She was a power mad witch, she sank the belgrano without so much as a thought. We all saw that flounder before taking 100's of innocent souls.
What makes anyone think she cared one iota for our soldiers, the public or the country for that matter?
She had on her side the spirit of the British, she used Murdocks rags to her advantage with bold headlines everyday in the media. Cameron could only dream of having that much social control.

livia said tit's:joker:

thatcher had more ball's than all the prime minister's only churchill was on her level,

Without the untried Harriers it would have done - nobody knew if they would survive the trip South let alone fly when they got there ..... :idc:

He was as mad as a box of frogs too...

But thanks to him we are not having to speak in German

No we speak American...
http://cloudcorinne.files.wordpress..../mcdonalds.jpg

Ich spreche fließend Deutsch ..... :idc:

Interesting last few posts, so what I am thinking now is that the UK was going to be irrevocably changed regardless of the outcome of WW2. Either part of a German speaking greater European empire or in hock to the yanks for the next fifty years, told what to do and when to do it . Told who to fight against and who to support. Flooded with fast food and a fast food culture.

Hmmm.... Interesting choice !!!

If you'd put any leader in place, we'd have won eventually. The speeches may not have been as inspiring, and it may have played out differently, but the minute Hitler turned on Russia, there was only ever going to be one outcome.

America and Russia were the keys to us winning that war, not Churchills speeches, and I mean that respectfully. He gets extra respect for being on the nose bag continually.

Name one .....

I wonder what our economy (GDP) and our National Debt would be now if we had not won the war ?

You really are bizarre. I give reasons to back up my point, and you want a specific name of someone who currently has no standing in history?

Churchill didn't fight the Germans on his own, and those young men in trenches were not fighting to stay alive because Churchill had said they would be fighting the enemy on the beaches.

If Hitler doesn't attack Russia, and America doesn't enter the war, we'd have been ****ed.

Churchill was the right figurehead at that time, but I don't accept he was largely responsible.

You made an unsubstantiated assertion ..... surely you can back it up with a suggestion from the existing political leaders of the time, apart from Neville Chamberlain, of course ..... :idc:

The whole point here, is that no one knows. I gave my opinion, and I gave reasons for external factors that had more of an impact on the war than Churchill.

If you disagree with my hypothesis, then it's up to you to give reasons why you think I'm wrong. I already declared that the leader wasn't as important as is being made out, so offering another name misses my point entirely.

You have no desire to debate anything, and instead like to hide in the margins. Pasting **** from wiki, and having no real opinion of your own.

IMO, your "opinions" appear to be based on a complete lack of knowledge of the events in question ..... :shrug:

Try explaining in detail for once, rather than single line replies that don't mean anything.

If you think Churchill was the deciding factor, then say why you think that.

I'm asking for your opinion, and your opinion seems to solely be that I'm wrong.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say someone else is wrong. I want your own personal explanation as to why you think that.

I don't want another dismissive smilie. I want your views and opinions.

I asked YOU for elaboration of YOUR assertion - I didn't say you were wrong ..... :nono:

YOU'RE the one with the "opinion" (allegedly) ..... :rolleyes:

No you didn't. You asked me for a name after I posited that the name was unimportant in the first place.

I elaborated by giving the invasion of Russia, and the entrance of America into the war, as far more significant that Churchill as the PM.

There you go again, you're trying to hide in tiny details, and use smilies as your discussion tool.

You're not very good at this, are you? Debate is generally a 2-way street, and as yet, you've offered nothing to counter my opinions (that doesn't need to be quote-marked).

I'll make this clear, change Hitler and Churchill around. Churchill attacks Russia, and the US enter the war. The allies still win.

I can't have made my opinion any clearer, so either address it and explain why you disagree, or don't bother replying with smilies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/student...g_skills.shtml

:pipe:

I am now going to follow my own advice and stick to the subject being debated - Falklands row: Cameron vows to defend Islanders

:idc:

You really are a tiresome bore, with a stunning lack of self awareness. Avoiding the issues over and over again, but pasting blocks of text. Don't confuse me calling out your bull****, as losing my cool.

I gave you one final chance to address my posts and you've swerved out of it in typical Omah-style.

Can we stick to the topic in question please? the Falklands row.

.

Anger At Argentina Falklands Claims
 

http://news.sky.com/story/1033203/ar...over-falklands

I won't argue with that ..... :pipe: