Reply With QuoteLiarOriginally Posted by David Vincent
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
You have a good point Billy. One of my relatives was responsible for a coal mining accident which killed three or four of his sons. It was a horrible job, but a lot of jobs were horrible in those days. Much better safety equipment, working conditions and shorter hours could have made the job better.
Liar
To cover the running costs and future investment.dullard.
So it avoids any good they have gone. Just pessimistic views allowed?
Couldn't stand Thatcher, but she's not my vote for the worst PM of the last hundred years, that would go to Cameron.
Totally agree Bob.
All those years in power but he never once expressed an honest opinion or emotion.
The man was a total bullshitter who simply said what he was told to say.
We may as well have had a tailors dummy in charge.
The fact that he was voted back in tells you how shit Milliband was and how out of touch labour have become.
Why do you say I have lied? If you are talking about my relative then you are wrong. I don't want to name the disaster or the relative because I like to remain anonymous. It happened about 120 years ago and my relative was a fireman who made a mistake. Many men apart from his sons were killed. He was one of the few who survived.
Do you understand the meaning of the word subsidy? Are the Chinese stupid? Why do they subsidise their key industries?
I'm sure he'd love his descendants raking it all up again.
As much as I disliked Thacther you could respect her as she had her own opinions.
That h and m dummy will go down as one of the worst as history will show.
Thatcher has had a lasting positive effect on some people but an overall negative affect on future generations.
Blair and Cameron are a sign of the times, society values style over substance. It is a depressing direction that we are heading.
Liar
I can only assume that you are a troll. All future posts from you will be ignored.
Not sure what criteria is being used to determine worst, a very poor prime minister for me but still above the alleged War Criminal Tony Blair, Thatcher may have given the O.K to sink the Belgrano but at the very worst, and unlike the WMD, it did exist.
Thatcher and Blair won't be remembered fondly but Brown,Major and Cameron were pretty hopeless too. I'd say Wilson was Labour's last decent PM.
Why do the left insist on saying there was something illegal about sinking the Belgrano?
Maybe because it was well outside the exclusion zone declared by the British government, had been steaming away from the British task force for 11 hours at the time it was sunk, and there had been no declaration of war. It was not a threat. It was a soft target and 321 Argentinian sailors - most of them teenage conscripts - died.
The legality or otherwise of the action is still in dispute. But be honest - you're not interested in international law are you? It is simply a case of GOTCHA!
I'm not so interested either in whether it was legal or not either. As far as I'm concerned it was a political not military decision - and got the media and popular response Thatcher wanted.
http://belgranoinquiry.com
Just because leftie idiots are ignorant of the meaning of an exclusion zone doesn't make the sinking any less legal,it was an enemy warship,in a war zone during an armed conflict.not even the captain of the Belgrano thinks it was wrong.
It was a political act. The 'Total Exclusion Zone' announced by the UK government on 12 April 1982 was defined:
"In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly."
The Belgrano was outside the TEZ, and heading away from the islands and the Task Force, and had been for over 11 hours. It was not approaching or a threat (see TEZ declaration).
Was it 'legal' to sink the ship and kill 321 sailors? There is no definitive answer, and anyway, don't the winners in a conflict always have 'the law' on their side (along with God and every other possible source of after-the-event legitimisation).
What it wasn't was a military decision to remove a real threat. That is why it remains so contentious.
Good Gosh, a confirmed Sun Reader
Maritime exclusion zones are used to warn neutral countries that any vessels found inside it are likely to be attacked without warning,this obviously did not apply to argentina as it was a belligerent.
My mistake. The Maritime Exclusion Zone was announced on 12 April. The Total Exclusion Zone (same area) was declared on the 30 April, and the ARA General Belgrano was torpedoed on 2 May 1982. The quote I gave was from the MEZ announcement.
As far as I'm concerned the MEZ/TEZ was relevant in that it defined the zone within which the UK military and government judged foreign or hostile vessels could be a risk to the Task Force. I'm not bothered about arguing the legalities. The zones were announced for a reason, and the size of the zone was not arbitary. The 12 April announcement specifically referred to Argentinian naval vessels and whether they were approaching or not and whether they amounted to a threat.
The Belgrano was not approaching (it was well away and going in the opposite direction) and it was not a threat. There was a political choice about whether to sink it or not, but no military necessity. Thatcher made the political choice and got her headline. GOTCHA! I despise her and her apologists for many things - and that was one of them.
When it comes to worst PM in the past 100 years I find it hard to separate Thatcher, Blair and Cameron - all for different reasons, and all products of different times and circumstances.
So basically it was contentious because you hated Thatcher,fvck the facts and international law.
No. Not what I said.
Are you an idiot as well as a WUM?
You're the moron who said your not bothered about the legalities,you're coming across as a proper socialist,bigoted and riddled with prejudice.
Posting Permissions
