Well, Palestine is still occupied by Israel for a start, this conflict sees 10 Palestinians killed for every 1 Israeli - Israel continues to ignore UN resolutions - Archbishop Desmond Tutu describes it, following a visit, as worse than South Africa under Apartheid. A call has gone out supported by eminent people around the world including some brave Israelis for an apartheid style 'boycott' on Israel Myself, my family and many friends and comrades stuck loyally to the 'boycott' which helped bring down the evil South African regime. I'm doing the same again and I urge others to do the same. An organisation of British Jews has also called for this, to try to rescue the reputation of the Jewish people - read about them at www.pacbi.org
CUBA - The number of countries who now oppose the U.S. embargo on CUBA is 183 - those supporting the pathetic Bush and America are, ISRAEL ( surprise surprise ) Palau ? and the Marshall Islands. Meanwhile companies such as USA computer firms are afraid to sell goods to you if you are suspected of having anything to do with this small island which they fear so much.
KILTY KILTY CAULD BUMS - Our Scottish soldiers are in the news, they are being vilified and hung out to dry by the same papers who love to call them brave heroes and fearless Scot's warriors (it sells papers). Implying that putting on a military uniform makes you de facto brave and fearless is garbage, some will be cowards, some will be brave, some will be scared and some will be fearless, it's also dangerous propaganda. The ruling classes have been using this lie throughout history Wilfrid Owen said it better - "the old lie-Dulce et decorum est - pro patria more" (it's a sweet and honourable thing to die for the father land) these young men are using recreational drugs, big waow ! so do politicians and pop stars. Many of them are in the army because of unemployment, lack of qualifications and no prospects, if my next stop was Baghdad I would probably want to party as well, why does our society have to lie about this ? Some things never change, who said "I don't know what the enemy think of our troops but they scare the life out of me, they are the scum of the earth" that of course was the great British hero Wellington at Waterloo where all his front line troops were officially drunk on neat gin to stiffen their resolve. These squaddies and indeed 'the scum of the earth' at Waterloo would have to sink very low indeed to get to the level of the journalists who are writing this stuff. Finally, some French prisoners at Trafalgar were dressed as clowns because their fleet sailed from Cadiz where they had been 'press ganged' from a visiting circus. The British Navy was no better, there's nothing honourable about all this, it's squalid and barbarous, war zones are where young soldiers learn that adrenalin is brown.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
72 comments:
"Many of them are in the army because of unemployment, lack of qualifications and no prospects"... weren't you recently arguing that your party's ecnonomic "policies" had led to the lowest unemployment in living memory? You also seem to forget the the British army is made of volunteers and they don't tend to be stupid.
Furthermore, your suggestion that people are attracted to the forces by some kind of propaganda machine is undermined when you consider how many soldiers actually come from military families - they know what they're getting into.
It is true that the army is currently in a difficult position - but it was your party who put them there. Let's hear you direct some of your incoherent hatred at YOUR leaders before you insult a group of people far more honorable than you'll even be.
max - squalid stuff - a lack of education does not equal stupidity, I didn't say anyone was stupid, though sometimes I'm tempted. My party is fixing the problems you allude to.
To deny the roll of propaganda in recruitment simply means you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
I think that I have more regard for people in the armed forces than you do, that's why I'm not prepared to lie about it.
My views on the Iraq war are no secret and your attempt to use this line shows where you really stand as far as the troops are concerned, wrap yourself in the flag max - pathetic, your an armchair commando, who is prepared to use serving soldiers for your own political ends. With friends like you --------
Terry,
Soldiers using what you blythly refer to as recreational drugs is a significant problem. This is because they can be handed automatic weapons and put, in public, on armed guard while still suffering either from intoxication or the after-affects. It is relatively easy to spot the pissed and the hungover if the drug of choice is alcohol. It is much harder if they are on cocaine (which is what I assume the supposed 1 SCOTS lads are being accused of) or heroin. If you are on strong prescription drugs, you will sometimes get excused weapon handling because the docs know you would be hindered from properly making the personal and difficult shoot / don't shoot decision.
Imagine if a Royal Marine shot somebody trying to get into Faslane or Coulport and was later discovered to be high (on anything)? Quite rightly, there would be a huge outcry, from the media, the anti-nuclear and the anti-anything-military lobbies whether the intruder was armed or a disarmament protester.
From a more military (rather than health and safety) point, it also has the possibility to undermine the chain of command - if the dealer is junior to their customers, for example.
Oh, and it is also illegal under UK general and specific military law. The military doesn't particularly like its members choosing which of the country's laws to obey or not, both for "good order and discipline" and because the consequences of breaching, say, the Third or Fourth Geneva Conventions, can have a significant impact on the country as a whole, rather than just the individuals concerned.
Not to worry, despite the apparent evidence, it is quite likely that SIB will make a mess of the investigation as usual. I foresee lots of pissing into test tubes for the whole battalion ...
S-E
Oh, and a few minor things.
Wellington was Irish not British, as in "The United Kingdom of Great BRITAIN and Northern IRELAND"; the British Army in Iraq is (mostly) in Basrah not Baghdad; and it is the "Royal Navy" not the "British Navy".
S-E
Care to fully quote Wellington and give the remark its proper context? Or are you just going to distort it?
I asked one of your leaders (my local MP) for her comments on the coroner's comments regarding the death of Sergeant Steven Roberts and the lack of training an equipment for soldiers in Iraq. She didn't like that, and didn't reply. Rank hypocrisy. Your lot put them there, and your lot aren't backing them up. It stinks.
(http://strikethirteen.blogspot.com/2007/01/taking-part.html)
Implying that putting on a military uniform makes you de facto brave and fearless is garbage,
No it isn't as the uniform imparts a psychological edge over a civilian, as well the feeling of belonging.
some will be cowards,
No they wouldn't, because by definition they wouldn't be there would they.
some will be brave,
Exactly right, which is distinctly different from being a coward but not the opposite.
some will be scared
ALL will be scared.
and some will be fearless,
NONE will be fearless.
it's also dangerous propaganda. The ruling classes have been using this lie throughout history Wilfrid Owen said it better - "the old lie-Dulce et decorum est - pro patria more" (it's a sweet and honourable thing to die for the fatherland)
The ruling classes? Jesus man this is so passe and outdated even you must feel embarrassed saying it.
these young men are using recreational drugs, big waow!
How many popstars are in direct charge of equi[ment that kills and is designed to kill? All soldiers caught using any form of drug at all should be dishonourably discharged.
Many of them are in the army because of unemployment, lack of qualifications and no prospects,
No they aren't. The modern army doesn't take thicko layabouts, and hasn't for some decades now. The modern army, even foot sloggers need to reach a certain level of intelligence before they are gained entry.
if my next stop was Baghdad I would probably want to party as well,
Then that goes to show just how little you know about any professional soldiers.
why does our society have to lie about this ? Some things never change, who said "I don't know what the enemy think of our troops but they scare the life out of me, they are the scum of the earth" that of course was the great British hero Wellington at Waterloo
That wasn't quite the quote.
where all his front line troops were officially drunk on neat gin to stiffen their resolve.
Wrong again, and you've been too many movies. When you saw them being given the gin in the film Waterloo it was because there was a daily ration of gin at that time, same as there was a ration of rum in the navy. They were formed up first thing in the morning and had just been given their ration.
These squaddies and indeed 'the scum of the earth' at Waterloo would have to sink very low indeed to get to the level of the journalists who are writing this stuff. Finally, some French prisoners at Trafalgar were dressed as clowns because their fleet sailed from Cadiz where they had been 'press ganged' from a visiting circus. The British Navy was no better, there's nothing honourable about all this, it's squalid and barbarous, war zones are where young soldiers learn that adrenalin is brown.
I take it you are talking from experience then?
Full Wellington quote is:
"The scum of the earth, but see what fine fellows we have made of them"
But even then this has never been sourced and is little more than rumour.
RFS - correct - but you know that 'scum of the earth' is famous part.
shotgun - you seem to regard telling the truth about the military as some kind of treason -You're in denial, and you've clearly bought the whole parcel of propoganda - the pen is indeed mightier than the sword. (YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH ! YOU'VE F - - - - - WITH THE WRONG MARINE)
Donald McLean - How's Guy doing ? We put them there ? guilty m'lud. Poor equipment? I don't know enough about that to comment, but I know the gutter press when they smell blood. Anyway I clicked on your site. Predictable pedestrian anti Labour drivel, all politicians are the same etc - anyway it's well written and manages , unlike RFS and Devil's Kitchen etc to stay out of the sewer.
RFS I don't think I'm distorting old Artie's comment, like most officers at that time he treated his troops with contempt, that's not meant to be anti Wellington, that's just the way things were then, cannon fodder, the light brigade etc. I have in fact read extensively on these things and I just can't bring myself to buy the glorious history thing. He's saying that he turned ' the scum of the earth ' into soldiers, is that OK ?
surreptitious evil - You have made those points very well and I can't really take issue with what you say. I wrote rather quickly about this, driven by what I consider to be the duplicitous attitude of the media to these soldiers, that was my main aim. I have sympathy for them but I'm not advocating drug taking, I just don't think they know what they are in for and the media are as always will use them to sell papers.
surreptitious evil - Arthur Wellesley originally Wesley - Duke of Wellington, Victor of Waterloo - Prime Minister - born Merrington Square Dublin May 17 69 - Waterloo 18 15 - Irish Free State created 19 21 - He was therefore British.
"My views on the Iraq war are no secret and your attempt to use this line shows where you really stand as far as the troops are concerned, wrap yourself in the flag max - pathetic, your an armchair commando, who is prepared to use serving soldiers for your own political ends."
Terry - I realise that your delicate sensibilities are offended by course language, so I'll make an effort to keep this as polite as possible...
If you were to pull your head from your nether regions for even the briefest of moments, you'd realise that my position on this war isn't so different from mine.
The difference is in our treatment of soldiers... I consider them honorable professionals who have been placed in danger by actions outside of their control and failed by Labour politicians who have not provided them with adequate battlefield equipment, while reducing the availability of specialist after-care in the UK.
These are you policies, not mine.
The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", although ceasing to exist in practice, with the creation of the Free State, was actually dissolved by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927.
However, this is an irrelevance: Great Britain is a geographical not political entity, as opposed to "Lesser Britain" aka Britanny. The island of Ireland, although bits of it have, at various times, been part of the United Kingdom, is not part of the geographical entity. Going back to the Romans, if we must, you had Britannia and Hibernia.
S-E
Re The Duke: Wellington was born The Honourable Arthur Wesley at either his family's social season Dublin residence, Mornington House, or at his family seat, Dangan Castle near Trim, County Meath, Ireland.
He was the third son of Garret Wesley, 1st Earl of Mornington. His exact date of birth is uncertain. All that exists is a church register of the event marked a few days after it must have occurred. The most likely date is 1 May 1769. His family legally changed their surname to Wellesley in March 1798.
He was Irish although not happy about that condition, as a member of the Protestant British squirearchy ruling Ireland, he was touchy about his Irish origins. When in later life an enthusiastic Gael commended him as a famous Irishman, he replied "Being born in a stable does not make one a horse."
You have read up on the Iberian campaign yet you reference the "light brigade" which I assume is the horses that charged the wrong cannon in the Crimea(sp?)?
I take it you are not talking of Crauford's Light Brigaden the central component of which - 95th Rifles- would go on to set the standard for the modern soldier?
Wellington was born into Irish nobility but he considered it a source of personal shame. History records him in general as Irish. And the point I made was that there is no evidence he ever said those words and the scum part is the most famous because socialists like you have misquoted it in an attempt to show some kind of class divide.
If he did say it then the full quote is in fact expressing his pride in the fact that his men have bettered themselves in the army. I can see why you would feel threatened by it.
Come, come Terry,
You are a better rhetorician than this.
Your party is fixing the problems you allude to?
Your party sent troops to two wars (one illegal).
Your party equipped them terribly. Your party refuses to hold an inquiry into the how we came to send our troops to Iraq.
Your party merged historic regiments
Your party has closed military hospitals.
What have the Labour party done in the last ten years that you are actually proud of? And, surely, the Iraq War, the defining decision of the millenia thus far, outweighs everything else?
RS
RightForScotland said...
Full Wellington quote is:
"The scum of the earth, but see what fine fellows we have made of them"
But even then this has never been sourced and is little more than rumour.
It was suppsoed to have been, debatedly, said prior to he battle of Talavera and no Waterloo at all. At Waterloo Wellington had pretty much the cream of the British army and wouldn't have referred to them as the scum of the earth anyways, but the British forces were few and far between in the lines, and scattered to bolster the rest that were made up of militia and ex enemies.
There are loads of quotes.
shotgun - you seem to regard telling the truth about the military as some kind of treason -You're in denial, and you've clearly bought the whole parcel of propoganda - the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.
Just because you said it doesn't make it the truth, and remind us of your extensive military service from which you plucked this version of the truth?
...........he treated his troops with contempt, that's not meant to be anti Wellington, that's just the way things were then, cannon fodder, the light brigade etc.......
If you've read so much, why put the charge of the light brigade in the same context as Waterloo? It was a different period, and you should know that the charge of the light brigade was a mistake and not an order from some kind of waste of manpower.
Where do you get these ideas from?
I'm sure a great number of my friends in green, many of whom have both degrees and "Other Ranks" status would find your comments deeply insulting, were it not for the fact that you're just an ignorant buffoon for whom they would feel more pity than contempt.
jackart - 'your friends in green' thank you for that balanced comment - is it possible that the last two letters in your name are misspelt ?
shotgun - you're trying my patience, if I cut you out I get accused of stifling debate but come on for god's sake, I was generalising about the British military - try to keep up.
shotgun - 'well said that man' if we are to rely on people with extensive military experience to understand history we are in big trouble. You serve as a good example do you not ?
RS - 'rhetorician' that's a cracker - haven't we done this ? are you trying to get me expelled from the party ? OK
1/ We are trying to fix the problems, a tortuous business, we don't have the benefit of a socialist society to help.
2/ Sent troops to 2 wars - guilty m'lud, it was of course the British Govt. but I can see why you stick with my party - I could say you're party was responsible for the Dardannelles fiasco but that was the Govt too.
3/ badly equipped troops ? it was ever thus (it's no excuse though ) my dad (8th. army) Egypt, Italy (Anzio, Monte Casino etc)returned home able to mend shoes/boots, darn socks, stitch and patch torn uniforms, believe it or not stitch wounds etc. troops are still cannon fodder and that's not the fault of any one party.
4/ My party/Govt. like any other Govt. will not hold an enquiry into a war which their own troops are still fighting. I hope there will be an enquiry in due course.
5/ Party merged historic regiments? couldn't care less all that stuff is a stunt to get gullible young men to charge at the guns.
6/ I don't know the details but IMO closing military or indeed any other hospitals is not de facto a bad thing.
7/ What else have the romans ever done for us ?
Restore trade union rights - minimum wage - cut the working week - doubled maternity pay - £3 billion in compensation for disabled miners or their widows. - 2.51 million more in work since 19 97 - Productivity 2.5% higher than any time since sixties - manufacturing output up by 33% since 19 97 I could go on. Did you really mean the Iraq war is the defining moment of the last several thousand years. Anyway it's bad, probably worse than the Falklands which was of course a noble cause.
Crimea-Waterloo-Trafalgar - I thought it was clear that I was generalising, did you really not get that ?
Wellington was born British-fact. The scum of the earth quote is as old as the battle so don't take it out on me or socialism. Perhaps in your world there was no class divide between old Artie and the troops at the front but not in mine, a rather silly remark.
What the army does to men doesn't threaten me from a philosophical point of view but by god it scares me. Go check the prisons and doss houses and you might get an idea what the army really produces.
Fido - thank you for exposing my laziness I should have been more thorough - however Wellington was born in Ireland which at the time was British. I was born in Scotland what does that make me ? my passport says I'm British, is any of this important ?
S - E That's not what I was taught in school, why is that ? anyway thank you for trying to enlighten me, I hope you don't mind but I'm not really driven by this.
max - read your 3rd para and see why I treat you as a special case but you're trying my patience. I tell the truth about the army and you can't handle it. That doesn't mean I regard the front line troops as dishonourable as you suggest, quite the contrary I have more sympathy with them than flag waving badge kissers like you. Check the exchange on this site between me and reactionary snob for the rest of what you're looking for.
seriously, man. You need to look at what's happening here. You've become sport for the entire blogosphere, because everything about you is ridiculous. I never get abusive comments on my blog and I get many, many more readers than you. NEither does RFS, Rotty, Max and DK who you think is a pervert. Why? Because he swears? At least he doesn't deride the people who are serving their country.
Why do we not get trolls on our blogs?
Because we don't tell everyone who disagrees that they're a paedophile/mad/bad etc. w argue substative points.
You on the other hand couldn't construct an argument on the issues if it were made of lego. Just look at your answer to my last post... or your reaction to RFS's offer for a debate. Pathetic, Playground taunting. I would expect my 6 yo cousin to do better than that.
You call peoples fitnees for office into question. You have been censured by your council on two seperate occasions. Seriously man, you need to look at who's the arsehole here. You aren't some brave, noble seeker after the truth legislating on your council. You're an ignorant, self righeous fool with a persecution complex and a blog.
for your own sanity please just shut up. Every comment you get is negative. EVERY ONE. We aren't the aberations. You are.
Mr. Kelly, just because you say it is the truth does not make it so. Whether you like it or not, your comments are insulting.
It's like John Kerry's comments about American soldiers in Iraq.
“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
You have insulted our troops. You have called them a bunch of unemployed fools with no prospects. It is disgraceful rhetoric. You either hold abominable opinions or you cannot articulate a proper argument. I hope you have the good sense to apologise.
However, it gets worse. In this, your latest offering, you call for the downfall of the Israeli nation! I would expect this from a neo nazi rag, but not from a labour blogger. In calling for the downfall of Israel you call for a second holocaust and shill for a bunch of Islamic fascists in the disputed territories and beyond. This totally goes against liberal principles of life, liberty and freedom. Surely you would not like to be seen as railing against these three great principles, and thus, the rest of our society? IF you do not wish to be portrayed in this way, I suggest you retract your comments and apologise. Not only is calling for the downfall of the Israeli nation insulting to those who fought to save the Jews in World War Two, but it is, as I say, verging on calling for a second holocaust.
Cllr Terry Kelly said...
shotgun - you're trying my patience, if I cut you out I get accused of stifling debate but come on for god's sake, I was generalising about the British military - try to keep up.
Well of course I am trying your patience, and you are incapable of answering. Your generalising was as ignorant as if it was specific.
Still haven't answered the simple questions put.
shotgun - 'well said that man' if we are to rely on people with extensive military experience to understand history we are in big trouble. You serve as a good example do you not ?
You don't understand history; that is the problem. You also don't understand, or know anything about, modern military history or the modern military. People with experience are to be relied on...unless you are saying that you, without any knowledge or expereince, know better than those with knowledge and experience?
That would be a truly socialist view.
Terry,
You seem to spend half your life in the comments area. How about more blogs?
Dear Donald McLean, you might have spied that I'm under siege here by a howling slavering right wing mob. If I don't answer them they will accuse me of running away from them, I don't want to allow such a bunch of nonentities to say that. I will post more when I get time.
shotgun - I'm afraid you are beginning to sound like an example of everything that is wrong and just plain daft about the army.
Your last paragraph is nothing more than arrogant pompous drivel, You're not Colonel Blimp are you ?
will b - just because you say it's the truth doesn't make it so, well said young man, I concur.
I'm not sure if you are being disingenuous when you take John Kerry's remarks and mine so literally but it sounds pretty hollow, did you know that the USA had lowered the educational standards yet again for recruits from what was already an abysmal level ? I did not insult our troops nor call anyone unemployed fools, you are already displaying a cavalier attitude to the truth.
I'm going to give you a break but you ought to watch your language, 'neo nazis calling for a new holocaust, islamic fascists' etc go tell the Palestinians about Israel's liberal principles of life, liberty and freedom.
War criminals, opression and genocide are the same crimes wherever they are committed, and Israel are guilty as hell, you might want to consider that being anti Israel does not mean you are de facto anti jewish it's not that simple.
jackart - who are you trying to convince here ? If I'm as bad as you say, why would you want me to stop ? Anyway thank you for your well balanced contribution, it amazes me how you maintain such high standards.
1) 'We are trying to fix the problems, a tortuous business, we don't have the benefit of a socialist society to help' - you've had 10 years...
2) 'Sent troops to 2 wars - guilty m'lud, it was of course the British Govt. but I can see why you stick with my party - I could say you're party was responsible for the Dardannelles fiasco but that was the Govt too.'
Your party forms the government, sunshine. You can't get out of it that easily. As it happens I'm not a Tory party member, so even if your historical analogy worked (it doesn't, the Dardanelles was at least part of a wider war and not an unprovoked, illegal attack on a sovereign state) it wouldn't stick. It was your party that took us to war, your party that lied to parliament and the nation. Take some responsibility.
3) 'Badly equipped troops ? it was ever thus (it's no excuse though ) my dad (8th. army) Egypt, Italy (Anzio, Monte Casino etc)returned home able to mend shoes/boots, darn socks, stitch and patch torn uniforms, believe it or not stitch wounds etc. troops are still cannon fodder and that's not the fault of any one party.'
Your party could have changed that!
If troops were equipped badly in the past, that's disgraceful. No one is denying that. Labour have had 10 years to sort it out - they haven't. Not good enough - as you say yourself.
4) My party/Govt. like any other Govt. will not hold an enquiry into a war which their own troops are still fighting. I hope there will be an enquiry in due course.
Nonsense. There have been inquiries during wars before. I don't buy this guff that the fact we are having an inquiry will embolden the jihadist nutters in Iraq. Do you?
6) I don't know the details but IMO closing military or indeed any other hospitals is not de facto a bad thing'' It is because military servicemen need different levels of care than ordinary civilians.
7) 'Did you really mean the Iraq war is the defining moment of the last several thousand years?' No, I quite obviously meant millenium - wouldn't you agree?
'Anyway it's bad, probably worse than the Falklands which was of course a noble cause.' I don't see how invading a sovereign nation illegally is somehow analagous to fighting for British citizens when invaded by a at that time dictatorial nation that has no legitimate legal claim to the Falklands. Do you think they are equivalent?
Your sarcasm doesn't sit too well.
RS - I almost had my bloody jacket on, I'm spending too much time on these comments.
1/ I could sort it in ten months but you wouldn't like it, but this Labour Govt. doesn't agree with me all the time.
2/ I think I mentioned before that we've done this, My party did take us to war I couldn't stop it, so what next, I'm reponsible for not being able to stop it, what did you do to stop it ?
3/ OK we disagree here, I don't believe this is as bad as the press are making out, it's grown legs and is now a stick to beat Blair with.
4/ I think that the jihadist nutters as you call them have already been boosted by the criticism of the war, I have no doubt about that. millions marching to demonstrate and they are not going to use it ? any way I was marching so I can't complain.
5/ If closing the military hospitals means that they are not getting that care then I agree with you.
7/ I'm tired, don't know where 6 went. Anyway I don't think that Iraq is the defining moment of the last millenium and I doubt that you do either. The Iraq war was a result of us being dominated by Bush the Falklands was caused by the the most unpopular British prime minister in history courting popularity and saving her own skin. I agree with Tam Dalyell she is a war criminal, and I've dropped the sarcasm, my apologies.
Cllr Terry Kelly said...
shotgun - I'm afraid you are beginning to sound like an example of everything that is wrong and just plain daft about the army.
Your last paragraph is nothing more than arrogant pompous drivel, You're not Colonel Blimp are you ?
You've been found out Terry, and all this prevarication and pointless abuse based on nothing proves the point.
Give me and the other readers here an example of why what I said was pointless drivel instead of your usual pointless and baseless pontificating.
Is this how you got elected; just by repeating the same drivel over and over and beating the electorate into submission, using the old dishonest tactic beloved of Labour of, "If you repeat the same lie often enough, people will believe it."
And here was the rest of the world thinking the Falklands was caused by a faltering Agrie junta courting public opinion!!!!!
Keep it up, Terry. You're worth a well-equipped army to the Conservatives. I am surprised WebCameron doesn't link to you. "Under siege" is a great comment. You are clearly adding paranoia to your other interesting attributes.
tom paine - If I'm doing a great job for the Conservatives, why am I 'under siege' by a mob of right wing reactionaries ? why would you want me to stop ? and BTW don't take 'under siege' too literally I'm having great fun and being congratulated by my own side for stirring up such a right wing cesspit. There is a constant line of folk waiting to read your comments every morning, I'm thinking of making them into a book, some people are just amazed that people like you lot still exist, keep it coming.
Yet none of this "queue of people" have bothered to post in support of you?
How strange.
"some people are just amazed that people like you lot still exist, keep it coming."
That's exactly what we think about you! You're a proper dinosaur Trot. I thought Maggie had killed youse off. Maybe Scottish Heritage should slap a preservation order on you....
I especially like the 1970's class-war rhetoric. Priceless.
Which brings me back to my previous point: If there's so much support for you, why none in the comments? Why no approving links? Face it Terry, without evidence of support, you'll have to realise you're a wally some time! Till then, keep me amused!
We aren't the aberation. You are...
RFS - Being a gung ho type makes you vulnerable to Govt. propaganda, the Falklands should never have been a war. It was turned into a war by Thatcher to save her own skin, why else would she escalate it by ordering the sinking of a ship which was 12 miles outside the exclusion zone and heading in the other direction.
shot gun - I've read enough of your mindless garbage, if you want to let them make a fool of you and wrap yourself in the flag then go ahead, I'll continue to question the forces and the way they exploit gullible folk like you. I've been as fair as I can with you but I've had enough, if you want to keep on writing to me then go ahead, I'll print it but that's all, no more banging my head against a brick wall, you're too far gone.
RFS - They read it regularly, laugh, sneer and then tell me to get out of it and leave you and your friends to your cesspit, but I find it cathartic and funny. Much cheaper than a psychiatrist.
jackart - you still sound as if you're not sure who you're trying to convince. I only know one blogger personally and you might be interested to know that your numbers have dwindled to about 10 max. hardly overwhelming is it ? Anyway I'm having too much fun to quit, I regularly read out these comments to folk and I congratulate you, you are one of their favoutites, allways met with incredulous laughter, keep it up, please.
She "escalated" it by deferring to her military advisers who ordered the sinking the Belgrano?
It was heading in the other direction? Yes, at that exact time but by its CO's own admission she was heading towards the coast to await better weather to venture out and attack the fleet.
What exactly happened after that, can you remember a general fleet engagement? The Argentinian fleet stayed in port for the rest of the conflict and the Royal Navy did not have to fight two fronts. Imagine the losses on the ground if the RN had to go forth and deal with a sea battle as well, depriving the soldiers on the ground of NGS.
Remember how long it took to get the task force to the islands? Yes, some in government had misread the intentions of the Junta but even if they had they would have not prevented the invasion.
From Wikipedia:
"In the period leading up to the war, Argentina was in the midst of a devastating economic crisis and large-scale civil unrest against the repressive military junta that was governing the country. The Argentine military government, headed by General Leopoldo Galtieri, decided to play off long-standing feelings of nationalism by invading the islands, although they never thought that the United Kingdom would respond."
From Sandy Woodwards autobiograpy's foreword "Appeasement? Britain? Never!"
RFS - Well if Sandy Woodward says it's true, i suppose. This doesn't wash, history will some day record her as a war criminal - this is the kind of thing which makes the British military establishment so distrusted all over the world, our view of history is dishonest, it's history written by the winners.
The end quote was not from the Adm.
So you have nothing to rebut the idea that what really happened was that a group of people enjoying the status of "subject of the crown" were attacked in a war of aggression and Thatcher sent a flotilla to restore and protect their right to self determination?
Would somebody please sing the red flag now. Are you real Terry?
Terry,
15 6" rapid firing guns and the impact they could have on the East Falkland bridgehead may have had something to do with the British Navy's attitude to the ex-USS Phoenix, but ...
You are becoming seriously famous (at least as far as blogging goes):
http://disillusionedandbored.blogspot.com/2007/02/ive-jumped-on-terry-kelly-bandwagon.html
http://notsaussure.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/councillor-terry-kelly/
I appreciate it is a bit East of your normal habitation - would you consider challenging Eric for his nomination?
S-E
S-E Have you really never heard the theory before that she deliberately cranked up the war to rescue herself ( the most unpopular prime minister in history at the time ) all those deaths and hideous injuries because of her. The ship was sailing away from the exclusion zone and was 12 miles away wasn't it. If you were to admit the truth you would never recover, I'm glad I don't have to carry that around with me. I checked those blogs in the forlorn hope that they would say something new but. God what lives you people lead.
RFS - I understand perfectly why you have to defend the indefensible - you will never be able to admit to the Falklands truth it would destroy you. She's a war criminal but you lot will never admit it. All that suffering and death to rescue her political career.
But surely the UK was simply ensuring that UN Resolution 502 was obeyed? I mean, after all, that is what you are asking of Israel.
The ship was sunk because intelligence showed that she was running for harbour from the weather but was going to return to attack.
I assume you claim that it was designed to scupper peace talks in the UN? Historical documents show that the Junta was not going to withdraw and the British were not going to accept anything less.
If the ship had not been sunk? She would have returned to the fray, in the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo she would have brought an aircraft carrier with her. With close air support and their own NGS the knife-edged conflict may have tipped out of our favour and certainly would have encouraged the troops on the ground to continue the fight instead of surrendering.
Besides all that - the Falklands was never recognised as a war. The best you can hope for is that she will be remembered as a "conflict criminal"!
d & b - 'brevity' clearly is not, as the bard said, 'the soul of wit'
Doesn't Israel have just a few other UN resolutions that they haven't complied with ? Anyway I'm glad that you seem to be toying with doing the right thing, go the whole way now and condemn Israel and all it's brutal war crimes, it's genocide and it's aparthied.
The Falklands ? You either believe as I do that she is a war/conflict criminal and she sank that ship for her own ends or you dont.
60, GET IN!!!
I think we both agree that "she" sank the ship for her own ends.
I simply maintain that her ends were to protect the British Serviceman from harm, you maintain the end was for the ballot box.
My reasoning is based on the military advice that was given in records now in the public domain, your reasoning is based on hindsight given the bounce election that was called on the back of victory.
Let's face it, the victory was never a sure thing. Some say that if it was not for H Jones singular act of leadership the whole thing could have sunk into a pit. Had she escalated it for poll numbers and it had gone belly up then she would have been out and the Conservative Party may have ceased to exist.
You assume that because we now know it was a victory that this was always the outcome and therefor all actions taken were taken in the context of this sure fact. A bit like those that maintian the 2000 US election in Florida was rigged to get Bush into power.
Besides, you ignore the 1983 Labour Party Manifesto, dubbed the "longest suicide note in history", which allowed the British public to reject Nationalisation at the ballot box once and for all.
It takes 2 to tango.
RFS _ 60 GET IN !!! - ? - So she did it to protect the British serviceman, your reasoning is based on military advice ! (no wonder they love you lot) - my hindsight ? The British Boy Scouts could have beaten the Argentinians, it was never going to go belly up, get real, that would have been a rerun of David and Goliath. The dogs in the street could see the bounce election coming, H Jones and the others were a tragedy born of political chicanery and hundreds of years of propaganda.
Bush ? Florida & good ole boy Jeb ? Well I suppose there are still some people who would agree with you but, you're looking a bit silly here I'm afraid.
And of course it wasn't the Falklands that won the election was it ? RFS are you having a laugh here ? If you are serious I'm going to have to be accused of stifling debate and stop this, I'm sorry, you might (god help you) be serious but I can't treat you so, honestly not on this.
Sail from one end of the world to another, supply lines stretching the furthest they have ever been and launch an amphibious attack from Ascension. The military clearly need your insight as the contemporary thought at the time was that it was all in the balance.
Had the Junta attacked the fleet before the landing the task force would have been crippled. They may have even been destroyed. But they did not because the Belgrano incident was them being told to stay in port.
You need proof? The loss of the heavy lift helicopters. A single Chinook was in operation and the Marines had to manpack everything on the Island. Imagine if a troop transport had been attacked by carrier borne aircraft at zero notice before the landing?
And the Floridian theory only holds water if you assume that Bush knew that the election was going to be that close. If he did then he should have tried to divert resources into winning more states rather than knobbling a single one (and why only the one? Try knobbling a couple to hedge your bets). Again, hindsight.
And I was talking to someone the other day and she said I could not get this comments section to 60. I was right, she was wrong.
"The British Boy Scouts could have beaten the Argentinians, it was never going to go belly up, get real, that would have been a rerun of David and Goliath"
I had the pleasure of serving under a gentleman who cut his teeth on Tumbledown as an 18 year old Guardsman. You are quite wrong - the Argentines were well dug in, had artillery support, were well supplied with heavy machine guns and extensive AP mine defences.
The British Infantry at junior command levels NCOs and Junior officers (the chinless cretins you dispise) was the difference. Our leaders were in the thick of it... H Jones, Sgt McKay to name the two most famous. The Argentinian officers abandoned their men.
Your comment about the Argentine soldiers does discredit to you, The british Army and the Brave young Argentine conscripts, who were duped unlike the all volounteer British.
You are quite the most staggeringly ignorant buffoon I have ever come accross.
RFS - This is pointless, you have bought the whole patriotic package. In your case the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.
You will just have to accuse me of stifling debate again.
jackart - I know you won't want to hear this but, I do feel sorry for you. You clearly are proud of your military past and you are proud of Britain's armed forces no matter what, you can't admit the truth and that really is a pity.
You've deliberately chosen to twist my words about the quality and strength of the Argentinian forces to make it seem that I insulted their soldiers. I consider what I've said about them and other serving soldiers as the truth and I have every sympathy for them, I despise the system which manipulates and uses them.
Unfortunately your last comment says more about you than it does about me.
Terry, you seem to have no pride in anything at all, except your evil, spiteful creed of socialism. You pity me... Pah!
You tell a soldier that you think they're duped. See what they say...
"The pen"? No Terry, the logic.
I have presented a case that argues that documented evidence shows the Falklands could have been a right mess. You choose not to bring a counter argument but whine about propaganda and, well as far as I can see the throught that because you have said it it must be right.
You clearly win the argument then.
RFS - I've indulged you long enough. I'm not prepared to go round in circles listening to the same Tory propaganda.
I'll just have to put up with the accusation of stifling debate, or what passes for debate in your world.
jackart - You seem to find it difficult to accept that I don't buy the propaganda that you do.
I have immense pride in many things and many people but, you won't tell me what is good or bad, unlike you I make up my own mind about that.
I believe that it's better to decide on what is decent and true without badge kissing, flag waving and drums beating, you should try it.
RFS - Being a gung ho type makes you vulnerable to Govt. propaganda, the Falklands should never have been a war. It was turned into a war by Thatcher to save her own skin, why else would she escalate it by ordering the sinking of a ship which was 12 miles outside the exclusion zone and heading in the other direction.
Hey, Tel; would you do us a favour, pal, and look at the history? This exclusion zone is a load of rubbish; at the time that the Belgrano was sunk, the exclusion zone did not exist.
Though the ship was outside of the 200 mile exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action — on 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read:
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.
Interviews conducted by Martin Middlebrook for his book, The Fight For The Malvinas, indicated that Argentine Naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be targeted.
So, with all due respect (which is very little), Tel, stick that in your pipe and smoke it (but not in an enclosed public space, obviously).
DK
DK - Why did the war criminal Thatcher not know all this when she found herself unable to defend the sinking of the Bellgrano on TV when questioned by a housewife ? Do you remember Sue Lawley rescuing her, do you remember her squirming and lying ?
The truth is that she deliberately escalated the war and caused unnecessary deaths to save her political skin.
It's also true that the last people to accept this truth will be sycophantic camp followers like you.
P.S. Allow me to congratulate you on your greatly improved vocabulary.
Post a Comment