Are we talking ''weapons of mass destruction''?

no, we are talking weapons of mass distraction

lol


Personally I do not agree with us being in Irag, afganistan to name two........now thats a different thread as well,

you start one

im tired.....

[QUOTE=Jackbox;2099034] The first clip is from Reuters and the second is from the Belgrano Inquiry.

CNN
July 6, 2000
Argentine relatives to sue UK for Belgrano 'war crime'
BUENOS AIRES, (Reuters) -- Relatives of all 323 Argentine sailors killed when
the light cruiser General Belgrano was sunk in the Falklands War in 1982 will sue
for compensation and a war crimes trial for Margaret Thatcher.
After two parents filed for damages at the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg, France, this week, the rest of the seamen's relatives announced
Thursday that they would also seek justice for what they call a war crime.
The Belgrano, originally a U.S. ship which survived Pearl Harbor before going on
to become the pride of the Argentine fleet, was sunk by three torpedoes on May
2, 1982 after being tracked for nearly 36 hours by the British nuclear submarine
HMS Conqueror.
Argentines have long argued it was sunk on the orders of then British Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher when it was outside a 200-mile (320-km) exclusion
zone around the Falkland Islands, heading for home. They believe she wanted to
undermine peace talks and enter the war to boost her popularity at home.




Belgrano Inquiry
Taken from the Belgrano ‘THATCHER’S TORPEDO’
TAM DALYELL’S CLAIM: IT WAS ‘THATCHER’S TORPEDO’
Here is the accusation made against Britain’s Prime Minister by Tam Dalyell:
I take the solemn responsibility of charging the Prime minister with a particular specific war crime and high misdemeanour. She gave the orders pre-lunch at Chequers on Sunday, 2 May 1982 for HMS Conqueror to unleash its Mark 8 torpedoes against the Belgrano, behind the back of her foreign Secretary, without consulting our allies, the American Government, in the knowledge that the Belgrano and her escorts were at that time no conceivable threat to the task force and in the knowledge that Galtieri had ordered the withdrawal of the army from the Falklands-Malvinas on the evening of Saturday, 1 May, on the basis of the Peruvian-American United Nations Peace terms. (Thatcher’s Torpedo, p.37).
That was in 1983. Then at the Belgrano Inquiry he said, concerning the decision;
‘It is my belief, based on sources that I’m not prepared even at this stage to reveal, that it was not the responsibility of Naval command at Northwood.’ (p. 30). Alas, we may never discover what those sources were! Northwood would not have wanted to make that decision, Dalyell explained, because, ‘before he [Lewin] left Northwood there was a consensus of opinion that Lord Lewin knew about, that it would be more dangerous rather than less dangerous for our Task Force to have a sinking of the Belgrano, because the threat rightly perceived by the professional naval command at Northwood came from land based aircraft and not from the six inch guns, range 13 miles, on the 44-year old cruiser.’
She Did It

Thatcher’s biographer Hugo Young simply wrote,
‘The order to perform it [the sinking] had to come from her.’ While guiding folk around Checquers, she was prone to announce: ‘This is the chair I sat in when I decided to sink the Belgrano.’ (One of Us, 1989, 271,277)
That settles it! This central fact kept being categorically denied through the Government’s FAC Report of 1985.
Thus, as The Guardian’s war correspondent wrote:
‘The decision to let Conqueror loose on the Belgrano was made by the Prime minister and members of her inner war cabinet, who were lunching at Chequers on May 2nd.’ (David Fairhall, 5.10.82, TT20.)
The thousand-page History by Sir Lawrence Freedman quotes Dalyell’s statement above and merely affirms that it is ‘simply not true.’ (The Official History of the Falklands Campaign 2005 Vol II, p.736) On the other hand, the House of Lords debate on the subject in 1983 heard Lord Hatch of Busby defend him:
my honourable friend Tam Dalyell, who I believe will go down when the history of the period is written as a man who would not be deflected from what he saw as his duty and who has uncovered a whole series of facts which should be known to the public.

The Official View
Instead, Freedman’s book asked us to believe the following four-stage process:
4 am SAT (8 am BST) Sandy Woodward head of Task Force sends instruction to Conqueror to sink Belgrano.
6.15 am SAT (10.15 am BST) Northwoods countermands this instruction, that Conqueror is ‘not to attack Belgrano, unless or until ROE (Rules of Engagement) are changed.
9.15 am SAT (1.15 pm BST) Permission to ‘sink anything’ given by ‘War Cabinet’ at Chequers to Lord Lewin – kept a secret for two years, until MOD documents were leaked to Dalyell by Clive Ponting.
9.30 am SAT (1.30 pm BST) ‘Northwood signalled the whole of the Task force that they could now sink Argentine

[QUOTE=Lionhound;2098734] Yes you are right the British warned Argentina that any ships or aircraft could be attacked even if they where not in the exclusion zone.

[QUOTE=galty;2099865] I though so, I also remember reading somewhere that the Belgrano had previously been in the exclusion zone (set up for the satfety of neutral ships) and had left the zone to refuel, so who knows what their intetions would have been. Their Captain said it was a legitimate target.

It could also be argued that because of this, the Argentine ships headed back to port and never ventured back into the conflict which meant, in the long run, the end of conflict came sooner which has got to be a good thing.

Hasn't anyone twigged yet? David Cameron is Maggie bag in drag!

No

Maggie in charge, mmm, let me think!

Asset stripping the country by selling off all the Nationalised Industries

Using the resources raised from North Sea Oil for short-term glory rather than long-term investment

Opting for gas powered electricity stations rather than coal knowing that the gas would deplete in a fraction of the time coal resources (self-sustaining) would

Selling off council houses - short term gains, long term misery (the rest of the housing stock looks set to follow under 'just call me Dave'

The resultant mess of Maggie is that the majority of our manufacturing industry has been consigned to the history books. Closing pits and the nationalised industries had a major impact on the manufacturers who supplied them resulting in wholesale loss of manufacturing in this country.

We're now at the point (where many predicted we would be) where we are a 'skill-less' nation because when the industries went, so did training the skills so it's an almighty task to try to regain what was lost (possibly forever)

We are now reaping the rewards of the big sell-offs of the Nationalised Industries. Maintenance seems to have diminished to the extent that many of the floods we see today are a direct result of the clearing and maintenance operations that used to be part of the everyday routine being cut/carried out far less frequently.

It was all short-term gain which is now being paid dearly for both in monetary costs and misery. It wasn't as cost-effective as it appeared on all fronts. I don't know how to check the figures, but I bet it costs far more per head to support someone on welfare than to subsidise the job they did.

Water under the bridge, but, unfortunately, looking at what's being proposed by the ConDems, we ain't seen nothing yet!

[QUOTE=aerolor;2099838] Oh those folk..

Citizens of Argintina , and a discredited "Labour " MP