Fitba - approximately 7.45 pm June 20 Th. 07 and I'm watching a penalty shoot out through my fingers between England and Holland under 21's the tension is unbearable, what's it like for the teams ?
This was the classic battle between the puncher ( England ) and the boxer ( Holland ) the English lads were outclassed by the Dutch lads and made up for that with a fantastic display of strength, stamina and courage to get to the 90 Th. minute with a one goal lead, Holland are attacking, a defender heads clear and goes down heavily, clearly injured, Holland have the ball on the edge of the area, what would you do ? the Dutch did what IMO we would all do and crossed the ball. This led to an equalizer and extra time and grumbles from the stupid English commentator.
England survived heroically in extra time with this injured lad playing on, all subs had been used, on to penalties, can it get any more dramatic ? you bet it can. England tried to excuse the injured player from taking his penalty and the Dutch objected, the boy took the kick and scored, both keepers scored, 30 kicks were taken and five were missed the Dutch went through.
The rule states that every player who finishes the game must take a kick if required so the Dutch were right but, I thought in my fevered mind what if a player were to pull a ham string in his approach to the ball at a penalty and fall over without reaching the ball, what then ?
Football is the greatest game in the history of the planet !
Fish - the best thing on TV IMO at the moment is 'Trawlermen' at 7pm each evening, I can link it to Fitba, a young centre half with Dundee Utd. called John Clark fell out with Jim McLean over training, he walked out saying f*** you and fitba I can allways go back to the family trawler business.
A month later he was back loving the training, the harder the better, McLean was asked by the press how the dispute was resolved and said " he found out the fishing wasn't for him" watch tonight and see why.
These guys are filmed gutting fish on the trawler and laughing and joking like any other work place except the boat is being hammered by 40 ft. waves and everybody is being thrown around like rag dolls, you surely have to be born to this. The characters on board are incredible, the work is hard and very dangerous but they just get on with it, desperate conditions to work in.
There's a big brawny Irish guy called Kevin who is a natural on TV, nothing fazes him and he can be hilarious, check him out, he could easily be a stand up comic, a brilliant show and thought provoking - the price of fish ?
Roll up, Roll up, come see the freak show presented by 'Bound and Gagged Comedy' it's the 'Tommy Sheridan Chat Show' at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, here's how they are selling it, honestly.
'From political fringe to Festival Fringe' 'Scotland's own Sunbed Socialist' 'Sunbed Sheridan entertains the Capital' 'come and see Tommy, bring your own sun cream'
The fringe programme carries a photo of Tommy sitting on a sun bed. How does this make you feel ? some will say he deserves the ridicule, he's no friend of mine and I think that he and the rest of them like the SSP are a hindrance to Socialism but this just makes me sad.
Like Terry Molloy he could have been a contender.
Falklands - It was 25 yrs ago and it is now being celebrated as a source of pride, the evil Thatcher shows up driveling and blubbering about how national pride was preserved, now there's a war criminal for you. This was her war, fought for her personal reasons it saved her political skin which is what it was designed to do.
225 British soldiers died and many more were injured, they did their duty and no criticism can be made of them and none is intended. Today's local paper carries a story about a casualty from Paisley brought up in an orphanage and then into the army and dead at 24 yrs old in the Falklands, the truth has to be told to stop this from happening isn't the young soldier's background rather familiar, 'when will they ever learn'
300 suicides among our troops who survived, Argentinian conscripts the same and she survived and went on to a long career where she inflicted misery on millions.
The Archbishop of Canterbury who was carrying out the remembrance service at the end of the conflict had to defy her over the order of service, he insisted on praying for the Argentinian dead and she wanted any references to the Argentinians removed, he won with his dignified honourable stance, a concept alien to Thatcher.
The Archbishop of Canterbury was Robert Runcie holder of the Military Cross for bravery as a tank commander in Normandy.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
You ever watched "the deadliest catch" on discovery? It is about the alaskan crab fleet. A deck hand can earn $40,000 in the 3 week season but the bet is that out of the whole fleet something like 5 or 10 will be killed each year. Hard hard men.
Have you not stated in the past that you think the iraq war was illegal? If so how can you square that with your comments on the actions of thatcher? Do we take it that you hate the stroke victim Thatcher so much you support the right-wing dictatorship who invaded the falklands?
Why do you hate your country so, Terry?
What's that saying about those who live in glass houses? I suggest you refrain from throwing insults regarding Thatcher's liberation of one of our colonies... Or did you forget that the Argies invaded us?
Remind me why we invaded Iraq? Remind me why we have troops in Afghanistan?
Whichever way you look at it, the Falklands war was a response to a direct act of Argentinian agression and was a direct defence of British sovereignty. Whether you agree that these people and these islands should be under British control is a different matter. That fact is that at this time they were and were entitled to British defence.
This is contrary to the Iraq war which was an act of direct British and American agression justified by a myth of "weapons of mass destruction" which was perpetuated by concoction of lies, misinformation, spin and manoeuvring of the truth.
How many have died and will continue to die in this crusade of shame sponsored by the Labour government.
The people of Britain will have to hang there heads for a very long time over this affair which was warmongering without any real justification.
Taken from this site here:
Fact 1. The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200 mile total exclusion zone around the Falklands. (W)
Fact 2. During war, under international law, the heading of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. (W)
Fact 3: The captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate. (W)
Fact 4. Hector Bonzo, admitted that the Belgrano's decision to sail away from the Task Force on the morning of 2 May was only a temporary manoeuvre. "Our mission ... wasn't just to cruise around on patrol but to attack," (R1)
Fact 5: Though the ship was heading away from the Falkland Islands, it had been moving towards the task force all the previous day, and had only turned around because an air attack on the task force was cancelled due to lack of wind to launch planes from the aircraft carrier operating to the north of the Falklands. (W)
Fact 6. Belgrano had in fact been ordered back towards the coast to wait for more favourable conditions for an attack. Her captain, Hector Bonzo, said "We were heading towards the mainland but not going to the mainland; we were going to a position to await further orders" (W)
Fact 7. 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." (W)
Fact 8. Argentine Naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be attacked. Argentine Rear-Admiral Allara who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of said, "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano". (W)
Fact 9. Also the rules of engagement were changed specifically to permit the engagement of the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking - This is per Admiral Sandy Woodward's book one Hundred Days (page 219). "At 1330Z she (HMS Conqueror) accessed the satellite and received the signal from Northwood changing her Rules of Engagement. ... The change said quite clearly he may now attack the Belgrano, outside the TEZ" (W) and other
Fact 10: Admiral Woodward also made it clear that he regarded the Belgrano as part of the southern part of a pincer movement aimed at the task force, and had to be sunk quickly. He wrote: "The speed and direction of an enemy ship can be irrelevant, because both can change quickly. What counts is his position, his capability and what I believe to be his intention" (W) and other
Fact 11. In 1994 the Argentine government conceded that the sinking of the Belgrano was "a legal act of war" (W)
(Terry, this is the power of an argument when you cite sources!!!)
A decent tournament for England; shame about their senior team- the reverse seems to be true for Scotland.
At the time of the Falklands, Argentina was ruled by a right-wing military junta, responsible for the disappearance and torture of thousands of its own citizens. They invaded British territory. How should Mrs Thatcher have responded to this invasion, what would you do if your territory was occupied by a military dictatorship?
That aside, you are quite right to bring up the shocking way our soldiers are treated by this country. Low pay, long hours and terrible conditions when they are in the army; after they leave, they are tossed on the scrapheap with no support, because the politicians and the MOD are too busy spending taxpayers' money on themselves; currently they are spending a massive amount of money making their offices nicer, while Ghurkhas are dying in poverty because they are not 'British' enough.
RFS - I've watched 'the deadliest catch' it's very similar.
I've never stated that Iraq was Illegal, as for Thatcher ? The stroke victim, that's pathetic, anyway I hope the evil tyrant dies a long slow painful lingering death, apart from that I don't think about her.
I don't support the right wing dictatorship but that doesn't alter the fact that the Falklands ( Malvinas ) are Argentinian.
jackart - I don't, in fact I'm more of a patriot than people like you who wrap yourself in the flag and turn a blind eye to your country's faults.
A.S. - Angry Steve - 'Thatcher's invasion of one of our colonies'
The Falklands adventure was not necessary it was done to rescue the war criminal Thatcher from a position where she was the most unpopular Prime Minister ever.
That's how honourable it all was, if there is a hell, that's where she is going. Iraq was a blunder, and Afghanistan bequeathed to us by the USA
anonymous - Your first para. is technically correct but I think you know quite well that I have never denied that.
It just wasn't necessary though, the lives that were lost were lost to rescue the political career of someone whom history will record as a devious warmongering criminal, memorably described as a murderess by Tam Dalyell who was 100 % correct.
I don't believe that Blair lied I believe that he made a terrible mistake, we are now in a position where it's almost impossible to extricate ourselves without worse carnage.
Britain has indeed been put in a position which will cause shame for a long time but not because of unjustified warmongering, I think that that's you scoring political points and, that's pretty shameful as well.
RFS - I would never expect someone like you to admit to the shame of what the Falklands was about and how we behaved, this latest bout of hysterics backs that up, what you have shown is the history of the Falklands war as written by the victors.
This stuff is desperate, you haven't the guts to face the truth, it's 'my country right or wrong' the historical cry of the tyrant.
We all have to live with the shame of what happened but, my feelings are for those who lost loved ones, what can they say about it ?
What must they feel when they see that war criminal Thatcher blubbering on TV I think that many of them will have concluded by now that what she done was evil but, how do you take that step to saying that their lives were wasted when it was your son or husband.
You are a shameful bunch.
I'm still waiting with bated breath for some indication of which war crimes were actually, (and not juts in your insane rhetoric) committed by Margaret Thatcher.
See, there's a gaping hole in your 'my country right or wrong' argument. If any of us were that way inclined, wouldn't we be feting Blair instead of castigating him over Iraq? I mean, he is Prime Minister and we are British after all. The Falklands, legally recognised internationally as a Britsih dependency, were invaded by the armed forces of Argentina. That's fact, something you can't alter. Iraq, on the other hand, was invaded by a coalition of forces, based on intelligence, which we now know was qualified by the intelligence comunity, aqualification which was ignored by Tony Blair when he rose to address Parliament. This led to the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis, all of which are on the hands of the Blair/Bush/Howard cabal.
Your description of yourself as more patriotic than us is shameful. You hoe Thatcher dies a lingering death. Would that be every bit as lingering as those mentally ill people who starve in Cuban jails, or the ones cast adrift in rafts by Castro when he emptied the jails? You have the unmitigated gall to accuse others of scoring political points. This is no longer pathetic. It is now in my view tantamount to treasonous.
Rumbold - What you say about the 'time of the Falklands' is mainly true but what she should have done is negotiate, I'm not saying that war is wrong per se but this was shameful opportunism to rescue her desperate position, that's why those lives were lost.
Thatcher spotted the opportunity to save herself and she took it, if she considered the danger to troops at all she dismissed it for her own ends, unforgivable ! All those lives for the Falklands ! No-one even knew where they were, how long would Argentina have held out against the censure of Britain and her allies ? It will be remembered as a shameful episode.
Our armed forces are badly treated, that's because they are mainly drawn from the lower classes, it was ever thus. My dad loved 'thae wee gurkies' as he called them, whenever there were enemy soldiers entrenched in good positions they were the solution - he cursed the British Army/Govt. for their treatment of them.
Jim - I regard the sinking of the Belgrano as a war crime, I think you knew that didn't you ?
Iraq is seen as America's war which we are assisting with that's what gets you off the hook.
The Falklands war was not necessary, that's my point, your take on Iraq is no more than the rantings of Blair's/Labours enemies - Blair made a tragic mistake, I don't believe that he lied but it will be his burden for life.
You're not a patriot Jim, your a Saloon Bar Commando who trots out any CIA rubbish which feeds your prejudices, a real tough talker with a mouth like a toilet.
You have accused me of treason, were you quivering with rage when you came up with that one, can I expect the 3am knock on the door ? - I think it annoys you to realise that I'm much more in tune with our armed forces than you are.
Thatcher's long slow lingering death was ironic rhetoric Jim, please keep up. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, not even her, the fact that she will roast in hell is satisfaction enough.
[quote]I don't support the right wing dictatorship but that doesn't alter the fact that the Falklands ( Malvinas ) are Argentinian[/quote]
I'm intrigued. Why do you say this? The people who live there wish to be British, not Argentinian. Do they not have the final say?
Or, if you believe lines on ancient maps trump the opinion of the president day population, would you agree that the Republic of Ireland should be forcibly re-integrated into the United Kingdom? Should Pomerania and Silesia be re-incorporated into Germany? Should Estonia be forced back into Russian control against the will of her people?
That would surely be the only consistent position?
You truly talk the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. You should be shot for treason for bad mouthing the greatest prime minister Britain has ever known.
"the fact that she will roast in hell is satisfaction enough."
You never cease to surprise me, Cllr. Terry; hitherto, I had never thought of you as a Theist.
"What you say about the 'time of the Falklands' is mainly true but what she should have done is negotiate," Kelly
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." Churchill
"Our armed forces are badly treated, that's because they are mainly drawn from the lower classes, it was ever thus." Kelly
What complete and utter unadulterated bullshit! The reason the armed forces are 'badly treated' is not because they are drawn from the 'lower classes' (I've never heard anything so patronising).
The current problem for the armed forces is the dwindling budget. Reducing the defence budget is not a problem per se, it is a fair moral choice for a government to make. The problem arises because the Government reduces the defence budget then demands that we, the armed forces, maintain the same level of operational capability as before. Less troops but more operations means less harmony time.
Please don't make out you know anything about the armed forces when you clearly do not.
"Thatcher spotted the opportunity to save herself and she took it, if she considered the danger to troops at all she dismissed it for her own ends, unforgivable ! All those lives for the Falklands !" Kelly
Since when has being a member of the Forces meant sitting safe at home in Britain. It is our JOB to go to dangerous places and kill bad guys, and the vast majority of soldiers, sailors and airmen accept that.
"All those lives!!" you wail. 907 killed from both sides at the last count. Hardly setting the world alight when considered against other major conflicts of the 20th century. And they died doing their job, in combat.
"What must they feel when they see that war criminal Thatcher blubbering on TV I think that many of them will have concluded by now that what she done was evil but, how do you take that step to saying that their lives were wasted when it was your son or husband." Kelly
You are utterly shameful. I've spoken to many guys who served in the Falklands, since I joined up, not one of them believed that Thatcher was EVIL. I think you'll find most families are PROUD of their husbands/fathers/sons who gave their lives bravely in the Falklands.
Tut, tut, a so called educated man such as yourself referring to a national team as "Holland"!
Shame on you Terry! I though it was only English reporters and "Sun" readers who do not know the difference!
Patrick - I believe that the Falklands will one day be Argentinean, I find any argument which says they should be British quite ludicrous.
I think that we should try to do the right thing by every country and look honestly at their situation, each looked at on the merits of their case and in this case Argentina wins.
Anon - Shot for treason for bad mouthing Thatcher ? There's going to be a lot of bullets flying around isn't there ?
Don't you think the firing squad is too good for me ? what I need is a good kick in the a***
David Duff - You're a strange man.
Do you really think the Argentinean crocodile would have eaten us ? Do you know anything about the armed forces ?
I should have said the rank and file soldiers are mainly drawn from the lower classes.
Your whinging about less troops and more demands is as old as war itself.
You're right, being a member of the armed forces does not mean sitting safe at home so, why don't you take your own advice and get on with it. Interesting that they are always 'the bad guys' how many joined up to see the world, learn to ski, learn a trade, get away from the orphanage ? Etc. Etc.
Only 907 killed eh ? 'luxury' - I pointed out that it is a very difficult thing to do, to admit that your son, brother, husband, father etc. died (bravely or otherwise) in a war that was fought to save the political skin of a lying politician who would stoop to any depth.
I regard wrapping yourself in the flag and refusing to admit the truth because it was for your country is in itself a form of cowardice, and to use your word shameful.
MO - do you mean I should have referred to Holland as the Netherlands ? OK I'm guilty, just laziness really.
You are right of course to call me a "so called educated man" as you know quite well my education stopped at twelve but I keep trying, who was it said 'a self educated man has fool as a teacher' ? Anyway, nice to hear from you.
Your point about soldiers being treated badly because they were mainly from the lower classes was true enough once, but the reason why they are treated badly now is not so much to do with the size of the defence budget, but to the attitude of the politicians and bureaucrats.
Most politicians and bureaucrats have not served in the military, so they not only fail to understand the mentality of the soldier but also resent his heroic status, therefore they take pleasure in ruining his life while they wallow in theirs.
Your position on the Falklands still confuses me somewhat. It is populated by people who want to stay part of Britain, yet you want them to be forced to live under Argentine rule. Under that logic, perhaps you should argue that Cuba should become part of America, as it is a nearby island.
Though you are technically correct about the usage of Holland, it can be used in the Netherlands itself as a substitute for the Netherlands, presumably because so many people across the world refer to Holland and the Netherlands as one and the same. Arguably, given Holland's historic dominance of the Netherlands, this is not unreasonable.
Rumbold - 'Politicians and bureaucrats fail to understand the mentality of the soldier and resent his heroic status, they take pleasure in ruining his life while wallowing in their own'
This politician understands the soldier's mentality very well and does not afford him heroic status, I do not ruin his life nor would I want to, nor do I wallow in mine. This is one of your most highly subjective statements yet.
Putting on a uniform does not make you a hero, neither does it make you de facto brave or honourable, nor indeed the opposite of these things. If a uniform gave you these qualities we would not have torture, murder, atrocities, bullying, desertion and corruption in the armed forces, ( 800 expulsions per Yr. for drug abuse alone )
My point about the Falklands is that if it had not been for someone as evil as Thatcher there would have been no conflict and the Islands would IMO been negotiated back to Argentina, and everyone would be satisfied, and healthy.
"My point about the Falklands is that if it had not been for someone as evil as Thatcher there would have been no conflict and the Islands would IMO been negotiated back to Argentina, and everyone would be satisfied, and healthy."
You mean satisfied except for the indigenous population who would have been thrown off right Tel? (But of course those lovely Argentians wouldn't have done that? Oh no, shock, they were a fascist junta. They would have.)
And I though you opposed nationalists and fascists Tel...
I did not mean that all soldiers are heroic, rather that most are (or at are least brave) and those civilians who are in charge of them cannot handle this so they act spitefully in their treatment of them. It was not meant at a dig at you, but perhaps you can answer why bureaucrats are spending so much of their own offices but cannot be bothered to allocate 20% of that sum to fully upgrade military housing. I am aware that this is not just the result of a Labour government; the Tories have been shamefully neglecting the military for years too.
(What does IMO mean?)
Mr Kelly, I'm afraid I still don't understand how you believe that the islands are rightfully Argentinian. Could you please explain in more detail the Argentinian claim, and how it carries more weight than the wishes of the people who live on the islands today.
As I understand it, the Argentinian claim is based upon the fact that the islands were once part of the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate, to which Argentina claims (with some, but not overwhelming, evidence) to be successor.
I am firstly very surprised that you would consider the claims of a nineteenth-century European expansionist colony to have any validity today. Would you for example, support a British claim to say, Sri Lanka, on the basis that it was once part of British India?
Secondly, the territories of the Viceroyalty included much of present-day Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay. If you hold that Argentina is the rightful successor of the Viceroyalty (notwithstanding its secession several years before the final collapse of the entity), and believe that this gives it rights over that territory, you must also consider giving support an Argentinian claim to these lands. I suspect that you do not. Why, therefore, do you value the democratic wishes of a Uruguayan over the democratic wishes of an Islander?
As I said above, I cannot believe that you find a claim based on this questionable succession from an imperialist outpost convincing, and that is why I am asking you to outline the Argentinian claim in more detail.
"The islands would have been negotiated back to argentina"
Surely one of the principles of the UN is the right to self determination.
Why is that right applicable to "freedom fighters" fighting "colonial oppression" (backed of course by international communism or later islamofacism) and not applicable to people like the Gibraltarians or Falkland Islanders who which to remain subjects of her majesty?
Face it, Tel. You hate this country.
Good Lord how can you stand all this - I have only read odd bits but honestly how can you be bothered?
Anyway I was thinking if, after the summer recess, you are still on the "Joint Police" whatever it is called, email me & we could meet up after a meeting for a wee natter and a drinkie or two? ( I work next to the City Chambers). I will send my email address to your Councillor site just in case it gets published by accident! Hope all are well, please pass my email address onto Arthur & Hugh if they feel like getting in touch.
Jan - Things don't get more simple than this do they - I wonder if the British Empire has ever given up any territory before ?
Rumbold - I still don't agree about most Soldiers being heroic or brave, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
I have no idea that there was a problem about military housing I've never heard that one before, I suspect that it will blow over like the stuff about equipment until the people who are using these things for political gain find something else to use.
My money's on catering we're feeding them lumpy porridge and weak tea, it's a disgrace.
In - My - Opinion
Patrick - I don't know what the Argetinian claim is and I'm not all that concerned - I don't think it's as desperately convoluted as you would clearly have us believe.
A glance at the map suffices as does a glance at the map with reference to many other countries who were once in the possession of other rulers, including Britain.
Jan - You must surely be able to do better, what are the factors ?
No Jan you are beginning to sound rather childish, because yo say that communism was evil does not make it so, contact the American Embassy and tell them you are an ex communist, a member of CND, a member of Cuban Solidarity etc etc and ask if you will be allowed in.
So, Mr. Kelly, you honestly don't care whether the Argentinian claim has any basis in fact or not, and yet still you pass judgement upon the affair?
You would happily hand people over to a foreign power against their democratic will on no stronger basis than an accident of geography?
I applaud your obvious commitment to free speech, but cannot understand the doublethink that allows you to deny democracy to people in the name of 'doing the right thing'.
PS - I tried to register a Google identity but couldn't post with it, so apologies for the 'Anonymous' tag...
Some people may be using inadequate army equipment and housing in order to boost their own standing, but it does not mean that there are not serious problems with the equipment and housing.
Thanks to the government, the taxpayer is spending £2.3 billion refurbishing and maintaining MoD offices in Whitehall:
Meanwhile, a third of 1% of that figure would ensure that all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would have had enhanced body armour from the beginnings of the campaigns (with the price of the armour at £167, it would cost only £8.3 million to provide 50,000 troops with it):
As for housing, most of the army seem to live in disgusting accommodation (again, a legacy of successive governments):
A couple of months ago some brass (not the politicians, the military commanders) complained about the standard of accommodation. The news was then full of stories about sub-standard housing.
Having experienced it I can indeed confirm that a lot of the MOD estate was and is in a serious state of disrepair.
Given that this was headline stuff (newspapers, BBC, ITN, Sky) not that long ago and for almost a week I am surprised that it passed you by.
"A glance at the map suffices as does a glance at the map with reference to many other countries who were once in the possession of other rulers, including Britain."
Oh well then, we should be claiming Iceland as British. I mean, a glance at the map and all that. You blithely ignore what's been presented to you several times, and that is the right to self-determination of the people of the Falklands, the only people who have ever settled there. The Falkland Islands are NOT possessions of the UK, they are a dependency, and their peoples choose to be so. Would you deny them that? Try asking them if they want to join Argentina.
Tel, factors to what? The invasion or a possible negotiation?
As for chil;dishness your arguement that communism is not evil because the US will not allow you to enter its borders if you are a member of three leftist organisations isn;t much of an arguement.
Heres an arguement for the evils of communism:
What political movement has killed the most people in the world: Communism
What political movement has created the greatest authoritarian states in the world: Communism
I'd say that makes communism pretty evil. Or do you think murdering your own people and creating authoritarisn states is the way to go?
As for the British Empire giving up territory. Well thats honestly got to be the stupidest question I've ever seen. Have you noticed we are no longer an Empire? That our colonies in Africa, Asia, the Sub-continent, the Middle East and S. America are gone. And have been for nigh on 50 years. Are you that blind?
I also have to take issue with your understanding of the Malvinas issue. Not only do you admit not knowing what you are talking about but you want to run the map based on proximity! Does that mean you support not only Unionism but also Ireland once more becoming part of the UK? Or of the UK becoming part of France?
As for your dismissal of issues relating to the troops. Well its quite remarkable. The troops meals cost about £1.50 a day. Thats less than the dogs in the army get. Their housing includes leaky roofs, broken windows and much, much more. Your dismissal of this as an attempt to gin political capital is disgusting, an attempt to view politicans (in a very New Labour way) not as trying to rule the cuntry and make it better but to gain the reins of power.
"Iraq is seen as America's war which we are assisting with that's what gets you off the hook."
Oh COME ON!!!!!
Haven't read your blog for a while Terry after the Pennilee debate, but that has to be the LAMEST, most purile excuse ever!!!!
It's akin to "keys" when playing tig as a kid.
We're not guilty cos it's someone elses war??
If someone were being mugged or sexually assaulted and you stood back and let it happen, how guilty would you be? If you held the attackers jackets how guilty would you be? If you actively stopped anyone else from intervening how guilty would you be? And if you held the victim down, just how guilty would you be then?
The fact the the "war" was instigated by someone else does not absolve us from willing participation.
It's quite simple, either the military actions in the Gulf are legal, moral and ethical or they are not. If they are legal moral and ethical then there is nothing to worry about. If they are illegal, immoral and unethical then we are complicit in those crimes because we did not even hold the jackets, we stood side by side with the US!
Jackart - the last time I looked the Falklands were about 8,000 miles away and Gib. Was about 2,000 miles away what are you referring to ?
Face it Jackart if you could fight like you can talk the sun would still never set etc.
How do you hate a country ?
Mo - I can stand it no bother, I look at who is attacking me and it gives me a buzz.
We lost Renfrewshire to an SNP/Lib. Dem. Coalition and there are now no Labour members on outside bodies, so I'm off the Police Board - I will email you though.
"Jan - Things don't get more simple than this do they - I wonder if the British Empire has ever given up any territory before ?"
You're quite right. Of course, territories were handed over to nations who demanded the right to self-determination. The Falklands remain British on the same principle.
"A glance at the map suffices as does a glance at the map with reference to many other countries who were once in the possession of other rulers, including Britain."
Now you're talking. I'm off to claim Iceland and tell them Terry sent me.
Seriously, though, you really don't seem to give a tuppeny about the rights of the Falklanders, at least not when those rights get in the way of a good old socialist rant.
Patrick - yes, quite easily, I haven't read the Argentinian claim but, I think you are trying to shift from the original argument which was about why we went to war, which was to save Thatcher, nothing more noble than that.
I never said I would be happy to hand people over to a foreign power I said we should negotiate.
Does Spain have a proper claim on Gibraltar ?
Rumbold - some people will cynically use anything and anyone to attack their enemies and that includes serving soldiers. I'm not saying you but I think you are being reeled in.
I don't know how much is being spent on Whitehall but it seems rather a lot, like the money being spent on the top brass to chauffeur them about.
The poor equipment story died out because it didn't have legs, the same as the soldier's housing one is now. There will be more though.
RFS - It didn't pass me by, I'm just not as gullible as you.
Jim Lewis - have you conveniently forgotten what this is about ? Why did we go to war in the Falklands ? Was it a noble cause or, was it to save the political skin of the most evil politician ever elected in Britain.
Jan - you really are trying my patience.
You continue to deny America's laws of entry are untenable.
Any political movement which has killed the most people world, created the greatest authoritarian states in the world and murders it's own people and eats it's own children is surely to be frowned on isn't it Jan.
I don't understand your para. About empire.
The Malvinas ? Following your logic any country which decides it wants to be British, American, French etc. Should be allowed to do so, I wonder if the 3rd. World countries who are starving have heard that one ? I wonder if Britain and America etc. Would share your logic, I doubt it, it's just not that simple, even if you don't understand.
Like Michael Palin & co. I regard the description in your last para. as 'looxury lad, bloody looxury'
political atheist - I've lost the original post on this but I think I was saying that there are IMO a great many people who are using Iraq to score political points while avoiding the charge of being unpatriotic by using the fact that it was American led.
I don't have a particular problem with the rest of what you say but your words do seem to back up what I've said above.
Maybe you have missed what I said about Iraq but I was against it from the start and still am, I argued against it and still do, not many I would imagine can compare with your honesty, morality and superior ethical standards but we try.
I can't avoid the feeling that some people are loving the discomfort of Blair and Labour over this and you, judging by your slightly hysterical language sound like one of them.
I think that some people are so consumed by political hatred that they get a buzz when more bad news comes in from Iraq.
If the shoe fits etc.
Jim - You have clearly and deliberately moved away from what this was about, this was not about sovereignty, this was about whether it was necessary to have a Falklands war and why we did have one.
Self determination ? The last time the whole of Ireland had an election Sin Fein won 85% of the vote but Britain didn't listen, the rest we all know about don't we. What about the wishes of Palestinians ? did they say 'taking our land, houses, villages etc. Is a great idea, carry on' what about Gibraltar ? does Spain have a claim ?
We invaded the Falklands to save Thatcher's skin, as simple as that. That's why those soldiers, sailors and airmen on both sides died, saloon bar patriots like you don't have the guts to admit it.
Gullible? Did you actually read my comment? I am not passing a news paper opinion off as my own. I have stood in MOD housing blocks and thought "this place is a sh*thole".
I have seen this myself over many years but because you have set your face against anything the brass say then you have to declare me brainwashed.
On what personal experience to you base the opinion that our soldiers live in luxuary?
The poor equipment and housing stories have not died out because they are ongoing. Please could you explain further your point about people exploiting this issue; I know that you are not accusing me, but if I learn that troops do not have the right equipment then I mention this, I am not sure how I am being exploited.
"You continue to deny America's laws of entry are untenable."
Well, yes. Because you haven't told my why they are untenable (You haven't shown a single souce so far).
"Any political movement which has killed the most people world, created the greatest authoritarian states in the world and murders it's own people and eats it's own children is surely to be frowned on isn't it Jan."
Are you agreeing therefore that the US might have been right not to want Communism then?
"I don't understand your para. About empire."
I was being sarcy. In effect I was asking why if we are such imperialists are the vast majority of our colnies now self governing and autonomous as free, independant countries.
"The Malvinas ? Following your logic any country which decides it wants to be British, American, French etc. Should be allowed to do so, I wonder if the 3rd. World countries who are starving have heard that one ? I wonder if Britain and America etc. Would share your logic, I doubt it, it's just not that simple, even if you don't understand."
Well the thing is most British people seem to want the Falklands as part of Great Britain. Therefore if any country wanted to join us, and so did we, then yes, it would be OK.
"Like Michael Palin & co. I regard the description in your last para. as 'looxury lad, bloody looxury"
You honestly have no shame.
RFS - Get a grip, it's a non story, where did it go ? I didn't say brainwashed just gullible enough to jump on any anti Govt. bandwagon - where did I say that soldiers lived in luxury ? I did make a joke though but, you would take it literally wouldn't you we've been here before I think and you're not getting any better.
I have lots of friends and relatives who are in or have been in the armed forces and they all say that they were never so well looked after - kids from some backgrounds think they have won the lottery when they get into the forces, you clearly are out of touch.
Rumbold - the poor equipment and poor housing stories I'm afraid have died because there was no substance to them that's just a fact.
This issue along with many others will be used by people who want to damage the Government, it was ever thus, for every Govt.
It's worse for Labour because our enemies are richer and more influential, if you start from a position of being anti Govt. if you are already exploiting Iraq for all it's worth and you then read about our brave boys having to fight with sub standard equipment and live in squalor, you bite, don't you, you've been reeled in.
F**K! Glasgow Airport has been attacked! Everything OK your end Terry.
I somehow thought that you would have a lot of contact with the armd forces in the same way you have a lot of friends in America when we accuse you of anti-americanism.
Again I state that I have seen accomodation first hand and I agree with the comments that were made. If you go back to my first comment on this you would see that I simply informed you of the press coverage you claimed to miss. You simply projected onto me.
I am glad you find people living in squallor something to joke about.
"there are IMO a great many people who are using Iraq to score political points while avoiding the charge of being unpatriotic by using the fact that it was American led."
But the REAL point is it doesn't matter who took the lead, the question is whether or not any "war crimes" have been committed.
1) Was the military action legal under international law? - straight yes or no question
2) Subsequent to the start of hostilities (invasion?) have any actions or events taken place which can/could/should be classified as "war crimes"? - this can lead to much hairsplitting as we never actually declared "War"
If the answer to either of these questions is yes then the UK is complicit in those crimes since we stood shoulder to shoulder with the US.
I am not making these points to score points against the former Prime Minister or the government in general - from previous debates you have a pretty good notion of my lack of party political bias.
I am, however, pointing out that within the purview of this debate, if we agree to your use of the words "war crime" in relation to the "Thatcher-led" Falklands War and the government of the times complicity in those alleged crimes, then we must also agree to the use of the same phrase with regard to the "Bush/Blair-led Gulf War II" and agree again that the government of the time is complicit in those alleged crimes.
To do otherwise is to exercise hypocrisy and double-standards of the highest order.
RFS - You are prepared to jump on anything if it helps your case - I never missed this I just didn't buy it I could see where it was coming from a mile off. The press coverage you refer to was patent rubbish I'm surprised that even someone like you would fall for it.
You don't believe that I have friends/ relatives in the armed forces or in America ? I'm not sure where that leads, a bit childish surely.
I don't find people living in squalor funny that's why I made the joke, that's why the humour etc. OK never mind it's lost on you.
1/ no straight answer, I don't know, I know I opposed it and still do.
2/ war crimes ? again I don't know. I called the Belgrano a war crime and still do, as for Iraq, I'm not aware of anyone accusing Bush/Blair of war crimes if you mean mistreatment of prisoners/civilians then we are guilty and those responsible should be brought to justice, I believe some have.
Would it be easier if I said that I agreed with Tam Dalyell when he called Thatcher a murderess ? Would that be less hair splitting ? If I agree to stop saying 'war crime' and say murderess instead what do you think ?
"If I agree to stop saying 'war crime' and say murderess instead what do you think ? "
I think if you were to do that you'd be leaving yourself open to liable charges!!!
So you ARE oppossed to the "war" in Iraq. Can we take from that, that you believe the military action to be "wrong"?
Assuming such, how "wrong" do you deem it to be on a sliding scale?
Is it red wine with chicken wrong; is it driving without insurance wrong; is it cheating on your taxes wrong; is it committing theft wrong; is it committing assault wrong; is it committing murder wrong or is "MP caught with Gay Popstar" wrong?
I'm not being (overly) flippant here - if the military action is "wrong" then we have to determine whether it is "wrong" enough to be deemed as an offence under international law, much as you assert the Falklands War to have been. No, you have not used those exact words however, by convention, it is international law which determines which actions constitute a "war crime" (the word war appearing to be used as a catch all term for military conflicts in general).
If Maggie is proven to be a war criminal for her actions during the Falklands War then string her up from a lamppost - I'm sure you'll find volunteers from most parts of the country. However, if Maggie is deemed a War Criminal for what happened after the British Government declared war on a sovereign nation, then we must surely at least consider whether or not Messrs Bush and Blair should be investigated as such also. After all, they instigated, planned and conducted a military action in the Gulf, without a declaration of war and against the express wishes of the United Nations.
Yet again you dance round the point and everyone can see you do it.
What I have said, if you will read me slow like is that a good number of years ago I had first hand experience of these situations. You will see that on my first comment I told you about the allegation and press coverage, I made no attempt to convey an opinion at that time but you attributed one to me none the less.
However if you are asking then I think that the Labour party holds the armed forces in contempt and any chance the MOD estates have of getting money out of them for repairs is slim to naff all.
The Belgrano was a heavily-armed vessel bearing down on British territory at the behest of a military dictatorship. Those aboard the Belgrano were just sailors and marines, like in most other armies, but Britain's sinking of the ship did not constitute a war crime; it was a legitimate action taken against an invading power that Britain was at war with.
I still do not accept your view that poor equipment/accommodation stories are made up by Labour's critics, but I fear that we have reached an impasse so we will leave it there- for now...
P. A. - I'm surprised at your comment "so you are opposed etc." I've said it often enough and been warned off ( by my own side ) for describing Blair and Bush as warmongers. That was at the time I have since said that Blair made a tragic mistake which will follow him always.
I think you are being overly flippant with your sliding scale and this whole exchange is nothing more than a convoluted attempt to score points against me, Blair and the Govt. I have never said that the Falklands broke international law what I did say was that it wasn't necessary which doesn't seem to bother you, you seem more concerned with getting the better of me over semantics.
If Maggie is not a war criminal is she then excused the blame for all those lives ? If I was going to be done for libel it would have happened before now, I've said this in public often enough, so has Tam Dalyell why haven't they done him ?
You and the other barrack room lawyers seem to be running out of steam on this one.
RFS - What I have said and now repeat is that you are flying a kite and it's quite obvious, there is no story, where has it gone ?
The Labour Party does not hold the armed forces in contempt, it's mainly working class people who do the fighting and dying when war happens not the chinless wonders from Sandhurst, most of whom couldn't fight sleep.
Watching the Royals at a recent fly past I began to wonder how the balcony at Buckingham Palace withstood the strain of the weight of all those medals worn by them and their flunkies.
what did they get all those for ? was it because of an accident of birth ? Just like the Cecil's who aren't smart enough for the 'city' bung them into uniform and hope they don't do too much harm.
Rumbold - another example of the winners writing the history - you and others are concentrating on my use of the term 'war criminal' to describe Thatcher when the point of my accusation was that the war was fought to save her political skin.
Are you all afraid of being accused of a lack of patriotism or what ? is there not one of you got the guts to tell the truth ?
Where have those stories about squalid military homes and faulty equipment gone ? you are right to drop it.
"you and others are concentrating on my use of the term 'war criminal' to describe Thatcher"
Well of course we are, it is a very serious allegation to bandy about. By using that term you are placing in her such esteemed company as Ismail Enver, Asaka Yushiko, Kurt Meyer, Klaus Barbi and Slobodan Milošević!
The assertation that any person is a war criminal (or even murderess) is not something that should be taken lightly. If people truly believe the British Government’s response to the invasion of a sovereign territory constitutes a breach of International Law then formal charges should be brought to the Office of The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
"I have never said that the Falklands broke international law what I did say was that it wasn't necessary"
Hence the reason why I am taking you to task over calling her a "war criminal" If no International Law was broken then no "war crimes" were committed, ergo no “war criminal”.(gawd, never thought I'd see the day I'd defend a Tory!!!!)
"you seem more concerned with getting the better of me over semantics."
I'm just arguing with you over your use of the English language. From what you are now saying, you were merely using the "war criminal" tag as an emotional tool to emphasise how strongly you feel in regards the unappropriateness of Britain’s response.
” If Maggie is not a war criminal is she then excused the blame for all those lives?”
Blame and Responsibility are terms that can become interchangeable during any emotional debate.
The government of the day, and Thatcher as serving Prime Minister, were most certainly responsible for the lives of British servicemen lost in that conflict as the current government and Blair (and now Brown unless he pulls us out) are responsible for those lives lost in the Gulf.
You “blame” Thatcher, while I’m sure the majority of British citizens on the Falkland Islands and soldiers who fought there would “blame” Galtieri and the Argentine ruling Junta.
Deciding where the “blame” lies can become an argument in semantics or a very emotional issue as illustrated by some of your comments and the responses you receive.
” the point of my accusation was that the war was fought to save her political skin.”
If all you are arguing is that Thatcher used the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands to further her political career then I cannot argue with you on that as I have no knowledge of the political landscape at that time – I was only 11 ½.
P.A. - That was an awful lot of sound and fury for not much conclusion you seem certain on the one hand about events surrounding the Falklands yet on the other you don't feel able to comment on Thatcher because you were only 12 yrs old ? I'm beginning to think I might know you.
Don't know which posts you have been reading, but I have not made any claims of knowledge about events around the Falklands Conflict.
All I have done is question whether or not you truly believe an ex-Prime Minister is a war criminal as you claimed and if so should you not conclude that our outgoing PM may merit the same tag.
I never said I would be happy to hand people over to a foreign power
Perhaps, but you did say that...
I find any argument which says they should be British quite ludicrous.
...which surely implies that you'd do it anyway.
You also asked me...
Does Spain have a proper claim on Gibraltar ?
...and I would answer no. What country claimed/seized what from what country 300 years ago doesn't matter anymore, because the world has moved on. We now base nationality on the desires of the people to be part of a given nation.
I'm surprised that you have such great respect for the territorial claims of eighteenth-century european powers. I didn't have you down as an imperialist!
P.A. - I think we've got that bit so, is she guilty of causing those deaths or not ?
Anon - I find it ludicrous that it should be British, Hong Kong was the same Gibraltar the same India etc. it's not really that revolutionary, just look at the map it's nonsense.
I say that all Falklands residents could have been given a sum of money, say the cost of the war divided between them to become Argentinian and they would have bitten your hand off, they would have been tangoing all the way to the bank.
Me imperialist ? Come on Patrick stick to being serious, if you are struggling that much just take a break.
"guilty" in the context of our debate is another word with emotional overtones and leads to further semantic arguments.
She is undoubtedly responsible for any loss of life suffered by the British forces during the conflict, as Blair is reponsible for deaths in the Gulf, Major before him for the first Gulf invasion and Churchill during WWII.
"Guilt" should be determined by a court of law assuming charges are brought. Given you have stated that no laws were broken, there is no "guilt" to be assigned and you are merely using the word in an attempt to sway the debate in your favour by bringing emotion into the equation.
P.A. - is there any chance of you saying something substantial here ?
Your second para. is drivel you are trying to get away with blaming Blair by appearing to be even handed - Blair, Major and Churchill are not accused of starting a war to benefit themselves, she is.
O.k. I won't use guilt - she caused the war to save her political skin, how about blame or culpable is that O.K.
The debate as I see it, is about whether she deliberately went to war when she didn't need to, I say she did and hundreds are now left with the knowledge that their loved ones died for her career, nothing to do with all the bulldung about patriotism and flag waving, but they can't say that can they ?
Your attempt to compare Iraq and WW2 with the Falklands is a bit limp is it not ? I suggested to Patrick (other post) that the Falkland Islanders would have grabbed the money and became Argentinians if we had offered to divide the cost of the war between them, what do you reckon ?
What would you have done if you were a patriotic Brit. And been made that offer ?
In your meanderings through this we have had:
'it was done to rescue the war criminal Thatcher from a position
where she was the most unpopular Prime Minister ever.'
'What must they feel when they see that war criminal Thatcher blubbering on TV'
'war crimes ? again I don't know. I called the Belgrano a war crime and still do'
'I have never said that the Falklands broke international law
what I did say was that it wasn't necessary which doesn't seem
to bother you, you seem more concerned with getting the better
of me over semantics.
If Maggie is not a war criminal is she then excused the blame
for all those lives ?'
and so on...
The uncharitable view would be that the inconsistency inherent in your scribblings is only matched by the the incoherence inherent in their presentation
However, the charitable stance would be give you an opportunity
to clarify exactly what you do mean, so, being extremely
charitable - are you saying that Mrs Margaret Thatcher, former
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is, or is not, a war
criminal? And, to keep it really simple, the answer should be
'Yes, she is a war criminal'
'No, she is not a war criminal'
scunnered - yes
Capitalism - 300 yrs old ? the word maybe but not the philosophy. What were the political convictions of those guys who were money lending in the temple, before Jesus kicked their A**** ?
Even if we take on board your simplistic view of history, communism would only have been around for approx 90 yrs.
Some Communist States collapsed but to put that down to their internal contradictions is again to use your word simplistic.
Post a Comment