Bush grants interview to the Sun - Page 4

Tripledoc · November 18, 2003, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Forgive me as I haven't read the entire thread but what's with the hand wringing about the "sportsmanship" of sinking a military ship during a time of war?

The 'war', as it is so confusedly called, was not a war at the time, when the Brits sank the Belgrano. There were peace negotians and in order that Thatcher can gain some popularity the sinking of the Belgrano is done so as to upset the fact that the Junta were willing to fold.
The Sun, then editorilized by Rupert Murdoch, puts on a headline that says 'GOTCHA!' on the nations's biggest Tabloid, and people explode in nationalist favour. Then the Argentinian Junta proceed to sink four British ships killing the lives of many service men.

All this was designed so that Thatcher could win the 83 elections.

Guynemer · November 18, 2003, 20:04

How in high holy **** did my thread about the President of the United States granting an interview to a British titty tabloid turn into a debate on the Falklands?

DinoDoc · November 18, 2003, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
How in high holy **** did my thread about the President of the United States granting an interview to a British titty tabloid turn into a debate on the Falklands?

Through hard work and great skill apparently.

Guynemer · November 18, 2003, 20:10

Bastards.

Whatever happened to good old-fashioned laziness?

Dauphin · November 18, 2003, 21:50

Floyd, I would agree with you if the Sun was running the headline to celebrate a victory but given the nature of the Sun and what I've heard about people's reactions to the story it was more likely doing it to celebrate the killing of Argies. You'd have to read the article yourself to understand the context of the headline.

David Floyd · November 18, 2003, 21:52

Well, I think it was more to celebrate the sinking of an Argie ship more so than Argie sailors, as that makes more sense, but you're right, I haven't read the article.

Dauphin · November 18, 2003, 22:02

Got it :

Quote:

The Royal Navy had the Argies on their knees last night after a devastating double punch.

Wallop: They torpedoed the 14,000 ton Argentine Cruiser General Belgrano and left it a useless wreck.
Wallop: Task Force helicopters sank one Argentine patrol boat and severely damaged another.

The Belgrano which survived the Pearl Harbour attacks when it belonged to the US Navy had been asking for trouble all day. The Cruiser, second largest in the Argy fleet had been skirting the 200 mile war zone that Britain had set up around the Falkland Islands.

With its 15 six-inch guns our Navy high command were certain that it would have played a major part in any battle to retain the Falklands. But the Belgrano and her 1,000 crew needn't worry about the war for some time now. For the nuclear submarine Conqueror let fly with two torpedoes.

David Floyd · November 18, 2003, 22:09

Sounds more as if it is celebrating the sinking of the ship, not the drowning of the crew. It mentions the crew once, and the ship numerous times.

Tripledoc · November 18, 2003, 22:52

The article even admits that the Belgrano only 'skirted' the exclusion zone. It was actually sailing away. It was not 'asking for trouble' as the article claims.

David Floyd · November 18, 2003, 22:58

Well let's see, it was an Argentine ship of war that put to sea during war time. In or out of an "exclusion zone" not mandated by international law, that sounds like asking for trouble to me.

St Leo · November 19, 2003, 00:47

"The easiest way to get shot is to carry fifteen six-inch guns."
- Atticus Finch, To Sink a Mockingbird

^-^

JCG · November 19, 2003, 01:27

The Falklands War was stupid and unnecessary just because it gave the British an excuse to hang onto the Falklands (whereas they could have been gained through negotiation under a much weaker British government later on, for example...now, they'll hang onto them for God knows how long). Ridiculous of the Junta to believe that they could ever have won such a conflict.

And well, the Belgrano deal is probably in bad taste (both the attack happening when it did and the headline), and certainly all loss of life should be lamented, but it was to be expected during wartime, since it is almost always so lawless and hellish (despite all attempts at sanitizing it, which is very unfortunate IMHO)....

Imran Siddiqui · November 19, 2003, 02:22

What a thread jack! Perhaps Guy should start a thread on the Belgrano so that maybe a discussion about Bush interviewing with the Sun may break out

.

Timexwatch · November 19, 2003, 02:33

Imran-

While we're pointlessly arguing about the sinking of ships in war, why don't dredge up the U.S.S. Liberty for shits and giggles.

Sikander · November 19, 2003, 02:55

Ack, I can't read anymore of this crap! Time to write some. It's ok to celebrate military victories, especially when they lead to the overthrow of a murderous military junta and the restoration of democracy, as was the case in Argentina. I don't even care that you disagree.

Ned · November 19, 2003, 03:18

The Sun is hilarious. Check out the story where Britney says that Timberlake was "Just-in."

Chemical Ollie · November 19, 2003, 04:50

Giving an exclusive interview to "The Sun" is comparable to being a guest on Jerry Springer Show.

Solly · November 19, 2003, 05:31

Sounds a fair headline. When did it become immoral to celebrate a British triumph?

Ned · November 19, 2003, 05:33

Park, only when it was not expected. One does not celebrate stealing candy from babies.

Solly · November 19, 2003, 05:36

Destroying a military asset of a nation that declared war on us is a fantastic thing. So are headlines celebrating it.

If they are going to criticise our actions, they can leave our country. There's no place for LibDem Argie-lovers here.

Dis · November 19, 2003, 05:59

this is beyond coinicidence.

This strikes of political corruption.

There is obviously some relationship between Murdoch and Bush. It may be Fox news who got Bush elected

Whaleboy · November 19, 2003, 09:48

Quote:

Whatever happened to good old-fashioned laziness?

I'm back!

PA: Oh please. The trouble with the rhetorical nonsense you, the Sun, and the flag ****ers seem to regard the "us and them" mentality of patriotism and wars caused thus, as being more valuable than human life. War is a tragic waste, nothing more. People that celebrate the death of humans, are rather sickening to me. Nothing beats simple minded idiocy to stimulate a sense of superiority.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · November 19, 2003, 13:50

The "Belgrano" incident is pretty much irrelevant.

The "Sun" is the paper that covered the Hillsborough disaster which claimed 96 lives by blaming the victims. Personally speaking I'd like to burn down its presses and feed Rupert Murdoch through its paper-winders until his intestines squirt out of his ears like toothpaste.

Dauphin · November 19, 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by JCG
The Falklands War was stupid and unnecessary just because it gave the British an excuse to hang onto the Falklands (whereas they could have been gained through negotiation under a much weaker British government later on, for example...now, they'll hang onto them for God knows how long).

Given that there are only about 5 people on the islands that want to join Argentina I would be superlatively surprised if any UK government handed over control to Argentina.

Tripledoc · November 19, 2003, 17:18

Murduch quotes:

on the Iraq War:
"The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in the any country."

On George Bush
"He will either go down in history as a very great president or he'll crash and burn. I'm optimistic it will be the former by a ratio of two to one,"

On Gordon Brown (Finance minister in Blair's gov.)
"He is a very deep Calvinist who believes in the duty of people to work and I approve of that very strongly."

Mr Murdoch has said he wants to push a "vote no" message in the Sun, the News of the World, the Times and the Sunday Times. Spot the irony in the next quote.

Murdoch on the Euro
"The central issue is one of sovereignty"

Imran Siddiqui · November 19, 2003, 17:27

Quote:

On Gordon Brown (Finance minister in Blair's gov.)
"He is a very deep Calvinist who believes in the duty of people to work and I approve of that very strongly."

Is there something wrong with this quote? At all?

Quote:

Mr Murdoch has said he wants to push a "vote no" message in the Sun, the News of the World, the Times and the Sunday Times. Spot the irony in the next quote.

Murdoch on the Euro
"The central issue is one of sovereignty"

I don't spot the irony at all. It seems to be pretty consistant.

MarkG · November 19, 2003, 17:30

the imarton.net view of the WP article
http://imarton.net/article61.html

Guynemer · November 19, 2003, 19:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The "Sun" is the paper that covered the Hillsborough disaster which claimed 96 lives by blaming the victims. Personally speaking I'd like to burn down its presses and feed Rupert Murdoch through its paper-winders until his intestines squirt out of his ears like toothpaste.

Goddam Laz, you're the funniest ****er on the Internet. If you ever get the opportunity to carry out your fantasy, gimme a ring; I'd love to assist.

Tripledoc · November 19, 2003, 20:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

On Gordon Brown (Finance minister in Blair's gov.)
"He is a very deep Calvinist who believes in the duty of people to work and I approve of that very strongly."

Is there something wrong with this quote? At all?

Quote:

Mr Murdoch has said he wants to push a "vote no" message in the Sun, the News of the World, the Times and the Sunday Times. Spot the irony in the next quote.

Murdoch on the Euro
"The central issue is one of sovereignty"

I don't spot the irony at all. It seems to be pretty consistant.

Are you being serious?

Imran Siddiqui · November 19, 2003, 20:43

Yes, 100% serious. I don't get it (the irony that is). What is wrong with liking what Calvinists believe?