Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ShamanMcLamie

Margaret Thatcher has passed away

19 posts in this topic

Surprised no one has made a topic for this yet. Margaret Thatcher the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leader of the Conservative party died yesterday at the age of 87 after years of failing health.

 

I'd like to hear other peoples thoughts on this and what they thought of Margaret Thatcher during her life and especially her hotly debated and politically divicise time as Prime Minister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was a woman who defeated the odds of becoming a woman prime minister in what was then a male dominated parliament. Whilst some of her actions and decisions she made were wrong or could of been handled/done better, she ran the country in what she thought was the best possible way, which is all I would ever want out of a leader. For those two reasons she at least deserves some respect.

 

I don't believe Britain was in a very good state at this time either hence half my family left to find a better life in Australia just before she came into office. She inherited a declining country so I wouldn't say she made it any worse. Her strength in Falkland war was certainly a highlight of her career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDK much about her but what I do know doesn't make a good impression on me. Granted, she's been all over the news lately... I still didn't hear anything that sounded very good IMO....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was an absolute Old Admin. While I don't rejoice with her passing, I could care less. Won't be mourning her anytime soon.
 

KeegozSU, on 09 Apr 2013 - 10:40, said:
Her strength in Falkland war was certainly a highlight of her career.

Strength? Strong arming the French to stop the sale of weapons and divulge the secrets behind Argentina's only powerful weapon (The Exocet missile system) may be strength, but other than that, her "strength was not of the good kind.

She did everything necessary to get what she wanted no matter what the cost. She had no morals. I'm sure her working with Pinochet was a real show of strength as well. Lets not forget that the only reason the war escalated to the level it did was solely because of her. What kind of morally-bound person supports unrestricted submarine warfare in this day and age!?! Actually, Britain is only one of two countries to sink a ship with a submarine since the second world war (an act that is illegal under UN law). 350 Argentinians died because the Belgrano was sunk as it was sailing away from the war, HUNDREDS of miles from the Falklands, BACK to Argentina, nearly THIRTEEN HOURS after Argentina had agreed to a mediated peace proposal from the Peruvians, Americans, Brazilians, and Germans which the English had made to seem they would accept. The was should have ended there but it didn't because of that lover of sunshine and rainbows didn't want to deal with public outcry.

There is a reason why before the war she was one of Britian's most hated PM's. She was a total hag who only screwed My Little Pony up. Had it not been for helping to escalate the Falklands war, her legacy would be nothing more than a pile of dung.

Edited by Freddie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did any of you forgot she calls Mandela a terrorist? How she open the door to the Apartheid government? She cared as much for the people as she did for a rock. I say good riddance. Their is a special section in hell for her, Reagan and others senile cold war leaders who are responsible for the mess up world we inherented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did any of you forgot she calls Mandela a terrorist? How she open the door to the Apartheid government? She cared as much for the people as she did for a rock. I say good riddance. Their is a special section in hell for her, Reagan and others senile cold war leaders who are responsible for the mess up world we inherented. 

Hahaha. Yes.

Here I thought I was the only person who doesn't appreciate Reagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She did everything necessary to get what she wanted no matter what the cost. She had no morals. I'm sure her working with Pinochet was a real show of strength as well. Lets not forget that the only reason the war escalated to the level it did was solely because of her. What kind of morally-bound person supports unrestricted submarine warfare in this day and age!?! Actually, Britain is only one of two countries to sink a ship with a submarine since the second world war (an act that is illegal under UN law). 350 Argentinians died because the Belgrano was sunk as it was sailing away from the war, HUNDREDS of miles from the Falklands, BACK to Argentina, nearly THIRTEEN HOURS after Argentina had agreed to a mediated peace proposal from the Peruvians, Americans, Brazilians, and Germans which the English had made to seem they would accept. The was should have ended there but it didn't because of that lover of sunshine and rainbows didn't want to deal with public outcry.

 

Ok, that is just not correct at all. The sinking of the Belgrano was perfectly legitimate. Which particular UN law makes it illegal to sink the warship of an enemy nation in a time of war? Besides, Article 51 states that "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations". So nothing the UN passes can have made the sinking of the Belgrano an illegal act, as it was a legitimate act of self defence against an aggressive enemy nation. 

Which brings us to the claim that the Belgrano was sailing away from the Falklands. You may not be overly familiar with how ships work, but its really easy for a ship to change direction, really quite quickly. In fact, Admiral Woodward, who commanded a British taskforce during the war, has posited that its likely the Belgrano was manoeuvring as part of a pincer movement of Argentinean naval forces. Is it not reasonable to sink an enemy ship that is conducting hostile manoeuvres with the intent of making war upon your forces?

And regarding this peace proposal that you say the British had indicated they would accept. Not really feasible, as the British hadn't seen the documents when the sinking occurred. And even if they had arrived, and Thatcher had seen them, as some conspiracy theorists will claim. What difference does that make? Why would we accept a compromise peace accord, when the nation we'd be making peace with is a hostile aggressor that has invaded our territory and killed our citizens? Just because the Falklands aren't physically attached to the British Isles doesn't make them any less part of the UK, and doesn't make the people any less British.

 

Invade British territory  don't expect a peace agreement. Expect to be soundly thrashed until you're no longer invading British territory. Not a difficult concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha. Yes.

Here I thought I was the only person who doesn't appreciate Reagan.

Don't even get me started on that ********. He may be the only Free World leader I hate more than Thatcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did any of you forgot she calls Mandela a terrorist? How she open the door to the Apartheid government? She cared as much for the people as she did for a rock. I say good riddance. Their is a special section in hell for her, Reagan and others senile cold war leaders who are responsible for the mess up world we inherented. 

 

Exactly why is the world a mess because of them? If anything the policies of Reagan and Thatcher helped spurred the greatest peace time economic growth their countries had seen since WWII. Niether of these leaders were perfect and certainly had their fair share of mistakes, like any human being, but in my personal opinion the world is a much better place because of them. The UK was called the sick man of Europe during the 70's. The economy was in a slump, uneployment was rising, and inflation was rampant. Thatcher took the UK economy from a dying state of government controlled Industry held hostage by Unions and moved it towards a more vibrant, adaptable, and privately owned service and financial driven economy. The US economy was also in a mess in the late 70's and Reagans economic policies allowed the economy to boom during the 1980's.

 

Reagan and Thatchers strong and agressive stance against the Soviet Union and communism helped end the Cold War greatly reducing the spectre of Nuclear holocaust and helped freed millions from tyranny. Ethiopia for instance had a drought during the 80's under the Communist Dirge regime and thousands starved and you had celebrities hosting benefit concerts. Recently Ethiopia had a drought and was able to feed it's population and very few people heard about it. No news is good news. The majority of post Communist states have done much better since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly why is the world a mess because of them? If anything the policies of Reagan and Thatcher helped spurred the greatest peace time economic growth their countries had seen since WWII. Niether of these leaders were perfect and certainly had their fair share of mistakes, like any human being, but in my personal opinion the world is a much better place because of them. The UK was called the sick man of Europe during the 70's. The economy was in a slump, uneployment was rising, and inflation was rampant. Thatcher took the UK economy from a dying state of government controlled Industry held hostage by Unions and moved it towards a more vibrant, adaptable, and privately owned service and financial driven economy. The US economy was also in a mess in the late 70's and Reagans economic policies allowed the economy to boom during the 1980's.

 

Reagan and Thatchers strong and agressive stance against the Soviet Union and communism helped end the Cold War greatly reducing the spectre of Nuclear holocaust and helped freed millions from tyranny. Ethiopia for instance had a drought during the 80's under the Communist Dirge regime and thousands starved and you had celebrities hosting benefit concerts. Recently Ethiopia had a drought and was able to feed it's population and very few people heard about it. No news is good news. The majority of post Communist states have done much better since the fall of the Soviet Union.

And I'm not going to say for sure, but I'm going to assume its these same rightist policies that caused the corruption which caused thes areas to decline economy wise like we see today.

It seems nomatter how far left or right we go, people are never satisfied. Its like every time somebody goes more left, they have to go more right because people are greedy. But then when they go more right, they have to go more left because people want social equality.

Hence why Reagan sucked. He was much too far right, to the edge of insanity. Thank god America has terms for presidents. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly why is the world a mess because of them? If anything the policies of Reagan and Thatcher helped spurred the greatest peace time economic growth their countries had seen since WWII. Niether of these leaders were perfect and certainly had their fair share of mistakes, like any human being, but in my personal opinion the world is a much better place because of them. The UK was called the sick man of Europe during the 70's. The economy was in a slump, uneployment was rising, and inflation was rampant. Thatcher took the UK economy from a dying state of government controlled Industry held hostage by Unions and moved it towards a more vibrant, adaptable, and privately owned service and financial driven economy. The US economy was also in a mess in the late 70's and Reagans economic policies allowed the economy to boom during the 1980's.

 

Reagan and Thatchers strong and agressive stance against the Soviet Union and communism helped end the Cold War greatly reducing the spectre of Nuclear holocaust and helped freed millions from tyranny. Ethiopia for instance had a drought during the 80's under the Communist Dirge regime and thousands starved and you had celebrities hosting benefit concerts. Recently Ethiopia had a drought and was able to feed it's population and very few people heard about it. No news is good news. The majority of post Communist states have done much better since the fall of the Soviet Union.

  

 Those policies where meant to make then look good, to fix the economy in the short term rather than the long term. The fall of the Soviet Union lead to a world dominated by a power that believes itself the world police. Reagan supported Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war, which Iraq started. They also provide arms to the forerunners of the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet-Afghan war.  This came back to hunt us  in the First and second Iraq war and the rise of fundamental Islamism in Afghanistan.  

Edited by Jose Olmedo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Those policies where meant to make then look good, to fix the economy in the short term rather than the long term. The fall of the Soviet Union lead to a world dominated by a power that believes itself the world police. Reagan supported Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war, which Iraq started. They also provide arms to the forerunners of the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet-Afghan war.  This came back to hunt us  in the First and second Iraq war and the rise of fundamental Islamism in Afghanistan.  

It was our containment policy which was established by 1950s that led us to suuport these leaders.

And pandora u call right greedy i call left lazy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was an absolute Old Admin. While I don't rejoice with her passing, I could care less. Won't be mourning her anytime soon.

 

Strength? Strong arming the French to stop the sale of weapons and divulge the secrets behind Argentina's only powerful weapon (The Exocet missile system) may be strength, but other than that, her "strength was not of the good kind.

She did everything necessary to get what she wanted no matter what the cost. She had no morals. I'm sure her working with Pinochet was a real show of strength as well. Lets not forget that the only reason the war escalated to the level it did was solely because of her. What kind of morally-bound person supports unrestricted submarine warfare in this day and age!?! Actually, Britain is only one of two countries to sink a ship with a submarine since the second world war (an act that is illegal under UN law). 350 Argentinians died because the Belgrano was sunk as it was sailing away from the war, HUNDREDS of miles from the Falklands, BACK to Argentina, nearly THIRTEEN HOURS after Argentina had agreed to a mediated peace proposal from the Peruvians, Americans, Brazilians, and Germans which the English had made to seem they would accept. The was should have ended there but it didn't because of that lover of sunshine and rainbows didn't want to deal with public outcry.

There is a reason why before the war she was one of Britian's most hated PM's. She was a total hag who only screwed My Little Pony up. Had it not been for helping to escalate the Falklands war, her legacy would be nothing more than a pile of dung.

 

" I'm sure her working with Pinochet was a real show of strength as well." - Bit hypocritical considering Argentina was a military dictatorship at the time as well.

 

"Lets not forget that the only reason the war escalated to the level it did was solely because of her." - So a country is not expected to defend itself nowadays? How ridiculous. Argentina invaded British sovereign territory, and Thatcher responded by ordering a task force to recover that territory. An entirely fair response. If Britain invaded Patagonia and Argentina tried to defend itself, is it right to blame Argentina for escalating the conflict? Please.

 

"Actually, Britain is only one of two countries to sink a ship with a submarine since the second world war (an act that is illegal under UN law)." - And invading a country isn't illegal? Double standards if anything.

 

"350 Argentinians died because the Belgrano was sunk as it was sailing away from the war, HUNDREDS of miles from the Falklands, BACK to Argentina, nearly THIRTEEN HOURS after Argentina had agreed to a mediated peace proposal from the Peruvians, Americans, Brazilians, and Germans which the English had made to seem they would accept. The was should have ended there but it didn't because of that lover of sunshine and rainbows didn't want to deal with public outcry." - I'm sorry, but be goddamned realistic here. Argentina had invaded and occupied the Falklands, sovereign British territory, whether Argentina liked that or not. Would Argentina suddenly agree to return Britain's territory to it in a peace deal? No. The whole peace deal was Britain handing over the Falklands to Argentina, and that's what many encouraged Thatcher to do. Instead, she decided to defend British territory. Unfortunately for Argentina, it turned out that they lost badly and can't get over it. Don't blame Thatcher for chosing to ignore a 'peace deal' that essentially gave everything to the aggressors. 

Did any of you forgot she calls Mandela a terrorist? How she open the door to the Apartheid government? She cared as much for the people as she did for a rock. I say good riddance. Their is a special section in hell for her, Reagan and others senile cold war leaders who are responsible for the mess up world we inherented. 

 

She called the ANC terrorists, actually, not Mandela. Furthermore, she was pivotal in the release of Mandela from prison because she actually chose to negotiate with South Africa rather than impose sanctions that harmed the lives of blacks more than whites. And you can't blame her for negotiating with the apartheid government because, hey, it was the government, whether people liked that or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I can see why Mandela could be considered a terrorist, he didnt exactly believe in peaceful protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I can see why Mandela could be considered a terrorist, he didnt exactly believe in peaceful protest.

technically any rebel group that fights against the established government is terroristic. In that regard, the American patriots of the revolution were terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm not going to say for sure, but I'm going to assume its these same rightist policies that caused the corruption which caused thes areas to decline economy wise like we see today.

It seems nomatter how far left or right we go, people are never satisfied. Its like every time somebody goes more left, they have to go more right because people are greedy. But then when they go more right, they have to go more left because people want social equality.

Hence why Reagan sucked. He was much too far right, to the edge of insanity. Thank god America has terms for presidents. :)

 

Pandora most people couldn't care less about social equality. What you call social equality is really just "free stuff at others expense." both left and right are greedy. People bank towards the right when the government starts taking too much stuff and people bank to the left when the government stops giving away stuff. Conservatives believe you have every right to be greedy, you just need to earn wealth yourself and your entitled to whatever you earn. Progressives believe that people are entitled to certain things and will take wealth from others to provide those things. One encourages production the other encourages forcibly redistributing existing wealth.

 

The corruption you speak of has been going on for decades, if anything the corruption was reduced as many rules, laws, and regulation were reduced during their administration. I'm not as savvy about the UK, but I know the mess in the US is really the result of numerous factors spanning five Presidential administrations. Local and State zoning laws lead to an artificial increase in property values, then Federal regulation begun under the Carter administration encourage and even force banks to start giving loans to low income and minority families, easy credit by the Federal Reserve especially during the 90's and 00's further digs the hole. The situation was exacerbated by the Reagan, Bush 41, and especially the Clinton administration. Actually Bush 43 is probably the least responsible for the financial crisis of 08 and even attempted some measures (ultimately stopped by Democrats) to avert the crisis. Non of this is helped by a corrupt SCE that doesn't do anything and creates a false sense of security among those in the financial community which is drunk on the artificial high created by the Federal Reserve and trying to make the situation as profitable as possible, and politicians looking to win votes by creating an artificial high and touting how every American should own a home. Instead of letting the proper crash take place and biting the bullet, the Federal Government bailouts rickety financial institutions and pumps the economy with more fiat money. The host of new rules and regulation from the current administration has only hindered economic growth making it more expensive for smaller companies to operate and increasing their uncertainty and helping larger companies and financiial institutions. The massive government spending has only further distorted the proper flow of the economy and resources. Cowardly politicians unfortunately aren't willing to make the very tough and painful decisions to put the US on the proper a economic path.

 

 Those policies where meant to make then look good, to fix the economy in the short term rather than the long term. The fall of the Soviet Union lead to a world dominated by a power that believes itself the world police. Reagan supported Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war, which Iraq started. They also provide arms to the forerunners of the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet-Afghan war.  This came back to hunt us  in the First and second Iraq war and the rise of fundamental Islamism in Afghanistan.  

 

 

Actually their policies hurt in the short run, the economies of the UK and US tanked during the the first 3 years of the Reagan administration and first 7 years of the Thatcher administration. The reason for this was they were removing government protection and allowing the necessary ecnomic destruction to take place so that would allow it to reorganize in the long run. Prior to them both the UK and US economies were in a slump and suffering from systemically high and increasing unemployment. Their policies made their respective countries economies healthier, stronger and more sustainable in the long run.

 

As to foreign policy the reason the US supported Saddam during that war was Iran was on the US s*** list and nobody wanted to see an Iranian dominated Iraq after the tide of the war changed, this was before Saddam was considered a psychotic mass murderer, just Iraq's strongman, also the Soviet Union was Iraq's ally at the time and was also sending support to Iraq. Onto Soviet invasion of Afghanistan first off the aiding of the Majahadeen began under the Carter administration, and back then the USSR was seen as the bigger threat (which it was) and no one could have predicted the Taliban, or Al quada since neither actually existed at the time. Fundamental Islam existed well before either the Iran-Iraq war, or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0