Dear David F.,

I may be out of cite, but hopefully
I'm not out of mind. ;-)

Anyway, as Karl R. Popper stated:

"In our infinite ignorance
we are all equal."

Now back on topic.

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/reaction-to-the-death-of-margaret-thatcher-20130408-2hhqw.html

Dear Spindoc,

Sigh.

You are always just that little too easy to be fun.

I just needed you to dig your hole a little deeper which you obliged with the following;

“The next decision for the CO was what was the minimum force required to accomplish the mission, his choice, taking into account the difference in potential loss of life as he is required to do, was just two conventional 21 inch, WWII type torpedoes, fore and aft at the Belgrano and a third at one of the escorts.”

You really do just make this up as you go don't you.

Here are the words from the CO of the Conqueror;

“The intention was to close to an 'ideal' firing position on the side of the BELGRANO away from the escorting destroyers. A salvo of MK 8 Mod 4's were considered better than a Mk 24 Mod 1, because of the BELGRANO's thick armour plating and anti torpedo bulges.”

The Mk 24 Mod 1 is the Tigerfish.

This was a purely operational decision.

Much of what you have written about this incident so completely fails any scrutiny.

So the question remains what on earth have you been so intent on concocting a completely different scenario? Did Maggie Thatcher hold a special place in your heart? Or is your distaste of those you consider on the 'left' so great that you felt you needed to attack regardless of facts or evidence?

Whatever the reason the result is the same, how can any of us ever believe anything you post on these forums without seeing external evidence?

I'm will admit to being a little stunned by what you have done here.

Mr Opinion offered you Popper's quote; “A man with little knowledge takes a long time to tell you what little he knows.” You took 640 words to do the same. Yup you should have put a sock in it.

One is known by the company one keeps. Maggie chose to pal around with Augusto Pinochet. She left a few better off and many worse off. She could also lie.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/304516.stm

Maggie said of A P:

"I'm also very much aware that it is you who brought democracy to Chile, you set up a constitution suitable for democracy, you put it into effect, elections were held, and then, in accordance with the result, you stepped down."

Since Pinochet was instrumental in getting rid of a democratically elected leader and instituting a reign of terror she was good at rewriting history.

An insightful commentary on Thatcher's legacy from Killarney in the Article's section:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14898&page=0#256877

and here...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14898&page=0#256902

It may be interesting to read the views of
people from three generations in the UK
have to say about Margaret Thatcher:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/13/margaret-thatcher-three-generations-views

Then there's also a selection of the best writing on
margaret thatcher's legacy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2013/apr/11/margaret-thatcher-legacy-best-writing