This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Margaret Thatcher
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Kermit8  Hevon 15 Apr 13 11.13am |
  |
|---|---|
|
I haven't ^^^^^ But I've just seen its poster 'Four Friends. One Mission. Lots of Spirit.' Sounds great
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Plane  Bromley 15 Apr 13 11.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 15 Apr 2013 11.13am
I haven't ^^^^^ But I've just seen its poster 'Four Friends. One Mission. Lots of Spirit.' Sounds great
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 15 Apr 13 11.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Ouzo Dan at 15 Apr 2013 8.51am
f*** the belgrano, it was an enemy vessel, when at war you kill the enemy. I would have been disgusted if Thatcher hadn't given the order to sink it. It wasn't a war, it was a designated conflict - very different.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 15 Apr 13 11.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Plane at 15 Apr 2013 9.50am
Quote Ouzo Dan at 15 Apr 2013 8.51am
f*** the belgrano, it was an enemy vessel, when at war you kill the enemy. I would have been disgusted if Thatcher hadn't given the order to sink it.
Is the wrong answer - IT WAS NOT A WAR - The UK specifcally declined a declaration of war that was its right, under UN agreement on soverign nations which we signed and help draft. It was thus designated a conflict with an exclusion zone. It would be a crime to attack any vessel outside of the exlcusion zone. Tactically, of course it was the right military decision to sink the Belgrano, but that doesn't mean there isn't a case to answer. Much like its tactically astute to utilise black operations against your enemy's - doesn't prevent it being murder. I agree with her decision, but it was technically a 'war crime' and she should have been investigated for it, and potentially faced trial if there was a case to be answered.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 15 Apr 13 11.34am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 11.23am
It wasn't a war, it was a designated conflict - very different. Conflicts are often called wars. America, Britain and China fought each other in the Korea war but they didn't go to war. It was a war in and around the Falklands conflict zone. It's valid to use the word war outside of its technical sense. Because to be honest if you've been shot in the chest it doesn't make a lot of difference.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 15 Apr 13 11.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 11.30am
Is the wrong answer - IT WAS NOT A WAR - The UK specifcally declined a declaration of war that was its right, under UN agreement on soverign nations which we signed and help draft. It was thus designated a conflict with an exclusion zone. It would be a crime to attack any vessel outside of the exlcusion zone. Tactically, of course it was the right military decision to sink the Belgrano, but that doesn't mean there isn't a case to answer. Much like its tactically astute to utilise black operations against your enemy's - doesn't prevent it being murder. I agree with her decision, but it was technically a 'war crime' and she should have been investigated for it, and potentially faced trial if there was a case to be answered.
Where did we break a law? Did we state that any action outside of the exclusion zone which we set would be illegal?.....I thought the exclusions zone was a guide not a legal device. It stated we weren't going to go looking for a military vessel if it didn't approach the Falklands. That ship had been in and out of the zone all day, playing cat and mouse, diverting resources...I'm not sure we can run wars that depend upon phone calls for actions and then apply tape measurements...This is silly. There was no 'war crime' technical or otherwise. It was the terribleness of war and nothing else. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Apr 2013 11.44am)
'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 |
|
| Plane Bromley 15 Apr 13 11.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 15 Apr 2013 11.34am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 11.23am
It wasn't a war, it was a designated conflict - very different. Conflicts are often called wars. America, Britain and China fought each other in the Korea war but they didn't go to war. It was a war in and around the Falklands conflict zone. It's valid to use the word war outside of its technical sense. Because to be honest if you've been shot in the chest it doesn't make a lot of difference.
I'm with you Stirling, I'll let you argue the details with 'the very helpul jamiemartin'
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Ouzo Dan  Behind you 15 Apr 13 11.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 11.23am
Quote Ouzo Dan at 15 Apr 2013 8.51am
f*** the belgrano, it was an enemy vessel, when at war you kill the enemy. I would have been disgusted if Thatcher hadn't given the order to sink it. It wasn't a war, it was a designated conflict - very different. Jamie you can call it the super hello kitty mega pillow fight for all I care when two nations armies start shooting each other at the order of its generals its war. The belgrano wasn't a civillian ship it was a legitimate target that had to be removed. There is no case to answer. Edited by Ouzo Dan (15 Apr 2013 11.53am)
The mountains are calling & I must go. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
SloveniaDave  Tirana, Albania 15 Apr 13 12.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 11.30am
Quote Plane at 15 Apr 2013 9.50am
Quote Ouzo Dan at 15 Apr 2013 8.51am
f*** the belgrano, it was an enemy vessel, when at war you kill the enemy. I would have been disgusted if Thatcher hadn't given the order to sink it.
Is the wrong answer - IT WAS NOT A WAR - The UK specifcally declined a declaration of war that was its right, under UN agreement on soverign nations which we signed and help draft. It was thus designated a conflict with an exclusion zone. It would be a crime to attack any vessel outside of the exlcusion zone. Tactically, of course it was the right military decision to sink the Belgrano, but that doesn't mean there isn't a case to answer. Much like its tactically astute to utilise black operations against your enemy's - doesn't prevent it being murder. I agree with her decision, but it was technically a 'war crime' and she should have been investigated for it, and potentially faced trial if there was a case to be answered.
The establishment of an exclusion zone was just one declaration made and at the time almost without precedent, certainly in naval conflicts, and there were no 'rules' about how it should be applied. It was imposed to make it very clear that ANY ship within the zone would automatically be considered hostile and subject to possible attack. But the creation of an exclusion zone did not prevent us from taking action outside of it, as we clearly stated we would, if we believed our fleet to be in danger. It was not therefore automatically a crime to engage outside of that zone, provided a threat was perceived.
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand! My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right. (Member of the School of Optimism 1969-2016 inclusive) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 15 Apr 13 1.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 15 Apr 2013 11.34am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 11.23am
It wasn't a war, it was a designated conflict - very different. Conflicts are often called wars. America, Britain and China fought each other in the Korea war but they didn't go to war. It was a war in and around the Falklands conflict zone. It's valid to use the word war outside of its technical sense. Because to be honest if you've been shot in the chest it doesn't make a lot of difference.
So being shot in the chest constitutes a state of war, bad news for the US, which suffers a 'lot of war casualities on a daily basis' In the legal sense, which is the only one that really matters. What different people might choose for conveience or agenda to call something is largely irrelivent. Personally, I think she'd have been cleared of any war crimes regarding the Belgrano. Yes, it had been in and out the exclusion zone all day, as had the submarine following it, which arguably had every chance to sink it inside the zone. She should have declared a war, but the Americans didn't want that, and it would have risked British Holdings and politics in South America.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 15 Apr 13 1.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote SloveniaDave at 15 Apr 2013 12.19pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 11.30am
Quote Plane at 15 Apr 2013 9.50am
Quote Ouzo Dan at 15 Apr 2013 8.51am
f*** the belgrano, it was an enemy vessel, when at war you kill the enemy. I would have been disgusted if Thatcher hadn't given the order to sink it.
Is the wrong answer - IT WAS NOT A WAR - The UK specifcally declined a declaration of war that was its right, under UN agreement on soverign nations which we signed and help draft. It was thus designated a conflict with an exclusion zone. It would be a crime to attack any vessel outside of the exlcusion zone. Tactically, of course it was the right military decision to sink the Belgrano, but that doesn't mean there isn't a case to answer. Much like its tactically astute to utilise black operations against your enemy's - doesn't prevent it being murder. I agree with her decision, but it was technically a 'war crime' and she should have been investigated for it, and potentially faced trial if there was a case to be answered.
The establishment of an exclusion zone was just one declaration made and at the time almost without precedent, certainly in naval conflicts, and there were no 'rules' about how it should be applied. It was imposed to make it very clear that ANY ship within the zone would automatically be considered hostile and subject to possible attack. But the creation of an exclusion zone did not prevent us from taking action outside of it, as we clearly stated we would, if we believed our fleet to be in danger. It was not therefore automatically a crime to engage outside of that zone, provided a threat was perceived. When I say 'war crime' I mean a potential war crime. That we stated something, doesn't necessarily mean that we had legal right - Thats for an independent body to ascertain, not a single nation by its own words. The problem is by not addressing the case, that remains a legal limbo. What constitutes a 'viable threat' - Is a ship you've been tailing in and out the zone all day a threat, if it hasn't engaged? Etc. The idea that a legal status can be simply confirmed by the statement of the accused is absurd, and a crime can be committed even if the accused believes they are responding correctly. UK law is built on precident. The failure of the Government to address international concerns regarding the legality of the sinking of the Belgrano is a failure of the country to engage in jts responsibilities to international law.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 15 Apr 13 1.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 15 Apr 2013 11.34am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Apr 2013 11.23am
It wasn't a war, it was a designated conflict - very different. Conflicts are often called wars. America, Britain and China fought each other in the Korea war but they didn't go to war. It was a war in and around the Falklands conflict zone. It's valid to use the word war outside of its technical sense. Because to be honest if you've been shot in the chest it doesn't make a lot of difference.
The United Nations went to war in Korea, not the US or UK.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.