Very sorry to hear it

"Steve W" wrote
  Quoted Text Here  

of
across
the
I'm sorry but I think that is in *extremely* bad taste.
John.

On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:50:05 +0100, "John Turner"
John,
  Quoted Text Here  
I think Steve was making a valid point, albeit in a shocking manner, which was a response to other statements in this thread.
Jim.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Couldn't agree more ...
Here's an interesting little factoid though, during the Falklands War, New Zealand bless it's little cotton socks offered to send both of it's Frigates(*) to the North Atlantic in order to cover RN NATO duties so that more RN ships could be dispatched southwards.
(*) IOW it's entire fleet at the time

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Yes, I remember. I think NZ was the only one of Britain's so-called allies to commit actual forces to the conflict?
(kim)

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
New
that
Not quite, the NZ vessels didn't sail south or take any part in the war, they simply took up station around the GIUK gap so that RN frigates could be released. The US sent satellite imagery (against the wishes of Ronald the clown), they also supplied munitions and leased supply vessels (one of which was bombed by an Argentinean C130 via the simple expedient of rolling the bomb out of the tail doors ... bounced of the forecastle and failed to explode) ... also South Africa put it's Simonstown naval base (which he RN had built years ago prior to the rise of socialism) on to a war footing, cleared the docks and repair yards of it's own vessels and made the whole lot available to the RN FOC no strings attached ... HMGs Gvt declined it's kind offer and chose to scuttle damaged warships that couldn't make the run home rather than take SA up on their offer and tow the ships there for repair. I understand (but I haven't seen confirmation of this) offered to permit Nimrods and strike aircraft to base in SA (which would have much reduced the run from Ascention Island)

kim wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
That's not exactly true. I was in the Air Force at the time and was deployed to the Falklands during the conflict. There were two Australians who were on exchange postings with my unit who took part in hostilities. And we won't mention the US "technical advisors" who assisted with the in-combat introduction of AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles.
NZ did not commit combat forces to the conflict. Instead, as you mention, they offered the use of their Navy (which was not required - STANAVFORLANT took up the slack) and a squadron of transport aircraft (which was gratefully accepted. Kiwi aircraft took over milk runs in Europe freeing up RAF aircraft to supply Ascension). There were a lot of Commonwealth countries who provided logistical support, either in theatre or in Europe. We certainly found out who our friends are.

  Quoted Text Here  
Yes, I have heard that foreign-exchange officers sometimes take part in hostilities despite the official position of their government but being a strictly neutral Dutchman I wouldn't know anything about that [cough]
(kim)

At the time the Falklands conflict broke out the Royal Australian Navy was negotiating - very seriously - to purchase the aircraft carrier HMS INVINCIBLE, which Mr Nott had declared "surplus to RN requirements". Once it was clear that the RN needed the ship, the Aussies terminated negotiations.
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
And
in-combat
up

  Quoted Text Here  
Er not quite, HMG simply made it clear that it was no longer for sale.

  Quoted Text Here  
was
Once
And we flogged Hermes to the Indians after we decided she was no longer needed. What's the point here ?
Cheers, Martyn

At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:04:29 +0100, message
  Quoted Text Here  
if little Jimmy puts his hand in the fire, does that make it smart for you to follow suit?
Guy

including some, all or none of the following:
  Quoted Text Here  
If he's trying to rescue his sister from the fire, then smart doesn't enter into it. There are things that just have to be done. The fact that some people (or even most people) just don't get it doesn't change anything for those who do.
Cheers, Steve

At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:51:11 +0100, message
of the following:
  Quoted Text Here  
Funny how that justification was never mentioned until after all the others had been shown to be bogus, though, isn't it?
When's the invasion of Zimbabwe scheduled? Is it before or after Rwanda?
  Quoted Text Here  
Funny how these things only *have* to be done when there's an oilfield or oil pipeline route involved, though, isn't it?
Guy

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote
  Quoted Text Here  
Interesting question. Should the civilised world allow attrocities to continue in these two and other similar countries?
Should we allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons with its track record of supporting terrorism? If so what would be the reaction if they supplied terrorists with the technology to create a dirty (nuclear) bomb which they detonated in London's Underground?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think they're worth asking.
John.

John Turner wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
My question is: Why are powerful nations who bombard cities the good guys while the disgruntled little guys who bomb cities are called "terrorists"?
Regards, Greg.P.

"Greg Procter" wrote
  Quoted Text Here  
That's a very narrow response, but at what stage do you believe there should be intervention in a country where a dictatorial regime is openly killing its citizens and practising genocide?
John.

John Turner wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Saddam was doing all that from 1978 until 2002 with the US's (and Britain's) blessing. The point of intervention should _not_ be the moment when oil supplies on the open market fall to the level where oil prices begin to rise, nor should they be _after_ the first two million innocent civilian casualties.
Regards, Greg.P.

"Greg Procter" wrote
  Quoted Text Here  
the
they be
  Quoted Text Here  
Now that is something we can agree on.
John.

John Turner wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I'm sure we agree on most things.

  Quoted Text Here  
Because it's the term which causes the least offence to the fewest people in a UK newsgroup.
(kim)