One for the socialists..
YouTube - Wish I were at home for christmas
:thumb: Vote them out soon. :mad: No more blood spilled by our lads in their name..... :cuckoo: |
That's right - the Tories have never sent anyone off to war :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Spooky Mulder
(Post 8375471)
the Tories have never sent anyone off to war :rolleyes:
:freak3: |
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? |
Originally Posted by unclebuck
(Post 8375481)
Not on the basis of lies and deceit - no sir, they have not! :nono:
:freak3: |
Originally Posted by Bubba po
(Post 8375486)
And the General Belgrano? :freak3:
GOTCHA! |
Originally Posted by Spooky Mulder
(Post 8375489)
Remind me Bubba, which direction was the Belgrano actually heading when it was attacked?
GOTCHA! |
Originally Posted by Bubba po
(Post 8375486)
And the General Belgrano? :freak3:
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 :p |
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. |
Originally Posted by unclebuck
(Post 8375497)
Bah!! :D
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 :p |
Ah, so nothing much to say in your defense then??
Spooky indeed.... :norty: |
I am not sure what I am defending, I am suggestion your argument in specious.
BTW are you American by any chance? |
Originally Posted by Spooky Mulder
(Post 8375503)
The keyword is approach, not, retreat!
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? :) |
Originally Posted by Spooky Mulder
(Post 8375508)
I am suggestion your argument in specious.
BTW are you American by any chance? http://s155426766.websitehome.co.uk/.../marx-bros.jpg Justa gotta decide which one... :lol1: |
Originally Posted by Bubba po
(Post 8375510)
A simple challenge or something might have been more appropriate? :)
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..... :idea: I have no idea..... |
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 :) |
Originally Posted by unclebuck
(Post 8375531)
I have no idea.....
|
Originally Posted by Spooky Mulder
(Post 8375616)
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 :) |
Originally Posted by ronjeramy
(Post 8375705)
So your saying there's no sleaze in this Labour government? :lol1:
If you read my above post I propose that it is not unique to the Labour Party. :) |
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...
|
Well, the tories would have found it difficult to embroil us in a war when they weren't in power, wouldn't they? :D
|
You said deceiving Labour party, not sleeze, two different things in my book. :)
|
Originally Posted by unclebuck
(Post 8375497)
Bah!! :D
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 :p |
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?
|
Originally Posted by Bubba po
(Post 8375510)
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? :)
|
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 :D ;) |
Originally Posted by f1_fan
(Post 8375850)
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 :D ;) |
Originally Posted by f1_fan
(Post 8375850)
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 :D ;) At least Thatcher's Mob had proper jobs to do in the mornings... |
Originally Posted by tanyatriangles
(Post 8375834)
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?
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. |
Originally Posted by tanyatriangles
(Post 8375851)
It's because there are still quite a few old-style socialist lurking, keeping their heads down for the moment............
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands