RE: The Falklands Conflict

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: The Falklands Conflict

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: The Falklands Conflict

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/6/2007 1:48:38 PM

7th Somersets

Posts: 282
Joined: 5/25/2006
Status: offline

I understood JDs comments to relate to the British forces sent there. The British forces deployed were definitely hard core.

My understanding of the Argentine forces was that they were mainly conscrpits with their backbone regular force kept in Port Stanley and never committed to fight.

< Message edited by 7th Somersets -- 8/6/2007 1:50:37 PM >

(in reply to Gen Alexandra)

Post #: 91

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/6/2007 1:53:13 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

I know the hard core units were kept to protect the Chilean border.

The point I was making was the general British propaganda at the time which was "As soon as we show up, they'll scarper". That just didn't happen. They did surrender and in large numbers, but they just didn't roll over and have their tummy tickled.

The fight to Goose Green I recall (I read a book specifically about that battle) was a very hard fought affair. Sure they surrendered in big numbers again...but they were facing the cream of the British Army and they still made it a real slog up that little strip of land.

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to Gen Alexandra)

Post #: 92

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/6/2007 1:56:50 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

There were some hard core units sent there.

And 7th Somersets is correct, when I said this I meant the British forces. The main blocking forces of the Argentinians were indeed conscripts, but they still fought and fought hard. It went hand to hand in all the battles.

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 93

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/6/2007 2:24:45 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

I know the hard core units were kept to protect the Chilean border.

The point I was making was the general British propaganda at the time which was "As soon as we show up, they'll scarper". That just didn't happen. They did surrender and in large numbers, but they just didn't roll over and have their tummy tickled.

The fight to Goose Green I recall (I read a book specifically about that battle) was a very hard fought affair. Sure they surrendered in big numbers again...but they were facing the cream of the British Army and they still made it a real slog up that little strip of land.

Mt. Tumbledown was another bad one.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 94

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 12:22:13 PM

Ike99

Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline

quote:

Of course... But the people on those islands are, and have chosen to be, a part of the UK. Too bad for the Argentinians, who aren't exactly 2 miles away either.

I myself find it amazing how 2,000 kelpers trick the British people into paying millions of pounds for their own personal island in defense year after year by throwing a few kisses to the queen and ought loyalty to Britain.

Of course the kelpers say they want to be part of the UK...they have a very sweet situation. An entire island to themselves with Britain paying for it.

In 150 years or so it has a population, more or less of 2,000 and British people are allowed to go live there whenever they want. Seems obvious, in truth, British could care less.

The Islanders will not let Argentines go there, I bet you can guess why. It's pure speculation on my part but I`m guessing they would have 40,000 plus people living on them if they did and not 2,000 inbred sheep herders.

So saying "the people on those islands are, and have chosen to be, a part of the UK" is not a truly valid point at closer examination.

Of course if you want to be fair you could allow a natural population exchange between Britian, Argentina and Island for a time. Then take a legitimate vote on the issue of self
determination and not a farse of self determination.

Once the memory of 1982 fades, the veterans pass away and emotions are gone Britian will eventualy give back the Malvinas. As I said before it's a geographic absudity, it's terribly expensive for them, the people of Britian don`t really want them anyways so what's the point? Before the war Britain almost turned them over several times anyway. That's how �soverign�

they are to the British.

In Argentina they are on all the maps as Argentine, Argentina is constantly reaffirming its claim to its territory. Even the weathermen give the weather for the Malvinas every morning showing them on the map as Argentine.

It will go the same as the rest of the colonial relics. If I was British when that happened it wouldn`t bother me. I know I could care less if an Island off Scotland ws turned over to the British with 2,000 Argentine farmers on it and half stayed under British rule and the other half came and made their farms in pampas.

quote:

Britain sinks a warship during war and that is a war crime? Interesting. Please present the legal statute. Course and verse.

The sinking violated the Hague convention of 1907 on the conduct of war. Why else would Mrs.Thatcher consult lawyers before making trips abroad after that?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Ike99 -- 8/7/2007 12:24:16 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 95

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 12:48:17 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Ike99

It's my topic and I sepcifically asked for you to get back on course....I know you've been "enticed" off topic, but that's enough.

For this statement

quote:

The Islanders will not let Argentines go there, I bet you can guess why. It's pure speculation on my part but I`m guessing they would have 40,000 plus people living on them if they did and not 2,000 inbred sheep herders.

as well as your very specific dig at current forces actions with this statement

quote:

That�s funny. Looks to me like you boys got a little
more than you can handle right now in Iraq mate.

you're the first person to earn my ignore button. Congratulations. You can continue to post on this topic, albeit off topic, but I'm not listening to you now.
Even ravinhood hasn't earned that accolade

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to Ike99)

Post #: 96

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 12:51:55 PM

Gen Alexandra

Posts: 12
Joined: 3/2/2007
Status: offline

Ike99

If you think the Falklands War was about 2000 Kelphers wanting to remain under Britsh Govermental control you are very much mistaken. The Falklands War has more to do with the territorial influence over certain sections of Antartica and the expect minerla wealth of that region.

As for the Belgrano sinking, well if you consider that a War Crime, then the the Argentinian Ai Force are as gulity with their indicriminant bombing and subsequent sinking of Merchant Vessels like Atlantic Conveyor!. If Hector Bonzo himself regards the attack as legitimate and under International Law the bearing of a enemy ship during conflict has no bearing on the threat assumed, then that is good enough for me - Was it right in this PC world of today, that is another question, but legal I have no doubt it was.

THe Argentininan Solidiers where not cowards and have a brave and courageous past, the principal of defending the islands was sound with some sound tactical decisions made. The British Force where very stretched, supplys very low, no heavy lift capabilty and very little motorized equipment available, meant long hard slogs and hand to hand combat, something the Para's/Marines have long been trained for.

If the British had not taken Mt Kent and bombarded the defensive positions around Stanley, almost down to their last shells, then the Argentinians would have been victourious, the fact is the Argentinians surrenedered one day to soon - Thank God.

(in reply to Ike99)

Post #: 97

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 1:26:37 PM

GreyFox

Posts: 33
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Ireland
Status: offline

quote:

If the British had not taken Mt Kent and bombarded the defensive positions around Stanley, almost down to their last shells, then the Argentinians would have been victourious, the fact is the Argentinians surrenedered one day to soon - Thank God.

More accurately it was a week or two�too soon. That 'one more day' stuff is hyperbole.

quote:

The sinking violated the Hague convention of 1907 on the conduct of war. Why else would Mrs.Thatcher consult lawyers before making trips abroad after that?

The Hague Convention forbids sinking enemy warships? Where does it say that? Even your own government said the sinking was perfectly legitimate.

Besides i don't buy that "the ship was heading away from the Falklands" rubbish - a ship can easily change course on a moment's notice and would have been within the 'exclusion zone' (such a piece of PC garbage I have never seen before) within an hour or two.

quote:

I myself find it amazing how 2,000 kelpers trick the British people into paying millions of pounds for their own personal island in defense year after year by throwing a few kisses to the queen and ought loyalty to Britain.

Of course the kelpers say they want to be part of the UK...they have a very sweet situation. An entire island to themselves with Britain paying for it.

Right. So they're not actually people and don't deserve a say in their fates?

quote:

Before the war Britain almost turned them over several times anyway. That's how �soverign� they are to the British.

Napoleon "almost" won at Waterloo. The Germans "almost" beat the Soviets in WW2. Carthage "almost" won the Second Punic War. What's the point? So what if the british "almost" gave up the Falklands - the fact is THEY DIDN'T.

quote:

In Argentina they are on all the maps as Argentine, Argentina is constantly reaffirming its claim to its territory. Even the weathermen give the weather for the Malvinas every morning showing them on the map as Argentine.

So what if Argentina has weather reports on the Falklands, ireland shows weather reports parts of Europe, does that mean we own the continent?

Israel isn't on the maps in Syria and several other nations, yet it does undeniably exist. China says�it owns Taiwan, yet Taiwan is undeniably independent.

By your reasoning Iraq was fully correct to invade and conquer Kuwait in 1991, simply because there were more Iraqis who wanted to conquer Kuwait than there were Kuwaitis.

< Message edited by GreyFox -- 8/7/2007 1:36:02 PM >

(in reply to Gen Alexandra)

Post #: 98

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 1:29:16 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I myself find it amazing how 2,000 kelpers trick the British people into paying millions of pounds for their own personal island in defense year after year by throwing a few kisses to the queen and ought loyalty to Britain.

Of course the kelpers say they want to be part of the UK...they have a very sweet situation. An entire island to themselves with Britain paying for it.

In 150 years or so it has a population, more or less of 2,000 and British people are allowed to go live there whenever they want. Seems obvious, in truth, British could care less.

The Islanders will not let Argentines go there, I bet you can guess why. It's pure speculation on my part but I`m guessing they would have 40,000 plus people living on them if they did and not 2,000 inbred sheep herders.

So saying "the people on those islands are, and have chosen to be, a part of the UK" is not a truly valid point at closer examination. Of course if you want to be fair you could allow a natural population exchange between Britian, Argentina and Island for a time. Then take a legitimate vote on the issue of self
determination and not a farse of self determination.

Once the memory of 1982 fades, the veterans pass away and emotions are gone Britian will eventualy give back the Malvinas. As I said before it's a geographic absudity, it's terribly expensive for them, the people of Britian don`t really want them anyways so what's the point? Before the war Britain almost turned them over several times anyway. That's how �soverign� they are to the British.

In Argentina they are on all the maps as Argentine, Argentina is constantly reaffirming its claim to its territory. Even the weathermen give the weather for the Malvinas every morning showing them on the map as Argentine.

It will go the same as the rest of the colonial relics. If I was British when that happened it wouldn`t bother me. I know I could care less if an Island off Scotland ws turned over to the British with 2,000 Argentine farmers on it and half stayed under British rule and the other half came and made their farms in pampas.

The sinking violated the Hague convention of 1907 on the conduct of war. Why else would Mrs.Thatcher consult lawyers before making trips abroad after that?

Islanders will not let Argentines go there, I bet you can guess why. It's pure speculation on my part but I`m guessing they would have 40,000 plus people living on them if they did and not 2,000 inbred sheep herders.

The weatherman says the islands are Argentinian, he must be right

That has to be the best reason I have ever heard for the Argentine claim..... Britain has never given up her claim on the islands and I doubt we ever will.

What difference does it make to you how much we pay to support the Falklands? What difference does it make to you how many people here know where they are? The islanders know where they are, the British government knows where they are. How many people in Argentina know where Esquel is? A good chunk of US citizens could probably not find Washington DC on a map, does that mean they should give it to someone else?

If I lived on the islands I wouldn't want to let Argetinians onto the island, 3,000 'inbred' islanders shouldn't have to put up with 40,000 inbred chimps like yourself.

EDIT: I realise that not all Argentine people are inbred chimps. Just a few of them are... No offense was intended towards the general population of the country.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Dixie -- 8/7/2007 1:33:15 PM >

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Ike99)

Post #: 99

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 1:31:25 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Wonder why this guys is blinking so much? Maybe he knows he can't be taken seriously?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 100

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 1:35:58 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

The first time I've ever got angry on the forums, probably because I'm so tired....

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 101

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 1:41:16 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

That does tend to increase your vulnerability to trolling... Believe me, I know...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 102

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 2:05:34 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

Ike, you are a raving lunatic, and people like you were the ones who Galtieri played like a banjo back in the 80s. If the 60 million Brits decided one day that the 40 million Argentinians needed to be placed under the bootheel of 'proper government' then presumably you would support this, given all your arguments are about numbers.

If ever the islanders want to be a part of Argentina, then they will promptly become a part of Argentina, until then, too bad, Argies.

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 103

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 2:09:34 PM

Ike99

Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline

quote:

You're the first person to earn my ignore button. Congratulations.

ahhhh well excuse me.

Just thought I`d offer a glimpse at the otherside of the issue between the images of Argentines goose stepping for no reason through the Malvinas conjured up by some here and British chest pounding about the war. Not you JD but even you have said some enticed. I just responded.

I wasn�t trolling either do I wish to.

So I`ll leave this thread and allow you all to carry on with what you seem to want. To slap each other on the back on a job well done and very one sided view on the conflict and what it was really about.

edit-an error, Not what the conflict was about...what the conflict is about.

< Message edited by Ike99 -- 8/7/2007 2:26:05 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 104

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 3:05:04 PM

GreyFox

Posts: 33
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Ireland
Status: offline

What the conflict was about: A military dictatorship needed to distract the people with a good war and so stoked up an obscure claim that because they once owned the Falklands for a seven year period between the Spanish and British ownership, they should have it now.

What Argentinians want: The Falkland Islands.

What the people on the Falklands want: to live on their islands under the British flag, not the Argentinian.

(in reply to Ike99)

Post #: 105

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 3:26:46 PM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

Hertston-That is certainly one 'defence' (none is needed) - Feel free to step outside to the Steakhouse..

Last comment from me on this thread MODS, I promise, I promise, I promise.

Ahh...no defense is needed? I see. So I assume this position too then, the Malvinas are Argentine...uuhhh...period.

Feel free to step outside to the steakhouse? Haa.
That�s funny. Looks to me like you boys got a little
more than you can handle right now in Iraq mate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

Of course... But the people on those islands are, and have chosen to be, a part of the UK. Too bad for the Argentinians, who aren't exactly 2 miles away either.

The Islanders will not let Argentines go there, I bet you can guess why. It's pure speculation on my part but I`m guessing they would have 40,000 plus people living on them if they did and not 2,000 inbred sheep herders.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by USS America -- 8/7/2007 3:29:43 PM >

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Ike99)

Post #: 106

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 3:29:20 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

You 'stole' my picture

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 107

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 3:31:02 PM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

I told you I was going to save it in a very handy place to use frequently.�

It just took me a while to stumble onto a useful place for it.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 108

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 4:02:54 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

The fact you can even argue about the morality of the war honestly confuses me.

Either you believe in self determination and freedom or you don't. Either you uphold a democratic nations right to defend it's citizens - people who believe they are its citizens - or you choose to back a war of aggression waged by a military junta for the laughably transparent reason to prop up it's unpopular regime on a wave of newly stoked nationalist sentiment.

There is an 'other side' to the story but Galtieri's other side is hardly one to be preaching, and I frankly couldn't care less about the arguments of tyrants.

_____________________________

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 109

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 5:29:45 PM

7th Somersets

Posts: 282
Joined: 5/25/2006
Status: offline

quote:

edit-an error, Not what the conflict was about...what the conflict is about.

Ike99 - You really do need to educate yourself before taking stances like this.

You ignore posts on the history of the Falkland Islands and the dates of foreign settlements on them, you ignore others comments on why Spain thought it had a right to cede the Falkland Islands to Argentina, you are completeley ignorant on the issue of war crimes (I speak as a lawyer who deals in this area of law).

It is sad that you believe that there is still a conflict. I hope that your view is not shared by others.

Whatever your opinion of the British, you seem incapable of understanding the motivation of British people in the modern world and seem to have completely deluded yourself as to what British views of the war were in 1982.

I hope that you are confusing quite understandable respect for the soldiers who fought the war, with some blind nationalistic jingoism that seems to come across in your postings.

I am sure that if you were to put forward facts to support your comments then you would get people to consider them properly. I am interested in seeing alternative opinions, especially if, as you suggest, they may raise themselves as a continuing conflict that would innevitably involve British forces again.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 110

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 5:51:34 PM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Remember the General Belgrano?

I just learned she was sunk with unguided torpedoes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

Ah..I see it has already been brought up in the thread.

< Message edited by Cap Mandrake -- 8/7/2007 5:56:56 PM >

(in reply to 7th Somersets)

Post #: 111

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 5:51:55 PM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
The sinking violated the Hague convention of 1907 on the conduct of war. Why else would Mrs.Thatcher consult lawyers before making trips abroad after that?

Once again I agree with your assessment of British tax payers subsidizing the South Sea haven of a few sheep farmers. But again, it's not part of the war.

Could you cite the exact violation of the Hague Convention. There's nothing which jumps out as making it illegal to sink a capital ship during war.

Further, is there evidence for your assertion that Thatcher consulted lawyers. I'd find it remarkable, seeing as there was no international court in 1982 with jurisdiction to prosecute such matters.

(in reply to Ike99)

Post #: 112

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 6:00:40 PM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Here is an interesting exchange between Thatcher and the BBC.

Some details of the action were later leaked to a British MP, Tam Dalyell, by the senior civil servant Clive Ponting, resulting in the unsuccessful prosecution of the latter under the Official Secrets Act.

In May 1983, Margaret Thatcher appeared on Nationwide, a live television show on BBC One, where Diana Gould questioned her about the sinking, claiming that the ship was already west of the Falklands and heading towards the Argentinian mainland to the west. Gould also claimed 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 following emotional exchange, Thatcher answered that the vessel was a threat to British ships and lives and denied that the peace proposal had reached her.[11] 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."[12] 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". She is probably wrong. US media were all over Schwarzkopf because Hussein dumped some oil into the Persian Gulf in the middle of a war.

In 1994 the Argentine government conceded that the sinking of the Belgrano was "a legal act of war.[13]

Admiral Enrique Molina Pico, head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s, wrote in a letter to La Nation, published in the 2 May 2005 edition that stated that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, that it was holding off for tactical reasons and that being outside of the exclusion zone was unimportant as it was a warship on tactical mission.

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 113

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 6:13:21 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Remember the General Belgrano?

I just learned she was sunk with unguided torpedoes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

Ah..I see it has already been brought up in the thread.

Yup, good ol' Mk VIII's...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 114

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 6:18:14 PM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99The sinking violated the Hague convention of 1907 on the conduct of war. Why else would Mrs.Thatcher consult lawyers before making trips abroad after that?

Which Article?

Below is a link to 'The Avalon Project' and lists every article in the 1907 Hague Convention. I am curious as to which you believes applies in this situation.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

< Message edited by Culiacan Mexico -- 8/7/2007 6:52:18 PM >

_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to Ike99)

Post #: 115

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 6:20:45 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Yeah, I'd like to know that too...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)

Post #: 116

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 6:26:20 PM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
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."[12]

Lol, the legacy of Guy Burgess lasted a long time for opponents of the BBC :D

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 117

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 6:30:44 PM

GreyFox

Posts: 33
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Ireland
Status: offline

quote:

Which Article?

the Argentinian edition of the 1907 Hague convention, published May 1982, chapter 56, verse 29: "Any British warship that sinks an enemy combatant is guilty of a war crime".

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 118

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 6:52:12 PM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
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."[12]

Lol, the legacy of Guy Burgess lasted a long time for opponents of the BBC :D

I think I just figured out what a "Trot" is. Trotskyites? I am afraid to ask what a "poof" is.

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 119

RE: The Falklands Conflict - 8/7/2007 6:52:55 PM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyFox

quote:

Which Article?

the Argentinian edition of the 1907 Hague convention, published May 1982, chapter 56, verse 29: "Any British warship that sinks an enemy combatant is guilty of a war crime".