phill_nz
Super Anarchist
that would be with your desktop sitting in the lounge
pretty sure with ' spyware ' they can afford to put a short through the chip to fry everything
Ukraine
- Thread starter dogwatch
- Start date
pretty sure with ' spyware ' they can afford to put a short through the chip to fry everything
Dervish
Super Anarchist
barfy
Super Anarchist
- 5,873
- 1,942
I see the 2022 lines mentioned in the video you posted, thanks. I think that was in context of what most service folk would like to see happen. The topic of discussion was a frozen conflict, almost certain to occur as long as pootin stays around.
That's where a line approximately where I sketched would make sense; reclaim use of the Sea of Azov, eliminate the Crimean threat, and vastly shorten the front.
Keith
Super Anarchist
Fiji Bitter
I love Fiji Bitter
Yet:
Margaret Thatcher almost wept when she learnt that a helicopter had crashed in bad weather early in the Falklands conflict – but appeared to have no emotional reaction after the order was given to sink the Argentine cruiser, the General Belgrano, killing 323 people on board.
Just saying...
Margaret Thatcher almost wept when she learnt that a helicopter had crashed in bad weather early in the Falklands conflict – but appeared to have no emotional reaction after the order was given to sink the Argentine cruiser, the General Belgrano, killing 323 people on board.
Just saying...
enigmatically2
Super Anarchist
Copied from the Independent? And completely untrue.
She showed a reaction -very similar to the one most on here showed when the Moskva was sunk.
Fiji Bitter
I love Fiji Bitter
She was a cold hearted "Iron Lady".
Completely true.
Completely true.
enigmatically2
Super Anarchist
She showed a lot of compassion for British armed forces, including those that weren't deployed to FI, visiting them to emphasize how critical they were to ongoing defence from Russia. Hell I even knew a Marxist who gave her a lot of credit for that. None of those visits were ever publicised though,so only those units who received them knew.
And name me a successful war leader who ever displayed (rather than felt) emotion for enemy troops whilst the war was still happening:
Churchill? No
Roosevelt? No
Truman? No
Pitt? No
I could go on
Dervish
Super Anarchist
Truman shut off Lend-Lease supplies to Russia (which included a huge amount of food) the day the Germans surrendered.
Fiji Bitter
I love Fiji Bitter
She surely was a compassionate husband and mother, and showed sincere compassion for her hero troops.
But she also gave the final permissioñ to sink the Belgrado, on the edge of the official war zone.
By many considered a war crime, like it or not.
dogwatch
Super Anarchist
- Thread starter
- #9,293
Sorry but those considering it a war crime are not well informed. Describing the sinking, the Captain of the Belgrano later said:
“It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal.”
Furthermore in 1994, Argentine Defence Ministry report described the sinking of General Belgrano as "a legal act of war".
It was commonly believed at the time that the Belgrano was steaming away to return to Argentina. Her Captain later made it clear that this was not the case. Furthermore, Britain had intercepted Argentine signals that supported that interpretation. That was not made public at the time because Britain did not wish to disclose its ability to read such communications.
Turn it around. Suppose Belgrano had not been sunk and had gone on to sink a British ship. Suppose it became known that Thatcher had refused to sink the Belgrano, contrary to the advice of the Navy commander in charge in the South Atlantic. What would history's verdict have been then?
“It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal.”
Furthermore in 1994, Argentine Defence Ministry report described the sinking of General Belgrano as "a legal act of war".
It was commonly believed at the time that the Belgrano was steaming away to return to Argentina. Her Captain later made it clear that this was not the case. Furthermore, Britain had intercepted Argentine signals that supported that interpretation. That was not made public at the time because Britain did not wish to disclose its ability to read such communications.
Turn it around. Suppose Belgrano had not been sunk and had gone on to sink a British ship. Suppose it became known that Thatcher had refused to sink the Belgrano, contrary to the advice of the Navy commander in charge in the South Atlantic. What would history's verdict have been then?
enigmatically2
Super Anarchist
To be a war crime it has to contravene a law. Which law do you think it contravenes? The answer is none. It is no more a war crime than Ukraine attacking russian military inside Russia during this war
The exclusion zone was a warning that any ship could be sunk within it. It never said that we couldn't sink hostile warships outside it
Last edited:
Keith
Super Anarchist
Mark_K
Super Anarchist
Indications are the Ukrainians view taking back everything lost in the Feb 2022 invasion as the point where they will consider negotiations and the Russians view taking the remaining portion of the Donetsk oblast as the line where they would. The issue will be determined militarily.
Last edited:
Keith
Super Anarchist
phill_nz
Super Anarchist
under the terms of the lend lease i guess he had to
from memory
he cut off everyone as soon as whoever they were fighting surrendered
from memory
the rushtards at that point had not declared war on japan
Keith
Super Anarchist
Kiwing
Super Anarchist
I am reading Boris's book on Churchill. He is quite a clown, a bit like Zelenskyy? He inspired the free world to conquer Hitler. Here's hoping Zelenskyy can do the same but just using Ukrainian forces. They are fighting for us(you and me) (the free world)? We should see it that way?
