One for the socialists..
27 December 2008, 12:25 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One for the socialists..
YouTube - Wish I were at home for christmas
Vote them out soon.
No more blood spilled by our lads in their name.....
Vote them out soon.
No more blood spilled by our lads in their name.....
27 December 2008, 12:38 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27 December 2008, 12:40 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: York
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's right - the Tories have never sent anyone to war or been involved in any decisions based on lies and deceit.
Keep taking the pills chap and I am sure they will help you with your breakfast in the morning. Porage is it?
Keep taking the pills chap and I am sure they will help you with your breakfast in the morning. Porage is it?
27 December 2008, 12:46 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
27 December 2008, 12:48 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bah!! 
To Quote the interweb:
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.
So, bully for you and yer lefty tendencies
To Quote the interweb:
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.
So, bully for you and yer lefty tendencies
27 December 2008, 12:50 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: York
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what I thought. And I am sure that Commander Thatcher was instrumental in ordering the attack. On a ship leaving the combat zone, OUT of the exclusion zone and therefore against Geneva convention.
Are we sure she was a Tory, it doesn't sound possible. Not if we are to believe the Unclebuck chap.
Are we sure she was a Tory, it doesn't sound possible. Not if we are to believe the Unclebuck chap.
27 December 2008, 12:51 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: York
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bah!!
To Quote the interweb:
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.
So, bully for you and yer lefty tendencies
To Quote the interweb:
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.
So, bully for you and yer lefty tendencies
27 December 2008, 01:00 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I concur. Am I correct in assuming that the accuracy of global positioning apparatus was in its infancy at this point in history, and the General Belgrano may have simply strayed into the arbitrarily imposed "no-go area" accidentally? In these wonderful days our modern technological advances allow us to pinpoint our position to within a few metres of a given McDonald's waste bin by dint of an upmarket mobile telephone. This was not the case in the early 1980s. A simple challenge or something might have been more appropriate?
27 December 2008, 01:07 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27 December 2008, 01:21 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How every English. I think you'll find this was war. They were out to get us make no mistake. There was more than enough evidence...
Get in the way...
They had been warned...
But back on topic.... what exactly are we 'fighting for' in the name of our Government now.....
I have no idea.....
Get in the way...
They had been warned... But back on topic.... what exactly are we 'fighting for' in the name of our Government now.....
I have no idea.....
Last edited by unclebuck; 27 December 2008 at 01:23 AM.
27 December 2008, 08:02 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: York
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree - it is entirely unclear what we are fighting for now.
It is also totally clear that duplicitous government in war or peace time is not a malaise that is unique to the Labour Party.
Err, what was it that got the Tories kicked out last time? Oh, yes, SLEAZE.
PS I think Groucho suits best
It is also totally clear that duplicitous government in war or peace time is not a malaise that is unique to the Labour Party.
Err, what was it that got the Tories kicked out last time? Oh, yes, SLEAZE.
PS I think Groucho suits best
27 December 2008, 09:45 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 7,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree - it is entirely unclear what we are fighting for now.
It is also totally clear that duplicitous government in war or peace time is not a malaise that is unique to the Labour Party.
Err, what was it that got the Tories kicked out last time? Oh, yes, SLEAZE.
PS I think Groucho suits best
It is also totally clear that duplicitous government in war or peace time is not a malaise that is unique to the Labour Party.
Err, what was it that got the Tories kicked out last time? Oh, yes, SLEAZE.
PS I think Groucho suits best
27 December 2008, 10:08 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: York
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27 December 2008, 10:26 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The General Belgrano? Christ on a bike Bob, that was a quarter of a century ago! Personally, Im happy that it was sunk. Id have been happier if all of the conscripted crew had survived, but unfortunately they didnt. That said: the submarine that sank her could have broken her back with a salvo of torpedoes, leading to her sinking in a fraction of the time...
27 December 2008, 11:12 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bah!!
To Quote the interweb:
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.
So, bully for you and yer lefty tendencies
To Quote the interweb:
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.
So, bully for you and yer lefty tendencies
27 December 2008, 11:15 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: l'on n'y peut rien
Posts: 2,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And there's a whole LOT of differnce between lying to get your country embroiled in a war, and lying about what you're doing once another country has attacked your sovereign soil and declared war on you.............isn't there?
27 December 2008, 11:17 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I concur. Am I correct in assuming that the accuracy of global positioning apparatus was in its infancy at this point in history, and the General Belgrano may have simply strayed into the arbitrarily imposed "no-go area" accidentally? In these wonderful days our modern technological advances allow us to pinpoint our position to within a few metres of a given McDonald's waste bin by dint of an upmarket mobile telephone. This was not the case in the early 1980s. A simple challenge or something might have been more appropriate?
27 December 2008, 11:22 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ub,
What makes you think the current government is in anyway socialist? Why do people on SN keep peddling this misrepresentation. New Labour are no more socialist than Thatcher's government were. Why can people on here not get this through their heads. I know why I think it is, but it's Christmas so I will keep quiet 
What makes you think the current government is in anyway socialist? Why do people on SN keep peddling this misrepresentation. New Labour are no more socialist than Thatcher's government were. Why can people on here not get this through their heads. I know why I think it is, but it's Christmas so I will keep quiet
27 December 2008, 11:24 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: l'on n'y peut rien
Posts: 2,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ub,
What makes you think the current government is in anyway socialist? Why do people on SN keep peddling this misrepresentation. New Labour are no more socialist than Thatcher's government were. Why can people on here not get this through their heads. I know why I think it is, but it's Christmas so I will keep quiet
What makes you think the current government is in anyway socialist? Why do people on SN keep peddling this misrepresentation. New Labour are no more socialist than Thatcher's government were. Why can people on here not get this through their heads. I know why I think it is, but it's Christmas so I will keep quiet
27 December 2008, 11:29 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ub,
What makes you think the current government is in anyway socialist? Why do people on SN keep peddling this misrepresentation. New Labour are no more socialist than Thatcher's government were. Why can people on here not get this through their heads. I know why I think it is, but it's Christmas so I will keep quiet
What makes you think the current government is in anyway socialist? Why do people on SN keep peddling this misrepresentation. New Labour are no more socialist than Thatcher's government were. Why can people on here not get this through their heads. I know why I think it is, but it's Christmas so I will keep quiet
At least Thatcher's Mob had proper jobs to do in the mornings...
27 December 2008, 11:29 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All politicians are greedy self serving pigs at the trough. Get used to it and realise nothing will change when Cameron gets in. Same ****, different party.
27 December 2008, 11:30 AM
#30
Scooby Regular
