NationStates Jolt Archive

Thatcher reveals her doubts over basis for Iraq war
14 October 2005

Baroness Thatcher has criticised Tony Blair for taking Britain to war in Iraq on the basis of flawed evidence about Saddam Hussein's weapons. The former prime minister's embarrassing criticism emerged as Mr Blair was among the 670 guests who attended a party to mark her 80th birthday.

Although Lady Thatcher remains a strong supporter of the decision to topple Saddam by invading Iraq, it is the first time she has questioned the basis for the war. Yesterday's Washington Post reported that when asked whether she would have invaded Iraq given the intelligence at the time, Lady Thatcher replied: "I was a scientist before I was a politician. And as a scientist I know you need facts, evidence and proof - and then you check, recheck and check again."

She added: "The fact was that there were no facts, there was no evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article319542.ece

Margaret Thatcher: Baby Snatcher

Personally I think she's just jumping on the band wagon for popularity. She would have practically orgasmed at the prospect of helping America invade some middle eastern country, regardless of the reason, if she was in charge.

Margaret Thatcher: Baby Snatchermaybe...but the article deserves to be posted...

She would have practically orgasmed at the prospect of helping America invade some middle eastern country..LOL
How would we call thay type of Orgasm?

"killing-the-Ragheads-Orgasm"?

Personally I think she's just jumping on the band wagon for popularity.

Huh?

I don't think that Thatcher could gain any popularity, even if she single handedly brought the world into a perfect Utopia.

Anyway, it isn't as if she needs any popularity.

LOL
How would we call thay type of Orgasm?

"killing-the-Ragheads-Orgasm"?

"Mrs Thatcher, the US has asked us to help in their planned invasion of Iraq, the reason being that they claim..."

"Stop right there! Submission to the US you say? Military invasion you say? A country full of filthy, poor, uncivilised commoners to put in their place you say? Oh yes...ooh...mmm..."

"Uh...well...we were actually thinking of liberat..."

"Oh YES! Commit the whole budget! NOW!"

"Mrs Thatcher, the US has asked us to help in their planned invasion of Iraq, the reason being that they claim..."

"Stop right there! Submission to the US you say? Military invasion you say? A country full of filthy, poor, uncivilised commoners to put in their place you say? Oh yes...ooh...mmm..."

"Uh...well...we were actually thinking of liberat..."

"ohh yes..ohhh yess..ooOoOoOOh yess...OHHH YESSSSS...OooOoOoOOh YESSSSSSSSS!!!! Commit the whole budget! NOW!"notice my edit? :D

So how vigorously did Baroness Thatcher oppose the war before it was launched? I seem to recall that her party was firmly on the "Let God sort them out" bandwagon.

:rolleyes:

*looks at the 1st post and shakes head*

Please point out the fake intel from the Bad intel. No fake intel here. Next!

*looks at the 1st post and shakes head*

Please point out the fake intel from the Bad intel. No fake intel here. Next!

How about the downing street memos?


[Sir Richard Dearlove ] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

How about the downing street memos?

That doesn't prove a thing either. No one bought the memos not even the American Press. If it did then Bush would've been impeached or at least have been attempted.

No one bought the memos not even the American Press.I wonder why...

*looks at the 1st post and shakes head*

Please point out the fake intel from the Bad intel. No fake intel here. Next!
Are you saying there was no fake intelligence? Seriously?
Uranium from Niger?

And:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/images/iraq-powell_10nov02_2.jpg

What are you saying?

LOL
How would we call thay type of Orgasm?

"killing-the-Ragheads-Orgasm"?
Take a leaf out of the book of Cradle of Filth, and call it a wargasm.

Are you saying there was no fake intelligence? Seriously?
Uranium from Niger?

And:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/images/iraq-powell_10nov02_2.jpg

What are you saying?
Don't waste time on Corneliu. He's a Republican groupie. They can do no wrong in his eyes.

aaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaa
Good. Now, let's try the letter "B".

Personally I think she's just jumping on the band wagon for popularity. She would have practically orgasmed at the prospect of helping America invade some middle eastern country, regardless of the reason, if she was in charge.
That's true, but she wouldn't have hidden behind bogus intelligence or faked it in order to make it happen. She'd have come at the problem from in front, I have to imagine.

Baroness Thatcher would just said that She was going to get rid of Saddam and She aint going to be another Chamberlain

So how vigorously did Baroness Thatcher oppose the war before it was launched?
What are you on about? So far as I can tell she supports the invasion of Iraq...
Although Lady Thatcher remains a strong supporter of the decision to topple Saddam by invading Iraq,

I seem to recall that her party was firmly on the "Let God sort them out" bandwagon.
And so?
she has questioned the basis for the war
I'm wondering if you read the post because your comments appear utterly irrelevent. Ms Thatcher supports toppling Saddam (which implies support the Iraq invasion), what concerns her is not whether Iraq should have been invaded, but whether Iraq should have been invaded in the particular circumstances which are either;
Blair mislead the whole country about restricted information in order to manipulate acceptance of a war Blair didnt believe people would accept if told the truth
or
Blair started a war due to an avoidable error.

So far as I can tell, if Blair had stated outright that there was little evidence, but the US was going in and for various reasons Blair supported the invasion, believed the invasion was in Britains best interests, and believed that participating was also in Britains best interests, Maggie would apparently have been fine with that.

It's really quite a simple point. When the leader of a democratic nation has access to info pertaining to the possible reasons for going to war, that is not available to the wider public, it is expected that the leader will reach a competent reasoned conclusion and make honest representations about that conclusion to the public. In a case like this the stakes are high and the public have restricted access to info and must rely on their leader to provide an accurate account.

The fact that people not only are not universally disgusted at Bush and Blairs 'performance' in regards to Iraq, but actually are still trying to justify and white wash what occured is staggering, worse still it proves democracy is pretty much dead.

After all if you can misrepresent the case when the populice is reliant on your representations (due to 'national security) and when the stakes are as high as going to war, and have people not only accept it, but actually try to make excuses and cast your actions in an acceptable light after the fact, there really isnt any misrepresentation people wont accept, which leaves leaders in a position of being able to tell any old story to get the unacceptable accepted knowing full well after the fact people will excuse and white wash your actions...

Thatcher reveals her doubts over basis for Iraq war
14 October 2005

Baroness Thatcher has criticised Tony Blair for taking Britain to war in Iraq on the basis of flawed evidence about Saddam Hussein's weapons. The former prime minister's embarrassing criticism emerged as Mr Blair was among the 670 guests who attended a party to mark her 80th birthday.

Although Lady Thatcher remains a strong supporter of the decision to topple Saddam by invading Iraq, it is the first time she has questioned the basis for the war. Yesterday's Washington Post reported that when asked whether she would have invaded Iraq given the intelligence at the time, Lady Thatcher replied: "I was a scientist before I was a politician. And as a scientist I know you need facts, evidence and proof - and then you check, recheck and check again."

She added: "The fact was that there were no facts, there was no evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article319542.ece

He was wrong to take us to war on the basis of the evidence he claimed. However, he was 100% right to take the UK to war on the basis of what WAS happening.

The allied forces had international law on their side and there was no need to rely on the flawed data.

He was wrong to take us to war on the basis of the evidence he claimed. However, he was 100% right to take the UK to war on the basis of what WAS happening.

The allied forces had international law on their side and there was no need to rely on the flawed data.
Here's the thing--and it applies to both Blair and Bush. If they'd tried to make that argument, they'd never have gotten public support and they knew it. No matter how much lipstick they put on the pig, it was still a hard sell, harder in Britain than in the US, even with the WMD scare tactics. So they had to have known that coming at it from in front was impossible--that's why they bullshitted up this intel. They needed public support and that was the only way to get it.

*snip*

I was saying that Faulty Intelligence is different than flat out lying. About time everyone starts to learn the difference because apparently no one but those of us who actually study know the difference.

Don't waste time on Corneliu. He's a Republican groupie. They can do no wrong in his eyes.

Actually you would be wrong. Its just that I don't trust the Democratic Leadership at this point. If they ever decide to be a party again, then maybe I would pay closer attention to what they have to say.

The allied forces had international law on their side and there was no need to rely on the flawed data.

You are indeed correct on this matter!

I was saying that Faulty Intelligence is different than flat out lying. About time everyone starts to learn the difference because apparently no one but those of us who actually study know the difference.
I believe they were using faulty intelligence to flat out lie.
Paying attention to the voices who said there were no WMDs (Weapons Inspectors!!) made it kind of easy to figure it out.

I believe they were using faulty intelligence to flat out lie.

Then go on believing something that isn't true. No one is stopping you.

Paying attention to the voices who said there were no WMDs (Weapons Inspectors!!) made it kind of easy to figure it out.

Did they say that in 1998 when President Bill Clinton authorized Operation Desert Fox? He obviously believed that Hussien had WMD. If he didn't, then he wouldn't have attacked Iraq.

Here's the thing--and it applies to both Blair and Bush. If they'd tried to make that argument, they'd never have gotten public support and they knew it. No matter how much lipstick they put on the pig, it was still a hard sell, harder in Britain than in the US, even with the WMD scare tactics. So they had to have known that coming at it from in front was impossible--that's why they bullshitted up this intel. They needed public support and that was the only way to get it.

Although it would have led to problems, Blair could have gone to war basedon authority already given.

I also believe if Bush and Blair had gone to the people with the truth we would have backed them - I certain would have.

Then go on believing something that isn't true. No one is stopping you.



Did they say that in 1998 when President Bill Clinton authorized Operation Desert Fox? He obviously believed that Hussien had WMD. If he didn't, then he wouldn't have attacked Iraq.
I'm just as critical of Bill Clinton. Tell me what one has to do with the other?
The strike happened because Iraq wasn't letting inspectors in certain places because they believed that those inspectors were spying for the U.S. (which they were.)

I'm just as critical of Bill Clinton. Tell me what one has to do with the other?

Both of them stated that Hussein had WMD using intel gathered from not just the CIA but from our allies.

The strike happened because Iraq wasn't letting inspectors in certain places because they believed that those inspectors were spying for the U.S. (which they were.)

That's only part of the truth and you know it.

I don't know why Thatcher's suddenly criticising the decision to go to war. I'm sure Thatcher, like Blair, would have been eager to do whatever the bosses in Washington said.

Did they say that in 1998 when President Bill Clinton authorized Operation Desert Fox? He obviously believed that Hussien had WMD. If he didn't, then he wouldn't have attacked Iraq.
Are you suggesting that there were no WMD or WMD programs in place when Operation Desert Fox took place?:confused:

Are you suggesting that there were no WMD or WMD programs in place when Operation Desert Fox took place?:confused:

The intel Bush used was the same that Clinton used. You decide.

The intel Bush used was the same that Clinton used.
He used outdated intel...no wonder he got it all so wrong! Why ever would he rely on such old intel?

You decide.
Based on what, the fact that some years and much water under the bridge later there wasnt any WMD? I dont think it's possible to reach a robust conclusion based on such scanty information...

The intel Bush used was the same that Clinton used. You decide.
So, a lack of intelligence is a source of intelligence?

My bike was stolen. I believe you stole my bike. Let me search your house.

(I assume you'd answer in the negative)

I bomb your house.

That's only part of the truth and you know it.
No, I believe that covers the truth.
We said that we were taking away his efforts to pursue the building of WMD but we did not know what was in the places he was not giving inspectors access to. We knew that we did not know.
I'm against air strikes to begin with when it comes to trying to settle disagreements between countries. Bill Clinton used them repeatedly and they were largely ineffective. Air strikes are useful during a full scale war but not on their own no matter how precise we suppose our technology to be. I know a couple of hospitals and schools you might want to check out if you want to talk about precision.

So, a lack of intelligence is a source of intelligence?

My bike was stolen. I believe you stole my bike. Let me search your house.

(I assume you'd answer in the negative)

I bomb your house.


Different:-

My bike is stolen. I believe you stole my bike. Let the police search your house. You refuse.

Question: what are you hiding?

Now, Iraq:-

You start a war. You get beaten. As part of the ceasefire agreement you tell me you have large amounts of WoMD, lets say 10,000 units. you hand over 5,000 of those units for destruction under the terms of the ceasefire. I want to inspect to find out where the other 5,000 unists are. You refuse.

Question: What are you hiding?

Personally I think she's just jumping on the band wagon for popularity. She would have practically orgasmed at the prospect of helping America invade some middle eastern country, regardless of the reason, if she was in charge.

Oh pulease, you must have some major issues not being able to understand the quote; She would have gone to war, but not using the evidence which Tony Blaire used; what it sounds more like is that its the same dance routine, but just a different tune to do it to.

The media, of course, have jumped on it, claiming that she's against the war, which is a load of horseshit.

Different:-

My bike is stolen. I believe you stole my bike. Let the police search your house. You refuse.

Question: what are you hiding?

Now, Iraq:-

You start a war. You get beaten. As part of the ceasefire agreement you tell me you have large amounts of WoMD, lets say 10,000 units. you hand over 5,000 of those units for destruction under the terms of the ceasefire. I want to inspect to find out where the other 5,000 unists are. You refuse.

Question: What are you hiding?
You missed the point. And why should I let the police search my house if they are not being neutral and are on your payroll? You also seem to forget that in this last outing, the Inspectors were being given full cooperation. So, your different analogy should read...

My bike is stolen. I believe you stole my bike. Let the police search your house. The police don't find anything.

Question: what are you hiding?


And where is your proof of those extra 5,000 units. If I have 5,000 and give you 5,000, where are you getting this 10,000 figure? Oh, because in your analogy I already had the 10,000 and just gave you half. Play by your terms in the analogy and we get further and further away from what actually happened.

You missed the point. And why should I let the police search my house if they are not being neutral and are on your payroll?

They were not, they were in the employ of the UN and cames from several countries.

You also seem to forget that in this last outing, the Inspectors were being given full cooperation.

They were not - not by a long way.

So, your different analogy should read...

My bike is stolen. I believe you stole my bike. Let the police search your house. The police don't find anything.

Question: what are you hiding?

No. You allowed the police very limited access. You failed to answer many of their questions. You failed to co-operate in full as your prior agreement had already stipulated. You did not allow your housemates to answer police questions. You imprisoned scientists to keep them from answering questions. You killed scientists and other workers to stop them being questioned.

That is the reality of the ceasefire period.

And where is your proof of those extra 5,000 units. If I have 5,000 and give you 5,000, where are you getting this 10,000 figure? Oh, because in your analogy I already had the 10,000 and just gave you half. Play by your terms in the analogy and we get further and further away from what actually happened.

Nope. In the real case Iraq listed all its WoMD and other military items required by the ceasefire. It delivered the paperwork (with just hours to spare by the way) to the UN.

Now, as I said, we will work with 10,000 units (just as an example. Iraq claimed the 10K in its paperwork - and please remember that Iraq was a country renowned for its precise paperwork. So, unless someone in Iraq was lying, there were 10K units in 1992. I over 10 years Iraq managed to drag out the handover, a little bit here, a little bit there. Eventually the total reached 5K. Where was the other 5K?

Well, Iraq claimed to have destroyed it themselves. Of course that was in direct conflict with the UN ceasefire resolutions which demanded that the matterial was handed over for supervised destruction. But its OK I hear you say, the WoMD were destroyed - were they not?

No. Because some of those WoMD Iraq did not have the necessary equipment to destroy - only the USA, Russia and the UK have them.

Sorry, but I don't think we can afford to ignore the role of Iraq's "failure to comply" in its own downfall.

Baroness Thatcher has criticised Tony Blair for taking Britain to war in Iraq on the basis of flawed evidence about Saddam Hussein's weapons.
*cough FALKLANDS WAR cough cough*:rolleyes:

i don't care what she says. she may be right but i still won't listen to the bitch. why isn't she dead yet?

*cough FALKLANDS WAR cough cough*:rolleyes:

i don't care what she says. she may be right but i still won't listen to the bitch. why isn't she dead yet?
The lady continues to arouse strong feelings, as I see it. She definitely left her mark.

*cough FALKLANDS WAR cough cough*:rolleyes:

i don't care what she says. she may be right but i still won't listen to the bitch. why isn't she dead yet?

Ah yes, the Falklands War. I remember it well. We will forever be in the great lady's debt for the strong leadership she showed at the time.

Sadly, at her birthday party the other day she did look very frail. The burden of her years of dedicated public service have clearly taken their toll.

She’s still alive?

I'm going to try and beat off the crowds and be the first to dance on her grave.

I'm going to try and beat off the crowds and be the first to dance on her grave.
If everyone hates her so much, how did she get elected?

If everyone hates her so much, how did she get elected?
They didn't have grounds to hate her until after she got elected, did they?

If everyone hates her so much, how did she get elected?

Is that an honest question or are you being intentionally silly?

Is that an honest question or are you being intentionally silly?

Its an honest question!

Brenchley: Well said indeed. It seems that no one on the left has any idea of the actual truths.

Actually you would be wrong. Its just that I don't trust the Democratic Leadership at this point. If they ever decide to be a party again, then maybe I would pay closer attention to what they have to say.
Don't try and pull the "I'm only voting against the Democrats" card. No one believes you. You have proclaimed yourself to be a Republican in the past. The act of jumping to Bush's defence at every opportunity doesn't convince anyonee either.

Don't try and pull the "I'm only voting against the Democrats" card. No one believes you. You have proclaimed yourself to be a Republican in the past. The act of jumping to Bush's defence at every opportunity doesn't convince anyonee either.

Well someone has too on a liberal board such as this. And the topics mostly discussed here are things that I due support the President on. Now we start talking immigration then you might be surprised at how much I don't like his immigration policies.

Just a question, why on earth do any of you dislike Thatcher at all, she is the greatest, most resolute, principled and capable prime minister since Winston Churchill.Bereft of her presence we would be a nation with little international influence or prestige, an economy dominated by trade unions, and heavy industries still clinging to a false dream of prosperity. We dislike her why?

Well someone has too on a liberal board such as this. And the topics mostly discussed here are things that I due support the President on. Now we start talking immigration then you might be surprised at how much I don't like his immigration policies.
If you're being honest here, then why do I not criticise all non-liberals the way I criticise you? I'm not the only one who has this opinion of you.

If you're being honest here, then why do I not criticise all non-liberals the way I criticise you? I'm not the only one who has this opinion of you.

I really don't care what others think of me on this board. However, when people spout the same BS, I will continue to call them on it. I'm not the only one that has called the liberals to account on this board.

Just a question, why on earth do any of you dislike Thatcher at all, she is the greatest, most resolute, principled and capable prime minister since Winston Churchill.Bereft of her presence we would be a nation with little international influence or prestige, an economy dominated by trade unions, and heavy industries still clinging to a false dream of prosperity. We dislike her why?

She is still highly respected, especially in the USA.

Of course, amoung those with real political awareness in the UK she is still highly respected here as well.

However, when people spout the same BS, I will continue to call them on it. I'm not the only one that has called the liberals to account on this board.
It doesn't appear to really matter to you whether it's true or not; if it makes Bush and the Republicans look bad, you must refute it. You can't resist refuting it. Just admit it; you support the Republicans from their own merits. It's no sin.

She is still highly respected, especially in the USA.

Of course, amoung those with real political awareness in the UK she is still highly respected here as well.

Well said. She has done alot for Britain and so far, it is only those that disagree with her politics are the ones that are jumping on her.

They were not, they were in the employ of the UN and cames from several countries.



They were not - not by a long way.



No. You allowed the police very limited access. You failed to answer many of their questions. You failed to co-operate in full as your prior agreement had already stipulated. You did not allow your housemates to answer police questions. You imprisoned scientists to keep them from answering questions. You killed scientists and other workers to stop them being questioned.

That is the reality of the ceasefire period.



Nope. In the real case Iraq listed all its WoMD and other military items required by the ceasefire. It delivered the paperwork (with just hours to spare by the way) to the UN.

Now, as I said, we will work with 10,000 units (just as an example. Iraq claimed the 10K in its paperwork - and please remember that Iraq was a country renowned for its precise paperwork. So, unless someone in Iraq was lying, there were 10K units in 1992. I over 10 years Iraq managed to drag out the handover, a little bit here, a little bit there. Eventually the total reached 5K. Where was the other 5K?

Well, Iraq claimed to have destroyed it themselves. Of course that was in direct conflict with the UN ceasefire resolutions which demanded that the matterial was handed over for supervised destruction. But its OK I hear you say, the WoMD were destroyed - were they not?

No. Because some of those WoMD Iraq did not have the necessary equipment to destroy - only the USA, Russia and the UK have them.

Sorry, but I don't think we can afford to ignore the role of Iraq's "failure to comply" in its own downfall.
There is so much bullshit here for me to wade through that what I'm going to do is give you the point. I disagree with much that you said but we'll get into a link posting war that will settle nothing but will make our eyes sore from the amount of reading.
So, how about a nice question that I'll answer first and you can answer second and I'll leave it at that. IF Iraq did have the capability to launch a nuclear strike on the US, the CIA reported that he would have done so only under pre-emptive attack. Wouldn't you say that was a rather risky gamble we pulled if we did believe he had WMD?
Meanwhile North Korea does have WMD but we like to talk nice with them.

There is so much bullshit here for me to wade through that what I'm going to do is give you the point. I disagree with much that you said but we'll get into a link posting war that will settle nothing but will make our eyes sore from the amount of reading.
So, how about a nice question that I'll answer first and you can answer second and I'll leave it at that. IF Iraq did have the capability to launch a nuclear strike on the US, the CIA reported that he would have done so only under pre-emptive attack. Wouldn't you say that was a rather risky gamble we pulled if we did believe he had WMD?
Meanwhile North Korea does have WMD but we like to talk nice with them.

I don't think anyone suggested Iraq posed a nuclear threat against anyone - though the did have a programme that would have led down that route if it had been allowed to continue.

The threat from them was mostly bio-chemical WoMD.

North Korea is a different kettle of fish. There, the biggest problem which prevents action is China - although they are coming round slowly.

I don't think anyone suggested Iraq posed a nuclear threat against anyone - though the did have a programme that would have led down that route if it had been allowed to continue.

The threat from them was mostly bio-chemical WoMD.

North Korea is a different kettle of fish. There, the biggest problem which prevents action is China - although they are coming round slowly.
The whole reason we were told that we were going to war with them was because they were an "imminent threat." Lots of countries have many types of WMDs...

The whole reason we were told that we were going to war with them was because they were an "imminent threat." Lots of countries have many types of WMDs...

But an imminent threat was present. Iraq did, according ot their own admission to the UN in 1992, have battle-field WoMD. They had shown their willingness to use such weapons in he past and there were vailed threats over many years.

The threat Iraq possed was real. The requirement of UN Resolutions were to disarm Iraq, in fact that was enough of a reason to end the ceasefire.

Was the case for an "imminent threat" over stated? Yes, but I don't think that was done by either government, I think most of that was the press. But, and it is a big BUT, both the US and the UK governments failed to correct many of the erroneous claims the media made.

BTW, returning to you previous post, yes we could start a link war. When I was posting a lot on the subject I build up a list of over 2,000 links to information on the subject. However, I have to admit that most of them have now long expired :)

Ah yes, the Falklands War. I remember it well. We will forever be in the great lady's debt for the strong leadership she showed at the time.
we will forever be in her debt for engaging in a wholly unnecessary war to further her own party's political ends

at least in Iraq our soldiers are dying for something more than just a politician's career and desire to stay in power...

Sadly, at her birthday party the other day she did look very frail. The burden of her years of dedicated public service have clearly taken their toll.
yeah fucking the country up and destroying the livelihoods of millions of ordinary british people is a really tough job.
i say again, why - oh why - isn't she dead yet?

I'm going to try and beat off the crowds and be the first to dance on her grave.
you'll have to fight me for that honour!
now, what song shall we sing while we dance? :p

we will forever be in her debt for engaging in a wholly unnecessary war to further her own party's political ends

And yet the people there are British so do you oppose defending The British People?

yeah fucking the country up and destroying the livelihoods of millions of ordinary british people is a really tough job.
i say again, why - oh why - isn't she dead yet?

Because she is one of the best British Politicians since Winston Churchill.

you'll have to fight me for that honour!
now, what song shall we sing while we dance? :p

Such disrespect.

we will forever be in her debt for engaging in a wholly unnecessary war to further her own party's political ends

A war that was forced on the British people by the criminal acts of a military junta.

at least in Iraq our soldiers are dying for something more than just a politician's career and desire to stay in power...

In the South Atlantic our solders died to liberate BRITISH citizens.

yeah fucking the country up and destroying the livelihoods of millions of ordinary british people is a really tough job.

Created more new businesses thatn at ANY other time in British history - my own bein gone of them. As a long term result creating more jobs and a greater prosperity that this country has known before. Broke the back, finally, of the unions that had come close to destroying the UK's markets. Changed the very fabric of british life by creating a society with the highest percentage of home OWNERS in the world. Breather new life into industry by encouraging new technology. Introduced the fairest local tax system this country has ever seen with the Community Charge system.

It would take days to list her achievements.

i say again, why - oh why - isn't she dead yet?

Simple, she is still breathing.

But an imminent threat was present. Iraq did, according ot their own admission to the UN in 1992, have battle-field WoMD.
I think when the poster referred to an imminent threat, the intended meaning was 'an iminent threat' at the time of the invasion (by the coalition forces). Whatever Iraq had in 1992 isnt relevent to ascertaining whether or not such a threat existed at the time of the invasion, anymore than whether or not someone was breathing in 1992 is relevent to ascertaining whether or not they are alive right now.

y'know she said when she dies she doesn't want her funeral to be a morbid affair but a celebration. She's not going to be dissappointed. I was born and raised in the same town as her. I still live here. Thankfully she's never returned..

I think when the poster referred to an imminent threat, the intended meaning was 'an iminent threat' at the time of the invasion (by the coalition forces). Whatever Iraq had in 1992 isnt relevent to ascertaining whether or not such a threat existed at the time of the invasion, anymore than whether or not someone was breathing in 1992 is relevent to ascertaining whether or not they are alive right now.

Sorry, but you are wrong. If, according to Iraq's own figures, WoMD still existed that had not been handed over for destruction under the terms of the ceasefire. And if Iraq continued to obviate the requirements of both the ceasefire resolution and others, then I ask you - what were the allies supposed to do?

And yet the people there are British so do you oppose defending The British People?

not at all, but going to war on such a matter as that was unjustified and wrong when diplomatic channels could have still been used to resolve the conflict and there was no imminent threat against said british citizens


Because she is one of the best British Politicians since Winston Churchill.

so says you.
why not ask one of the many millions of unemployed workers her policies laid off in her reign of terror


Such disrespect.
is due.

A war that was forced on the British people by the criminal acts of a military junta.

no, a diplomatic crisis was forced by the acts of their military. our military needn't have gotten involved.
interesting how wars always tend to increase patriotism and a leader's opinion rating...


Created more new businesses thatn at ANY other time in British history - my own bein gone of them. As a long term result creating more jobs and a greater prosperity that this country has known before. Broke the back, finally, of the unions that had come close to destroying the UK's markets. Changed the very fabric of british life by creating a society with the highest percentage of home OWNERS in the world. Breather new life into industry by encouraging new technology. Introduced the fairest local tax system this country has ever seen with the Community Charge system.

also caused an absolute shitload of bankruptcies by her disastrous 'boom & bust' policies.
home owners? she forced local councils to sell off their council houses to tenants, forcing them to take on debts many of the poor could not repay. thats fair for you, but its ok because at least they now own their home... or the bank does at least:rolleyes:
and how about the millions unemployed - the highest in modern british history? 20% plus inflation? three recessions!
how about the massive cuts and consistant underfunding of public services that set the programs back decades, the effects of which we are still feeling (and trying to rectify) today?

the one thing she did do right is free up the labour market and reduce the culture of militancy from the unions


once again i say: its simple. if you did well by her policies, then you love her (because you did very well, what with the rich-poor divide increasing (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/images/charts/332.gif)while she was in power and all). if you got fucked by her, which so very many people did, then one tends to not like her very much.

Sorry, but you are wrong.
I dont believe so...

If, according to Iraq's own figures, WoMD still existed that had not been handed over for destruction under the terms of the ceasefire.
Well I dont know that it is so that according to Iraq's own figure WoMD still existed (at the time of the invasion) that had not been handed over for destruction under the terms of the ceasefire. Let's say such figures were as you say. Unless the figures were correct, and unless the WoMD referred to by the figures had not been destroyed in some way other than under the terms of the ceasefire, and unless the WoMD (not having been destroyed) were actually in the control of Iraq the figures (assuming they exist) did not constitute an imminent threat (except perhaps to Iraq).

And if Iraq continued to obviate the requirements of both the ceasefire resolution and others, then I ask you - what were the allies supposed to do?
You stated Iraq posed an imminent threat. Whatever it is the 'allies' ought or ought not to have done in situation X does not establish either way the existence of imminent threat (in fact I suggest the relationship is the opposite way around - whether not Iraq presented an imminent threat ought to have played some role in determining what the 'allies' ought to have done).

Imminent threat does not mean 'there might or might not be a threat', or 'there's good reason to believe there is threat'. It means 'an actual existing threat which could manifest within a time-frame describable as imminent'.

not at all, but going to war on such a matter as that was unjustified and wrong when diplomatic channels could have still been used to resolve the conflict and there was no imminent threat against said british citizens

FFS man - the islands had been INVADED! We had to go to war to rescue OUR citizens and OUR land.

so says you.
why not ask one of the many millions of unemployed workers her policies laid off in her reign of terror


Or the millions that had jobs because she (unlike Labour) kept our economy strong, or the millions that found new jobs in the new industries that sprang up in the UK, or the millions whose jobs were safe because of overseas investment that flooded into the UK rather than to the rest of europe because of our improved labour relations.


is due.

To people like oyu.

no, a diplomatic crisis was forced by the acts of their military. our military needn't have gotten involved.
interesting how wars always tend to increase patriotism and a leader's opinion rating...

So we should have just abandoned our people, our land?

also caused an absolute shitload of bankruptcies by her disastrous 'boom & bust' policies.
home owners? she forced local councils to sell off their council houses to tenants, forcing them to take on debts many of the poor could not repay. thats fair for you, but its ok because at least they now own their home... or the bank does at least:rolleyes:

Those morgages are paid off by now.

and how about the millions unemployed - the highest in modern british history?

How about the nations employed - the highest in UK history at the tiem

20% plus inflation?

Lower than it would have been if labour had been in power at that time. Inflation was a world-wide thing at the time.

three recessions!

She was there for a long time.

how about the massive cuts and consistant underfunding of public services that set the programs back decades, the effects of which we are still feeling (and trying to rectify) today?

Most of the real cuts had been made by the previous labour government trying to stave off another call to the IMF.

the one thing she did do right is free up the labour market and reduce the culture of militancy from the unions

Good, nice to see you recognize that.

once again i say: its simple. if you did well by her policies, then you love her (because you did very well, what with the rich-poor divide increasing (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/images/charts/332.gif)while she was in power and all). if you got fucked by her, which so very many people did, then one tends to not like her very much.

It was only a few weeks ago that the growth in the rich/poor divide was being used against Blair.

FFS man - the islands had been INVADED! We had to go to war to rescue OUR citizens and OUR land.

and so the obvious answer is to immediatley roll out the war machine.


Or the millions that had jobs because she (unlike Labour) kept our economy strong

woah there... unlike labour? if you're referring to the pre-'79 labour govt, then they did an incredible job keeping jobs and inflation under control in face of the '73 and '75 OPEC oil crises. somehow thatcher managed to give us three recessions, millions of unemployed and sky high inflation rates even when the world economy was on a boom in the 80's.
if you're referring to the current labour government: unemployment has never been so low.

also you are aware that Thatcher redefined the statistical definition of unemployment no less than 63 times when she was in office? those millions of unemployed may well have been millions higher. many of these changes have now been reversed.

or the millions whose jobs were safe because of overseas investment that flooded into the UK rather than to the rest of europe because of our improved labour relations.

black wednesday. need i say more?



To people like oyu.
oho! what wit.


So we should have just abandoned our people, our land?
no, but diplomatic means should have been saught in favour of military action.
the people could have been relocated and the lands changed hands - its happened before.

and only you and your kind are putting so much stock in 'our land'. frankly i couldn't care less (borders being unnecessary arbitary devices of control and all)


Those morgages are paid off by now.
so the last 20 years of debt mean nothing to these people?
their lives weren't adversely affected by her policy?

once again i don't necessarily disagree with what she did, but specifically how she did it


How about the nations employed - the highest in UK history at the tiem
thats not what the data says. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=5089

she did create a level of high employment right at the end of her office, basing praise on a single temporary boom, which was unsustainable and subsequently followed by a bust the tories lost control of (thats what happens when you play with the economy for political gain, folks), is short sighted in the extreme


Lower than it would have been if labour had been in power at that time. Inflation was a world-wide thing at the time.
labour's handling of the OPEC problems begs me to differ



She was there for a long time.
during a world economic boom - so put in the context and three recessions seems excessive.
three recessions in a little over 10 years in excessive by any country's terms.

current labour government: blair has recently matched Thatcher for how long he's held office. how many recessions have we seen with this new labour government? none. and thats in the context of world economic slowdown and mild european recession, too.

so what was it that Thatcher was doing to engineer all those recessions i wonder...

Most of the real cuts had been made by the previous labour government trying to stave off another call to the IMF.
again, not what the data (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=7298&RT=128&PG=1)says


Good, nice to see you recognize that.

i may hate the woman and her party, but i'm not blind to the truth :P

It was only a few weeks ago that the growth in the rich/poor divide was being used against Blair.
because it's stayed high since it rose dramatically during thatcher's reign. blair hasn't done a good enough job getting it back down to what it was before thatcher (though it has fallen so thats good)

She is still highly respected, especially in the USA.

Of course, amoung those with real political awareness in the.....WOUAHAHAHAHAHA...

Thats so funny...those with real political awareness in the US Neocon Party Elected a Chimp to the White house...and now somehow think they have credibility to tell the Brits what to think of thier British polititians...

FFS man - the islands had been INVADED! We had to go to war to rescue OUR citizens and OUR land.

Psst: PM doesn't understand that. PM doesn't agree with Thatcher because of Politics so anything that helps her is "political gain" no matter how right the decision is.

WOUAHAHAHAHAHA...

Thats so funny...those with real political awareness in the US Neocon Party Elected a Chimp to the White house...and now somehow think they have credibility to tell the Brits what to think of thier British polititians...

I know I respect Thatcher!

Tell me, who is telling us what to think about British Politicians?

I know I respect Thatcher!the very same way you respect Jimmy Carter? :confused:

the same way you respect Jimmy Carter? :confused:

Ocean, I could hardly see you respecting Thatcher, considering your politics. Unless she happened to be saying something that let you bash the Iraq War, Blair, or Bush.

the very same way you respect Jimmy Carter? :confused:

HAHA! Now we are talking 2 very different people.

Don't get me started on Carter.

*respect the office but not the person comes to mind*

HAHA! Now we are talking 2 very different people.

Don't get me started on Carter.

*respect the office but not the person comes to mind*Let me put it this way...All the love you probably have for Carter...Most Brits I know...they have as much love for Thatcher.

:D :D ;) :D

And if I am a good Judge of future History...There will be no mucho Love for Blair either.

Let me put it this way...All the respect you probably have for Carter...Most Brits I know...they have as much respect for Thatcher.

:D :D ;) :D

I did respect Carter for implementing Presidential Directive 59.

The deliberate precision targeting of the Soviet leadership and their bunkers with precision nuclear weapons.

Namely, the deployment of cruise missiles and the Pershing II to Europe, so that such an attack could be launched on very short notice with little or no warning time.

The idea of Defense Secretary Harold Brown, pushed by Carter. The funding for which (and the development of the missiles) was done during the Carter Administration.

Later, Reagan would take credit for it, but it wasn't his idea. It was Carter's.

Threaten the leadership with certain annihilation in the event of war - the country itself may or may not survive, but the leadership is deliberately targeted.

Not as nice a man (Carter) as some are led to believe.

Let me put it this way...All the respect you probably have for Carter...Most Brits I know...they have as much respect for Thatcher.

:D :D ;) :D

Well you do have one minor problem here. We are talking about 2 different countries with 2 different cultures.

The problem with the people you know is that they disagree with her based on politics. My beef with Carter is that he went back on his promise to the US Armed Forces.

Well you do have one minor problem here. We are talking about 2 different countries with 2 different cultures.

The problem with the people you know is that they disagree with her based on politics. My beef with Carter is that he went back on his promise to the US Armed Forces.still politics.

I did respect Carter for implementing Presidential Directive 59.

The deliberate precision targeting of the Soviet leadership and their bunkers with precision nuclear weapons.

Namely, the deployment of cruise missiles and the Pershing II to Europe, so that such an attack could be launched on very short notice with little or no warning time.

The idea of Defense Secretary Harold Brown, pushed by Carter. The funding for which (and the development of the missiles) was done during the Carter Administration.

Later, Reagan would take credit for it, but it wasn't his idea. It was Carter's.

Threaten the leadership with certain annihilation in the event of war - the country itself may or may not survive, but the leadership is deliberately targeted.

Not as nice a man (Carter) as some are led to believe.
haha...

One question... Did it hurt to type that? Did your feel soiled in any way?

:D :D :p :D

still politics.

I liked what Clinton did domestically however foreign Policywise, I didn't.

With Carter, it was what he did to the US military that causes me to dislike him more than I do Clinton. Carter ran our military into the ground and it took Reagan to put us back on our feet again.

That is why a pacifist should never be elected President.

haha...

One question... Did it hurt to type that? Did your feel soiled in any way?

:D :D :p :D

Nope. I've known that for decades, and I liked it. Unfortunately, most Europeans who had the missiles installed in their countries weren't too happy with the idea.

You'll note that it's an extremely aggressive foreign policy, with a promised hair trigger response, even more personal than the traditional Mutual Assured Destruction.

The kind of idea that gets me painted as some sort of insane warlord. But it's an idea that worked.

Game theory already shows that sort of thing works.

I like how Ocean has bought into the idea that Carter is a charming, nice old man who is left leaning.

Forgetting completely that Carter was hand selected by Rickover to be a nuclear submariner - forgetting his years of indoctrination in the Cold War - an indoctrination that led to him proposing an extremely aggressive (some might say "crazy") nuclear offensive posture.

Yes, yes, Habitat for Humanity my ass.

I like how Ocean has bought into the idea that Carter is a charming, nice old man who is left leaning.I did? :confused:

Interesting...The things I can acomplish without saying a word !!!

WOW...Turns out I do have Mind-Binding Powers.
All Your Base Are Belong To Me :D :D :p :D