She was only the vicar's daughter...

[Richard Heathfield]

Congratulations to Theresa May on becoming Prime Minister of the UK.

Not my first choice, obviously - /I/ would be my first choice - but I
trust that she'll keep the seat warm until I can get myself elected.

Now, I can't help being reminded of an old joke form that ran like this:

She was only the _________'s daughter, but ___________________

It didn't take long to come up with:

"She was only the vicar's daughter, but I've heard Theresa May."

30 years ago, of course, Margaret Thatcher was at the helm:

"She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."

I suspect that you folks know plenty more.

Has this joke form completely died out now, or are there still
occurrences in the wild?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Peter Young]

On 11 Jul 2016 Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> Congratulations to Theresa May on becoming Prime Minister of the UK.

> Not my first choice, obviously - /I/ would be my first choice - but I
> trust that she'll keep the seat warm until I can get myself elected.

> Now, I can't help being reminded of an old joke form that ran like this:

> She was only the _________'s daughter, but ___________________

> It didn't take long to come up with:

> "She was only the vicar's daughter, but I've heard Theresa May."

> 30 years ago, of course, Margaret Thatcher was at the helm:

> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."

> I suspect that you folks know plenty more.

> Has this joke form completely died out now, or are there still
> occurrences in the wild?

She was only the fishmonger's daughter, but she lay on the slab and
said "fillet".

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Os)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:59:04 +0100, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 11 Jul 2016 Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Congratulations to Theresa May on becoming Prime Minister of the UK.
>
>> Not my first choice, obviously - /I/ would be my first choice - but I
>> trust that she'll keep the seat warm until I can get myself elected.
>
>> Now, I can't help being reminded of an old joke form that ran like this:
>
>> She was only the _________'s daughter, but ___________________
>
>> It didn't take long to come up with:
>
>> "She was only the vicar's daughter, but I've heard Theresa May."
>
>> 30 years ago, of course, Margaret Thatcher was at the helm:
>
>> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
>
>> I suspect that you folks know plenty more.
>
>> Has this joke form completely died out now, or are there still
>> occurrences in the wild?
>
>She was only the fishmonger's daughter, but she lay on the slab and
>said "fillet".
>
>Peter.

It doesn't work as well using the AmE pronunciation of "fillet".


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[RH Draney]

On 7/11/2016 11:59 AM, Peter Young wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2016 Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Now, I can't help being reminded of an old joke form that ran like this:
>
>> She was only the _________'s daughter, but ___________________
>
>> It didn't take long to come up with:
>
>> "She was only the vicar's daughter, but I've heard Theresa May."
>
>> 30 years ago, of course, Margaret Thatcher was at the helm:
>
>> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
>

> She was only the fishmonger's daughter, but she lay on the slab and
> said "fillet".

She was only the stableman's daughter, but all the horsemen knew her.

....r

[Jerry Friedman]

It works better for me with "every horseman". BUT IT'S STILL TERRIBLE.

--
Jerry Friedman
"No Trump" bridge-themed political shirts: cafepress.com/jerrysdesigns
Bumper stickers ditto: cafepress/jerrysstickers

[Peter Young]

Not our problem, this side of the Pond! In BrE "fillet" and filet" are
pronounced differently.

[Whiskers]

On 2016-07-11, Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> Congratulations to Theresa May on becoming Prime Minister of the UK.

Effectively, by the decision of just one person (Mrs Leadsom, who stood
down from the selection process). Isn't democracy wonderful?

There are still some formalities to be dealt with; Cameron has to tell
the Queen he's "frit" [1] and convince her to ask Mrs May to have a go.
She probably will, and she probably will.

> Not my first choice, obviously - /I/ would be my first choice - but I
> trust that she'll keep the seat warm until I can get myself elected.
>
> Now, I can't help being reminded of an old joke form that ran like this:
>
> She was only the _________'s daughter, but ___________________
>
> It didn't take long to come up with:
>
> "She was only the vicar's daughter, but I've heard Theresa May."
>
> 30 years ago, of course, Margaret Thatcher was at the helm:
>
> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
>
> I suspect that you folks know plenty more.
>
> Has this joke form completely died out now, or are there still
> occurrences in the wild?

He was only the Prime Minister's husband, but he knew where the oil
wells were.

[1] The Iron Lady accused a distinguished opponent in the House of
Commons of being "frit", a dialect word for 'afraid' or 'frightened',
about an election. The word has since been used in political banter
from time to time in allusion to that incident.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[musika]

On 11/07/2016 19:59, Peter Young wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2016 Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:>
>> "She was only the vicar's daughter, but I've heard Theresa May."
>

>> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
>

> She was only the fishmonger's daughter, but she lay on the slab and
> said "fillet".
>

She was only the welder's daughter, but she she had acetylene legs.

--
Ray
UK

[Mack A. Damia]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 22:01:00 +0100, musika <mUs...@NOSPAMexcite.com>
wrote:

She was only a road layer's daughter, but she liked her asphalt.

[GordonD]

She was only a butcher's daughter, but her behaviour was truly offal.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[Joe Fineman]

She was only the gravedigger's daughter, but she like lying under the
sod.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: The most fruitful thing to say in science is not "Eureka!" :||
||: but "That's funny". :||

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:08:35 AM UTC+5:30, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Congratulations to Theresa May on becoming Prime Minister of the UK.
>
> Not my first choice, obviously - /I/ would be my first choice - but I
> trust that she'll keep the seat warm until I can get myself elected.
>
> Now, I can't help being reminded of an old joke form that ran like this:
>
> She was only the _________'s daughter, but ___________________
>
> It didn't take long to come up with:
>
> "She was only the vicar's daughter, but I've heard Theresa May."
>
> 30 years ago, of course, Margaret Thatcher was at the helm:
>
> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
>

And how!

BTW, Roger Waters composed this about 35 years back:
Galtieri took the Union Jack
and Maggie over lunch one day
took a cruiser with all hands
apparently to make him give it back

[Richard Heathfield]

<shrug> In wars, people get injured and people get killed. So it's a
good idea not to start wars. But once the war's started, it's no use
moaning that the other side is cheating by killing soldiers. If you (and
naturally I mean you in your capacity as tin-pot dictator of a failing
state) didn't want to gamble with those soldiers' lives, you shouldn't
have sent them to war. In this case, Galtieri started the war by
invading sovereign British territory, and the British Government
responded quite correctly by defending its people. That's one of its
most important jobs. I couldn't understand, even at the time, why people
were so fussed about the sinking of the Belgrano, and I don't understand
it any more nowadays. War is hell - if a Government doesn't want to see
its soldiers killed, it shouldn't mess with the British.

Galtieri should be glad I wasn't in charge. I'd have given a month's
warning, and then started dropping buildings in downtown Buenos Aires.
(But I would, at least, have given a month's warning.) And the last
planes in each attack would drop leaflets saying (in Spanish,
presumably): "You mess with us, this is what you get. Pull out of the
Falklands right now, and don't mess with us again. Comprendez?"

Fortunately for the Argentinian capital's city centre, I wasn't in
charge at the time. The offending triumvirate only had to deal with the
comparatively wussy Margaret Thatcher.

[Arindam Banerjee]

> >> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
> >>
> >
> > And how!
> >
> > BTW, Roger Waters composed this about 35 years back:
> > Galtieri took the Union Jack
> > and Maggie over lunch one day
> > took a cruiser with all hands
> > apparently to make him give it back
>
> <shrug> In wars, people get injured and people get killed. So it's a
> good idea not to start wars. But once the war's started, it's no use
> moaning that the other side is cheating by killing soldiers.

War is not about murder. War is a violent extension of foreign policy. It is not about the indiscriminate taking of lives of those in uniform.

But I suppose the English have different ideas.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Richard Heathfield]

On 12/07/16 10:49, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
>>>>
>>>
>>> And how!
>>>
>>> BTW, Roger Waters composed this about 35 years back:
>>> Galtieri took the Union Jack
>>> and Maggie over lunch one day
>>> took a cruiser with all hands
>>> apparently to make him give it back
>>
>> <shrug> In wars, people get injured and people get killed. So it's a
>> good idea not to start wars. But once the war's started, it's no use
>> moaning that the other side is cheating by killing soldiers.
>
> War is not about murder.

That's right. Murder is unlawful. In wartime, enemy soldiers in uniform
are a legitimate target.

> War is a violent extension of foreign policy. It is not about
> the indiscriminate taking of lives of those in uniform.

In wartime, a warship belonging to the enemy is a risk to the safety of
one's own forces. It is reasonable to take steps to mitigate that risk.
The most effective way to mitigate the risk posed by an enemy warship is
to sink it. If that happens, people are going to get hurt. If a nation
doesn't want its soldiers to get hurt, the first step is to refrain from
invading other countries.

> But I suppose the English have different ideas.

Firstly, much as it pains me to admit it, I am not 100% representative
of the views of 100% of the English.

Secondly, I don't approve of killing people. But I don't approve of
invading other countries, either. Actions have consequences. If the
Argentinians had not invaded the Falklands, the Belgrano would not have
been sunk.

[grabber]

Then you can't have been paying attention. There were (at least) two
aspects that were controversial, neither of which are difficult to
understand:

Some people thought that at this stage in the conflict, the Argentines
had finally realised that the British weren't bluffing and might be
prepared to back down. It was claimed by some that the Belgrano and
other naval units had been ordered back to port and that this was
evidence of a change of heart by the Argentines. You may have disagreed
with this analysis, but it was not, and is not, hard to understand.

The other big cause of concern was how the attack was presented to the
public. The Belgrano was said to be a threat to the British task force,
and many people thought that this claim was undermined by the
information - which came out slightly later - that the ship had been
sailing away from the islands and from the British. The idea that people
get upset when they think the facts have been misrepresented is not hard
to understand, even if you think they are mistaken.

I'm not persuaded, myself, that either objection was sufficient to make
the attack wrong. But it is fatuous to pretend not to understand them.

> and I don't understand
> it any more nowadays. War is hell - if a Government doesn't want to see
> its soldiers killed, it shouldn't mess with the British.
>
> Galtieri should be glad I wasn't in charge. I'd have

Gosh, I didn't know they were open yet.

[Janet]

In article <b36faca8-09c4-44e2...@googlegroups.com>,
banerjee...@gmail.com says...
> Message-ID: <b36faca8-09c4-44e2...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: She was only the vicar's daughter...
> From: Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com>

>
> War is not about murder. War is a violent extension of foreign policy.
> It is not about the indiscriminate taking of lives of those in
uniform.

But it is about the indiscriminate taking of lives of civilians.

> But I suppose the English have different ideas.

No doubt you mean the British, who have experienced both of the above
at both ends.

Janet.

[Cheryl]

On 2016-07-12 9:04 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article <b36faca8-09c4-44e2...@googlegroups.com>,
> banerjee...@gmail.com says...
>> Message-ID: <b36faca8-09c4-44e2...@googlegroups.com>
>> Subject: Re: She was only the vicar's daughter...
>> From: Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com>
>>
>> War is not about murder. War is a violent extension of foreign policy.
>> It is not about the indiscriminate taking of lives of those in
> uniform.
>
> But it is about the indiscriminate taking of lives of civilians.

It isn't, actually. There's a very long history of efforts to restrict
the taking of lives of civilians. They haven't worked all that well, but
what can you expect in a situation that has degenerated so far that
killing is used to solve disputes?

>> But I suppose the English have different ideas.
>
> No doubt you mean the British, who have experienced both of the above
> at both ends.
>
> Janet.
>

--
Cheryl

[Arindam Banerjee]

Did they kill pilots as they were baling out?

[Arindam Banerjee]

No, I meant the English just as I wrote.

What do they understand about shame?

[Richard Heathfield]

You're right. I wasn't paying attention. Now that you've drawn my
attention to the reasons, I find them unconvincing.

> The other big cause of concern was how the attack was presented to the
> public. The Belgrano was said to be a threat to the British task force,
> and many people thought that this claim was undermined by the
> information - which came out slightly later - that the ship had been
> sailing away from the islands and from the British. The idea that people
> get upset when they think the facts have been misrepresented is not hard
> to understand, even if you think they are mistaken.

Ship she go away, ship she come back later. With more weapons.

Ship she sink, ship she no come back.

> I'm not persuaded, myself, that either objection was sufficient to make
> the attack wrong. But it is fatuous to pretend not to understand them.

Now that I know what they are, I do understand them, but I don't agree
with them. Next time they come up in discussion (if ever), I'll try to
remember not to use the construct "I don't understand".

>> and I don't understand
>> it any more nowadays. War is hell - if a Government doesn't want to see
>> its soldiers killed, it shouldn't mess with the British.
>>
>> Galtieri should be glad I wasn't in charge. I'd have
>
> Gosh, I didn't know they were open yet.

<grin> No, I don't need beer just to wax reactionary.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 12/07/16 12:49, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Did they kill pilots as they were baling out?

Did who kill pilots as they were baling out?

[Richard Heathfield]

On 12/07/16 12:52, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> No, I meant the English just as I wrote.

Perhaps you'd care to expand on that.

> What do they understand about shame?

The dictionary definition, the feeling, and the desire to avoid that
feeling. What do you understand about shame?

Are you, for example, ashamed that you have replied to a Usenet article
without providing sufficient context from that article to make your
reply meaningful? Or not?

[GordonD]

On 12/07/2016 10:49, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
>>>>
>>>
>>> And how!
>>>
>>> BTW, Roger Waters composed this about 35 years back:
>>> Galtieri took the Union Jack
>>> and Maggie over lunch one day
>>> took a cruiser with all hands
>>> apparently to make him give it back
>>
>> <shrug> In wars, people get injured and people get killed. So it's a
>> good idea not to start wars. But once the war's started, it's no use
>> moaning that the other side is cheating by killing soldiers.
>
> War is not about murder. War is a violent extension of foreign policy. It is not about the indiscriminate taking of lives of those in uniform.
>
> But I suppose the English have different ideas.

Especially when there's an election coming.

[GordonD]

And that's when you attack her. Not when she's retreating.

[Richard Heathfield]

That's just daft. (Sorry, but it is.) Why on earth would you wait? If
she were flying a surrender flag and her crew and troops were throwing
their small arms into the sea and climbing into rubber dinghies with
surrender flags, fair enough - round 'em up and clap 'em in irons until
they can be handed over to a POW camp. But until they surrender, they
are enemy combatants, whether or not they are retreating.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <nm294h$811$1...@dont-email.me>,

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>Galtieri should be glad I wasn't in charge. I'd have given a month's
>warning, and then started dropping buildings in downtown Buenos Aires.

I don't think Galtieri cared much about the safety of Argentine
civilians.

But I'm certainly glad you weren't in charge.

-- Richard

[Katy Jennison]

You might wait because you remembered the last time this happened and
the way it's been persistently used against your country, however
unfairly you might think it, for the past 35 years, and you'd quite like
not to queer the pitch in advance in case, when it happens again, you
think you might want to try diplomatic approaches for longer, in the
hope that fewer people might die and your reputation be less tarnished.

--
Katy Jennison

[Richard Heathfield]

If it's any consolation, so am I. :-)

[Richard Heathfield]

A country that vigorously and eptly[1] defends its people from invasion
will gain a reputation for so doing. Such a reputation will deter at
least some other belligerents from attempting to do the same thing. And
/that/ means fewer people dying.

[1] Is "eptly" taken, or can I (tm) it?

[Al Dente]

On 12/07/2016 00:01, Joe Fineman wrote:
> She was only the gravedigger's daughter, but she like lying under the
> sod.
>

Alt: She was only the gravedigges's daugther, but she knew how to
handle a stiff.

[grabber]

This seems to have been the philosophy of successive Israeli
governments. Not everyone would agree that it has been an unqualified
success.

[Richard Heathfield]

It has, however, been a success. Israel still exists.

[grabber]

Absolutely. But the question is, might another approach have enabled it
to exist *and* to have enjoyed a better reputation and better relations
with its neighbours; perhaps allowing it to have an even more secure
prospect of continuing to exist indefinitely. I don't claim to know the
answer.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 02:49:00 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
<banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
>> >>
>> >
>> > And how!
>> >
>> > BTW, Roger Waters composed this about 35 years back:
>> > Galtieri took the Union Jack
>> > and Maggie over lunch one day
>> > took a cruiser with all hands
>> > apparently to make him give it back
>>
>> <shrug> In wars, people get injured and people get killed. So it's a
>> good idea not to start wars. But once the war's started, it's no use
>> moaning that the other side is cheating by killing soldiers.
>
>War is not about murder. War is a violent extension of foreign policy. It is not about the indiscriminate taking of lives of those in uniform.

Somebody has been watching *Crimson Tide* and Denzel Washington
spouting Von Clausewitz in the officer's mess.

[LFS]

I suspect that very few senior military personnel think like that,
although we might expect senior politicians to do so. Here is another
Trump aspect to worry about - his potential VP choice:

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12129202/michael-flynn-vice-president-donald-trump

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[David Kleinecke]

My assumption is that Trump can think of foreign policy only in terms
of power. He imagines he can handle the diplomatic part himself but he
needs an assistant to take of military details.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Something that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that Argentina
did much better out of the war than the UK did. They got rid of their
junta and established the first democratic system they had ever had,
which has survived (with ups and down) for more than 30 years. What did
we get? 11 more years of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister (it's easy
to forget how unpopular she was before the war), and a lot more than
that of Thatcherism.

--
athel

[Katy Jennison]

Yes, senior politicians are traditionally expected to have at least a
tenuous grasp of history, although these days that expectation seems
more like a triumph of hope over experience.

--
Katy Jennison

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

<shudder>

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Mack A. Damia]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:00:25 PM UTC+10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 12/07/16 12:49, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Did they kill pilots as they were baling out?
>
> Did who kill pilots as they were baling out?

Enemy airmen, of course, who had shot them. I don't think it was the done thing in WW1 and WW2, not with British vs Germans anyway. However, attitudes may have changed since.

The point being, that deliberately killing a human in uniform just because he is the enemy is not the point of warfare. The point of warfare, for a civilised nation, that knows the meaning of shame and is guided accordingly, is to realise foreign policy goals with the necessary violence. The enemy is killed only when the enemy is in a threatening position; or is directly obstructing military goals. Mindless killing, and threats of same with weapons of mass destruction, is a barbaric post WW feature among the so-called civilised nations.

My earlier laconic reply was from my new and very cheap tablet, which does not take in the earlier text of the thread.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Richard Tobin]

In article <dul20f...@mid.individual.net>,

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>Something that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that Argentina
>did much better out of the war than the UK did. They got rid of their
>junta and established the first democratic system they had ever had,
>which has survived (with ups and down) for more than 30 years. What did
>we get? 11 more years of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister (it's easy
>to forget how unpopular she was before the war), and a lot more than
>that of Thatcherism.

And ironically Galtieri would have been a natural friend of Thatcher
if he hadn't attacked the Falklands. He was just the sort of
right-wing dictator that Thatcher and Reagan loved.

-- Richard

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:02:45 PM UTC+10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 12/07/16 12:52, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > No, I meant the English just as I wrote.
>
> Perhaps you'd care to expand on that.

Not really.

>
> > What do they understand about shame?
>
> The dictionary definition, the feeling, and the desire to avoid that
> feeling. What do you understand about shame?

Shame is what is not understood by barbarians, and is not something that can be afforded by criminals.

> Are you, for example, ashamed that you have replied to a Usenet article
> without providing sufficient context from that article to make your
> reply meaningful? Or not?

I was trying out my new and very cheap tablet that does not take the earlier text of the thread. I regret any inconvenience to any reader.

There is a distinction between causing mild confusion maybe, harmless certainly; and supporting something horrendous like callously killing hundreds or thousands of people without any apology.

Those who cannot find any distinction between these two scenarios, make their own case for being shameless convincingly. That is, to people who understand the meaning of shame.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Richard Heathfield]

On 12/07/16 23:54, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:00:25 PM UTC+10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 12/07/16 12:49, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> Did they kill pilots as they were baling out?
>>
>> Did who kill pilots as they were baling out?
>
> Enemy airmen, of course, who had shot them. I don't think
> it was the done thing in WW1 and WW2, not with British vs
> Germans anyway. However, attitudes may have changed since.

It was not the done thing in WW2 (I don't know about WW1). Nevertheless,
in WW2 it /was/ done, on occasion.

> The point being, that deliberately killing a human
> in uniform just because he is the enemy is not the
> point of warfare.

I agree. The point of warfare is to win, and that means depriving the
enemy of resources that might get in the way of that objective (such as,
for example, a warship). The Belgrano wasn't sunk to kill Argentinian
soldiers. It was sunk to /stop/ British soldiers from being killed. And
it worked. After its sinking, the Belgrano played much less of a role in
the Argentine war effort.

<snip>

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:12:58 AM UTC+10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 12/07/16 23:54, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:00:25 PM UTC+10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 12/07/16 12:49, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> Did they kill pilots as they were baling out?
> >>
> >> Did who kill pilots as they were baling out?
> >
> > Enemy airmen, of course, who had shot them. I don't think
> > it was the done thing in WW1 and WW2, not with British vs
> > Germans anyway. However, attitudes may have changed since.
>
> It was not the done thing in WW2 (I don't know about WW1). Nevertheless,
> in WW2 it /was/ done, on occasion.
>
> > The point being, that deliberately killing a human
> > in uniform just because he is the enemy is not the
> > point of warfare.
>
> I agree. The point of warfare is to win, and that means depriving the
> enemy of resources that might get in the way of that objective (such as,
> for example, a warship).

Then why did they not nuke the Argentines, if depriving the enemy of resources is the main goal of warfare?

Violence has to be strictly administered. When such is not done, when it is done unnecessarily, it is murder pure and simple. It is bloody-mindedness. It is evil.

The Belgrano wasn't sunk to kill Argentinian
> soldiers.

It was sunk to get the bloody-minded and evil Thatcher more votes from the crazed population. It certainly was sunk to kill Argentine sailors who were not doing any harm to the British.

> It was sunk to /stop/ British soldiers from being killed.

Ridiculous. It was not threatening anyone. It may have well been docked for all the harm it was doing. It was no Bismarck or Graf Spee.

> And
> it worked. After its sinking, the Belgrano played much less of a role in
> the Argentine war effort.

It wasn't doing anything hostile in the first place. I don't see how a sunk ship can play any role at all in any war effort.

http://belgranoinquiry.com/

It was outside the war zone, as per the above link.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[bill van]

In article <nm3sns$2bna$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,

As Saddam Hussein was the kind of murderous dictator that both
Presidents Bush loved. His demise followed when he ceased to be the
West's pet murderous dictator who kept the locals in line, and began to
murderously dictate on his own behalf.
--
bill

[David Kleinecke]

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 4:12:58 PM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 12/07/16 23:54, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:00:25 PM UTC+10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 12/07/16 12:49, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> Did they kill pilots as they were baling out?
> >>
> >> Did who kill pilots as they were baling out?
> >
> > Enemy airmen, of course, who had shot them. I don't think
> > it was the done thing in WW1 and WW2, not with British vs
> > Germans anyway. However, attitudes may have changed since.
>
> It was not the done thing in WW2 (I don't know about WW1). Nevertheless,
> in WW2 it /was/ done, on occasion.
>
> > The point being, that deliberately killing a human
> > in uniform just because he is the enemy is not the
> > point of warfare.
>
> I agree. The point of warfare is to win, and that means depriving the
> enemy of resources that might get in the way of that objective (such as,
> for example, a warship). The Belgrano wasn't sunk to kill Argentinian
> soldiers. It was sunk to /stop/ British soldiers from being killed. And
> it worked. After its sinking, the Belgrano played much less of a role in
> the Argentine war effort.

As with the Hiroshima bomb. A great many Japanese non-combatants
were killed or badly damaged. BUT if the US had invaded Japan many
more Japanese non-combatants would have been killed - along with
God Only Knows how many combatants.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 13/07/16 00:32, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:12:58 AM UTC+10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 12/07/16 23:54, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:00:25 PM UTC+10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 12/07/16 12:49, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> Did they kill pilots as they were baling out?
>>>>
>>>> Did who kill pilots as they were baling out?
>>>
>>> Enemy airmen, of course, who had shot them. I don't think
>> > it was the done thing in WW1 and WW2, not with British vs
>> > Germans anyway. However, attitudes may have changed since.
>>
>> It was not the done thing in WW2 (I don't know about WW1). Nevertheless,
>> in WW2 it /was/ done, on occasion.
>>
>>> The point being, that deliberately killing a human
>> > in uniform just because he is the enemy is not the
>> > point of warfare.
>>
>> I agree. The point of warfare is to win, and that means depriving the
>> enemy of resources that might get in the way of that objective (such as,
>> for example, a warship).
>
> Then why did they not nuke the Argentines, if depriving
> the enemy of resources is the main goal of warfare?

No, the goal is to win. A nuclear response would have been an
over-reaction. Sinking a warship was not.

> Violence has to be strictly administered. When such
> is not done, when it is done unnecessarily, it is
> murder pure and simple. It is bloody-mindedness. It is evil.

Scenario: the Belgrano is spared, and the following week it sinks a
British ship, killing several hundred British soldiers and sailors. And
then the cry would have been: "Why didn't we sink this ship when we had
the chance?"

> The Belgrano wasn't sunk to kill Argentinian
>> soldiers.
>
> It was sunk to get the bloody-minded and evil Thatcher more
> votes from the crazed population. It certainly was sunk to
> kill Argentine sailors who were not doing any harm to the British.

Well, it's clear we're not going to reach agreement about that.

>> It was sunk to /stop/ British soldiers from being killed.
>
> Ridiculous. It was not threatening anyone.

It was a warship. Its very existence was a threat.

> It may have well been docked for all the harm it was doing. It was no Bismarck or Graf Spee.

But it was still a warship.

>> And
>> it worked. After its sinking, the Belgrano played much less of a role in
>> the Argentine war effort.
>
> It wasn't doing anything hostile in the first place.

If it was sunk before it could do any damage, so much the better.

> I don't see how a sunk ship can play any role at all in any war effort.

Precisely my point.

> http://belgranoinquiry.com/
>
> It was outside the war zone, as per the above link.

So what?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:12:58 AM UTC+10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 13/07/16 00:32, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:12:58 AM UTC+10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 12/07/16 23:54, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:00:25 PM UTC+10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>>> On 12/07/16 12:49, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>>> Did they kill pilots as they were baling out?
> >>>>
> >>>> Did who kill pilots as they were baling out?
> >>>
> >>> Enemy airmen, of course, who had shot them. I don't think
> >> > it was the done thing in WW1 and WW2, not with British vs
> >> > Germans anyway. However, attitudes may have changed since.
> >>
> >> It was not the done thing in WW2 (I don't know about WW1). Nevertheless,
> >> in WW2 it /was/ done, on occasion.
> >>
> >>> The point being, that deliberately killing a human
> >> > in uniform just because he is the enemy is not the
> >> > point of warfare.
> >>
> >> I agree. The point of warfare is to win, and that means depriving the
> >> enemy of resources that might get in the way of that objective (such as,
> >> for example, a warship).
> >
> > Then why did they not nuke the Argentines, if depriving
> > the enemy of resources is the main goal of warfare?
>
> No, the goal is to win. A nuclear response would have been an
> over-reaction. Sinking a warship was not.

What did the British win except lasting infamy by such mass-murder? A nuclear response would have given them even more infamy. Good to see that this is still understood.
If the notion of winning means getting your way, then yes the British won the war. Some sheep farmers of British extraction are still flying the British flag in some remote island.
Dispensing with the notions of shame and honour has long term consequences. For one thing, the faith the citizens should have in their leaders get reduced. On the other hand, in democracies one bad lot is often replaced with another that appears not so bad.
On the other other hand, when shame and honour really have no meaning in politics, then it does not matter which lot runs the land. They are all bastards, albeit appearing in different shades.
I suppose, this is exactly the situation now in all democracies.
No decent person can make it in any parliament in any country. Liars and windbags rule, everywhere. The one thing that really unites them, is co-operating about how to extort more perks and pensions from the public.

>
> > Violence has to be strictly administered. When such
> > is not done, when it is done unnecessarily, it is
> > murder pure and simple. It is bloody-mindedness. It is evil.
>
> Scenario: the Belgrano is spared, and the following week it sinks a
> British ship, killing several hundred British soldiers and sailors.

A fictitious scenario. Confusing fact with fiction is the natural way of the shameless and dishonourable. This probably results from giving top billing to novelists and relativists for generations, now.

And
> then the cry would have been: "Why didn't we sink this ship when we had
> the chance?"

Now the cry is, among those who retain the sense of shame, why were they such utter bastards.

> > The Belgrano wasn't sunk to kill Argentinian
> >> soldiers.
> >
> > It was sunk to get the bloody-minded and evil Thatcher more
> > votes from the crazed population. It certainly was sunk to
> > kill Argentine sailors who were not doing any harm to the British.
>
> Well, it's clear we're not going to reach agreement about that.

There is no argument or agreement with pirates. Just a statement of positions.

>
> >> It was sunk to /stop/ British soldiers from being killed.
> >
> > Ridiculous. It was not threatening anyone.
>
> It was a warship. Its very existence was a threat.

Nonsense. It was no threat at all. At most it was a signal of defiance, and that too at a very safe distance.

>
> > It may have well been docked for all the harm it was doing. It was no Bismarck or Graf Spee.
>
> But it was still a warship.

So sinking it helped Thatcher in the polls. Had she nuked some city it may not have helped even with the war-crazed public.

>
> >> And
> >> it worked. After its sinking, the Belgrano played much less of a role in
> >> the Argentine war effort.
> >
> > It wasn't doing anything hostile in the first place.
>
> If it was sunk before it could do any damage, so much the better.

Certainly it worked for Thatcher. But Thatcher is dead and gone, and the infamy will live for ever.

While shamelessness does insulate, it also desensitises and so makes the pirate rather stupid. He cannot then work out superior strategies, even with his ill-gotten gains that make him too arrogant or lazy.

With morality playing no role in public affairs, those with the loudest mouths and deepest purses cannot but win. In the long run, giving up on shame and decency is counter-productive for the health of the population.

>
> > I don't see how a sunk ship can play any role at all in any war effort.
>
> Precisely my point.
>
> > http://belgranoinquiry.com/
> >
> > It was outside the war zone, as per the above link.
>
> So what?

It was not in any threatening position; it was not obstructing any military goals; so sinking it was mass-murder.

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Jul-13 02:30, LFS wrote:
>
> I suspect that very few senior military personnel think like that,
> although we might expect senior politicians to do so. Here is another
> Trump aspect to worry about - his potential VP choice:
>
> http://www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12129202/michael-flynn-vice-president-donald-trump

If craziness is your brand recognition gimmick, you wouldn't want to
have someone sane on your team.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Richard Bollard]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:38:31 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>Congratulations to Theresa May on becoming Prime Minister of the UK.
>
>Not my first choice, obviously - /I/ would be my first choice - but I
>trust that she'll keep the seat warm until I can get myself elected.
>
>Now, I can't help being reminded of an old joke form that ran like this:
>
>She was only the _________'s daughter, but ___________________
>
>It didn't take long to come up with:
>
>"She was only the vicar's daughter, but I've heard Theresa May."
>
>30 years ago, of course, Margaret Thatcher was at the helm:
>
>"She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
>

>I suspect that you folks know plenty more.
>
>Has this joke form completely died out now, or are there still
>occurrences in the wild?

She was only the stockbroker's daughter, but every man got his share.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.

[charles]

In article <ce0dbc08-b613-4c12...@googlegroups.com>, Arindam

I believe that you country has a navy. Presumably the ships carry no
weapons so that they don't sink any other ship.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Richard Heathfield]

A sunken enemy warship.

> except lasting infamy by such mass-murder?

A closed foot gathers no mind.

[Arindam Banerjee]

The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right. Why the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to begin with is a mystery to my colonial self.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Cheryl]

On 2016-07-13 5:56 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>
> The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right. Why the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to begin with is a mystery to my colonial self.

I believe the residents of the Falklands disagreed with you.

--
Cheryl

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:13:40 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:

>On 2016-07-13 5:56 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>>
>> The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right. Why the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to begin with is a mystery to my colonial self.
>
>I believe the residents of the Falklands disagreed with you.

Exactly. The (human) inhabitants are of British origin and still have
formal connections with the UK. The armed forces of the UK are also the
armed forces of the Falkland Islands.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 7:43:45 PM UTC+10, Cheryl P wrote:
> On 2016-07-13 5:56 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> >
> > The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right. Why the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to begin with is a mystery to my colonial self.
>
> I believe the residents of the Falklands disagreed with you.

But the British who ruled India, and left peacefully, never thought India or Indians was part of Britain or British, respectively. Geography does matter - I doubt if the Falklands are considered as British as say the Isle of Man, Channel islands, etc.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 03:06:32 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
<banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 7:43:45 PM UTC+10, Cheryl P wrote:
>> On 2016-07-13 5:56 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right. Why the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to begin with is a mystery to my colonial self.
>>
>> I believe the residents of the Falklands disagreed with you.
>
>But the British who ruled India, and left peacefully, never thought India or Indians was part of Britain or British, respectively.

The individual inhabitants of British India shared with the inhabitants
of Britain and other parts of the Empire the status of "British
Subjects". The Empire was seen as an extension of Britain.

> Geography does matter - I doubt if the Falklands are considered as British as say the Isle of Man, Channel islands, etc.

The Falklands are further away so less familiar to British people in the
"home countries".

>>
>> --
>> Cheryl
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Richard Tobin]

In article <cc48136d-fd98-4992...@googlegroups.com>,

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties
>from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right. Why
>the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to begin
>with is a mystery to my colonial self.

>> I believe the residents of the Falklands disagreed with you.

>But the British who ruled India, and left peacefully, never thought
>India or Indians was part of Britain or British, respectively. Geography
>does matter - I doubt if the Falklands are considered as British as say
>the Isle of Man, Channel islands, etc.

The question is not whether the they are considered British by others,
but which country *they* wish to be part of. Don't you support the
principle of self-determination?

In fact the Falkland Islanders are probably considered much more
British than the Channel Islanders.

-- Richard

[Cheryl]

On 2016-07-13 7:36 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 7:43:45 PM UTC+10, Cheryl P wrote:
>> On 2016-07-13 5:56 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right. Why the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to begin with is a mystery to my colonial self.
>>
>> I believe the residents of the Falklands disagreed with you.
>
> But the British who ruled India, and left peacefully, never thought India or Indians was part of Britain or British, respectively. Geography does matter - I doubt if the Falklands are considered as British as say the Isle of Man, Channel islands, etc.

I don't know how much more British you can get than British by culture,
language, and a strong enough political connection to elicit armed defence.

I mean, if you deny the Britishness of the Falklands, you might as well
say that St. Pierre et Miquelon aren't part of France just because they
aren't literally attached to France, and I don't think anyone would
claim that.

--
Cheryl

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:37:38 PM UTC+10, PeterWD wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 03:06:32 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
> <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 7:43:45 PM UTC+10, Cheryl P wrote:
> >> On 2016-07-13 5:56 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right. Why the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to begin with is a mystery to my colonial self.
> >>
> >> I believe the residents of the Falklands disagreed with you.
> >
> >But the British who ruled India, and left peacefully, never thought India or Indians was part of Britain or British, respectively.
>
> The individual inhabitants of British India shared with the inhabitants
> of Britain and other parts of the Empire the status of "British
> Subjects". The Empire was seen as an extension of Britain.

I was talking about the first class white British subjects who left India for Britain after 1947. They did so peacefully, as elsewhere and I dare say their numbers were larger than the Falkland islanders.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:38:58 +0000 (UTC), ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

>In article <cc48136d-fd98-4992...@googlegroups.com>,
>Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> > The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties
>>from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right. Why
>>the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to begin
>>with is a mystery to my colonial self.
>
>>> I believe the residents of the Falklands disagreed with you.
>
>>But the British who ruled India, and left peacefully, never thought
>>India or Indians was part of Britain or British, respectively. Geography
>>does matter - I doubt if the Falklands are considered as British as say
>>the Isle of Man, Channel islands, etc.
>
>The question is not whether the they are considered British by others,
>but which country *they* wish to be part of. Don't you support the
>principle of self-determination?

There was a referendum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#Sovereignty_dispute

In March 2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its
political status, with 99.8 percent of voters favoured remaining
under British rule.

>
>In fact the Falkland Islanders are probably considered much more
>British than the Channel Islanders.
>
>-- Richard

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC+10, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <cc48136d-fd98-4992...@googlegroups.com>,
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties
> >from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right. Why
> >the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to begin
> >with is a mystery to my colonial self.
>
> >> I believe the residents of the Falklands disagreed with you.
>
> >But the British who ruled India, and left peacefully, never thought
> >India or Indians was part of Britain or British, respectively. Geography
> >does matter - I doubt if the Falklands are considered as British as say
> >the Isle of Man, Channel islands, etc.
>
> The question is not whether the they are considered British by others,
> but which country *they* wish to be part of. Don't you support the
> principle of self-determination?

At the individual level, yes. At some group level, another story. I prefer flexible options. My retirement plans involve living in some nice place for a few months, and then moving on to some other place... Free movement, decent employment, good and safe company, moral values, devotion to the arts and sciences, family life, the Divine, etc. mean much more to me than nationalistic chest-thumping.

>
> In fact the Falkland Islanders are probably considered much more
> British than the Channel Islanders.

So why not settle them in places where they could get more of the British life and culture, instead of going off on murderous sprees?

[Cheryl]

On 2016-07-13 9:03 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC+10, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <cc48136d-fd98-4992...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties
>> >from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right. Why
>>> the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to begin
>>> with is a mystery to my colonial self.
>>
>>>> I believe the residents of the Falklands disagreed with you.
>>
>>> But the British who ruled India, and left peacefully, never thought
>>> India or Indians was part of Britain or British, respectively. Geography
>>> does matter - I doubt if the Falklands are considered as British as say
>>> the Isle of Man, Channel islands, etc.
>>
>> The question is not whether the they are considered British by others,
>> but which country *they* wish to be part of. Don't you support the
>> principle of self-determination?
>
> At the individual level, yes. At some group level, another story. I prefer flexible options. My retirement plans involve living in some nice place for a few months, and then moving on to some other place... Free movement, decent employment, good and safe company, moral values, devotion to the arts and sciences, family life, the Divine, etc. mean much more to me than nationalistic chest-thumping.

And I'm sure you'll find a nation or nations that fulfil your
requirements, whether or not some members of those nations engage in

chest-thumping.

>> In fact the Falkland Islanders are probably considered much more
>> British than the Channel Islanders.
>
> So why not settle them in places where they could get more of the British life and culture, instead of going off on murderous sprees?

I thought they mostly raised sheep.

--
Cheryl

[Richard Tobin]

In article <7da9d08c-49b7-438f...@googlegroups.com>,

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> In fact the Falkland Islanders are probably considered much more
>> British than the Channel Islanders.

>So why not settle them in places

You seem to have completely missed the point of *self*-determination.

-- Richard

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:45:15 PM UTC+10, Cheryl wrote:
> On 2016-07-13 9:03 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC+10, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >> In article <cc48136d-fd98-4992...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties
> >> >from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right. Why
> >>> the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to begin
> >>> with is a mystery to my colonial self.
> >>
> >>>> I believe the residents of the Falklands disagreed with you.
> >>
> >>> But the British who ruled India, and left peacefully, never thought
> >>> India or Indians was part of Britain or British, respectively. Geography
> >>> does matter - I doubt if the Falklands are considered as British as say
> >>> the Isle of Man, Channel islands, etc.
> >>
> >> The question is not whether the they are considered British by others,
> >> but which country *they* wish to be part of. Don't you support the
> >> principle of self-determination?
> >
> > At the individual level, yes. At some group level, another story. I prefer flexible options. My retirement plans involve living in some nice place for a few months, and then moving on to some other place... Free movement, decent employment, good and safe company, moral values, devotion to the arts and sciences, family life, the Divine, etc. mean much more to me than nationalistic chest-thumping.
>
> And I'm sure you'll find a nation or nations that fulfil your
> requirements, whether or not some members of those nations engage in
> chest-thumping.

Oh, I am very fortunate, thanks. I don't mind nationalistic chest-thumping so long as that does not mean creating or condoning unnecessary violence.

>
> >> In fact the Falkland Islanders are probably considered much more
> >> British than the Channel Islanders.
> >
> > So why not settle them in places where they could get more of the British life and culture, instead of going off on murderous sprees?
>
> I thought they mostly raised sheep.

I was talking not about the islanders, but about their distant protectors who did not want to settle the matter peacefully.
>
> --
> Cheryl

[Cheryl]

It takes two to quarrel.

--
Cheryl

[Arindam Banerjee]

Quite a luxury, that sort of self-determination. But then, evidently, they could afford it. Yes, I suppose I have missed their point - I have so many different nationalities and sub-nationalities to manage.
>
> -- Richard

[Richard Heathfield]

On 13/07/16 11:36, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 03:06:32 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
> <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
>> Geography does matter - I doubt if the Falklands are considered as British as say the Isle of Man, Channel islands, etc.
>
> The Falklands are further away so less familiar to British people in the
> "home countries".

That may have been true before 1982, but I think it's probably fair to
say that of those British people who have never been to any of the IoM,
the Channel Islands, and the Falklands (i.e. most British people), they
have probably had far greater media exposure to the Falklands than to
the others, and thus it's reasonable to guess that the Falklands are
/more/ familiar than IoM or the Channel Islands.

My own knowledge of all of them is pretty shaky, but here's a rough
summary of my familiarity with them (without looking anything up).

Falkland Islands: UK dependency since the late 17th Century,
administered by a Governor. The islands were uninhabited when the UK
claimed them. The principal population centre is Port Stanley.
Population is small (four figures, I think), and principally of British
descent. Wildlife includes penguins and albatrosses. Scene of a
significant naval engagement in 1914, where /Scharnhorst/ and
/Gneisenau/ were sunk. HMS Exeter refitted there after battle damage
sustained at the Battle of the River Plate. There's a place called Goose
Green, which was attacked by British forces during the Falklands War.
The British element of surprise had been somewhat undermined by the
BBC's announcement of the battle on air(!). Lt-Col H Jones was one of 18
British soldiers killed in the attack. In a recent referendum, more than
90% of the islanders voted for the Falklands to remain a British
territory, and most of the rest didn't bother to vote at all. (I think
there were two, maybe three, islanders who voted against.)

Isle of Man: status and administration unknown. Principal population
centre is Douglas. The annual TT motorcycle races are held there. Tax
haven (still?). Norman Wisdom lived there (but chose not to avail
himself of the tax advantages he could have enjoyed).

Channel Islands: Guernsey, Jersey, and Sark. (Any more?) Status and
administration unknown. Principal population centres unknown. Tax haven.
/Bergerac/ was filmed on one of the islands. Occupied by the Nazis
during WW2.

Looking back at the above, I would say I'm much more familiar with the
Falklands than with either the IoM or the Channel Islands.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

What do mean "settle them in places"? Are you suggesting that they
should be forcibly removed from their homes and transported hundreds or
thousands of miles away?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#Demographics

The Falkland Islands are a homogeneous society, with the majority of
inhabitants descended from Scottish and Welsh immigrants who settled
the territory in 1833. The 2006 census listed some Falklands
residents as descendants of French, Gibraltarians and Scandinavians.

> instead of going off on murderous sprees?

What murderous sprees?

Everything was peaceful until the Argentines invaded, intending to
impose their dictatorial rule on the people of the Falkland Islands.

[Richard Heathfield]

And it only takes one to start a fight.

When someone punches you on the nose and steals your car with your kids
and your granny in the back seat, you don't say "let's sit round a table
and discuss how we can give you the car you just stole". You fight to
protect your people and your property. To do anything else just
encourages theft.

[Whiskers]

On 2016-07-13, Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:12:58 AM UTC+10, Richard Heathfield
> wrote:
>> On 12/07/16 23:54, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:00:25 PM UTC+10, Richard Heathfield
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 12/07/16 12:49, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

[...]

>> The Belgrano wasn't sunk to kill Argentinian
>> soldiers.
>
> It was sunk to get the bloody-minded and evil Thatcher more votes from
> the crazed population. It certainly was sunk to kill Argentine sailors
> who were not doing any harm to the British.
>

>> It was sunk to /stop/ British soldiers from being killed.
>

> Ridiculous. It was not threatening anyone. It may have well been

> docked for all the harm it was doing. It was no Bismarck or Graf Spee.
>
>

>> And it worked. After its sinking, the Belgrano played much less of a
>> role in the Argentine war effort.
>

> It wasn't doing anything hostile in the first place. I don't see how a

> sunk ship can play any role at all in any war effort.
>

> http://belgranoinquiry.com/
>
> It was outside the war zone, as per the above link.
>

> Cheers, Arindam Banerjee

When your country is at war with another country, just being a warship
is enough of a warlike act to invite attack. If you don't want to be
sunk, don't be a warship. There are precedents going back to the start
of recorded history to justify sinking enemy ships whenever and
wherever the chance arises. Not that I approve of war.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[CDB]

On 13/07/2016 3:27 AM, one of the usual suspects wrote:

[...]

But, my Lord, parts of her were excellent!

[John Ritson]

In article <vr3cob13t4r10nouo...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
[BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes

And yet, before the invasion, while passing a Nationality Act (mostly
aimed at stopping the inhabitants of Hong Kong coming to the UK before
the handover to China) the government explicitly stated that the
Falkland Islanders were not UK citizens.

--
John Ritson

[Arindam Banerjee]

That was quite the done thing, to India after the partition in 1947. Tens of millions of people were displaced. It was the greatest migration in history.

There were winners and losers in that event. The people were not forcibly removed by the state. They left on their own because of fear.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#Demographics
>
> The Falkland Islands are a homogeneous society, with the majority of
> inhabitants descended from Scottish and Welsh immigrants who settled
> the territory in 1833. The 2006 census listed some Falklands
> residents as descendants of French, Gibraltarians and Scandinavians.
>
> > instead of going off on murderous sprees?
>
> What murderous sprees?

I was blaming Thatcher, not the islanders.

>
> Everything was peaceful until the Argentines invaded, intending to
> impose their dictatorial rule on the people of the Falkland Islands.

Peace talks or negotiations were not held, the UN was not involved, in order to get the Argentines out.

[Arindam Banerjee]

But you seem to approve of murdering unfortunates in uniform.

[Mark Brader]

Arindam Banerjee:
> ...murdering unfortunates in uniform.

Plonk.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "The three dots '...' here suppress a lot of detail
m...@vex.net | -- maybe I should have used four dots." -- Knuth

[Whiskers]

Far from it. I advocate individuals refusing military service or
orders; but I'm sufficiently realistic to know that many people don't
take that advice. One has to assume that they accept the consequences
(and thus perpetuate violence).

[Richard Heathfield]

No, he didn't say that, any more than you said you're in favour of
countries using armed invasion as a means of resolving territorial
disputes. I'm sure you're *not* in favour of countries using armed force
to invade other countries' lands. Of course you're not. No. You're not,
are you?

[Whiskers]

On 2016-07-13, Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:20:18 PM UTC+10, PeterWD wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 04:33:14 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
>> <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC+10, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> >> In article <cc48136d-fd98-4992...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>> What do mean "settle them in places"? Are you suggesting that they
>> should be forcibly removed from their homes and transported hundreds
>> or thousands of miles away?
>
> That was quite the done thing, to India after the partition in 1947.
> Tens of millions of people were displaced. It was the greatest
> migration in history.
>
> There were winners and losers in that event. The people were not
> forcibly removed by the state. They left on their own because of fear.

Huge numbers of people died. The whole thing was instigated and
promoted by self-serving politicians who presumably thought there'd be
twice as many jobs for them if there were two countries instead of one.
Do not blame the Raj or the British for that mess; it was entirely a
native matter. Along with most of the world, the British government and
people were shocked horrified distressed and dismayed. Up till then,
Europeans had respected Indian culture and civilisation.

There's no sign that the Falkland Islanders are looking for partition.

>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#Demographics
>>
>> The Falkland Islands are a homogeneous society, with the majority
>> of inhabitants descended from Scottish and Welsh immigrants who
>> settled the territory in 1833. The 2006 census listed some
>> Falklands residents as descendants of French, Gibraltarians and
>> Scandinavians.
>>
>> > instead of going off on murderous sprees?
>>
>> What murderous sprees?
>
> I was blaming Thatcher, not the islanders.
>>
>> Everything was peaceful until the Argentines invaded, intending to
>> impose their dictatorial rule on the people of the Falkland Islands.
>
> Peace talks or negotiations were not held, the UN was not involved, in
> order to get the Argentines out.

Arbitration was not sought by the Argentinian government. They could
have done so at any time over 150 years, but didn't. They started a war
to deflect public opinion at home from problems they couldn't handle -
at the cost of 655 Argentine lives, 3 Falkland Islanders, and 255
British servicemen, and many more seriously injured. They gambled that
remote islands the Argentine forces could barely reach wouldn't be
defended by Britain which is even further away; they expected a quick
cheap propaganda coup. What they got was a thrashing. Things could
have been entirely different if they'd started with talks.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <nm294h$811$1...@dont-email.me>,
Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 12/07/16 04:20, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:08:35 AM UTC+5:30, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> Congratulations to Theresa May on becoming Prime Minister of the UK.
> >>
> >> Not my first choice, obviously - /I/ would be my first choice - but I
> >> trust that she'll keep the seat warm until I can get myself elected.
> >>
> >> Now, I can't help being reminded of an old joke form that ran like this:
> >>
> >> She was only the _________'s daughter, but ___________________
> >>
> >> It didn't take long to come up with:
> >>
> >> "She was only the vicar's daughter, but I've heard Theresa May."
> >>
> >> 30 years ago, of course, Margaret Thatcher was at the helm:
> >>
> >> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
> >>
> >
> > And how!
> >
> > BTW, Roger Waters composed this about 35 years back:
> > Galtieri took the Union Jack
> > and Maggie over lunch one day
> > took a cruiser with all hands
> > apparently to make him give it back
>
> <shrug> In wars, people get injured and people get killed. So it's a
> good idea not to start wars. But once the war's started, it's no use
> moaning that the other side is cheating by killing soldiers. If you (and
> naturally I mean you in your capacity as tin-pot dictator of a failing
> state) didn't want to gamble with those soldiers' lives, you shouldn't
> have sent them to war. In this case, Galtieri started the war by
> invading sovereign British territory, and the British Government
> responded quite correctly by defending its people. That's one of its
> most important jobs. I couldn't understand, even at the time, why people
> were so fussed about the sinking of the Belgrano, and I don't understand
> it any more nowadays. War is hell - if a Government doesn't want to see
> its soldiers killed, it shouldn't mess with the British.
>
> Galtieri should be glad I wasn't in charge. I'd have given a month's
> warning, and then started dropping buildings in downtown Buenos Aires.
> (But I would, at least, have given a month's warning.) And the last
> planes in each attack would drop leaflets saying (in Spanish,
> presumably): "You mess with us, this is what you get. Pull out of the
> Falklands right now, and don't mess with us again. Comprendez?"

Mostly, I agree with your posts, and mostly do here as well. However,
there is a concept called something like "appropriate response" or
"measured response" or something. I'm not sure dropping buildings would
be one of those. I assume you wouldn't use atomic weapons (does the UK
have them?) which would surely convince the government, so you have some
concept of measured response.

Having said that, I'm unsure what a correct response was other than to
invade the island, which is where the occupation was. I do see the point
that this will cost the lives of UK military, whereas bombing a city
might not. I do think that a correct response is "what they did + 50%
(say) more just war isn't meant to be "fair".

--
charles
>
> Fortunately for the Argentinian capital's city centre, I wasn't in
> charge at the time. The offending triumvirate only had to deal with the
> comparatively wussy Margaret Thatcher.

[Jerry Friedman]

On 7/12/16 10:59 PM, Richard Bollard wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:38:31 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Congratulations to Theresa May on becoming Prime Minister of the UK.
>>
>> Not my first choice, obviously - /I/ would be my first choice - but I
>> trust that she'll keep the seat warm until I can get myself elected.
>>
>> Now, I can't help being reminded of an old joke form that ran like this:
>>
>> She was only the _________'s daughter, but ___________________
>>
>> It didn't take long to come up with:
>>
>> "She was only the vicar's daughter, but I've heard Theresa May."
>>
>> 30 years ago, of course, Margaret Thatcher was at the helm:
>>
>> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
>>

>> I suspect that you folks know plenty more.
>>
>> Has this joke form completely died out now, or are there still
>> occurrences in the wild?
>
> She was only the stockbroker's daughter, but every man got his share.

Or the plowman's daughter?

--
Jerry Friedman
"No Trump" bridge-themed political shirts: cafepress.com/jerrysdesigns
Bumper stickers ditto: cafepress/jerrysstickers

[Charles Bishop]

In article <M58hz.364080$FC.1...@fx39.am4>, grabber <g...@bb.er> wrote:

> On 7/12/2016 4:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > On 12/07/16 15:52, grabber wrote:
> >> On 7/12/2016 3:27 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

[snip for space]
> >>>
> >>> A country that vigorously and eptly[1] defends its people from invasion
> >>> will gain a reputation for so doing. Such a reputation will deter at
> >>> least some other belligerents from attempting to do the same thing. And
> >>> /that/ means fewer people dying.
> >>
> >> This seems to have been the philosophy of successive Israeli
> >> governments. Not everyone would agree that it has been an unqualified
> >> success.
> >
> > It has, however, been a success. Israel still exists.
>
> Absolutely. But the question is, might another approach have enabled it
> to exist *and* to have enjoyed a better reputation and better relations
> with its neighbours; perhaps allowing it to have an even more secure
> prospect of continuing to exist indefinitely. I don't claim to know the
> answer.

Nor do I, but asking a question with no known answer seems to be trying
to second guess what has happened. Absent multiverses and a way to
travel to them, it's unlikely to know for sure.

Wargamers may have a better idea, that would give the result you want.

chrles, then, there's chaos theory

[Richard Heathfield]

Beautifully put. I am reminded of Sir Humphrey Appleby's response to the
French Ambassador's request to allow armed French police to guard the
French President on a visit to Britain. Sir Humphrey points out that,
doubtless, other nations would also like to put armed police on the
streets of the capital. "Her Majesty's Government is not completely
convinced that this would make London a safer place."

And of course you're right. I was allowing myself a little silliness. I
do seriously think, however, that there /is/ a case for tasking the SAS
with capturing or killing those directly responsible for giving the
order to invade British territory (in this case, that would have been
Galtieri and his two sidekicks), on the understanding that the SAS were
allowed to say 'no' if they thought it impracticable.

> I assume you wouldn't use atomic weapons (does the UK
> have them?)

We do, yes. (I won't go into the ins and outs. If you're curious, a
search on 'Trident' will bear fruit.) And you're right. I wouldn't use
atomic weapons. At the time, I heard the phrase "Nuke Buenos" being
bandied around quite a lot, but I assumed it was black humour.

> which would surely convince the government, so you have some
> concept of measured response.

I cannot deny it. I do.

> Having said that, I'm unsure what a correct response was other than to
> invade the island, which is where the occupation was. I do see the point
> that this will cost the lives of UK military, whereas bombing a city
> might not. I do think that a correct response is "what they did + 50%
> (say) more just war isn't meant to be "fair".

It is certainly necessary to apply enough force to restore the status
quo ante. There is also a case to be made for applying enough
/additional/ force to persuade the enemy not to do such a damn silly
thing ever again. Okay, of course I wouldn't have bombed Buenos. But I
would have given serious thought to sinking their entire military fleet,
either during the conflict itself or as one of the conditions of calling
off hostilities.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:15:15 AM UTC+10, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
> On 2016-07-13, Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:20:18 PM UTC+10, PeterWD wrote:
> >> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 04:33:14 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
> >> <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC+10, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >> >> In article <cc48136d-fd98-4992...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> What do mean "settle them in places"? Are you suggesting that they
> >> should be forcibly removed from their homes and transported hundreds
> >> or thousands of miles away?
> >
> > That was quite the done thing, to India after the partition in 1947.
> > Tens of millions of people were displaced. It was the greatest
> > migration in history.
> >
> > There were winners and losers in that event. The people were not
> > forcibly removed by the state. They left on their own because of fear.
>
> Huge numbers of people died. The whole thing was instigated and
> promoted by self-serving politicians who presumably thought there'd be
> twice as many jobs for them if there were two countries instead of one.

True. Indian people were displaced in huge numbers and yet life goes on in the subcontinent at a galloping pace. The pro-British Indians are the losers, the anti-British lot (or rather, the fortunate opportunists) are the winners.

My point was that the real British subjects too left all they had in India and returned to their true home country, or went to other colonies.

So not staying where you are not wanted, going back to the Home Country, was the done thing in 1947.

Evidently the British were and are more attached to the Falklands than to India.

> Do not blame the Raj or the British for that mess; it was entirely a
> native matter.

Largely, but not entirely. The British drew the lines of partition. They failed to predict the enormously disastrous consequences, as they did not understand the true native sentiments. This lack they shared with the Anglicised Indian politicians, who were evidently not genuine representatives of the masses.

> Along with most of the world, the British government and
> people were shocked horrified distressed and dismayed. Up till then,
> Europeans had respected Indian culture and civilisation.

Really?
Nirad Chaudhuri (the greatest self-proclaimed Anglophile) writes in his book "The Continent of Circe" that the most remarkable change of opinion ever found in human history happened directly after 1947. It was with respect to the British opinion about Indian leaders.
Prior to Indian independence, the elected Indian leaders were the most despised entities. They were considered only slightly better than office boys (chuprasis).
To explain, voting was done in India before 1947, but those elected had no real power. Power lay with the British and the ICS officials.
But directly after 1947, the same chuprasis got near-divine status! They were the new carriers of the white man's burden! They were respected! For they had some real power now.
The mental suppleness of the British, thus, has been amazing.
Europeans do not know, nor want to know, anything about genuine Indian culture and civilisation - all they may know is how to deal with the now-important Indians.

> There's no sign that the Falkland Islanders are looking for partition.

Why should they? The Indian masses (victims of various invasions over centuries) never asked for Partition either.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Which is cowardice

but I'm sufficiently realistic to know that many people don't
> take that advice. One has to assume that they accept the consequences
> (and thus perpetuate violence).

Violence should be just adequate for the purpose, neither more nor less.

[Robert Bannister]

On 13/07/2016 5:43 PM, Cheryl wrote:

> On 2016-07-13 5:56 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>>
>> The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties
>> from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right.
>> Why the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to
>> begin with is a mystery to my colonial self.
>
> I believe the residents of the Falklands disagreed with you.
>

Apparently only about a third of the population identify themselves as
British according to the most recent census I can find.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Robert Bannister]

On 14/07/2016 7:02 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> Evidently the British were and are more attached to the Falklands
> than to India.

Of course, it has nothing to do with oil.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <duo404...@mid.individual.net>,

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

>>> The countries I relate to have not had to defend distant properties
>>> from neighbours. Defending one's own country is a fundamental right.
>>> Why the Falklands or Malvinas should be considered anything British to
>>> begin with is a mystery to my colonial self.

>> I believe the residents of the Falklands disagreed with you.

>Apparently only about a third of the population identify themselves as
>British according to the most recent census I can find.

Identifying isn't the relevant point either. I don't identify with
any country, but I still have a view on whether the one I live in
should be united with various other ones.

-- Richard

[Snidely]

Jerry Friedman was thinking very hard :

> On 7/12/16 10:59 PM, Richard Bollard wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:38:31 +0100, Richard Heathfield
>> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Congratulations to Theresa May on becoming Prime Minister of the UK.
>>>
>>> Not my first choice, obviously - /I/ would be my first choice - but I
>>> trust that she'll keep the seat warm until I can get myself elected.
>>>
>>> Now, I can't help being reminded of an old joke form that ran like this:
>>>
>>> She was only the _________'s daughter, but ___________________
>>>
>>> It didn't take long to come up with:
>>>
>>> "She was only the vicar's daughter, but I've heard Theresa May."
>>>
>>> 30 years ago, of course, Margaret Thatcher was at the helm:
>>>
>>> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
>>>
>>> I suspect that you folks know plenty more.
>>>
>>> Has this joke form completely died out now, or are there still
>>> occurrences in the wild?
>>
>> She was only the stockbroker's daughter, but every man got his share.
>
> Or the plowman's daughter?

I for one find that works better with "only" as a dismissive, stock
brokers flying a bit above my means (except for punctuated chaotic
moments).


/dps

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

[charles]

In article <1a0e26b7-080d-4b7a...@googlegroups.com>,

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Evidently the British were and are more attached to the Falklands than to
> India.

India was a country with an existing population; the Falklands were
uninhabited before the British arrived - major difference.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[grabber]

Exactly, so we should be suspicious of anything that takes the answer
for granted, e.g. the suggestion that the fact of Israel's survival as a
state justifies the extent of its willingness to kill people.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Surely Sir Humphrey would have said "are"?

athel

[Richard Heathfield]

On 14/07/16 10:20, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2016-07-13 19:43:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:
>

<snip>

>> [...] I am reminded of Sir Humphrey Appleby's response to

>> the French Ambassador's request to allow armed French police to guard
>> the French President on a visit to Britain. Sir Humphrey points out
>> that, doubtless, other nations would also like to put armed police on
>> the streets of the capital. "Her Majesty's Government is
>
> Surely Sir Humphrey would have said "are"?

I can check, if you care enough. Do you care enough?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 01:59:56 UTC+10, Mack A. Damia wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 02:49:00 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
> <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> "She was only the grocer's daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe."
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > And how!
> >> >
> >> > BTW, Roger Waters composed this about 35 years back:
> >> > Galtieri took the Union Jack
> >> > and Maggie over lunch one day
> >> > took a cruiser with all hands
> >> > apparently to make him give it back
> >>
> >> <shrug> In wars, people get injured and people get killed. So it's a
> >> good idea not to start wars. But once the war's started, it's no use
> >> moaning that the other side is cheating by killing soldiers.
> >

> >War is not about murder. War is a violent extension of foreign policy. It is not about the indiscriminate taking of lives of those in uniform.
>
> Somebody has been watching *Crimson Tide* and Denzel Washington
> spouting Von Clausewitz in the officer's mess.

There is a story about a Vietnamese collaborator who had a beautiful and unfaithful wife.
The husband had the job of telling the USAF the co-ordinates to bomb out. Death would come suddenly from the air.
And sometimes the co-ordinates he gave would correspond to the location of the last lover of his wife.

[LFS]

There were penguins, though. On a train I once overhead a fascinating
conversation between two elderly ladies, one of whom said she had lived
in Port Stanley for many years and described the penguins wandering down
the main street. She went off to the loo and the other lady turned to
her companion and said "She's must have Alzheimer's, whoever heard of
penguins roaming around outside zoos?"

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[Richard Tobin]

In article <dup4gj...@mid.individual.net>,

LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:

>> India was a country with an existing population; the Falklands were
>> uninhabited before the British arrived - major difference.

>There were penguins, though.

And (or so it was claimed on QI) they're back in large numbers, now
that there aren't whalers using them for fuel. They live happily in
the areas covered with landmines, as they are too light to set them
off.

-- Richard

[Richard Heathfield]

"Mind how you go, Floyd."
"Gnight, Randy [hic]."
[F/X: if penguins had doors, the door would close now]
"Randy, do you think Floyd will make it home all right? He lives the
other side of the minefield."
"Floyd? Yeah, he'll be fine. He's even lighter than me. He's almost as
light as you. Of course, he..."
[F/X] BOOM!
"...he might trip over."

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

<speechless!>