"My condolences go to her family and friends."
Her family? You mean her son Mark Thatcher the arms dealer who was implicated in the Equatorial Guinea coup amongst MANY other things?
Or her friends, Augusto Pinochet, PW Botha, Jimmy Saville and the Kymer Rouge to name but a few.
"My condolences go to her family and friends."
Her family? You mean her son Mark Thatcher the arms dealer who was implicated in the Equatorial Guinea coup amongst MANY other things?
Or her friends, Augusto Pinochet, PW Botha, Jimmy Saville and the Kymer Rouge to name but a few.
I wasn't a big fan of hers, but she did some things right and a lot of things wrong. She got right Britain's stance on terrorism right, she got the Falklands back (and Fred, I really couldn't give a flying fuck about your opinions on that) and she also was a strong leader when the country had had far too many weak-kneed morons for years. She went toe-to-toe with Scargill and helped to destroy the idiot left. She also stood up against the cronyism of her own political establishment (such as the jobs-for-the-boys Oxbridge types) with varying success - MI5 and MI6 are now more open to people from other backgrounds than they ever were before.I'm American, but unlike many of my fellow countrymen, I knew all that. I also have a neutral opinion on her.
On the other hand, she destroyed trade unions (they were tied into what I call the 'idiot left', the ones who saw every strike as the first stage in a socialist revolution and who couldn't see that sometimes what people want is a better deal at work and not social upheaval) with the end result that we've had to fight to get even minimum wage established, she and her friends saw nothing wrong with selling off national institutions and putting people on the dole while they lined their own pockets, she was responsible for the destruction of the inner-city and also for taking away excellent learning opportunities for young people (like apprenticeships) and replacing them with nonsensical ideas like YTS which had no value and the qualifications weren't worth the paper they were printed on. She screwed the NHS over (she wanted a private healthcare system like the US has) and that mess is still trying to be sorted out, some 23 years after she left power.
It involves tunnelling straight to Hell, so it isn't easy..."My condolences go to her family and friends."
Her family? You mean her son Mark Thatcher the arms dealer who was implicated in the Equatorial Guinea coup amongst MANY other things?
Or her friends, Augusto Pinochet, PW Botha, Jimmy Saville and the Kymer Rouge [sic] to name but a few.
And you give condolences to dead people how?
Meh.
I wasn't a big fan of hers, but she did some things right and a lot of things wrong. She got right Britain's stance on terrorism right, she got the Falklands back (and Fred, I really couldn't give a flying fuck about your opinions on that) and she also was a strong leader when the country had had far too many weak-kneed morons for years. She went toe-to-toe with Scargill and helped to destroy the idiot left. She also stood up against the cronyism of her own political establishment (such as the jobs-for-the-boys Oxbridge types) with varying success - MI5 and MI6 are now more open to people from other backgrounds than they ever were before.I'm American, but unlike many of my fellow countrymen, I knew all that. I also have a neutral opinion on her.
On the other hand, she destroyed trade unions (they were tied into what I call the 'idiot left', the ones who saw every strike as the first stage in a socialist revolution and who couldn't see that sometimes what people want is a better deal at work and not social upheaval) with the end result that we've had to fight to get even minimum wage established, she and her friends saw nothing wrong with selling off national institutions and putting people on the dole while they lined their own pockets, she was responsible for the destruction of the inner-city and also for taking away excellent learning opportunities for young people (like apprenticeships) and replacing them with nonsensical ideas like YTS which had no value and the qualifications weren't worth the paper they were printed on. She screwed the NHS over (she wanted a private healthcare system like the US has) and that mess is still trying to be sorted out, some 23 years after she left power.
I'm not the kind to dance on a person's grave, either. I wouldn't want it done to me or anyone in my family.
I'm not the kind to dance on a person's grave, either. I wouldn't want it done to me or anyone in my family.
I actually would like people dancing, drunk and fornicating on my grave.
I'm not the kind to dance on a person's grave, either. I wouldn't want it done to me or anyone in my family.
I actually would like people dancing, drunk and fornicating on my grave.
If that's the case, I'll make sure to visit your grave, get drunk, dance a little, and fuck with whoever I'm with.
Emperor Palpatine?I'm not the kind to dance on a person's grave, either. I wouldn't want it done to me or anyone in my family.
I actually would like people dancing, drunk and fornicating on my grave.
If that's the case, I'll make sure to visit your grave, get drunk, dance a little, and fuck with whoever I'm with.
Emperor Palpatine?I'm not the kind to dance on a person's grave, either. I wouldn't want it done to me or anyone in my family.
I actually would like people dancing, drunk and fornicating on my grave.
If that's the case, I'll make sure to visit your grave, get drunk, dance a little, and fuck with whoever I'm with.
Right here ;)I'm not the kind to dance on a person's grave, either. I wouldn't want it done to me or anyone in my family.
I actually would like people dancing, drunk and fornicating on my grave.
If that's the case, I'll make sure to visit your grave, get drunk, dance a little, and fuck with whoever I'm with.
YAY!!! I have some takers, don't you just love it when threads get derailed by sexual shenanigans??Specifically ours?
Yes, ours. ;)YAY!!! I have some takers, don't you just love it when threads get derailed by sexual shenanigans??Specifically ours?
Awesome. Okay, everyone stand back, 'cause I'm totally gonna wreck that. :)Yes, ours. ;)YAY!!! I have some takers, don't you just love it when threads get derailed by sexual shenanigans??Specifically ours?
What exactly is online sex? Pressing the "Insert" key over and over? ::)I dunno, but it gives new meaning to the phrase "digital penetration."
Actually maybe we should ask the people of Argentina how they feel about the "Iron Lady"...The Falklands chose to be a UK territory.
I was thinking more of her sinking the Belgrano, but as for residents choosing to be a UK territory, they certainly did that last month (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/world/americas/falklands-referendum), but in the run up to the Falklands War?Actually maybe we should ask the people of Argentina how they feel about the "Iron Lady"...The Falklands chose to be a UK territory.
I was thinking more of her sinking the Belgrano, but as for residents choosing to be a UK territory, they certainly did that last month (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/world/americas/falklands-referendum), but in the run up to the Falklands War?What about the Belgrano? The Belgrano was an Argentinean warship and was sunk by the British while Argentina and Britain were at war. A war that Argentina started to try and take a territory that was British and had been for quite some time, largely for the sake of shoring up public support for the military dictatorship of the time. There's plenty of legitimate criticisms of Thatcher and her government that can be made, but this one is little more than a load of bleeding heart nonsense.
I doubt many people regard what happened to the Belgrano as anything more than an act of war. It was, indeed, zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone in an effort to provoke a response from British naval forces. That was unquestionably a stupid move, since they most certainly got a response. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the decision to torpedo it as it turned around to sail away, resulting in the deaths of over three hundred Argentinians.So you'd prefer that they willingly leave an enemy warship afloat based on something as arbitrary as which direction it was heading? In light of this, would you classify the sinking of the Bismarck in WWII to be a war crime as well? After all, by the time the final bomb took it down, it had been trying to limp back to Germany for quite a while.
Um yeah. There would have to be something mighty specific to make that a true war crime. Were they disabled and trying to signal surrender and still kept getting hit? Then they tried to run?
In any case, the Falklands was a truly vicious bloody war started for no good reason what so ever by a vicious shitty illegitimate dictatorship. Fuck 'em. They started a War Crime Vs. a legit War to begin with.
I never even called the sinking of the Belgrano a war crime in the first place.I doubt many people regard what happened to the Belgrano as anything more than an act of war. It was, indeed, zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone in an effort to provoke a response from British naval forces. That was unquestionably a stupid move, since they most certainly got a response. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the decision to torpedo it as it turned around to sail away, resulting in the deaths of over three hundred Argentinians.So you'd prefer that they willingly leave an enemy warship afloat based on something as arbitrary as which direction it was heading? In light of this, would you classify the sinking of the Bismarck in WWII to be a war crime as well? After all, by the time the final bomb took it down, it had been trying to limp back to Germany for quite a while.
Ah, my bad. I was thinking of Kefka. Let me rephrase that. Do you object to the sinking of the Bismarck on similar grounds as the General Belgrano?I never even called the sinking of the Belgrano a war crime in the first place.I doubt many people regard what happened to the Belgrano as anything more than an act of war. It was, indeed, zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone in an effort to provoke a response from British naval forces. That was unquestionably a stupid move, since they most certainly got a response. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the decision to torpedo it as it turned around to sail away, resulting in the deaths of over three hundred Argentinians.So you'd prefer that they willingly leave an enemy warship afloat based on something as arbitrary as which direction it was heading? In light of this, would you classify the sinking of the Bismarck in WWII to be a war crime as well? After all, by the time the final bomb took it down, it had been trying to limp back to Germany for quite a while.
I'm answering this with what little knowledge I have on the subject of the Belgrano, so I'm going by what my understanding of the situation is. If it's true that the Belgrano was merely zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone, had not fired any shots but had simply been trying to provoke a violent response by being where it was, and then turning around to retreat back to Argentina, then I would say it wouldn't be right to sink it just for that. So from what I can gather the situation with the Bismarck was different as the Bismarck exchanged fire with other ships during a battle.Ah, my bad. I was thinking of Kefka. Let me rephrase that. Do you object to the sinking of the Bismarck on similar grounds as the General Belgrano?I never even called the sinking of the Belgrano a war crime in the first place.I doubt many people regard what happened to the Belgrano as anything more than an act of war. It was, indeed, zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone in an effort to provoke a response from British naval forces. That was unquestionably a stupid move, since they most certainly got a response. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the decision to torpedo it as it turned around to sail away, resulting in the deaths of over three hundred Argentinians.So you'd prefer that they willingly leave an enemy warship afloat based on something as arbitrary as which direction it was heading? In light of this, would you classify the sinking of the Bismarck in WWII to be a war crime as well? After all, by the time the final bomb took it down, it had been trying to limp back to Germany for quite a while.
I'm answering this with what little knowledge I have on the subject of the Belgrano, so I'm going by what my understanding of the situation is. If it's true that the Belgrano was merely zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone, had not fired any shots but had simply been trying to provoke a violent response by being where it was, and then turning around to retreat back to Argentina, then I would say it wouldn't be right to sink it just for that. So from what I can gather the situation with the Bismarck was different as the Bismarck exchanged fire with other ships during a battle.How about the fact that it could well come back later and cause trouble later on, possibly even killing British military personnel, had it been allowed to retreat? What if it had managed to shell British soldiers on the island, or perhaps managed to shoot down British aircraft?
That I can't agree with; sinking a ship that never attacked anyone just because it might come back later does not seem necessary to me, not enough to justify the loss of life. Unless there is something else that's much less speculative I cannot necessarily say the sinking of the Belgrano was justifiable.I'm answering this with what little knowledge I have on the subject of the Belgrano, so I'm going by what my understanding of the situation is. If it's true that the Belgrano was merely zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone, had not fired any shots but had simply been trying to provoke a violent response by being where it was, and then turning around to retreat back to Argentina, then I would say it wouldn't be right to sink it just for that. So from what I can gather the situation with the Bismarck was different as the Bismarck exchanged fire with other ships during a battle.How about the fact that it could well come back later and cause trouble later on, possibly even killing British military personnel, had it been allowed to retreat? What if it had managed to shell British soldiers on the island, or perhaps managed to shoot down British aircraft?
All of these rules of warfare may well give you the warm-n-fuzzies and whatnot, but the realities of war really doesn't abide by such nonsense. War is not nice, that's a simple fact. You can't compromise tactics for the sake of appeasing any bleeding hearts, even when dealing with a relatively incapable opponent like Argentina, because you're effectively risking the lives of your own military for the sake of sparing the enemy's.
That I can't agree with; sinking a ship that never attacked anyone just because it might come back later does not seem necessary to me, not enough to justify the loss of life. Unless there is something else that's much less speculative I cannot necessarily say the sinking of the Belgrano was justifiable.Seriously? You don't believe an actual enemy warship could possibly be a threat until it actually attacks something? Do you need me to post the dictionary definition of "war" for you?
I understand the definition of war, I just find the reasoning eerily similar to the reasons for, say, invading Iraq: you have a posturing enemy who may attack you in the future and so you decide to launch a preemptive strike on them. Absent any evidence that the ship posed a threat, I just have to disagree with you here. I mean, without stretching this thread to forty some odd pages :PThat I can't agree with; sinking a ship that never attacked anyone just because it might come back later does not seem necessary to me, not enough to justify the loss of life. Unless there is something else that's much less speculative I cannot necessarily say the sinking of the Belgrano was justifiable.Seriously? You don't believe an actual enemy warship could possibly be a threat until it actually attacks something? Do you need me to post the dictionary definition of "war" for you?
I understand the definition of war, I just find the reasoning eerily similar to the reasons for, say, invading Iraq: you have a posturing enemy who may attack you in the future and so you decide to launch a preemptive strike on them. Absent any evidence that the ship posed a threat, I just have to disagree with you here. I mean, without stretching this thread to forty some odd pages :PThat analogy is ridiculous. There was plenty of evidence that the Belgrano was a threat. Namely, that it was an Argentinean warship and Britain and Argentina were in a state of war. How is an armed and active enemy light cruiser not a threat? Do you think the Argentinians had it out because it looked pretty? This is just bleeding heart nonsense taken to the utmost extreme.
I think they had it out there to goad the UK into attacking, and that's exactly what happened. Call it whatever you want, if you don't show me the plentiful evidence of it being a threat then I have nothing to discuss.I understand the definition of war, I just find the reasoning eerily similar to the reasons for, say, invading Iraq: you have a posturing enemy who may attack you in the future and so you decide to launch a preemptive strike on them. Absent any evidence that the ship posed a threat, I just have to disagree with you here. I mean, without stretching this thread to forty some odd pages :PThat analogy is ridiculous. There was plenty of evidence that the Belgrano was a threat. Namely, that it was an Argentinean warship and Britain and Argentina were in a state of war. How is an armed and active enemy light cruiser not a threat? Do you think the Argentinians had it out because it looked pretty? This is just bleeding heart nonsense taken to the utmost extreme.
How about the Belgrano's armaments?I think they had it out there to goad the UK into attacking, and that's exactly what happened. Call it whatever you want, if you don't show me the plentiful evidence of it being a threat then I have nothing to discuss.I understand the definition of war, I just find the reasoning eerily similar to the reasons for, say, invading Iraq: you have a posturing enemy who may attack you in the future and so you decide to launch a preemptive strike on them. Absent any evidence that the ship posed a threat, I just have to disagree with you here. I mean, without stretching this thread to forty some odd pages :PThat analogy is ridiculous. There was plenty of evidence that the Belgrano was a threat. Namely, that it was an Argentinean warship and Britain and Argentina were in a state of war. How is an armed and active enemy light cruiser not a threat? Do you think the Argentinians had it out because it looked pretty? This is just bleeding heart nonsense taken to the utmost extreme.
Interesting point if not already made so far - The sinking of the Belgrano is the only time in history that a nuclear powered submarine has engaged an enemy ship. Billions spent on the fucking things and the only time they were used was to fire two torpedos into a rust bucket full of boys. Makes you proud to be human.
Here's an argument that could work. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's the best one I could make.
Belgrano was not a military target. The British 'limited war' against Argentina was largely land and air-based, and the Belgrano was so old and crappy (and sailing away) that it was never going to be effective in that war. Just as Britain limited any strike against the Argentinian mainland, even against military targets, the British ought to have limited its attacks against the Argentinian Navy to those ships that posed an immediate, direct threat to the British #occupation of the island. The Brits had two goals: beating the Argentinians, and limiting needless casualties generated by achieving the first, civilian or military. Destroying the Belgrano needlessly wasted human life without substantially improving the British condition on the islands sufficiently to justify that loss of life (it also won a bunch of votes at home).
I think that's wrong. Blowing away the Belgrano with a submarine put the fear of a watery grave into the remainder of the Argentine Navy. They, in fact, remained in port for the rest of the war. It would have been really nice if the British Submarine had done something about the surviving crew, though.
Regardless of the tactics it is still illegal
I debated putting this in here or the Worst Political Cartoons Thread, eventually decided on here. So here it is, the most nightmarish tribute ever (double-spoilered for safety):(click to show/hide)
My eyes! My eyes!!
The Falklands War was an incredibly easy decision to take. She won the next election entirely on its back.
I debated putting this in here or the Worst Political Cartoons Thread, eventually decided on here. So here it is, the most nightmarish tribute ever (double-spoilered for safety):(click to show/hide)
My eyes! My eyes!!
This is the Internet - of course there is!
Guess what the third most popular song (http://abcnews.go.com/International/margaret-thatchers-death-irreverently-marked-ding-dong-song/story?id=18939709) in Britain is now? Fitting tribute I suppose.Am I the only one who thinks that's in poor taste? I mean, she did some bad things, but it's not like she was Elizabeth Báthory.
I think it's a bit in poor taste too, but whatever...Guess what the third most popular song (http://abcnews.go.com/International/margaret-thatchers-death-irreverently-marked-ding-dong-song/story?id=18939709) in Britain is now? Fitting tribute I suppose.Am I the only one who thinks that's in poor taste? I mean, she did some bad things, but it's not like she was Elizabeth Báthory.
It is, but I still laughed.I think it's a bit in poor taste too, but whatever...Guess what the third most popular song (http://abcnews.go.com/International/margaret-thatchers-death-irreverently-marked-ding-dong-song/story?id=18939709) in Britain is now? Fitting tribute I suppose.Am I the only one who thinks that's in poor taste? I mean, she did some bad things, but it's not like she was Elizabeth Báthory.