Ding dong the witch is dead

Originally Posted by WillburForce

I'm old enough.

really ? you remember the winter of discontent ? The dead unburied , rubbish piling in the streets,wildcat strikes at the drop of a hat, the power cuts, and before that the 3 day week , balance of payments crises, the IMF having to bail the country out , having to wait weeks for BT to supply phonelines. Industry being inefficient through overstaffing and excessive wages so that it couldn't compete internationally.Yeah life was perfect when she was elected to sort out the mess that the country was in.

She put tens of thousands out of work and ruined many lives.

How many of those didn't really do a proper job in the first place either covering excess capacity to cope with demand to recover from the strikes. Workers had a job for life even if the company no longer had any work for them because wage costs had meant they couldn't win orders internationally and imports were cheaper.
Yes it ruined lives but it meant that british industry could become competitive intertionally again and create new jobs.

She sold off public assets which we'll never get back.

I see nothing wrong with that, When you owe shitloads and you have assets , sometimes you just have to sell them and cut your debt. Those nationalized industries were generally bloated and inefficient anyway. The huge mistake made was that the legislation should have included provision that oversees companies should have been prevented from buying a controlling stake in them and maybe limiting the % of shares owned by foreigners .

Plus as pointed out above, she (IMHO) committed a horrendous war crime.

really ..... i didn't know the details but a quick look at wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano) reveals

By 29 April the ships were patrolling the Burdwood Bank, south of the islands. On 30 April the Belgrano was detected by the British nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine Conqueror. The submarine approached over the following day. On 1 May 1982, Admiral Juan Lombardo ordered all Argentine naval units to seek out the British task force around the Falklands and launch a “massive attack” the following day. The Belgrano, which was outside the exclusion zone to the north, was ordered south.
Lombardo’s signal was intercepted by British Intelligence. As a result Mrs Thatcher and her War Cabinet, meeting at Chequers the following day, agreed to a request from Admiral Sir Terence Lewin, the Chief of the Defence Staff, to alter the rules of engagement and allow an attack on the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone.[10] Although the group was outside the British-declared Total Exclusion Zone of 370 km (200 nautical miles) radius from the islands, the British decided that it was a threat. After consultation at Cabinet level, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher agreed that Commander Chris Wreford-Brown should attack the Belgrano.[11]

Controversy over the sinking

There was considerable controversy surrounding the legality of the sinking of General Belgrano due to disagreement on the exact nature of the Maritime Exclusion Zone and whether the Belgrano had been returning to port at the time of the sinking. The sinking also became a cause célèbre for anti-war campaigners such as Labour MP Tam Dalyell. Early reports claimed or suggested that more than 1,000 Argentine sailors may have been killed in the sinking.
The sinking occurred 14 hours after President of Peru Fernando Belaúnde proposed a comprehensive peace plan and called for regional unity, although Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and diplomats in London did not see this document until after the sinking of the Belgrano.[24] Diplomatic efforts to that point had failed completely. After the sinking, Argentina rejected the plan but the UK indicated its acceptance on 5 May. The news was subsequently dominated by military action and it is not well known that the British continued to offer ceasefire terms until 1 June.[25]

Legal situation

Deployment of naval forces on 1–2 May 1982 in the South Atlantic

At no time during the Falklands conflict did either the United Kingdom or Argentina declare war against the other country. Combat was confined to the area around and on the islands themselves. The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands, delimitated by the UK. Through a message passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government on 23 April, the UK made clear that it no longer considered the 200-mile (370 km) exclusion zone as the limit of its military action. The message 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.[5]
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 attacked.[28] 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".[29] Captain Bonzo also told Middlebrook that he was not angry about the attack on his ship and "The limit [exclusion zone] did not exclude danger or risks; it was all the same in or out. I would like to be quite precise that, as far as I was concerned, the 200-mile limit was valid until 1 May, that is while diplomatic negotiations were taking place and/or until a real act of war took place, and that had happened on 1 May".[29]
Admiral Sandy Woodward, who commanded a British aircraft task force during the war, wrote in his 1997 book "One Hundred Days" that HMS Conqueror received a signal changing the rules of engagement and that "The change said quite clearly he may now attack the Belgrano, outside the TEZ".[30]

Belgrano's captain, Héctor Bonzo, died on 22 April 2009, aged 76. He had spent his last years working for an association called Amigos del Crucero General Belgrano (Friends of the Cruiser General Belgrano) whose purpose was to help those affected by the sinking.[48] Captain Bonzo also wrote his memories about the sinking in the book 1093 Tripulantes del Crucero ARA General Belgrano, published in 1992. In this book he wrote that it is "improper to accept that (...) the attack by HMS Conqueror was a treason".[49] During an interview in 2003 he had stated that the General Belgrano was only temporarily sailing to the west at the time of the attack, and his orders were to attack any British ships which came within range of cruiser's armament.[50]
In late 2011, Major David Thorp, a former British military intelligence officer who led the signals intercept team aboard HMS Intrepid, released the book The Silent Listener detailing the role of intelligence in the Falklands War. In the book he stated that despite the fact that the Belgrano was observed by the Conqueror sailing away from the Falklands at the time of the attack, it had actually been ordered to proceed to a rendezvous point within the Exclusion Zone.[51][52] A report prepared by Thorp for Thatcher several months after the incident stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated; the report was not released because the Prime Minister did not want to compromise British signals intelligence capabilities.[53]

not the war crime that you are trying to make it out to be. in fact this probably sums it up the best

In May 1983, Prime Minister Thatcher appeared on Nationwide, a live television show on BBC1, where Diana Gould (1926–2011)[32][33] questioned her about the sinking, saying that the ship was already west of the Falklands and heading towards the Argentinian mainland to the west. Gould also said that the Peruvian peace proposal must have reached London in the 14 hours between its publication and the sinking of the Belgrano, and the escalation of the war could have thus been prevented. In the emotional exchange that followed, Thatcher answered that the vessel was a threat to British ships and lives and denied that the peace proposal had reached her.[34]
After the show, Thatcher's husband Denis lashed out at the producer of the show in the entertainment suite, saying that his wife had been "stitched up by bloody BBC poofs and Trots."[35] Thatcher herself commented during the interview "I think it could only be in Britain that a prime minister was accused of sinking an enemy ship that was a danger to our navy, when my main motive was to protect the boys in our navy."[36]

in fact when you compare the situations , Thatcher sent miltary forces to recover a part of a british dependency from an occupying force. Blair bombed the shit out of iraqi civilians under the guise of ridding the country of weapons of mass destruction that were about to be unleashed on 40 minutes notice when no such weapons were ever found and without a UN mandate. He's far more a war criminal than Thatcher was .

So fuck her. And fuck her family (her son is a criminal).

Yes her son is and he can rot in whatever jail he is in. Like Blair he decided to get involved in changing the leadership of another country, he lost and is now paying the price, Blair is a middle east peace envoy. who the fuck thought that that would ever work?

And while I'm about it, fuck all the stupid Brits who think she is a national treasure.

She took the tough decisions at the right time for the country and made the country a better place. The arrogance and self determination and conviction that she was always right was her biggest downfall
but were a necessary part of the pysche that saw her take on and defeat most of the challenges that were presented.

The electorate are like kids, they want everything now and labour will give it to them and Fuck the cost. It happened in the 70's and the shit hit the fan and Thatcher then had to come in and clear the mess, Gordon Brown got so caught up in his belief that he had single handedly wiped out boom and bust that he then spent all he could giving the electorate what they wanted , not what we could afford and we are waist deep in debt again and having to be sorted out.

She made mistakes but overall she did the right thing for Britain although some lost out as a result. Who's fault was it that some lost out - the preceeding governments who led us into the mess in the first place or the person who sorted out the mess.

04-11-2013 06:10 AM #1
Keith View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message View Blog Entries Join Date Nov 2008 Posts 4,785 Location UK	Originally Posted by WillburForce I'm old enough. really ? you remember the winter of discontent ? The dead unburied , rubbish piling in the streets,wildcat strikes at the drop of a hat, the power cuts, and before that the 3 day week , balance of payments crises, the IMF having to bail the country out , having to wait weeks for BT to supply phonelines. Industry being inefficient through overstaffing and excessive wages so that it couldn't compete internationally.Yeah life was perfect when she was elected to sort out the mess that the country was in. She put tens of thousands out of work and ruined many lives. How many of those didn't really do a proper job in the first place either covering excess capacity to cope with demand to recover from the strikes. Workers had a job for life even if the company no longer had any work for them because wage costs had meant they couldn't win orders internationally and imports were cheaper. Yes it ruined lives but it meant that british industry could become competitive intertionally again and create new jobs. She sold off public assets which we'll never get back. I see nothing wrong with that, When you owe shitloads and you have assets , sometimes you just have to sell them and cut your debt. Those nationalized industries were generally bloated and inefficient anyway. The huge mistake made was that the legislation should have included provision that oversees companies should have been prevented from buying a controlling stake in them and maybe limiting the % of shares owned by foreigners . Plus as pointed out above, she (IMHO) committed a horrendous war crime. really ..... i didn't know the details but a quick look at wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano) reveals By 29 April the ships were patrolling the Burdwood Bank, south of the islands. On 30 April the Belgrano was detected by the British nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine Conqueror. The submarine approached over the following day. On 1 May 1982, Admiral Juan Lombardo ordered all Argentine naval units to seek out the British task force around the Falklands and launch a “massive attack” the following day. The Belgrano, which was outside the exclusion zone to the north, was ordered south. Lombardo’s signal was intercepted by British Intelligence. As a result Mrs Thatcher and her War Cabinet, meeting at Chequers the following day, agreed to a request from Admiral Sir Terence Lewin, the Chief of the Defence Staff, to alter the rules of engagement and allow an attack on the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone.[10] Although the group was outside the British-declared Total Exclusion Zone of 370 km (200 nautical miles) radius from the islands, the British decided that it was a threat. After consultation at Cabinet level, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher agreed that Commander Chris Wreford-Brown should attack the Belgrano.[11] Controversy over the sinking There was considerable controversy surrounding the legality of the sinking of General Belgrano due to disagreement on the exact nature of the Maritime Exclusion Zone and whether the Belgrano had been returning to port at the time of the sinking. The sinking also became a cause célèbre for anti-war campaigners such as Labour MP Tam Dalyell. Early reports claimed or suggested that more than 1,000 Argentine sailors may have been killed in the sinking. The sinking occurred 14 hours after President of Peru Fernando Belaúnde proposed a comprehensive peace plan and called for regional unity, although Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and diplomats in London did not see this document until after the sinking of the Belgrano.[24] Diplomatic efforts to that point had failed completely. After the sinking, Argentina rejected the plan but the UK indicated its acceptance on 5 May. The news was subsequently dominated by military action and it is not well known that the British continued to offer ceasefire terms until 1 June.[25] Legal situation Deployment of naval forces on 1–2 May 1982 in the South Atlantic At no time during the Falklands conflict did either the United Kingdom or Argentina declare war against the other country. Combat was confined to the area around and on the islands themselves. The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands, delimitated by the UK. Through a message passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government on 23 April, the UK made clear that it no longer considered the 200-mile (370 km) exclusion zone as the limit of its military action. The message 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.[5] 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 attacked.[28] 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".[29] Captain Bonzo also told Middlebrook that he was not angry about the attack on his ship and "The limit [exclusion zone] did not exclude danger or risks; it was all the same in or out. I would like to be quite precise that, as far as I was concerned, the 200-mile limit was valid until 1 May, that is while diplomatic negotiations were taking place and/or until a real act of war took place, and that had happened on 1 May".[29] Admiral Sandy Woodward, who commanded a British aircraft task force during the war, wrote in his 1997 book "One Hundred Days" that HMS Conqueror received a signal changing the rules of engagement and that "The change said quite clearly he may now attack the Belgrano, outside the TEZ".[30] Belgrano's captain, Héctor Bonzo, died on 22 April 2009, aged 76. He had spent his last years working for an association called Amigos del Crucero General Belgrano (Friends of the Cruiser General Belgrano) whose purpose was to help those affected by the sinking.[48] Captain Bonzo also wrote his memories about the sinking in the book 1093 Tripulantes del Crucero ARA General Belgrano, published in 1992. In this book he wrote that it is "improper to accept that (...) the attack by HMS Conqueror was a treason".[49] During an interview in 2003 he had stated that the General Belgrano was only temporarily sailing to the west at the time of the attack, and his orders were to attack any British ships which came within range of cruiser's armament.[50] In late 2011, Major David Thorp, a former British military intelligence officer who led the signals intercept team aboard HMS Intrepid, released the book The Silent Listener detailing the role of intelligence in the Falklands War. In the book he stated that despite the fact that the Belgrano was observed by the Conqueror sailing away from the Falklands at the time of the attack, it had actually been ordered to proceed to a rendezvous point within the Exclusion Zone.[51][52] A report prepared by Thorp for Thatcher several months after the incident stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated; the report was not released because the Prime Minister did not want to compromise British signals intelligence capabilities.[53] not the war crime that you are trying to make it out to be. in fact this probably sums it up the best In May 1983, Prime Minister Thatcher appeared on Nationwide, a live television show on BBC1, where Diana Gould (1926–2011)[32][33] questioned her about the sinking, saying that the ship was already west of the Falklands and heading towards the Argentinian mainland to the west. Gould also said that the Peruvian peace proposal must have reached London in the 14 hours between its publication and the sinking of the Belgrano, and the escalation of the war could have thus been prevented. In the emotional exchange that followed, Thatcher answered that the vessel was a threat to British ships and lives and denied that the peace proposal had reached her.[34] After the show, Thatcher's husband Denis lashed out at the producer of the show in the entertainment suite, saying that his wife had been "stitched up by bloody BBC poofs and Trots."[35] Thatcher herself commented during the interview "I think it could only be in Britain that a prime minister was accused of sinking an enemy ship that was a danger to our navy, when my main motive was to protect the boys in our navy."[36] in fact when you compare the situations , Thatcher sent miltary forces to recover a part of a british dependency from an occupying force. Blair bombed the shit out of iraqi civilians under the guise of ridding the country of weapons of mass destruction that were about to be unleashed on 40 minutes notice when no such weapons were ever found and without a UN mandate. He's far more a war criminal than Thatcher was . So fuck her. And fuck her family (her son is a criminal). Yes her son is and he can rot in whatever jail he is in. Like Blair he decided to get involved in changing the leadership of another country, he lost and is now paying the price, Blair is a middle east peace envoy. who the fuck thought that that would ever work? And while I'm about it, fuck all the stupid Brits who think she is a national treasure. She took the tough decisions at the right time for the country and made the country a better place. The arrogance and self determination and conviction that she was always right was her biggest downfall but were a necessary part of the pysche that saw her take on and defeat most of the challenges that were presented. The electorate are like kids, they want everything now and labour will give it to them and Fuck the cost. It happened in the 70's and the shit hit the fan and Thatcher then had to come in and clear the mess, Gordon Brown got so caught up in his belief that he had single handedly wiped out boom and bust that he then spent all he could giving the electorate what they wanted , not what we could afford and we are waist deep in debt again and having to be sorted out. She made mistakes but overall she did the right thing for Britain although some lost out as a result. Who's fault was it that some lost out - the preceeding governments who led us into the mess in the first place or the person who sorted out the mess.

Reply With Quote

Ding dong the witch is dead

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Hybrid View

Posting Permissions