Oh Maggie how I loathed thee.....

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spesh

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

as well as attacking a political leader who chose to fight an extreme right wing Junta - among the crimes of which was doing away with a lot of your fellow lefties. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So Galtieri wasn't all bad. [;)]

It's certainly amusing seeing the left wanting to jump into bed with someone who would want to have them shot.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I believe the policy is best summarised as "My enemy's enemy is my friend." [}:)]

An approach that has led to some rather surprising political marriages of convenience over the years...

<hr noshade size="1">"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein)

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, indeed and when (as with lefties) the main enemy is always your own country, it causes some convoluted behaviour.

Noodley · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

What 'other options' noodley?

'her war' indeed- the Argentines started it ffs!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think the "other oprtions" have already been alluded to.

I am not asking you to defend her war, and wish to direct the discussion away the right-wing drift towards trying to justify her war - however as it centres on trying to denounce Argentina due to thier Imperialist notions towards the Malvinas whilst also relying heavily on the justification of British Imperialism, it is a rather strange position. Look at the other issues. Include her war, by all means. But do not take it as a "stand alone" issue - it formed part of her policy to sweep all opposition aside at all costs.

Asterixcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

Yes, indeed and when (as with lefties) the main enemy is always your own country, it causes some convoluted behaviour.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ah! You mean the miners? And anyone else in a unionised industry?

Pour vivre heureux, vivons le v‚lo..

Asterixcp · June 2007

WRT the Falklands, it's really little more than a red herring.

An episode that shouldn't have been allowed to occur if any notice had been taken of the early signs in that part of the world, and when it did, was milked for all it was worth.

(assuming it is possible to milk a red herring[;)])

Pour vivre heureux, vivons le v‚lo..

tony bell · June 2007

I blimmin well forgot History Of Modern Britain was on. It's been a great series so far. I was watching Britain's got talent on the other side...[:o)]
As for Thatcher, whoever's having the party when she shuffles off, don't forget my invite.

www.Tony-Bell.co.uk

stevechambers34 · June 2007

I can tell anyone that from a personal view from working within 'industry' the 'workers' were by and large "lions led by donkeys" they were time served men ,very skilled and efficient, 'management' by and large were complete tossers with often no idea of organising anything other than their Friday afternoon golf match paid for on expenses claimed back from the tax payer as training/entertaining, they usually got their job because daddy gave it to them,or their brother etc....we once had a new buyer (who to be fair was a decent chap) his qualifications were he was the boyfriend of the bosses brothers daughter, his previous experience ...a chef at a Beefeater! there were many others like this in many other companies I know.....the real reason that industry was struggling was Corporate greed, overpaying of executives and prolonged and chronic underinvestment.

being a reformed stuntdrinker allows pontification

andywhit · June 2007

what about the "workers" who used to spend half the shift asleep?
six of one and half a dozen of the other methinks

I hurt, therefore I think I am

stevechambers34 · June 2007

smoke and mirrors, never seen any or heard of any,seen plenty of 'gaffers' tossing it off though,I have even, as a young chap just out of my time been sent to pick them up from the 'corporate' flat used to entertain ladies of a certain profession, also bent sent as an aprentice to do their gardening,deliver their company made for free sighting towers to their golf club, picked up and delivered heating cabinets to the local masonic lodge from a very well known high street shopping chain, all in company time using company monies.

being a reformed stuntdrinker allows pontification

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Noodley

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

What 'other options' noodley?

'her war' indeed- the Argentines started it ffs!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think the "other oprtions" have already been alluded to.

I am not asking you to defend her war, and wish to direct the discussion away the right-wing drift towards trying to justify her war - however as it centres on trying to denounce Argentina due to thier Imperialist notions towards the Malvinas whilst also relying heavily on the justification of British Imperialism, it is a rather strange position. Look at the other issues. Include her war, by all means. But do not take it as a "stand alone" issue - it formed part of her policy to sweep all opposition aside at all costs.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Sorry, but how is it 'right wing' to defend Britain's right to defend itself when its territory and, more importantly, its citizens are subject to an unprovoked attack? Why is it 'British Imperialism' to think that the liberty and rights of the Falklanders count for something? It was their home; not yours or redcogs' to give away; it certainly wasn't the home of any Argentine to claim.

You (and others) seem to be curiously reluctant to accept that Argentina was the aggressor in this war. It is unfortunate that Agentine agression gave Thatcher an opportunity to improve her own popularity but that doesn't mean it was wrong to defend the country against it. If Galtieri hadn't started it then she wouldn't have had that opportunity.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

First off the Falklands War need never have started, in that the Argentine Junta was all but encouraged to invade. Britain has a pretty poor record in the post-WW2 period in encouraging conflict or waging rather unethical wars (Suez, Malaya, Kenya, Aden... etc.).It's also correct to say that Argentina has no better claim to the Falklands than any other party involved.

But, the Falklands having been invaded, I can't see that there was any option but to defend those who were invaded. I am sure the defence of potential mineral wealth, fishing rights and simple strategic considerations played as much if not more of a part than the defence of the islanders however. The war also resulted indirectly in the fall of Galtieri, not that this was any part of Thatcher's plans. She, like many British PMs had a weakness for dictators. The war also proved a major shock to British arrogance about its strength and warfighting capability... Britain had a ramshackle navy with poorly-designed ships that were easily disabled by rather simple weaponary. There were all sorts of tactical mistakes...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

First off the Falklands War need never have started, in that the Argentine Junta was all but encouraged to invade. Britain has a pretty poor record in the post-WW2 period in encouraging conflict or waging rather unethical wars (Suez, Malaya, Kenya, Aden... etc.).It's also correct to say that Argentina has no better claim to the Falklands than any other party involved.

But, the Falklands having been invaded, I can't see that there was any option but to defend those who were invaded. I am sure the defence of potential mineral wealth, fishing rights and simple strategic considerations played as much if not more of a part than the defence of the islanders however. The war also resulted indirectly in the fall of Galtieri, not that this was any part of Thatcher's plans. She, like many British PMs had a weakness for dictators. The war also proved a major shock to British arrogance about its strength and warfighting capability... Britain had a ramshackle navy with poorly-designed ships that were easily disabled by rather simple weaponary. There were all sorts of tactical mistakes...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
'Encouraged' is putting it a bit strong, but yes they evidently weren't sufficiently discouraged, and not just by the UK. There was a very interesting Radio 4 programme earlier in the week about the conflicts within the US position, not wanting to upset a south American government when there were commies to fight. It was fairly clear that had Reagan picked up the phone to Galtieri and said "Under no circumstances will you attack our ally, if you do we will back them and you will lose" then that would have been the end of the matter.

papercorn2000 · June 2007

And, as I have previously pointed out, Thatch had no objections to the other South American, obnoxious, right-wing, tin-pot dictator. (Who to this so-called Labour government's eternal shame, they allowed to shuffle off to spend the twilight of his life in luxury as opposed to in jail)

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by papercorn2000

And, as I have previously pointed out, Thatch had no objections to the other South American, obnoxious, right-wing, tin-pot dictator. (Who to this so-called Labour government's eternal shame, they allowed to shuffle off to spend the twilight of his life in luxury as opposed to in jail)

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Possibly because they didn't invade our territory .

papercorn2000 · June 2007

Never mind he killed hundreds of innocent people who had the temerity to disagree with him.

You can tell people from the company they keep...

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

gbyers · June 2007

If the fact that this thread is predominately concerned with the Falklands has any relevance, it would seem Thatcher's legacy will be judged on this issue.

So let's judge it. Those of you trying to deny that the failures of Thatcher and her government, due to policy decisions in the South Atlantic, led to this invasion in the first place might care to remember that the then Foreign Secretary (Carrington) resigned post invasion. Not, presumably, because he felt he or the govt he was part of was blameless in the matter.

A strange triumph for Thatcher then, this Falklands war.

________________________________________________________________________________
Anyone expecting to see a witty and imaginitive signature here obviously hasn't seen my username.

Noodley · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
Sorry, but how is it 'right wing' to defend Britain's right to defend itself when its territory and, more importantly, its citizens are subject to an unprovoked attack? Why is it 'British Imperialism' to think that the liberty and rights of the Falklanders count for something? It was their home; not yours or redcogs' to give away; it certainly wasn't the home of any Argentine to claim.

You (and others) seem to be curiously reluctant to accept that Argentina was the aggressor in this war. It is unfortunate that Agentine agression gave Thatcher an opportunity to improve her own popularity but that doesn't mean it was wrong to defend the country against it. If Galtieri hadn't started it then she wouldn't have had that opportunity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I was speaking about the "right wing drift" of the usual Soapbox right wingers towards concentrating on one aspect of Thatcher's time in power. They are attempting to defend one aspect as they believe defending Imperialism is justifiable but at the same time criticising Argentina for wanting to occupy a territory by force.

I do not think I have stated in any of the posts that Argentina was not the agressor - what I do state is Thatcher had other options and she took the armed conflict route to increase her failing popularity, she sacrificed the lives of others to her own end not for the benefit of the country which would have been better served by a non violent intervention and conclusion. She did then as she did in other areas of her evil policy - she misused her power and used it to inflict pain and hurt on families and communities around the country. She decimated vast areas in the name of "progress". She is responsible for dividing people, for causing social divide and is responsible for the lack of compassion, understanding, acceptance and tolerance so evident in Soapbox on a regular basis. She always went on about a unified Britain with similar values - but her vision was based on dividing rather than unifying, on separation rather than inclusion.

Unknown · June 2007

[Noodley Posted - 13/06/2007 : 22:16:02
I was speaking about the "right wing drift" of the usual Soapbox right wingers towards concentrating on one aspect of Thatcher's time in power. They are attempting to defend one aspect as they believe defending Imperialism is justifiable but at the same time criticising Argentina for wanting to occupy a territory by force.

I do not think I have stated in any of the posts that Argentina was not the agressor - what I do state is Thatcher had other options and she took the armed conflict route to increase her failing popularity, she sacrificed the lives of others to her own end not for the benefit of the country which would have been better served by a non violent intervention and conclusion. She did then as she did in other areas of her evil policy - she misused her power and used it to inflict pain and hurt on families and communities around the country. She decimated vast areas in the name of "progress". She is responsible for dividing people, for causing social divide and is responsible for the lack of compassion, understanding, acceptance and tolerance so evident in Soapbox on a regular basis. She always went on about a unified Britain with similar values - but her vision was based on dividing rather than unifying, on separation rather than inclusion. /quote]

We could change "Argentina to Iraq", "Thatcher to Blair" and "she to he", then re-post this in the "Tony- I Loathe Thee" thread. It about covers the last 10 years nicely as well. Does this not show what happens when politicians, of any hue, get to stay in power too long? Time for a maximum term of office I feel. 2 terms max, compulsory election every 4 years. Start next year, always have polling on feb 29th.

_______________________________________________________
"Finding a witty yet original signature is quite difficult isn't it?"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26011722@N00/

oldwelshman · June 2007

Which planet did you descend from?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

We should be glad though that she sorted out the unions <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Pre Thatcher, there was an assumption that a key trade union could bring down an elected government. Post Thatcher, it's not something that anyone worries about.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Sorting out the unions was a fantastic achievement.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Feel free to browse and donate:
http://www.justgiving.com/davidbethanmills
My winter and summer bike pics

http://oldwelshman.myphotoalbum.com

BigBren · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As for Thatcher, whoever's having the party when she shuffles off, don't forget my invite.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'll be there, right after I've visited the grave to install a urinal and a dance floor.

Bren

Russell_john · June 2007

I suppose the irony in Thatcher is that when the old bint dies she will have thousands of people dancing on her grave.. whereas when Bast*rd Blair dies the number wee*ng on his will be measured many more .....

Upon reflection exactly what have we learned about the futility of war since our South Atlantic 'tour'? Maybe this old chap summed it up right ...

They disembarked in 45
and no one spoke and no one smiled
there were too many spaces in the line
gathered at the Cenotaph
all agreed with hand on heart
to sheath the sacrificial knives

but now

She stands upon Southampton Dock
with her handkerchief
and her summer frock clings
to her wet body in the rain
in quiet desperation knuckles
white upon the slippery reins
she bravely waves the boys goodbye again

and still the dark stain spreads between
his shoulder blades
a mute reminder of the poppy fields and graves
and when the fight was over
we spent what we had made
but in the bottom of our hearts
we felt the final cut

Nobody wins a war. No one ever has. We all loose, every one of us. Pity the politicians and the fools who sign up in the first place ... but hey, all power to the old lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.. it served us back then and it'll serve us tomorrow and the day after and the day after that to.

are they wibbin me Centurwion?

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Noodley

[
I was speaking about the "right wing drift" of the usual Soapbox right wingers towards concentrating on one aspect of Thatcher's time in power. They are attempting to defend one aspect as they believe defending Imperialism is justifiable but at the same time criticising Argentina for wanting to occupy a territory by force.

I do not think I have stated in any of the posts that Argentina was not the agressor - what I do state is Thatcher had other options and she took the armed conflict route to increase her failing popularity, she sacrificed the lives of others to her own end not for the benefit of the country which would have been better served by a non violent intervention and conclusion. She did then as she did in other areas of her evil policy - she misused her power and used it to inflict pain and hurt on families and communities around the country. She decimated vast areas in the name of "progress". She is responsible for dividing people, for causing social divide and is responsible for the lack of compassion, understanding, acceptance and tolerance so evident in Soapbox on a regular basis. She always went on about a unified Britain with similar values - but her vision was based on dividing rather than unifying, on separation rather than inclusion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm guessing that you're including me under the "usual Soapbox rightwingers", so I'll reply to this despite not being particularly right wing except on the subject of crime.

It's fair to discuss this aspect of Thatcher's time as it was a defining event not just for her but for the whole country. It may well have boosted her ego to the extent that she subsequently felt invulnerable and led her to some very questionable policies and ultimately her political downfall.

You can not describe the Falklands was as an imperialist campaign (post imperialist - certainly) because all British imperial ambitions had long since gone so that bit of terminology is nonsense. There is no evidence that she consciously fought the war to boost her popularity. She was of the WW2-influenced generation and almost certainly fought it out of deep conviction. In any event it was not a matter of left or right but of simple morality.

However, all that the left said and did from the time of the war to the present day has been to its massive discredit. Indeed it showed itself up as a kind of moral whore in doing nothing more than attacking the Thatcher government which was, lest we forget, democratically elected by our fellow citizens. The nature of the Galtieri regime which they in effect supported with their lack of criticism was well understood. To not be able to recognise the positive achievements of someone to whom you are bitterly opposed (where those achievements exist) shows nothing more than an embittered immaturity.

There are many aspects of Thatcher's time in office which deserve scathing criticism but the Falkland's war was not one of them. It had the side effect of keeping the left out of office as they used the opportunity to show themselves in their true colours.

Unkraut · June 2007

Was Mrs Thatcher really responsible for all the 'devastation' of industries and communities, or was this at least in part inevitable considering the hand she was dealt when she entered No. 10? It is easy to forget the mess the country was in in 1979, and the cumulative effects of decades of appalling industrial relations (for which the indolent, out of touch and incompetent managements were at least as responsible as manipulating, politically motivated trade unions), and maintaining industries whose time had come.
She certainly made mistakes and deserves criticism, but too much is being put at her door by the left for which they themselves were more responsible. If I had one abiding criticism of her (do just let me finish), it is that she turned money (and the 'market') into an object of worship, as though a large bank account and the material possessions it provides were the most important thing in the world rather than 'the content of your character'. On the other hand, she gave Britain some self-respect back, having been the sick man of Europe for far too long.
Will I dance on her grave? The answer is No, No, No!!

ankev1 · June 2007

Unkraut,

that's probably the most reasonable, balanced and accurate summary of the Thatcher phenomenon which I've yet seen.

spire · June 2007

I suspect that if it hadn't been for the great Margaret, Britain would currently resemble Albania in terms of economic prosperity.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Russell_john

I suppose the irony in Thatcher is that when the old bint dies she will have thousands of people dancing on her grave..<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I hear that the Environment Agency have requested that the old bitch be buried on top of a hill...

...to prevent the formation of a large new lake [:0]

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

oldwelshman · June 2007

Margaret Beckett?
Cannot possibly mean Thatcher

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

I suspect that if it hadn't been for the great Margaret, Britain would currently resemble Albania in terms of economic prosperity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Feel free to browse and donate:
http://www.justgiving.com/davidbethanmills
My winter and summer bike pics

http://oldwelshman.myphotoalbum.com

peterbr · June 2007

I'm with you spire. I'd just like people to explain to me what was so great about 1979? I know Gordon is doing his best to bankrupt us again but surely the situation left to NuLab in 1997 after the Tories left power was infinitely better than that? I hope Labour kept the World Bank's number. I left University about this time. Well paying jobs were fairly easy to get and housing was affordable. Now?

I also wonder how many people here complaining about the demise of British industry actually supported it by buying their products? Austin Allegro anyone? How many chose foreign holidays? Cheap clothes from the far east instead of from Lancashire? New Zealand lamb?

Thatcher didn't kill industry - YOU ALL DID. Or do we want to be some kind of industrial working museum like a latterday Ironbridge?

<hr noshade size="1">
Elephants and Ivory go together in perfect harmony. Oh Lord, why can't we?

Medals · June 2007

IMHO the people of the Falklands were let down by the govt at the time.

I remember seeing a BBC documentry a few weeks before the invasion, at lunchtime, so hardly peak viewing time admitedly. It was about the scrapping of HMS Endurance and the Argentinians's designs on the Falklands. The message was clear. Argentina was building up it's forces to invade. If I realised that, and I was only 18, why didn't the govt? All it would have taken, was to send a few destroyers down there, to back up HMS Endurance, when they had the warning signs. War could well have been avoided if the govt had taken heed and said to the Argies, 'don't f**kin' mess with us' Agentina invaded 'cos they didn't think the British govt had the will to resist. We certainly would resist, but in the few weeks before the invasion we showed no signs of it.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Medals

IMHO the people of the Falklands were let down by the govt at the time.

I remember seeing a BBC documentry a few weeks before the invasion, at lunchtime, so hardly peak viewing time admitedly. It was about the scrapping of HMS Endurance and the Argentinians's designs on the Falklands. The message was clear. Argentina was building up it's forces to invade. If I realised that, and I was only 18, why didn't the govt? All it would have taken, was to send a few destroyers down there, to back up HMS Endurance, when they had the warning signs. War could well have been avoided if the govt had taken heed and said to the Argies, 'don't f**kin' mess with us' Agentina invaded 'cos they didn't think the British govt had the will to resist. We certainly would resist, but in the few weeks before the invasion we showed no signs of it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think the then Foreign Secretary resigned over this very point.

ankev1 · June 2007

Medals,

I think that that was the cock-up for which Lord Carrington took responsibility. The one good fallout from the fact that the cock-up led to war was the fact that the Argentinians learned the hard way what happens to idiots who get out of order and it has probably put them back in their boxes with respect to this matter for a long time to come. Incidentally, the Argentinian people (other than the bereaved) benefitted from losing the war as it led to the toppling of the Junta and the restoration of a more reasonable form of government. We can't claim the credit for that of course, but it was nice to see.

Oh Maggie how I loathed thee.....

Comments

Categories