Liverpool FC Forum

by **woof woof !** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:28 pm

RED BEERGOGGLES wrote:It certainly would be a futile effort on her part if she could possibly recollect the sinking of The Belgrano an unarmed troop ship

Unarmed troop ship ? Mate you're welcome to have your rant but at least make an attempt to get SOME of your facts right .

sourced from the Sunday Times

"The Argentine Navy also prepared to fight the Royal Navy. During the evening of May 1 Admiral Jorge Allara, on board the Argentine aircraft carrier 25 de Mayo, was gearing up to mount an attack. His tracker aircraft had picked up signs of British warships 120 miles away and he was aware of the reports from the Falklands of attempted British landings. Admiral Juan Lombardo, Commander South Atlantic, had given him new rules of engagement, allowing for attacks on the British fleet without restriction. As the carrier group moved from the north a group led by the cruiser General Belgrano would move to the south of the exclusion zone to attack any British units there using the Exocet anti-ship missiles on the destroyers accompanying the cruiser, whose own 6in guns outranged the 4.5in guns used by the British.

"Troop ship" my A'rse

by **LFC2007** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:32 pm

Reg wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:Made some necessary economic reforms but managed that change in a way that caused untold social strife, particularly in the North and regions. The great irony in all of it is that she projected herself as a woman of victorian values; of family, stability, deference etc..

Would say you're understating the massive strength of character and determination needed to bring about those changes. I dont think any other politician at the time or since had the ability to achieve what she achieved domestically, whilst playing such a strong role in global politics be it either aligning with Ronald Reagan to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union or fighting our corner in the EEC 'Give me the rebate I want or we'll pay nothing' - and europe repeatedly backed down, but also in policy and other aspects. She also formed powerful relationships with Helmut Schimdt and Mitterand to ensure europe got heard on the world stage.

I understand many of you hate her, however it doesn't mean you shouldnt have an appreciation of her achievements.

I think you're easily seduced by free-market rhetoric. :nod

by **Reg** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:52 pm

No. more that I prefer not to open a discussion on the inability of workers to face and adapt to changing times.

by **RED BEERGOGGLES** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:40 pm

woof woof ! wrote:
RED BEERGOGGLES wrote:It certainly would be a futile effort on her part if she could possibly recollect the sinking of The Belgrano an unarmed troop ship

Unarmed troop ship ? Mate you're welcome to have your rant but at least make an attempt to get SOME of your facts right .

sourced from the Sunday Times

"The Argentine Navy also prepared to fight the Royal Navy. During the evening of May 1 Admiral Jorge Allara, on board the Argentine aircraft carrier 25 de Mayo, was gearing up to mount an attack. His tracker aircraft had picked up signs of British warships 120 miles away and he was aware of the reports from the Falklands of attempted British landings. Admiral Juan Lombardo, Commander South Atlantic, had given him new rules of engagement, allowing for attacks on the British fleet without restriction. As the carrier group moved from the north a group led by the cruiser General Belgrano would move to the south of the exclusion zone to attack any British units there using the Exocet anti-ship missiles on the destroyers accompanying the cruiser, whose own 6in guns outranged the 4.5in guns used by the British.

"Troop ship" my A'rse

As you are no doubt aware mate ,there are indeed two sides of a coin as there are two sides to every argument ... firstly I dont post unless I can refute the claims of the person I am in debate with ......................... I definitely don't post untruths

In 1983, Margaret Thatcher appeared on a live phone-in show on BBC, where a viewer grilled her about the sinking, claiming that the ship was already west of Falklands and heading towards the Argentinian mainland to the west. The viewer 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 would not answer the first claim, but denied the second. 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"

by **Big Niall** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:49 pm

In ww2 both sides thought it okay to drop bombs on civilian populations, so I don't see the controversy in sinking a ship which carried troops. These people will be shooting at you later on so sink them when you get the chance.

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:58 pm

The Belgrano is an non-issue. It was a ship of war that was sunk during a war.

Even Argentina accept that the sinking was an act of war.

by **Benny The Noon** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:59 pm

The conflict was over by the time she decided to sink the Belgrano - it was a revenge attack

by **Benny The Noon** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:03 pm

It was also on its way back to Argentina moving out of the conflict zone - it was full of troops but it was also fully armed up.

by **Roger Red Hat** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:07 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:It was also on its way back to Argentina moving out of the conflict zone - it was full of troops but it was also fully armed up.

well it should of moved a bit quicker then

boom, glug glug glug

by **woof woof !** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:20 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:The conflict was over by the time she decided to sink the Belgrano - it was a revenge attack

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along ?. Check your history books.

The Belgrano was sunk on May 2nd.

After some fierce engagements, attacks on British ships, Goose Green and Mount Tumbledown, the Argentinians finally surrended on June 14th .

by **Reg** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:31 pm

War is not nice. If you're worried about the risk, dont get involved. Sinking the Belgrano shocked the Argies, ended their euphoria of taking the Falkands and gave them a sharp wakeup call that they'd very much made the wrong decision.

It also gave the UK time to get used to the idea people were gong to die, that our own task force sitting off the Falklands were going to be in range of missiles and that the San Carlos landings were going to be risky and fraught with danger. Our own casualties were miraculously light - a testement to training, determination and the balls to strike quickly where the enemy didnt expect us. (We were expected to take West Falkland first to create a supply and air base before crossing to East Falkland, the fact we went straight across to the east island resulted in both an unopposed landing and a quicker route to Stanley as we split their troop concentrations).

There is no such thing as striking the enemy too hard in times of war.

by **Benny The Noon** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:31 pm

woof woof ! wrote:
Benny The Noon wrote:The conflict was over by the time she decided to sink the Belgrano - it was a revenge attack

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along ?. Check your history books.

The Belgrano was sunk on May 2nd.

After some fierce engagements, attacks on British ships, Goose Green and Mount Tumbledown, the Argentinians finally surrended on June 14th .

Ok i didn't word it correctly - it was sunk after Argentina submitted peace plans which Tw.atcher claimed not to have received yet accepted two days later , as well as the ship being out of the exclusion zone and on its way back to Argentina , which Tw.atcher once again claimed she didn't know despite the submarines captain informing Whitehall of it's change of course

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:35 pm

I will never argue someone's right to hate someone. Thatcher let down numerous communities with her tough political and financial policies. I can understand the anger.

Some here will criticise her for privatisation but fail to acknowledge the cost of government owned business and enterprise. Her mistake was not replacing the industries she privatised leading to huge unemployment. But by privatising the industries and moving away from socialism the UK became a leader in capitalism and the free market.

De-privatisation improved the economy, that is a fact. How many socialist economies do you see thriving today?

On a side note - the first settlers to the Falklands were the French and British, the British claimed sovereignty. The invasion of the Falklands was an act of war. Why is there any doubt?

by **Reg** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:38 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:it was sunk after Argentina submitted peace plans which Tw.atcher claimed not to have received yet accepted two days later , as well as the ship being out of the exclusion zone and on its way back to Argentina , which Tw.atcher once again claimed she didn't know despite the submarines captain informing Whitehall of it's change of course

They invaded then gave a peace plan? :laugh:

Like the Germans invading Poland, belgium, Holland and France and suddenly saying 'Ok you cant attack me, here's a peace plan'. :idea

Feckín 'ell son get real.....

War is all about the deployment of total violence to destroy your enemy.

Try playing that on your Wii.

by **woof woof !** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:40 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:
woof woof ! wrote:
Benny The Noon wrote:The conflict was over by the time she decided to sink the Belgrano - it was a revenge attack

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along ?. Check your history books.

The Belgrano was sunk on May 2nd.

After some fierce engagements, attacks on British ships, Goose Green and Mount Tumbledown, the Argentinians finally surrended on June 14th .

Ok i didn't word it correctly - it was sunk after Argentina submitted peace plans which Tw.atcher claimed not to have received yet accepted two days later , as well as the ship being out of the exclusion zone and on its way back to Argentina , which Tw.atcher once again claimed she didn't know despite the submarines captain informing Whitehall of it's change of course

Argentina did not submit any peace plans.

Peace plans were submitted by the Peruvian president to the Argentinians. They provisionally accepted them BUT wanted some modifications, some of which would lead to the "Malvinas" being "returned" to Argentina, whilst these discussions were taking place the Belgrano was sunk, the Argentinians then broke off further negotiations.

as well as the ship being out of the exclusion zone and on its way back to Argentina

And this means nothing, after all a ship can change its course more than once.

Liverpool FC Forum

Maggie

Who is online