Surely a point that must be considered is that with Pinochet a vital national interest (Falklands) was at stake. Whether this makes working with him acceptable or not, I don't know. Thatcher obviously felt it did. I am a realist in international politics - one of my main bugbears about our morally questionable Middle East policy is that it doesn't actually HELP Britain.
Indeed. A country has interests, not friends. I'm not bothered about the morally questionable bit so long as there is actually a useful goal or strategic interest on the table.
Chumming up with Pol Pot and the Afghan Jihadis was seen by our government as serving our nations interest at the time. In retrospect it did us no good at all. Applying a little moral sense may well have steered us clear of a lot of trouble.
Surely a point that must be considered is that with Pinochet a vital national interest (Falklands) was at stake. Whether this makes working with him acceptable or not, I don't know. Thatcher obviously felt it did. I am a realist in international politics - one of my main bugbears about our morally questionable Middle East policy is that it doesn't actually HELP Britain.
Indeed. A country has interests, not friends. I'm not bothered about the morally questionable bit so long as there is actually a useful goal or strategic interest on the table.
None of our recent "adventures" in the middle east have helped us. Our foreign policy is shambolic. It has been driven by what ou government thinks is moral. Not what is in the national interest.
Surely a point that must be considered is that with Pinochet a vital national interest (Falklands) was at stake. Whether this makes working with him acceptable or not, I don't know. Thatcher obviously felt it did. I am a realist in international politics - one of my main bugbears about our morally questionable Middle East policy is that it doesn't actually HELP Britain.
Indeed. A country has interests, not friends. I'm not bothered about the morally questionable bit so long as there is actually a useful goal or strategic interest on the table.
None of our recent "adventures" in the middle east have helped us. Our foreign policy is shambolic. It has been driven by what ou government thinks is moral. Not what is in the national interest.
No, it's been driven by America. And dressed up in the language of morality. If what our Government or anyone else thought was moral mattered, we wouldn't be cosy with some undesirables and spitting bile at others.
Surely a point that must be considered is that with Pinochet a vital national interest (Falklands) was at stake. Whether this makes working with him acceptable or not, I don't know. Thatcher obviously felt it did. I am a realist in international politics - one of my main bugbears about our morally questionable Middle East policy is that it doesn't actually HELP Britain.
Indeed. A country has interests, not friends. I'm not bothered about the morally questionable bit so long as there is actually a useful goal or strategic interest on the table.
There was quite a strong strategic interest for the UK (preservation of the Empire) on the table in 1939-40. Do you think that should have overridden moral imperatives?
"Supporters have praised him for bringing social advances to Cuba, while critics have highlighted his government's repression and alleged human rights violations"
"Alleged" human rights violations.....he imprisoned his own people on an island! Go and ask all those lucky enough who managed to escape to Florida. I have...
Maggie had her own favorite Latin American despot - Pinochet!
*runs and hides*
Pinochet wasn't a despot. He saved his country and was a true patriot.
He might have been a patriot, but plenty of people disappeared on his watch. We must judge our friends by the same standards as our enemies.
Doesn't sound like a strategy for keeping many friends.
Surely a point that must be considered is that with Pinochet a vital national interest (Falklands) was at stake. Whether this makes working with him acceptable or not, I don't know. Thatcher obviously felt it did. I am a realist in international politics - one of my main bugbears about our morally questionable Middle East policy is that it doesn't actually HELP Britain.
Indeed. A country has interests, not friends. I'm not bothered about the morally questionable bit so long as there is actually a useful goal or strategic interest on the table.
There was quite a strong strategic interest for the UK (preservation of the Empire) on the table in 1939-40. Do you think that should have overridden moral imperatives?
No, it should have overridden them in 1914. Then there would have been no 39 to 45.
Surely a point that must be considered is that with Pinochet a vital national interest (Falklands) was at stake. Whether this makes working with him acceptable or not, I don't know. Thatcher obviously felt it did. I am a realist in international politics - one of my main bugbears about our morally questionable Middle East policy is that it doesn't actually HELP Britain.
Indeed. A country has interests, not friends. I'm not bothered about the morally questionable bit so long as there is actually a useful goal or strategic interest on the table.
None of our recent "adventures" in the middle east have helped us. Our foreign policy is shambolic. It has been driven by what ou government thinks is moral. Not what is in the national interest.
No, it's been driven by America. And dressed up in the language of morality. If what our Government or anyone else thought was moral mattered, we wouldn't be cosy with some undesirables and spitting bile at others.
Struggling to argue with that. Youre correct i think.
"Supporters have praised him for bringing social advances to Cuba, while critics have highlighted his government's repression and alleged human rights violations"
"Alleged" human rights violations.....he imprisoned his own people on an island! Go and ask all those lucky enough who managed to escape to Florida. I have...
Maggie had her own favorite Latin American despot - Pinochet!
*runs and hides*
Pinochet wasn't a despot. He saved his country and was a true patriot.
He might have been a patriot, but plenty of people disappeared on his watch. We must judge our friends by the same standards as our enemies.
Doesn't sound like a strategy for keeping many friends.
It means I keep the friends I wish to have.
You might wish to have General Pinochet as a friend when he's passing radar information (was that what it was?) that is helping you re-take British sovereign territory with the minimum of cost of life. If you do, do you then not have to keep being his friend, because no-one else will help you if they think you ditch people at the drop of a hat as soon as you stop needing them?
Not sure I quite believe that BA didn't realise where the runway was going. Methinks that the discovery that Heathrow's owners are *really* going to push for massive increases in operators fees to pay for the runway is making minds up....
Surely a point that must be considered is that with Pinochet a vital national interest (Falklands) was at stake. Whether this makes working with him acceptable or not, I don't know. Thatcher obviously felt it did. I am a realist in international politics - one of my main bugbears about our morally questionable Middle East policy is that it doesn't actually HELP Britain.
Indeed. A country has interests, not friends. I'm not bothered about the morally questionable bit so long as there is actually a useful goal or strategic interest on the table.
There was quite a strong strategic interest for the UK (preservation of the Empire) on the table in 1939-40. Do you think that should have overridden moral imperatives?
No, it should have overridden them in 1914. Then there would have been no 39 to 45.
Absolute tosh. There may not have been exactly what happened in 39-45, but the social tensions built up in the old order would have boiled over in a major conflagration of some sort.
History is far too complex to say if this had not happened, then that wouldn't've.
"Supporters have praised him for bringing social advances to Cuba, while critics have highlighted his government's repression and alleged human rights violations"
"Alleged" human rights violations.....he imprisoned his own people on an island! Go and ask all those lucky enough who managed to escape to Florida. I have...
Maggie had her own favorite Latin American despot - Pinochet!
*runs and hides*
Pinochet wasn't a despot. He saved his country and was a true patriot.
He might have been a patriot, but plenty of people disappeared on his watch. We must judge our friends by the same standards as our enemies.
Doesn't sound like a strategy for keeping many friends.
It means I keep the friends I wish to have.
You might wish to have General Pinochet as a friend when he's passing radar information (was that what it was?) that is helping you re-take British sovereign territory with the minimum of cost of life. If you do, do you then not have to keep being his friend, because no-one else will help you if they think you ditch people at the drop of a hat as soon as you stop needing them?
I can only hope Thatcher used her influence to try and moderate him.
"Supporters have praised him for bringing social advances to Cuba, while critics have highlighted his government's repression and alleged human rights violations"
"Alleged" human rights violations.....he imprisoned his own people on an island! Go and ask all those lucky enough who managed to escape to Florida. I have...
Maggie had her own favorite Latin American despot - Pinochet!
*runs and hides*
Pinochet wasn't a despot. He saved his country and was a true patriot.
He might have been a patriot, but plenty of people disappeared on his watch. We must judge our friends by the same standards as our enemies.
Doesn't sound like a strategy for keeping many friends.
It means I keep the friends I wish to have.
You might wish to have General Pinochet as a friend when he's passing radar information (was that what it was?) that is helping you re-take British sovereign territory with the minimum of cost of life. If you do, do you then not have to keep being his friend, because no-one else will help you if they think you ditch people at the drop of a hat as soon as you stop needing them?
Radar information from Chile helped retake the Falklands?
Not sure I quite believe that BA didn't realise where the runway was going. Methinks that the discovery that Heathrow's owners are *really* going to push for massive increases in operators fees to pay for the runway is making minds up....
Heathrow's fees are regulated, and therefore (bizarrely) cheaper than many second or third tier airports.
Not sure I quite believe that BA didn't realise where the runway was going. Methinks that the discovery that Heathrow's owners are *really* going to push for massive increases in operators fees to pay for the runway is making minds up....
BA have plenty of leverage, I can't see why or how Heathrow would be able to completely shaft them.
Surely a point that must be considered is that with Pinochet a vital national interest (Falklands) was at stake. Whether this makes working with him acceptable or not, I don't know. Thatcher obviously felt it did. I am a realist in international politics - one of my main bugbears about our morally questionable Middle East policy is that it doesn't actually HELP Britain.
Indeed. A country has interests, not friends. I'm not bothered about the morally questionable bit so long as there is actually a useful goal or strategic interest on the table.
There was quite a strong strategic interest for the UK (preservation of the Empire) on the table in 1939-40. Do you think that should have overridden moral imperatives?
No, it should have overridden them in 1914. Then there would have been no 39 to 45.
Hmmm - but you're not really going for the opportunity, though. We should have auctioned the rights to Belgium in 1914. Kaiser Bill can have his war, and Belgium as well. All we want is an enormous pile of cash. And 50% of the dreadnoughts in German Navy. Delivered to Portsmouth....
In our own current times, auction off the Baltic states to Putin. For cash. Unless the EU has a higher bid....
"Supporters have praised him for bringing social advances to Cuba, while critics have highlighted his government's repression and alleged human rights violations"
"Alleged" human rights violations.....he imprisoned his own people on an island! Go and ask all those lucky enough who managed to escape to Florida. I have...
Maggie had her own favorite Latin American despot - Pinochet!
*runs and hides*
Pinochet wasn't a despot. He saved his country and was a true patriot.
He might have been a patriot, but plenty of people disappeared on his watch. We must judge our friends by the same standards as our enemies.
Doesn't sound like a strategy for keeping many friends.
It means I keep the friends I wish to have.
You might wish to have General Pinochet as a friend when he's passing radar information (was that what it was?) that is helping you re-take British sovereign territory with the minimum of cost of life. If you do, do you then not have to keep being his friend, because no-one else will help you if they think you ditch people at the drop of a hat as soon as you stop needing them?
Radar information from Chile helped retake the Falklands?
"One of his tasks was to coordinate the long-range radar, which was able to observe movements of Argentine forces in Ushuaia, Rio Gallegos, Rio Grande and Comodoro Rivadavia."
""For all his flaws, Castro's support for Angola played a crucial role in bringing an end to apartheid in South Africa and he will be remembered both as an internationalist and a champion of social justice."
He acknowledged "there were problems and there are problems of excesses by all regimes" but "we have to look at the thing in its totality" and Mr Castro had "seen off a lot of US presidents". Yeah there was a reason he outlasted so many U.S Presidents you idiot. ffs.
"Throughout the war, Argentina was afraid of a Chilean military intervention in Patagonia and kept some of her best mountain regiments away from the Falklands near the Chilean border as a precaution."
Surely a point that must be considered is that with Pinochet a vital national interest (Falklands) was at stake. Whether this makes working with him acceptable or not, I don't know. Thatcher obviously felt it did. I am a realist in international politics - one of my main bugbears about our morally questionable Middle East policy is that it doesn't actually HELP Britain.
Indeed. A country has interests, not friends. I'm not bothered about the morally questionable bit so long as there is actually a useful goal or strategic interest on the table.
There was quite a strong strategic interest for the UK (preservation of the Empire) on the table in 1939-40. Do you think that should have overridden moral imperatives?
No, it should have overridden them in 1914. Then there would have been no 39 to 45.
Absolute tosh. There may not have been exactly what happened in 39-45, but the social tensions built up in the old order would have boiled over in a major conflagration of some sort.
History is far too complex to say if this had not happened, then that wouldn't've.
It is worth considering that the German objective in 1914 was to take a bigger chunk of France (and much of Belgium) to get themselves in a better position for..... the next war. Yes, they were planning for WWII before WWI started....
The German Empire was a genuine militaristic enterprise - those who ran it believed War Was Good. Winning WWI in short order would have just convinced them that they were right.
Imagine a few decades down the line - 1945 say. The Crown Prince (notable in the German court as a war loving loony) would have been on the German thrown. And at the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft in Berlin, all those scientists who hadn't been chased out of Germany and Austria would have been developing the new physics... Party On!
"Throughout the war, Argentina was afraid of a Chilean military intervention in Patagonia and kept some of her best mountain regiments away from the Falklands near the Chilean border as a precaution."
Her best mountain troops were shite. But the general point is true.
"Supporters have praised him for bringing social advances to Cuba, while critics have highlighted his government's repression and alleged human rights violations"
"Alleged" human rights violations.....he imprisoned his own people on an island! Go and ask all those lucky enough who managed to escape to Florida. I have...
Maggie had her own favorite Latin American despot - Pinochet!
*runs and hides*
Pinochet wasn't a despot. He saved his country and was a true patriot.
He might have been a patriot, but plenty of people disappeared on his watch. We must judge our friends by the same standards as our enemies.
Doesn't sound like a strategy for keeping many friends.
It means I keep the friends I wish to have.
You might wish to have General Pinochet as a friend when he's passing radar information (was that what it was?) that is helping you re-take British sovereign territory with the minimum of cost of life. If you do, do you then not have to keep being his friend, because no-one else will help you if they think you ditch people at the drop of a hat as soon as you stop needing them?
Radar information from Chile helped retake the Falklands?
"One of his tasks was to coordinate the long-range radar, which was able to observe movements of Argentine forces in Ushuaia, Rio Gallegos, Rio Grande and Comodoro Rivadavia."
Not sure I quite believe that BA didn't realise where the runway was going. Methinks that the discovery that Heathrow's owners are *really* going to push for massive increases in operators fees to pay for the runway is making minds up....
Heathrow's fees are regulated, and therefore (bizarrely) cheaper than many second or third tier airports.
The scuttlebutt is that the government will say - "yup, you can have your lovely new runway. Paid for with your own lovely money. We will let you raise the money anyway you like..."
Hence the mutterings that actually, the government needs to "invest" in the future at Heathrow. We all know what that means....
I always like the story about Ambrose Bierce on the steps of the Capitol building. He was confronted by the agents of the Railroad Barons who were trying to get government loans forgiven without payment...
"My price is one hundred thirty million dollars. If, when you are ready to pay, I happen to be out of town, you may hand it over to my friend, the Treasurer of the United States."
"Throughout the war, Argentina was afraid of a Chilean military intervention in Patagonia and kept some of her best mountain regiments away from the Falklands near the Chilean border as a precaution."
Her best mountain troops were shite. But the general point is true.
Well it meant that the best weren't hunkered down on South Georgia or the Falklands themselves.
Surely a point that must be considered is that with Pinochet a vital national interest (Falklands) was at stake. Whether this makes working with him acceptable or not, I don't know. Thatcher obviously felt it did. I am a realist in international politics - one of my main bugbears about our morally questionable Middle East policy is that it doesn't actually HELP Britain.
Indeed. A country has interests, not friends. I'm not bothered about the morally questionable bit so long as there is actually a useful goal or strategic interest on the table.
There was quite a strong strategic interest for the UK (preservation of the Empire) on the table in 1939-40. Do you think that should have overridden moral imperatives?
No, it should have overridden them in 1914. Then there would have been no 39 to 45.
Absolute tosh. There may not have been exactly what happened in 39-45, but the social tensions built up in the old order would have boiled over in a major conflagration of some sort.
History is far too complex to say if this had not happened, then that wouldn't've.
It is worth considering that the German objective in 1914 was to take a bigger chunk of France (and much of Belgium) to get themselves in a better position for..... the next war. Yes, they were planning for WWII before WWI started....
Don't forget large bits of the Russian Empire (almost pulled it off at Brest-Litovsk!).
Surely a point that must be considered is that with Pinochet a vital national interest (Falklands) was at stake. Whether this makes working with him acceptable or not, I don't know. Thatcher obviously felt it did. I am a realist in international politics - one of my main bugbears about our morally questionable Middle East policy is that it doesn't actually HELP Britain.
Indeed. A country has interests, not friends. I'm not bothered about the morally questionable bit so long as there is actually a useful goal or strategic interest on the table.
There was quite a strong strategic interest for the UK (preservation of the Empire) on the table in 1939-40. Do you think that should have overridden moral imperatives?
No, it should have overridden them in 1914. Then there would have been no 39 to 45.
Absolute tosh. There may not have been exactly what happened in 39-45, but the social tensions built up in the old order would have boiled over in a major conflagration of some sort.
History is far too complex to say if this had not happened, then that wouldn't've.
It is worth considering that the German objective in 1914 was to take a bigger chunk of France (and much of Belgium) to get themselves in a better position for..... the next war. Yes, they were planning for WWII before WWI started....
Don't forget large bits of the Russian Empire (almost pulled it off at Brest-Litovsk!).
That was later - the original plan was to hold off Russia while hammering France and stealing chunks of it.
Surely a point that must be considered is that with Pinochet a vital national interest (Falklands) was at stake. Whether this makes working with him acceptable or not, I don't know. Thatcher obviously felt it did. I am a realist in international politics - one of my main bugbears about our morally questionable Middle East policy is that it doesn't actually HELP Britain.
Indeed. A country has interests, not friends. I'm not bothered about the morally questionable bit so long as there is actually a useful goal or strategic interest on the table.
There was quite a strong strategic interest for the UK (preservation of the Empire) on the table in 1939-40. Do you think that should have overridden moral imperatives?
No, it should have overridden them in 1914. Then there would have been no 39 to 45.
Absolute tosh. There may not have been exactly what happened in 39-45, but the social tensions built up in the old order would have boiled over in a major conflagration of some sort.
History is far too complex to say if this had not happened, then that wouldn't've.
It is worth considering that the German objective in 1914 was to take a bigger chunk of France (and much of Belgium) to get themselves in a better position for..... the next war. Yes, they were planning for WWII before WWI started....
Don't forget large bits of the Russian Empire (almost pulled it off at Brest-Litovsk!).
That was later - the original plan was to hold off Russia while hammering France and stealing chunks of it.
Surely a point that must be considered is that with Pinochet a vital national interest (Falklands) was at stake. Whether this makes working with him acceptable or not, I don't know. Thatcher obviously felt it did. I am a realist in international politics - one of my main bugbears about our morally questionable Middle East policy is that it doesn't actually HELP Britain.
Indeed. A country has interests, not friends. I'm not bothered about the morally questionable bit so long as there is actually a useful goal or strategic interest on the table.
There was quite a strong strategic interest for the UK (preservation of the Empire) on the table in 1939-40. Do you think that should have overridden moral imperatives?
No, it should have overridden them in 1914. Then there would have been no 39 to 45.
Absolute tosh. There may not have been exactly what happened in 39-45, but the social tensions built up in the old order would have boiled over in a major conflagration of some sort.
History is far too complex to say if this had not happened, then that wouldn't've.
It is worth considering that the German objective in 1914 was to take a bigger chunk of France (and much of Belgium) to get themselves in a better position for..... the next war. Yes, they were planning for WWII before WWI started....
The German Empire was a genuine militaristic enterprise - those who ran it believed War Was Good. Winning WWI in short order would have just convinced them that they were right.
Imagine a few decades down the line - 1945 say. The Crown Prince (notable in the German court as a war loving loony) would have been on the German thrown. And at the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft in Berlin, all those scientists who hadn't been chased out of Germany and Austria would have been developing the new physics... Party On!
Planning the next war in advance whilst fighting one.
Something waaaay beyond Bush ad Blair - they couldn't even plan for the one in front of them.
""For all his flaws, Castro's support for Angola played a crucial role in bringing an end to apartheid in South Africa and he will be remembered both as an internationalist and a champion of social justice."
He acknowledged "there were problems and there are problems of excesses by all regimes" but "we have to look at the thing in its totality" and Mr Castro had "seen off a lot of US presidents". Yeah there was a reason he outlasted so many U.S Presidents you idiot. ffs.
He outlasted a lot of his opponents domestically too.
Don't suppose that poisonous twunt Staines has an iota of empirical evidence to back his statement up, but who needs evidence when you're a vapid shitstirrer.
Granted I was a teenager when Mrs Thatcher became PM, but I honestly don't recall the summary executions.
How about the IRA freedom fighters shot dead in Gibraltar
"Supporters have praised him for bringing social advances to Cuba, while critics have highlighted his government's repression and alleged human rights violations"
"Alleged" human rights violations.....he imprisoned his own people on an island! Go and ask all those lucky enough who managed to escape to Florida. I have...
Maggie had her own favorite Latin American despot - Pinochet!
*runs and hides*
Pinochet wasn't a despot. He saved his country and was a true patriot.
No he was a murdering fuckwit who had thousands executed. That his opponents might not have been very nice either is beside the point. Pinochet was little different to Castro or many other despots in his tactics and the fact that Britain supported him in any way is repugnant.
Murdering fuckwit and patriot aren't mutually exclusive.
"Supporters have praised him for bringing social advances to Cuba, while critics have highlighted his government's repression and alleged human rights violations"
"Alleged" human rights violations.....he imprisoned his own people on an island! Go and ask all those lucky enough who managed to escape to Florida. I have...
Maggie had her own favorite Latin American despot - Pinochet!
*runs and hides*
Pinochet wasn't a despot. He saved his country and was a true patriot.
No he was a murdering fuckwit who had thousands executed. That his opponents might not have been very nice either is beside the point. Pinochet was little different to Castro or many other despots in his tactics and the fact that Britain supported him in any way is repugnant.
Murdering fuckwit and patriot aren't mutually exclusive.
Morning all. My favourite day of the year, it's the final day of the F1 season and I'm going to watch the race live! Come on Lewis, and thanks to Jenson and Filipe for the memories
"Supporters have praised him for bringing social advances to Cuba, while critics have highlighted his government's repression and alleged human rights violations"
"Alleged" human rights violations.....he imprisoned his own people on an island! Go and ask all those lucky enough who managed to escape to Florida. I have...
Maggie had her own favorite Latin American despot - Pinochet!
*runs and hides*
Pinochet wasn't a despot. He saved his country and was a true patriot.
No he was a murdering fuckwit who had thousands executed. That his opponents might not have been very nice either is beside the point. Pinochet was little different to Castro or many other despots in his tactics and the fact that Britain supported him in any way is repugnant.
Murdering fuckwit and patriot aren't mutually exclusive.
Cheers all. Police have been and we now have the crime number, CSI in the am and a new front door via a helpful mates brother. Then an alarm.
Good luck. Keep an eye on how the family is coping. These things are not always rational and the worst case is you might need to move if they still don't feel safe after a few months. Look at the gizmo market -- you can buy cameras that upload to the cloud, and motion sensors that alert you to someone's presence while you are out (or that the cat wants feeding).
Pinochet: he was a despot, and anyone help he gave us wrt the Falklands, whilst gratefully received, does not excuse his crimes, or those of his regime.
Comments
Funny how these things are not "interesting" - such as the KGB money stash.
https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/13909-for-the-record-cair-releases-results-of-presidential-election-exit-poll.html
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2016/nov/22/ba-boss-shocked-to-find-out-that-third-heathrow-runway-will-raze-his-hq
Not sure I quite believe that BA didn't realise where the runway was going. Methinks that the discovery that Heathrow's owners are *really* going to push for massive increases in operators fees to pay for the runway is making minds up....
History is far too complex to say if this had not happened, then that wouldn't've.
Trump: Castro was brutal dictator.
Corbyn Praises 'huge' figure of Castro.
Source please.
In our own current times, auction off the Baltic states to Putin. For cash. Unless the EU has a higher bid....
"One of his tasks was to coordinate the long-range radar, which was able to observe movements of Argentine forces in Ushuaia, Rio Gallegos, Rio Grande and Comodoro Rivadavia."
""For all his flaws, Castro's support for Angola played a crucial role in bringing an end to apartheid in South Africa and he will be remembered both as an internationalist and a champion of social justice."
He acknowledged "there were problems and there are problems of excesses by all regimes" but "we have to look at the thing in its totality" and Mr Castro had "seen off a lot of US presidents".
Yeah there was a reason he outlasted so many U.S Presidents you idiot. ffs.
"Throughout the war, Argentina was afraid of a Chilean military intervention in Patagonia and kept some of her best mountain regiments away from the Falklands near the Chilean border as a precaution."
The German Empire was a genuine militaristic enterprise - those who ran it believed War Was Good. Winning WWI in short order would have just convinced them that they were right.
Imagine a few decades down the line - 1945 say. The Crown Prince (notable in the German court as a war loving loony) would have been on the German thrown. And at the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft in Berlin, all those scientists who hadn't been chased out of Germany and Austria would have been developing the new physics... Party On!
But the general point is true.
Hence the mutterings that actually, the government needs to "invest" in the future at Heathrow. We all know what that means....
I always like the story about Ambrose Bierce on the steps of the Capitol building. He was confronted by the agents of the Railroad Barons who were trying to get government loans forgiven without payment...
"My price is one hundred thirty million dollars. If, when you are ready to pay, I happen to be out of town, you may hand it over to my friend, the Treasurer of the United States."
Welcome home me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offenders_executed_in_the_United_States_in_2016
Little damage, could clear it up quickly but we need the police first. Nearly seven hours since we called.
Thanks guys by the way.
The worst thing for me wasn't the theft - it was the invasion of the home (they got our wedding album out FFS!)
Still, they didn't trash the place and (this was the 80's) the police were there in literally 5 mins
Took me a while to get over it.
best wishes
Something waaaay beyond Bush ad Blair - they couldn't even plan for the one in front of them.
Disgraceful.
What happened to them Corbyn?
Were they there on their holidays then?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOLVm_9UcRw
Then an alarm.
Don't be a patriot.
Come on Lewis, and thanks to Jenson and Filipe for the memories
People criticising his regime for those crimes should remember what Assad has been doing in Syria, even before the civil war:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/assad-war-crimes-syria-torture-caesar-hospital