be in law) that she would be found guilty....and that compensation should be paid to the victims families. Lastly can I just re-iterate that I supported the Falklands war, and was as relieved as anyone when the Falklands were reclaimed, but I will never support a war crime or an atrocity....and although some Holmesdale front or armchair generals may support them I can assure you that any sane soldier sent on active service prays that both sides upholds the Geneva convention. And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK! Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry. However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry. ....and I am not a 'leftie' either.
Alert a moderator to this post

JohnyBoy

16 Apr 13 10.35am

Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am

I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings.

And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though.

Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties.

And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK!

Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.
However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry.
....and I am not a 'leftie' either.

Alert a moderator to this post

SloveniaDave Tirana, Albania 16 Apr 13 10.55am
Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings. Are you suggesting these people didn't say the things attributed to them? Wiki may not be the fount of all knowledge but the article on there is not biased in my view. If you want me to find another dozen reference points for my argument I'm sure I can, but how about arguing your point rather than belittling others? Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am And Mr Stirlings point that no-one fights for the UN HMMM! My father represented the UN during the Congo crisis of 1961, one of a hotch-potch of soldiers from non aligned countries that were sent to establish a peace in central Africa. 'Fighting to keep the peace may be a contradiction but so is an army that refuses to defend itself or civilians....as per Srebenica where Dutch UN soldiers basically stood aside when 700 muslim men and boys were massacred. My fathers UN force were told that they could not fire unless fired upon......and then they were fired on. So they fought back to prevent the civilian population they were serving from being wiped out. It ended up in a 5 day continuous siege (no sleep) and was only ended by a brokered ceasefire when Dag Hammerskjold's plane got shot down. My father was then a POW for 5.5 weeks. During that time they were informed by amnesty international that a suspected 'war crime' had been committed against the Kantanganese army by a group of Indian UN personnel where they allegedly captured three of the soldiers (all boy soldiers) that had 'allegedly' killed one of their brothers' breaking their limbs then throwing them off the 4-storey PO building in Elizabethville....leaving them 3 days to die. My father (who was 17 cos he forged his birth certificate) and the 200 or so others that were imprisoned at the time realised that this put them in incredible danger as an atrocity committed by one side is equally likely to be committed by the other - which in the case of the Congo included male rape and cannibalism - THAT'S WHY THE GENEVA CONVENTION WAS SET UP. In my fathers case they were told they would be shot dead by firing squad. The leaders of the UN and Amnesty pleaded with the Katangan secession leaders (Moise Tshombie) that it was a rogue element that allegedly committed the war crime and would be dealt with by military tribunal - Tshombie eventually backed down as he wanted future international recognition for his Katangan state. I have researched this conflict and indeed WW1 extensively and have indeed written a book about it, interviewing many of those who were caught up in the active service for the UN, also questioning them about the alleged war crime by the Indian UN personnel...nb.its actually quite difficult to find soldiers who have genuinely been involved in active service as it is estimated that only one in 28 sent off to theatres of war actually engages in combat (it was 1 in 23 in the Korean war) And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am The answers I received and my point is that a war crime or atrocity puts the soldiers at risk and that is why I question Thatcher's rationale and reason for an alleged atrocity as she put British soldiers lives at more risk and arguably extended the war. Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am When Thatcher was alive it was impossible to bring her to an international court, the UK would just never have allowed it but now that she is dead I think it appropriate that there is an independent judicial review. I am reasonably convinced (85% which is about as sure as you can be in law) that she would be found guilty....and that compensation should be paid to the victims families. Lastly can I just re-iterate that I supported the Falklands war, and was as relieved as anyone when the Falklands were reclaimed, but I will never support a war crime or an atrocity....and although some Holmesdale front or armchair generals may support them I can assure you that any sane soldier sent on active service prays that both sides upholds the Geneva convention. And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK! Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry. ....and I am not a 'leftie' either. No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that. There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer. If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry! 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 16 Apr 13 10.55am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am

Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am

I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings.

And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though.

Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties.

And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK!

Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry.
....and I am not a 'leftie' either.

No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that.

There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer.

If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry!

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

Stirlingsays 16 Apr 13 10.56am
Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.29am I think you will find that all soldiers seconded to the UN represent the UN and not their national governments. They continue to be paid their standard wages + an incentive for overseas duty by their own armies and are most often kept in their companies from which they came from. But the rest of the costs, logistics ETC are paid for by the UN (about 80% funded by the US). However, they are often put on joint patrols, re-organised into joint units mainly for support operations and are explicitly under the control of a UN appointed commander and representative to whom all serving soldiers report to. nb 2400 UN soldiers have been killed in action since WW2......AND I QUOTE While the term "peacekeeping" is not found in the United Nations Charter, Dag Hammarskjöld, the second UN Secretary-General, found a way to define it within the framework of the Charter, saying that peacekeeping falls under “Chapter VI and a half” of the Charter, somewhere between traditional methods of resolving disputes peacefully (outlined in Chapter VI), on the one hand, and more forceful, less “consent-based” action (Chapter VII), on the other. Over the years, UN peacekeeping has evolved to meet the demands of different conflicts and a changing global political landscape. Nothing you've said here really means anything different to what I've said. The world you live in doesn't really understand that soldiers don't fight for the UN. No one joins an army to fight for the UN. That was my point. But that reality doesn't fit your lefty view of the world. I've already stated that the UN is a 'role' that soldiers perform for their governments who make commitments to the UN Chapter....I repeat they are still very much British or American or whatever soldiers fighting where their government tells them. As for the command aspect this is a huge over-egging of the point. Of course there has to be one overall command agreed by the participating nations. But the units themselves are mainly self-contained working within their own structures. As I've said, the governments pay their own soldiers. Saying soldiers 'fight' for the UN is a bit like stating that soldiers fought for the 'Allies' back in WW2. Most soldiers don't think like that. It's an alliance of countries nothing more. '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

16 Apr 13 10.56am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.29am

Over the years, UN peacekeeping has evolved to meet the demands of different conflicts and a changing global political landscape.

Nothing you've said here really means anything different to what I've said.

The world you live in doesn't really understand that soldiers don't fight for the UN. No one joins an army to fight for the UN. That was my point. But that reality doesn't fit your lefty view of the world.

I've already stated that the UN is a 'role' that soldiers perform for their governments who make commitments to the UN Chapter....I repeat they are still very much British or American or whatever soldiers fighting where their government tells them.

As for the command aspect this is a huge over-egging of the point. Of course there has to be one overall command agreed by the participating nations. But the units themselves are mainly self-contained working within their own structures.

As I've said, the governments pay their own soldiers.

Saying soldiers 'fight' for the UN is a bit like stating that soldiers fought for the 'Allies' back in WW2. Most soldiers don't think like that.

It's an alliance of countries nothing more.

'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

JohnyBoy 16 Apr 13 11.14am
Quote SloveniaDave at 16 Apr 2013 10.55am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings. Are you suggesting these people didn't say the things attributed to them? Wiki may not be the fount of all knowledge but the article on there is not biased in my view. If you want me to find another dozen reference points for my argument I'm sure I can, but how about arguing your point rather than belittling others? Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am And Mr Stirlings point that no-one fights for the UN HMMM! My father represented the UN during the Congo crisis of 1961, one of a hotch-potch of soldiers from non aligned countries that were sent to establish a peace in central Africa. 'Fighting to keep the peace may be a contradiction but so is an army that refuses to defend itself or civilians....as per Srebenica where Dutch UN soldiers basically stood aside when 700 muslim men and boys were massacred. My fathers UN force were told that they could not fire unless fired upon......and then they were fired on. So they fought back to prevent the civilian population they were serving from being wiped out. It ended up in a 5 day continuous siege (no sleep) and was only ended by a brokered ceasefire when Dag Hammerskjold's plane got shot down. My father was then a POW for 5.5 weeks. During that time they were informed by amnesty international that a suspected 'war crime' had been committed against the Kantanganese army by a group of Indian UN personnel where they allegedly captured three of the soldiers (all boy soldiers) that had 'allegedly' killed one of their brothers' breaking their limbs then throwing them off the 4-storey PO building in Elizabethville....leaving them 3 days to die. My father (who was 17 cos he forged his birth certificate) and the 200 or so others that were imprisoned at the time realised that this put them in incredible danger as an atrocity committed by one side is equally likely to be committed by the other - which in the case of the Congo included male rape and cannibalism - THAT'S WHY THE GENEVA CONVENTION WAS SET UP. In my fathers case they were told they would be shot dead by firing squad. The leaders of the UN and Amnesty pleaded with the Katangan secession leaders (Moise Tshombie) that it was a rogue element that allegedly committed the war crime and would be dealt with by military tribunal - Tshombie eventually backed down as he wanted future international recognition for his Katangan state. I have researched this conflict and indeed WW1 extensively and have indeed written a book about it, interviewing many of those who were caught up in the active service for the UN, also questioning them about the alleged war crime by the Indian UN personnel...nb.its actually quite difficult to find soldiers who have genuinely been involved in active service as it is estimated that only one in 28 sent off to theatres of war actually engages in combat (it was 1 in 23 in the Korean war) And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am The answers I received and my point is that a war crime or atrocity puts the soldiers at risk and that is why I question Thatcher's rationale and reason for an alleged atrocity as she put British soldiers lives at more risk and arguably extended the war. Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am When Thatcher was alive it was impossible to bring her to an international court, the UK would just never have allowed it but now that she is dead I think it appropriate that there is an independent judicial review. I am reasonably convinced (85% which is about as sure as you can be in law) that she would be found guilty....and that compensation should be paid to the victims families. Lastly can I just re-iterate that I supported the Falklands war, and was as relieved as anyone when the Falklands were reclaimed, but I will never support a war crime or an atrocity....and although some Holmesdale front or armchair generals may support them I can assure you that any sane soldier sent on active service prays that both sides upholds the Geneva convention. And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK! Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry. ....and I am not a 'leftie' either. No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that. There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer. If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry! Actually I am not a lawyer either although I have run into international law quite a bit as part of my book research (which was a hobby I may add)....would the people not benefit at all from an independent public inquiry? Really? Or is it better to sweep things under the carpet and let our 'free press' like the Daily Mail decide what we think? I think most would choose the former. Despite other accusations, can I re-iterate I am not a leftie and supported reclaiming the Falklands - I just want to know the truth, is that really asking too much? Considerable debate ....please! That's like the Nazis debating their own war crimes at Nuremberg and deciding that they didn't have a case to answer! Why don't u want the truth to come out, scared it might tarnish Britains image internationally? I am afraid MT did that already, but this is an opportunity to put it right.
Alert a moderator to this post

JohnyBoy

16 Apr 13 11.14am

Quote SloveniaDave at 16 Apr 2013 10.55am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am

Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am

I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings.

And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though.

Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties.

And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK!

Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry.
....and I am not a 'leftie' either.

No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that.

There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer.

If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry!

Actually I am not a lawyer either although I have run into international law quite a bit as part of my book research (which was a hobby I may add)....would the people not benefit at all from an independent public inquiry? Really? Or is it better to sweep things under the carpet and let our 'free press' like the Daily Mail decide what we think? I think most would choose the former.
Despite other accusations, can I re-iterate I am not a leftie and supported reclaiming the Falklands - I just want to know the truth, is that really asking too much? Considerable debate ....please! That's like the Nazis debating their own war crimes at Nuremberg and deciding that they didn't have a case to answer! Why don't u want the truth to come out, scared it might tarnish Britains image internationally? I am afraid MT did that already, but this is an opportunity to put it right.

Alert a moderator to this post

SloveniaDave Tirana, Albania 16 Apr 13 11.30am
Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 11.14am Quote SloveniaDave at 16 Apr 2013 10.55am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings. Are you suggesting these people didn't say the things attributed to them? Wiki may not be the fount of all knowledge but the article on there is not biased in my view. If you want me to find another dozen reference points for my argument I'm sure I can, but how about arguing your point rather than belittling others? Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am And Mr Stirlings point that no-one fights for the UN HMMM! My father represented the UN during the Congo crisis of 1961, one of a hotch-potch of soldiers from non aligned countries that were sent to establish a peace in central Africa. 'Fighting to keep the peace may be a contradiction but so is an army that refuses to defend itself or civilians....as per Srebenica where Dutch UN soldiers basically stood aside when 700 muslim men and boys were massacred. My fathers UN force were told that they could not fire unless fired upon......and then they were fired on. So they fought back to prevent the civilian population they were serving from being wiped out. It ended up in a 5 day continuous siege (no sleep) and was only ended by a brokered ceasefire when Dag Hammerskjold's plane got shot down. My father was then a POW for 5.5 weeks. During that time they were informed by amnesty international that a suspected 'war crime' had been committed against the Kantanganese army by a group of Indian UN personnel where they allegedly captured three of the soldiers (all boy soldiers) that had 'allegedly' killed one of their brothers' breaking their limbs then throwing them off the 4-storey PO building in Elizabethville....leaving them 3 days to die. My father (who was 17 cos he forged his birth certificate) and the 200 or so others that were imprisoned at the time realised that this put them in incredible danger as an atrocity committed by one side is equally likely to be committed by the other - which in the case of the Congo included male rape and cannibalism - THAT'S WHY THE GENEVA CONVENTION WAS SET UP. In my fathers case they were told they would be shot dead by firing squad. The leaders of the UN and Amnesty pleaded with the Katangan secession leaders (Moise Tshombie) that it was a rogue element that allegedly committed the war crime and would be dealt with by military tribunal - Tshombie eventually backed down as he wanted future international recognition for his Katangan state. I have researched this conflict and indeed WW1 extensively and have indeed written a book about it, interviewing many of those who were caught up in the active service for the UN, also questioning them about the alleged war crime by the Indian UN personnel...nb.its actually quite difficult to find soldiers who have genuinely been involved in active service as it is estimated that only one in 28 sent off to theatres of war actually engages in combat (it was 1 in 23 in the Korean war) And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am The answers I received and my point is that a war crime or atrocity puts the soldiers at risk and that is why I question Thatcher's rationale and reason for an alleged atrocity as she put British soldiers lives at more risk and arguably extended the war. Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am When Thatcher was alive it was impossible to bring her to an international court, the UK would just never have allowed it but now that she is dead I think it appropriate that there is an independent judicial review. I am reasonably convinced (85% which is about as sure as you can be in law) that she would be found guilty....and that compensation should be paid to the victims families. Lastly can I just re-iterate that I supported the Falklands war, and was as relieved as anyone when the Falklands were reclaimed, but I will never support a war crime or an atrocity....and although some Holmesdale front or armchair generals may support them I can assure you that any sane soldier sent on active service prays that both sides upholds the Geneva convention. And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK! Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry. ....and I am not a 'leftie' either. No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that. There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer. If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry! Actually I am not a lawyer either although I have run into international law quite a bit as part of my book research (which was a hobby I may add)....would the people not benefit at all from an independent public inquiry? Really? Or is it better to sweep things under the carpet and let our 'free press' like the Daily Mail decide what we think? I think most would choose the former. Despite other accusations, can I re-iterate I am not a leftie and supported reclaiming the Falklands - I just want to know the truth, is that really asking too much? Considerable debate ....please! That's like the Nazis debating their own war crimes at Nuremberg and deciding that they didn't have a case to answer! Why don't u want the truth to come out, scared it might tarnish Britains image internationally? I am afraid MT did that already, but this is an opportunity to put it right. Whether there should be any enquiry should be based upon whether there is a case to answer in the first place. You have chosen to interpret the facts in a way which suggests an offence may have been committed. That is your right, of course. I, however - together with the vast majority of informed opinion - do not believe that there is any case to answer. I would therefore view an enquiry as a waste of public money. If this were a British criminal prosecution, I am sure that the judge would dismiss the case at the first opportunity, criticise the CPS for wasting money in bringing the case to court, and suggest that it was both frivolous and vexatious (if that is possible?). Edited by SloveniaDave (16 Apr 2013 11.30am) 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 16 Apr 13 11.30am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 11.14am

Quote SloveniaDave at 16 Apr 2013 10.55am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am

Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am

I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings.

And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though.

Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties.

And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK!

Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry.
....and I am not a 'leftie' either.

No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that.

There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer.

If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry!

Actually I am not a lawyer either although I have run into international law quite a bit as part of my book research (which was a hobby I may add)....would the people not benefit at all from an independent public inquiry? Really? Or is it better to sweep things under the carpet and let our 'free press' like the Daily Mail decide what we think? I think most would choose the former.
Despite other accusations, can I re-iterate I am not a leftie and supported reclaiming the Falklands - I just want to know the truth, is that really asking too much? Considerable debate ....please! That's like the Nazis debating their own war crimes at Nuremberg and deciding that they didn't have a case to answer! Why don't u want the truth to come out, scared it might tarnish Britains image internationally? I am afraid MT did that already, but this is an opportunity to put it right.

Whether there should be any enquiry should be based upon whether there is a case to answer in the first place.

You have chosen to interpret the facts in a way which suggests an offence may have been committed. That is your right, of course. I, however - together with the vast majority of informed opinion - do not believe that there is any case to answer. I would therefore view an enquiry as a waste of public money.

If this were a British criminal prosecution, I am sure that the judge would dismiss the case at the first opportunity, criticise the CPS for wasting money in bringing the case to court, and suggest that it was both frivolous and vexatious (if that is possible?).

Edited by SloveniaDave (16 Apr 2013 11.30am)

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

chris123 hove actually 16 Apr 13 11.32am
Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 11.14am Quote SloveniaDave at 16 Apr 2013 10.55am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings. Are you suggesting these people didn't say the things attributed to them? Wiki may not be the fount of all knowledge but the article on there is not biased in my view. If you want me to find another dozen reference points for my argument I'm sure I can, but how about arguing your point rather than belittling others? Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am And Mr Stirlings point that no-one fights for the UN HMMM! My father represented the UN during the Congo crisis of 1961, one of a hotch-potch of soldiers from non aligned countries that were sent to establish a peace in central Africa. 'Fighting to keep the peace may be a contradiction but so is an army that refuses to defend itself or civilians....as per Srebenica where Dutch UN soldiers basically stood aside when 700 muslim men and boys were massacred. My fathers UN force were told that they could not fire unless fired upon......and then they were fired on. So they fought back to prevent the civilian population they were serving from being wiped out. It ended up in a 5 day continuous siege (no sleep) and was only ended by a brokered ceasefire when Dag Hammerskjold's plane got shot down. My father was then a POW for 5.5 weeks. During that time they were informed by amnesty international that a suspected 'war crime' had been committed against the Kantanganese army by a group of Indian UN personnel where they allegedly captured three of the soldiers (all boy soldiers) that had 'allegedly' killed one of their brothers' breaking their limbs then throwing them off the 4-storey PO building in Elizabethville....leaving them 3 days to die. My father (who was 17 cos he forged his birth certificate) and the 200 or so others that were imprisoned at the time realised that this put them in incredible danger as an atrocity committed by one side is equally likely to be committed by the other - which in the case of the Congo included male rape and cannibalism - THAT'S WHY THE GENEVA CONVENTION WAS SET UP. In my fathers case they were told they would be shot dead by firing squad. The leaders of the UN and Amnesty pleaded with the Katangan secession leaders (Moise Tshombie) that it was a rogue element that allegedly committed the war crime and would be dealt with by military tribunal - Tshombie eventually backed down as he wanted future international recognition for his Katangan state. I have researched this conflict and indeed WW1 extensively and have indeed written a book about it, interviewing many of those who were caught up in the active service for the UN, also questioning them about the alleged war crime by the Indian UN personnel...nb.its actually quite difficult to find soldiers who have genuinely been involved in active service as it is estimated that only one in 28 sent off to theatres of war actually engages in combat (it was 1 in 23 in the Korean war) And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am The answers I received and my point is that a war crime or atrocity puts the soldiers at risk and that is why I question Thatcher's rationale and reason for an alleged atrocity as she put British soldiers lives at more risk and arguably extended the war. Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am When Thatcher was alive it was impossible to bring her to an international court, the UK would just never have allowed it but now that she is dead I think it appropriate that there is an independent judicial review. I am reasonably convinced (85% which is about as sure as you can be in law) that she would be found guilty....and that compensation should be paid to the victims families. Lastly can I just re-iterate that I supported the Falklands war, and was as relieved as anyone when the Falklands were reclaimed, but I will never support a war crime or an atrocity....and although some Holmesdale front or armchair generals may support them I can assure you that any sane soldier sent on active service prays that both sides upholds the Geneva convention. And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK! Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry. ....and I am not a 'leftie' either. No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that. There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer. If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry! Actually I am not a lawyer either although I have run into international law quite a bit as part of my book research (which was a hobby I may add)....would the people not benefit at all from an independent public inquiry? Really? Or is it better to sweep things under the carpet and let our 'free press' like the Daily Mail decide what we think? I think most would choose the former. Despite other accusations, can I re-iterate I am not a leftie and supported reclaiming the Falklands - I just want to know the truth, is that really asking too much? Considerable debate ....please! That's like the Nazis debating their own war crimes at Nuremberg and deciding that they didn't have a case to answer! Why don't u want the truth to come out, scared it might tarnish Britains image internationally? I am afraid MT did that already, but this is an opportunity to put it right. You don't like Margaret Thatcher do you.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 16 Apr 13 11.32am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 11.14am

Quote SloveniaDave at 16 Apr 2013 10.55am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am

Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am

I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings.

And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though.

Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties.

And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK!

Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry.
....and I am not a 'leftie' either.

No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that.

There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer.

If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry!

You don't like Margaret Thatcher do you.

Alert a moderator to this post

Plane Bromley 16 Apr 13 11.37am
Quote chris123 at 16 Apr 2013 11.32am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 11.14am Quote SloveniaDave at 16 Apr 2013 10.55am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings. Are you suggesting these people didn't say the things attributed to them? Wiki may not be the fount of all knowledge but the article on there is not biased in my view. If you want me to find another dozen reference points for my argument I'm sure I can, but how about arguing your point rather than belittling others? Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am And Mr Stirlings point that no-one fights for the UN HMMM! My father represented the UN during the Congo crisis of 1961, one of a hotch-potch of soldiers from non aligned countries that were sent to establish a peace in central Africa. 'Fighting to keep the peace may be a contradiction but so is an army that refuses to defend itself or civilians....as per Srebenica where Dutch UN soldiers basically stood aside when 700 muslim men and boys were massacred. My fathers UN force were told that they could not fire unless fired upon......and then they were fired on. So they fought back to prevent the civilian population they were serving from being wiped out. It ended up in a 5 day continuous siege (no sleep) and was only ended by a brokered ceasefire when Dag Hammerskjold's plane got shot down. My father was then a POW for 5.5 weeks. During that time they were informed by amnesty international that a suspected 'war crime' had been committed against the Kantanganese army by a group of Indian UN personnel where they allegedly captured three of the soldiers (all boy soldiers) that had 'allegedly' killed one of their brothers' breaking their limbs then throwing them off the 4-storey PO building in Elizabethville....leaving them 3 days to die. My father (who was 17 cos he forged his birth certificate) and the 200 or so others that were imprisoned at the time realised that this put them in incredible danger as an atrocity committed by one side is equally likely to be committed by the other - which in the case of the Congo included male rape and cannibalism - THAT'S WHY THE GENEVA CONVENTION WAS SET UP. In my fathers case they were told they would be shot dead by firing squad. The leaders of the UN and Amnesty pleaded with the Katangan secession leaders (Moise Tshombie) that it was a rogue element that allegedly committed the war crime and would be dealt with by military tribunal - Tshombie eventually backed down as he wanted future international recognition for his Katangan state. I have researched this conflict and indeed WW1 extensively and have indeed written a book about it, interviewing many of those who were caught up in the active service for the UN, also questioning them about the alleged war crime by the Indian UN personnel...nb.its actually quite difficult to find soldiers who have genuinely been involved in active service as it is estimated that only one in 28 sent off to theatres of war actually engages in combat (it was 1 in 23 in the Korean war) And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am The answers I received and my point is that a war crime or atrocity puts the soldiers at risk and that is why I question Thatcher's rationale and reason for an alleged atrocity as she put British soldiers lives at more risk and arguably extended the war. Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am When Thatcher was alive it was impossible to bring her to an international court, the UK would just never have allowed it but now that she is dead I think it appropriate that there is an independent judicial review. I am reasonably convinced (85% which is about as sure as you can be in law) that she would be found guilty....and that compensation should be paid to the victims families. Lastly can I just re-iterate that I supported the Falklands war, and was as relieved as anyone when the Falklands were reclaimed, but I will never support a war crime or an atrocity....and although some Holmesdale front or armchair generals may support them I can assure you that any sane soldier sent on active service prays that both sides upholds the Geneva convention. And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK! Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry. ....and I am not a 'leftie' either. No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that. There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer. If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry! Actually I am not a lawyer either although I have run into international law quite a bit as part of my book research (which was a hobby I may add)....would the people not benefit at all from an independent public inquiry? Really? Or is it better to sweep things under the carpet and let our 'free press' like the Daily Mail decide what we think? I think most would choose the former. Despite other accusations, can I re-iterate I am not a leftie and supported reclaiming the Falklands - I just want to know the truth, is that really asking too much? Considerable debate ....please! That's like the Nazis debating their own war crimes at Nuremberg and deciding that they didn't have a case to answer! Why don't u want the truth to come out, scared it might tarnish Britains image internationally? I am afraid MT did that already, but this is an opportunity to put it right. You don't like Margaret Thatcher do you. C'est Clouseau
Alert a moderator to this post

Plane

Bromley 16 Apr 13 11.37am

Quote chris123 at 16 Apr 2013 11.32am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 11.14am

Quote SloveniaDave at 16 Apr 2013 10.55am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am

Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am

I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings.

And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though.

Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties.

And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK!

Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry.
....and I am not a 'leftie' either.

No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that.

There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer.

If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry!

You don't like Margaret Thatcher do you.

C'est Clouseau

Alert a moderator to this post

JohnyBoy 16 Apr 13 12.32pm
Quote Plane at 16 Apr 2013 11.37am Quote chris123 at 16 Apr 2013 11.32am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 11.14am Quote SloveniaDave at 16 Apr 2013 10.55am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings. Are you suggesting these people didn't say the things attributed to them? Wiki may not be the fount of all knowledge but the article on there is not biased in my view. If you want me to find another dozen reference points for my argument I'm sure I can, but how about arguing your point rather than belittling others? Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am And Mr Stirlings point that no-one fights for the UN HMMM! My father represented the UN during the Congo crisis of 1961, one of a hotch-potch of soldiers from non aligned countries that were sent to establish a peace in central Africa. 'Fighting to keep the peace may be a contradiction but so is an army that refuses to defend itself or civilians....as per Srebenica where Dutch UN soldiers basically stood aside when 700 muslim men and boys were massacred. My fathers UN force were told that they could not fire unless fired upon......and then they were fired on. So they fought back to prevent the civilian population they were serving from being wiped out. It ended up in a 5 day continuous siege (no sleep) and was only ended by a brokered ceasefire when Dag Hammerskjold's plane got shot down. My father was then a POW for 5.5 weeks. During that time they were informed by amnesty international that a suspected 'war crime' had been committed against the Kantanganese army by a group of Indian UN personnel where they allegedly captured three of the soldiers (all boy soldiers) that had 'allegedly' killed one of their brothers' breaking their limbs then throwing them off the 4-storey PO building in Elizabethville....leaving them 3 days to die. My father (who was 17 cos he forged his birth certificate) and the 200 or so others that were imprisoned at the time realised that this put them in incredible danger as an atrocity committed by one side is equally likely to be committed by the other - which in the case of the Congo included male rape and cannibalism - THAT'S WHY THE GENEVA CONVENTION WAS SET UP. In my fathers case they were told they would be shot dead by firing squad. The leaders of the UN and Amnesty pleaded with the Katangan secession leaders (Moise Tshombie) that it was a rogue element that allegedly committed the war crime and would be dealt with by military tribunal - Tshombie eventually backed down as he wanted future international recognition for his Katangan state. I have researched this conflict and indeed WW1 extensively and have indeed written a book about it, interviewing many of those who were caught up in the active service for the UN, also questioning them about the alleged war crime by the Indian UN personnel...nb.its actually quite difficult to find soldiers who have genuinely been involved in active service as it is estimated that only one in 28 sent off to theatres of war actually engages in combat (it was 1 in 23 in the Korean war) And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am The answers I received and my point is that a war crime or atrocity puts the soldiers at risk and that is why I question Thatcher's rationale and reason for an alleged atrocity as she put British soldiers lives at more risk and arguably extended the war. Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am When Thatcher was alive it was impossible to bring her to an international court, the UK would just never have allowed it but now that she is dead I think it appropriate that there is an independent judicial review. I am reasonably convinced (85% which is about as sure as you can be in law) that she would be found guilty....and that compensation should be paid to the victims families. Lastly can I just re-iterate that I supported the Falklands war, and was as relieved as anyone when the Falklands were reclaimed, but I will never support a war crime or an atrocity....and although some Holmesdale front or armchair generals may support them I can assure you that any sane soldier sent on active service prays that both sides upholds the Geneva convention. And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK! Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry. ....and I am not a 'leftie' either. No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that. There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer. If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry! Actually I am not a lawyer either although I have run into international law quite a bit as part of my book research (which was a hobby I may add)....would the people not benefit at all from an independent public inquiry? Really? Or is it better to sweep things under the carpet and let our 'free press' like the Daily Mail decide what we think? I think most would choose the former. Despite other accusations, can I re-iterate I am not a leftie and supported reclaiming the Falklands - I just want to know the truth, is that really asking too much? Considerable debate ....please! That's like the Nazis debating their own war crimes at Nuremberg and deciding that they didn't have a case to answer! Why don't u want the truth to come out, scared it might tarnish Britains image internationally? I am afraid MT did that already, but this is an opportunity to put it right. You don't like Margaret Thatcher do you. C'est Clouseau Actually its not a personal thing...and I really don't want it to come across as such. I was and stand by the fact that I supported Tory economic policy in the late 70's. although I was only 11 when she came to power. Labour to me were unelectable because of their support for ailing industries, union power and defence policy i.e. CND. But I am against the moral choices she made and I honestly don't think that Heseltine, Major or Cameron for that matter would have made the same choices. To me these choices including support for apartheid, Northern Ireland, Pinochet, Khmer Rouge and 'care in the community' were just wrong choices and some of them led directly to the deaths of innocent people including endangering the lives of our armed services. As much as I seek justice and a recognition of where she fell down I will still honour her funeral, she was like it or not, our democratically elected PM and a great ambassador for women, regardless of what some extreme feminists say. I am just sorting the wheat from the chaff and surely we should all hold our politicians to account regardless of party loyalties, but to me it was a very dark period in British political and moral history
Alert a moderator to this post

JohnyBoy

16 Apr 13 12.32pm

Quote Plane at 16 Apr 2013 11.37am

Quote chris123 at 16 Apr 2013 11.32am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 11.14am

Quote SloveniaDave at 16 Apr 2013 10.55am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am

Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am

I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings.

And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though.

Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties.

And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK!

Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry.
....and I am not a 'leftie' either.

No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that.

There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer.

If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry!

You don't like Margaret Thatcher do you.

C'est Clouseau

Actually its not a personal thing...and I really don't want it to come across as such. I was and stand by the fact that I supported Tory economic policy in the late 70's. although I was only 11 when she came to power. Labour to me were unelectable because of their support for ailing industries, union power and defence policy i.e. CND. But I am against the moral choices she made and I honestly don't think that Heseltine, Major or Cameron for that matter would have made the same choices. To me these choices including support for apartheid, Northern Ireland, Pinochet, Khmer Rouge and 'care in the community' were just wrong choices and some of them led directly to the deaths of innocent people including endangering the lives of our armed services.
As much as I seek justice and a recognition of where she fell down I will still honour her funeral, she was like it or not, our democratically elected PM and a great ambassador for women, regardless of what some extreme feminists say. I am just sorting the wheat from the chaff and surely we should all hold our politicians to account regardless of party loyalties, but to me it was a very dark period in British political and moral history

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 16 Apr 13 12.33pm
Quote Plane at 16 Apr 2013 11.37am Quote chris123 at 16 Apr 2013 11.32am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 11.14am Quote SloveniaDave at 16 Apr 2013 10.55am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings. Are you suggesting these people didn't say the things attributed to them? Wiki may not be the fount of all knowledge but the article on there is not biased in my view. If you want me to find another dozen reference points for my argument I'm sure I can, but how about arguing your point rather than belittling others? Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am And Mr Stirlings point that no-one fights for the UN HMMM! My father represented the UN during the Congo crisis of 1961, one of a hotch-potch of soldiers from non aligned countries that were sent to establish a peace in central Africa. 'Fighting to keep the peace may be a contradiction but so is an army that refuses to defend itself or civilians....as per Srebenica where Dutch UN soldiers basically stood aside when 700 muslim men and boys were massacred. My fathers UN force were told that they could not fire unless fired upon......and then they were fired on. So they fought back to prevent the civilian population they were serving from being wiped out. It ended up in a 5 day continuous siege (no sleep) and was only ended by a brokered ceasefire when Dag Hammerskjold's plane got shot down. My father was then a POW for 5.5 weeks. During that time they were informed by amnesty international that a suspected 'war crime' had been committed against the Kantanganese army by a group of Indian UN personnel where they allegedly captured three of the soldiers (all boy soldiers) that had 'allegedly' killed one of their brothers' breaking their limbs then throwing them off the 4-storey PO building in Elizabethville....leaving them 3 days to die. My father (who was 17 cos he forged his birth certificate) and the 200 or so others that were imprisoned at the time realised that this put them in incredible danger as an atrocity committed by one side is equally likely to be committed by the other - which in the case of the Congo included male rape and cannibalism - THAT'S WHY THE GENEVA CONVENTION WAS SET UP. In my fathers case they were told they would be shot dead by firing squad. The leaders of the UN and Amnesty pleaded with the Katangan secession leaders (Moise Tshombie) that it was a rogue element that allegedly committed the war crime and would be dealt with by military tribunal - Tshombie eventually backed down as he wanted future international recognition for his Katangan state. I have researched this conflict and indeed WW1 extensively and have indeed written a book about it, interviewing many of those who were caught up in the active service for the UN, also questioning them about the alleged war crime by the Indian UN personnel...nb.its actually quite difficult to find soldiers who have genuinely been involved in active service as it is estimated that only one in 28 sent off to theatres of war actually engages in combat (it was 1 in 23 in the Korean war) And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am The answers I received and my point is that a war crime or atrocity puts the soldiers at risk and that is why I question Thatcher's rationale and reason for an alleged atrocity as she put British soldiers lives at more risk and arguably extended the war. Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties. Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am When Thatcher was alive it was impossible to bring her to an international court, the UK would just never have allowed it but now that she is dead I think it appropriate that there is an independent judicial review. I am reasonably convinced (85% which is about as sure as you can be in law) that she would be found guilty....and that compensation should be paid to the victims families. Lastly can I just re-iterate that I supported the Falklands war, and was as relieved as anyone when the Falklands were reclaimed, but I will never support a war crime or an atrocity....and although some Holmesdale front or armchair generals may support them I can assure you that any sane soldier sent on active service prays that both sides upholds the Geneva convention. And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK! Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry. ....and I am not a 'leftie' either. No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that. There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer. If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry! Actually I am not a lawyer either although I have run into international law quite a bit as part of my book research (which was a hobby I may add)....would the people not benefit at all from an independent public inquiry? Really? Or is it better to sweep things under the carpet and let our 'free press' like the Daily Mail decide what we think? I think most would choose the former. Despite other accusations, can I re-iterate I am not a leftie and supported reclaiming the Falklands - I just want to know the truth, is that really asking too much? Considerable debate ....please! That's like the Nazis debating their own war crimes at Nuremberg and deciding that they didn't have a case to answer! Why don't u want the truth to come out, scared it might tarnish Britains image internationally? I am afraid MT did that already, but this is an opportunity to put it right. You don't like Margaret Thatcher do you. C'est Clouseau I thought the pestering was more Columboesque.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 16 Apr 13 12.33pm

Quote Plane at 16 Apr 2013 11.37am

Quote chris123 at 16 Apr 2013 11.32am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 11.14am

Quote SloveniaDave at 16 Apr 2013 10.55am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 10.35am

Quote Moose at 16 Apr 2013 10.16am

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am

I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings.

And it sounds as though your father was/is a very brave man. Can't really see what this has got to do with the Belgrano argument, though.

Arguably, it shortened the war as it effectively took a large part of the Argentinian navy out of the equation meaning less air support and fewer casualties.

And I'll reiterate that, if the Argentinians involved admit that the Belgrano was a legitimate target, it's bizarre that the only major noise to the contrary comes from the UK!

Please look up the comments made at the UN and ever since by the international community in relation to the Belgrano (including the US). You will find its not just a 'British leftie thing', but very much an international outcry.However, rather than let the trial by media decide, lets let a independent judicial review leading to a public inquiry decide. If you are convinced there was nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear in an open and independent inquiry.
....and I am not a 'leftie' either.

No it isn't - hard to put it more simply than that.

There was considerable debate in the immediate aftermath but, after the facts became known and the dust had settled, it was clear that there is no substantive case to answer.

If you are not a leftie, or an apologiest then my guess is you are a lawyer, since they would be the only people to benefit from an inquiry!

You don't like Margaret Thatcher do you.

C'est Clouseau

I thought the pestering was more Columboesque.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 103 of 126 < 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Margaret Thatcher

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors