NationStates Jolt Archive

Did you think she was a good P.M. for Great Britian and the world?

Yes, she handled the Falklands verywell. Maggie had balls. She is probably the best female head of state the world has ever seen.

Milk snatcher.

That is probably the least offensive thing I can say about her.

I think she saved the economy by doing what was right instead of the usual vote grabbing and was vital in the fall of communism

So yes she was good…especially for a conservative

Well, she did some things that had to be done (like selling all those government-owned industries) and some things that probably weren't necessary (like her war on unions).

What I don't like about her though is that she was such an ideologist. She didn't have a pragmatic bone in her body.

And Falkland was a PR stunt.

Yes, she handled the Falklands verywell.

So, you call the sinking of the Belgrano and the subsequent lies an example of handling things well? I'd hate to see what you consider to be bad handling of things.

I think she ... was vital in the fall of communism

How? - if that isn't such a foolish and naive question as to deserve no response.

Yes, she handled the Falklands verywell. Maggie had balls. She is probably the best female head of state the world has ever seen.

Yeah, the Falklands, because some barren windswept islands on the other side of the planet are worth dying for. England could stand to lose the USA, Australia, China, Canada, Palestine, India, South Africa, Pakistan and Ireland, but damn it if they were going to lose the Falklands!

So, you call the sinking of the Belgrano and the subsequent lies an example of handling things well? I'd hate to see what you consider to be bad handling of things.

Its called War! I agree that she handled it very well. Brought Britian together by wining a war and wining back British Territory! Go MAGGIE!

England could stand to lose the USA, Australia, China, Canada, Palestine, India, Ireland, South Africa, Pakistan and Ireland, but damn it if they were going to lose the Falklands!

Stepping aside from the fact that you have made that old schoolboy error of confusing 'England' with the 'UK':

Did the UK really lose Ireland twice?

Did you think she was a good P.M. for Great Britian and the world?
IMHO, Ms. Thatcher was perhaps the best thing to have happened to GB since Sir Winston.

Its called War! I agree that she handled it very well. Brought Britian together by wining a war and wining back British Territory! Go MAGGIE!

Lying about it after the fact benefited the war effort how, exactly?

Did you think she was a good P.M. for Great Britian and the world?

Question: why is Northern Ireland considered separately from the rest of the UK here and bracketted in with the rest of the world?

Lying about it after the fact benefited the war effort how, exactly?

I wa only a little boy when it happened. But I still remember we were al so proud to be British and to have Maggie Thatcher. If it wasent for her we would of lost our territory with out a fight. We would of looked like that former empire that was to tired to send its army out any more. A Dead nation.
So I thank her!

Stepping aside from the fact that you have made that old schoolboy error of confusing 'England' with the 'UK':

Did the UK really lose Ireland twice?

yah, sorry thats pretty bad of me... i lived in England for 11 years, I gues its just because it feels like England runs the UK. Stupid typo though.

I wa only a little boy when it happened. But I still remember we were al so proud to be British and to have Maggie Thatcher. If it wasent for her we would of lost our territory with out a fight. We would of looked like that former empire that was to tired to send its army out any more. A Dead nation.
So I thank her!

I was younger when it happened too, but I felt no pride in being British, nor in having Thatcher.

You claim that without her 'we would have lost our territory with out a fight' (sic): yet I see no evidence of other PMs having been slow to send out the troops to war between the end of WWII and her tenure, and so there is little evidence to support your assertion.


Are you also claiming that a nation without an active military is a dead nation? That would be news to Iceland, I'm sure.

I was younger when it happened too, but I felt no pride in being British, nor in having Thatcher.

You claim that without her 'we would have lost our territory with out a fight' (sic): yet I see no evidence of other PMs having been slow to send out the troops to war between the end of WWII and her tenure, and so there is little evidence to support your assertion.


Are you also claiming that a nation without an active military is a dead nation? That would be news to Iceland, I'm sure.

I think i would call that piece of ice dead. Yes I would

Stepping aside from the fact that you have made that old schoolboy error of confusing 'England' with the 'UK':

Did the UK really lose Ireland twice?
Was most of it not lost between the 15th century, and the Tudor re-conquest?

That would be the first "losing", the second being 1921?

Was most of it not lost between the 15th century, and the Tudor re-conquest?

That would be the first "losing", the second being 1921?

Ah: but in the C15th it wouldn't have been lost by the UK, and in the C20th it wouldn't have been lost by England.

Ah: but in the C15th it wouldn't have been lost by the UK, and in the C20th it wouldn't have been lost by England.
Excellent point.

Excellent point.

Anyhow: Thatcher - vile harpy or saintlike wonder?

Anyhow: Thatcher - vile harpy or saintlike wonder?
Vile harpy.

Yes I thought she was a wonder! The way she handled the unions and the Falklands. No one else whould of done it!

Yes I thought she was a wonder! The way she handled the unions and the Falklands. No one else whould of done it!

And her handling of Sinn Fein? I doubt anyone else would have done it the same way as her. The word 'farcical' springs to mind. Thankfully she appears to have been a one-of-a-kind.

So, you call the sinking of the Belgrano and the subsequent lies an example of handling things well? I'd hate to see what you consider to be bad handling of things.
They started the war. If you do that, you can expect your naval vessels to be targetted. It is part of war. By your logic the British never should've sunk the Bismark after its rudder was damaged because it was trying to flee.

Oh and the British never should've sunk the Blucher either.

BWO, you honestly seem to be very ignorant on military matters. If you ran any nation during a war, they would be certain to lose. You can't win without killing the enemy. Argentina got what they deserved.

Yeah, the Falklands, because some barren windswept islands on the other side of the planet are worth dying for. England could stand to lose the USA, Australia, China, Canada, Palestine, India, South Africa, Pakistan and Ireland, but damn it if they were going to lose the Falklands!

You prefer to send a message to military dictators, that they can invade whatever lands they desire, against the objections of the local populace, as long as those lands are "unimportant" to the country which previously held them? I have no love for Thatcher, but that doesn't change the importance of retaking the Falklands.

And her handling of Sinn Fein? I doubt anyone else would have done it the same way as her. The word 'farcical' springs to mind. Thankfully she appears to have been a one-of-a-kind.

By reading these posts by you I am queesing you are a LAbour Party member

By reading these posts by you I am queesing you are a LAbour Party member
I would doubt it, seeing as he lives in Belfast.

Maggie was probably the single worst thing to happen to Irish-Anglo relations in the last 35 years! She treated us Irish with utter contempt and in the process alienated the Irish people beyond belief.... a complete disaster for the "olde nation" as far as relations with the Irish go. Single handedly set back relations by at least 10 years. :headbang:

They started the war. If you do that, you can expect your naval vessels to be targetted. It is part of war.

And the barefaced lies that followed the sinking? You seem strangely quiet on that aspect.


You can't win without killing the enemy.

And here was me thinking that the point of war was to neutralise the enemy by whatever means are appropriate. Apparently not: so, if it all comes down to killing the enemy I would be fair in saying that the military are naught but a bunch of killers under orders?

They started the war. If you do that, you can expect your naval vessels to be targetted. It is part of war. By your logic the British never should've sunk the Bismark after its rudder was damaged because it was trying to flee.

Oh and the British never should've sunk the Blucher either.

BWO, you honestly seem to be very ignorant on military matters. If you ran any nation during a war, they would be certain to lose. You can't win without killing the enemy. Argentina got what they deserved.


Coudent of said it better myself

By reading these posts by you I am queesing you are a LAbour Party member

Nope. Anarchist. No party membership.

Lest it be thought that my hate for Thatcher is based solely on anarchist principles I will state that I have a grudging respect for her replacement and his actually amazingly constructive engagement in the Northern Ireland situation.

Maggie was probably the single worst thing to happen to Irish-Anglo relations in the last 35 years! She treated us Irish with utter contempt and in the process alienated the Irish people beyond belief.... a complete disaster for the "olde nation" as far as relations with the Irish go. Single handedly set back relations by at least 10 years. :headbang:


Well, I am irish and I Loved Maggie

Nope. Anarchist. No party membership.

Anarchist from a Libertarian or Communist point of view?

Well, I am irish and I Loved Maggie


Well your a one of very few.

She's a vile harpy and a half, who presided over some of the darkest days of the history of our islands - political prisoners starving themselves to death, penniless miners wives forced to beg for food outside supermarkets, destruction of the belgrano as it sailed away from the Falklands, and was outside of the the 200 mile exclusion zone, and more...

Of course, it wasn't all completely down to her...but she was the figurehead of the regime.

Anarchist from a Libertarian or Communist point of view?

Anarcho-communist side of the field. I believe the treasures of the Earth are great enough for us all to share.

Well your a one of very few.
I know little of her, yet apparently her reforms of the British economy are what allowed to remain competitive to this day. She moved it from a manufacturing economy to a service sector one which helped it. Her strength and resolve are definitely admirable, as is her commitment to ideology. A remarkable woman.

Anarcho-communist side of the field.
How exactly does that work?

And the barefaced lies that followed the sinking? You seem strangely quiet on that aspect.




And here was me thinking that the point of war was to neutralise the enemy by whatever means are appropriate. Apparently not: so, if it all comes down to killing the enemy I would be fair in saying that the military are naught but a bunch of killers under orders?
That's because I don't care about the situation behind the politics there. What does matter is that the Belgrano was a symbol of the Argentinian Navy. Sinking her would boost British morale and hurt Argentinian morale. You should know that psychological warfare is just as important as teh actual fight. Morale has a huge impact on how a country fights.

The Conquerer did a good job sinking her. I would like to give a nice Bravo Zulu to her crew for a job well done. The job of a military is to kill people and break things. It sounds simple, but that's what it is. Argentina started a war and needed to be shown the consequences. No nuclear sub has deserved to fly the broom on the periscope more than Conquerer.

It should be noted that Argentina's Navy didn't venture out far after the attack. Even their carrier stayed in port. This was crucial in allowing the invasion by the Royal Marines. The Royal Navy in 1982 lacked a good SAM ship (they still lack that). If that carrier was there, the Royal Navy could've been butchered.

Of course, it wasn't all completely down to her...but she was the figurehead of the regime.

The truly frightening thing was that the regime went all the way down: she was, after all, democratically elected. Those who voted for her still walk among us.

She's a vile harpy and a half.

Never a truer word spoken in relation to that old witch!

The truly frightening thing was that the regime went all the way down: she was, after all, democratically elected. Those who voted for her still walk among us.

believe me, that scares me as much as it does you...maybe they had been hypnotised...?

That's because I don't care about the situation behind the politics there.

In other words you are saying you support the actions of the military, rather than Thatcher herself?

I know little of her, yet apparently her reforms of the British economy are what allowed to remain competitive to this day. She moved it from a manufacturing economy to a service sector one which helped it. Her strength and resolve are definitely admirable, as is her commitment to ideology. A remarkable woman.

Maybe some of the people who elected her saw it as so but I am speaking from an outside position, that of an Irishman. She was a disaster, a fool.

In other words you are saying you support the actions of the military, rather than Thatcher herself?
I support Thatcher not restricting the Navy from doing that operation. It had to be done and I support it. Now are you going to respond to the rest of my above post?

Well your a one of very few.

Gee, Where are u from? The Catholic slum in Northern Ireland. more than half the guys I know like her

Maybe some of the people who elected her saw it as so but I am speaking from an outside position, that of an Irishman. She was a disaster, a fool.
Perhaps to you she is such. No doubt you have valid reasons for your assertion. I admire some of her traits from a neutral standpoint. If indeed her economic reforms were such that it ensured Britain livelihood in the 21st century, all the more praise for her. There will always be people who hate her, and those who worship her.

Now are you going to respond to the rest of my above post?

I don't really see what you are trying to get me to respond to. Was there a concealed question that I missed?

Gee, Where are u from? The Catholic slum in Northern Ireland. more than half the guys I know like her

You must know a hell of alot of conservative idiots. Never mind the North, I'm a Dub and if you ask the people of Dublin what their views on the woman are, I think you'll be proved in the minority.

You must know a hell of alot of conservative idiots. Never mind the North, I'm a Dub and if you ask the people of Dublin what their views on the woman are, I think you'll be proved in the minority.

Im a Dub. From Dub 3, Clontarf. I have no idea where u are geting your facts.

I don't really see what you are trying to get me to respond to. Was there a concealed question that I missed?
If you were going to criticize the sinking of the Belgrano, then it would be nice if you would try to justify it by responding to my points on how important it was in winning the war and reducing British casualties.

Thomish, I'm not talking about her economic policy or anything like that, I am refering to her approach to the North and to Ireland in general. It was nothing short of shambolic.

Thomish, I'm not talking about her economic policy or anything like that, I am refering to her approach to the North and to Ireland in general. It was nothing short of shambolic.

Well I dont see what she did to out line here out of all P.M.s during this on going Northern Crisis

If you were going to criticize the sinking of the Belgrano, then it would be nice if you would try to justify it by responding to my points on how important it was in winning the war and reducing British casualties.

I'm criticising the political aspects - the lying after the fact - which you have already refused to comment on. We are at an impasse.

Well I dont see what she did to out line here out of all P.M.s during this on going Northern Crisis

Censorship of Sinn Fein springs immediately to mind as the most ludicrous aspect of her whole handling of it all.

Well I dont see what she did to out line here out of all P.M.s during this on going Northern Crisis
How many other MPs have been allowed to starve to death in the last, say, 100 years?

You prefer to send a message to military dictators, that they can invade whatever lands they desire, against the objections of the local populace, as long as those lands are "unimportant" to the country which previously held them? I have no love for Thatcher, but that doesn't change the importance of retaking the Falklands.

Well, actually, I think what I need to understand is why the Falklands mattered as more than a symbol, of more than just the UK showing it isn't a hasbeen. I believe in picking one's battles. If an evil dictator stood on a sewer grate infront of my house and proclaimed he was the lord god of that sewer grate, I would simply go about my buisness and ignore the idiot. My point is that what were the Falklands good for? Was there a lot of tax revenue? Do the natives feel British or Argentine? Are there resources? Do Britons vacation there? WTF is the Falklands worth fighting for? Perhaps the mere symbolism was worthwhile, but perhaps whether the world thinks you are a once great nation or not doesn't really matter..... when something worth fighting for comes along being underestimated is an advantage. Anyhow, I may be ignorant of something, MI6 might have discovered that the Falklands are made of solid gold, and not actually a barren windswept circum-antartic set of rocks with a 1:1 person sheep ratio. Am I misunderstanding the importance of these islands

Well, actually, I think what I need to understand is why the Falklands mattered as more than a symbol, of more than just the UK showing it isn't a hasbeen. I believe in picking one's battles. If an evil dictator stood on a sewer grate infront of my house and proclaimed he was the lord god of that sewer grate, I would simply go about my buisness and ignore the idiot. My point is that what were the Falklands good for? Was there a lot of tax revenue? Do the natives feel British or Argentine? Are there resources? Do Britons vacation there? WTF is the Falklands worth fighting for? Perhaps the mere symbolism was worthwhile, but perhaps whether the world thinks you are a once great nation or not doesn't really matter..... when something worth fighting for comes along being underestimated is an advantage. Anyhow, I may be ignorant of something, MI6 might have discovered that the Falklands are made of solid gold, and not actually a barren windswept circum-antartic set of rocks with a 1:1 person sheep ratio. Am I misunderstanding the importance of these islands
The locals are British citizens (and, IIRC, almost entirely ethnic Brits as well) who speak English and think of themselves as British. So the reason to fight is not for the land itself, but for the freedom of the people living there.

Yes, she handled the Falklands verywell. Maggie had balls. She is probably the best female head of state the world has ever seen.

A woman with balls...nasty.

At any rate, communists absolutely hate Thatcher. So, she can't be that bad.

She did a lot of things I approve off, but she also did a lot of things I hate. So not sure, I guess, but the actual term for my feelings is ambivalence.

The locals are British citizens (and, IIRC, almost entirely ethnic Brits as well) who speak English and think of themselves as British. So the reason to fight is not for the land itself, but for the freedom of the people living there.

Oh. Well if thats the case, I'll eat my words......mmmmmm....verby....

Actually, what was that bit a few posts back, sounded like a disgruntled native, something like "darkest days of our islands"

However, if the natives feel British and wanted to remain so, then I shall continue with my words.

mmmm.....just like the nouns my mother used to make.

[QUOTE=Revnia]
Actually, what was that bit a few posts back, sounded like a disgruntled native, something like "darkest days of our islands"
QUOTE]
Sorry for the misunderstanding - that was me - I meant our islands as in the British Isles, I'm a Scot, not a Falklander.

If it wasn't for thatcher the world would be a lot worse. Hell, maybe we'd still be in economic recession following Reagans polices.

Go team Thatcher!

If it wasn't for thatcher the world would be a lot worse. Hell, maybe we'd still be in economic recession following Reagans polices.

Go team Thatcher!

Yes

Yes

And that brings us to the question. Will Hillary Clinton be the next US Pres? I hope so.

And that brings us to the question. Will Hillary Clinton be the next US Pres? I hope so.

I think a lady should be President in America but not that stupit cocky wacko.

I think a lady should be President in America but not that stupit cocky wacko.
She's good. I'm a UK conservative (OH YEAH!) but a US Democrat (I'm an ASS!).

I'm really just mixed up.

The Malvinas War, as it is known in Latin America was fought by conscripts. As many died form cold as from british bullets. The officers present often surrendered without firing a shot, as exemplified by Frigate Lieutenant Alfredo Astiz, the first person to surrender. This man, by the way, was instrumental in the arrest and subsequent disappearance of the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo.

The generals who planned the war never showed up for the fight. It would appear that they were too busy killing old women who protested their regime.

The only Latin American leader who supported Thatcher during this war was Pinochet. He was returning the favour, so to speak, as she was instrumental in providing support for his dictatorship.

So, she fought a war against freezing conscripts and a corrupt and absentee command, countenanced by dictators, with the resources of one of the world's most powerful navies.

How heroic.

She disgusts me.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/64/Pinochet-Thatcher.jpg/280px-Pinochet-
The woman was shameless.A political battle axe.

The Malvinas War, as it is known in Latin America was fought by conscripts. As many died form cold as from british bullets. The officers present often surrendered without firing a shot, as exemplified by Frigate Lieutenant Alfredo Astiz, the first person to surrender. This man, by the way, was instrumental in the arrest and subsequent disappearance of the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo.

The generals who planned the war never showed up for the fight. It would appear that they were too busy killing old women who protested their regime.

The only Latin American leader who supported Thatcher during this war was Pinochet. He was returning the favour, so to speak, as she was instrumental in providing support for his dictatorship.

So, she fought a war against freezing conscripts and a corrupt and absentee command, countenanced by dictators, with the resources of one of the world's most powerful navies.

How heroic.

She disgusts me.

The war was mainly because the FALKLANDS
which were rightfully ours, had access to oil, which was very expensive at that time. And besides. Pinochet was a benevolent dictator who only did it because he wanted Chile to be a better place.

Pinochet And Thatcher should be given the highest commendations available internationally!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/64/Pinochet-Thatcher.jpg/280px-Pinochet-
The woman was shameless.A political battle axe.

That's why we love her.

Yay Thatcherites!

She was Britain's best post-war PM, and her betrayal was one of the worst moments in the history of the Conservative Party.

Heseltine should be hanged for treason :sniper:

The Malvinas War, as it is known in Latin America was fought by conscripts. As many died form cold as from british bullets. The officers present often surrendered without firing a shot, as exemplified by Frigate Lieutenant Alfredo Astiz, the first person to surrender. This man, by the way, was instrumental in the arrest and subsequent disappearance of the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo.

The generals who planned the war never showed up for the fight. It would appear that they were too busy killing old women who protested their regime.

The only Latin American leader who supported Thatcher during this war was Pinochet. He was returning the favour, so to speak, as she was instrumental in providing support for his dictatorship.

So, she fought a war against freezing conscripts and a corrupt and absentee command, countenanced by dictators, with the resources of one of the world's most powerful navies.

How heroic.

She disgusts me.

Against a foreign force with completely modern and well trained aircraft, two capital ships, an ex british carrier, the Exocet missile, and 10,000 soldiers against 2 brigades of marines and 1 para and the Royal Navy, over 9000km away from home. The Falklands was a great victory for Britain - the only real modern naval conflict since Midway. Do you seriously understand the logistic strain of moving a battleforce across the entire atlantic ocean being supported from only the Ascension Islands, and then going on to defeat an enemy far closer to home that can launch up to three times the amount of aircraft you have from airfields?

Just out of interest, why do people get so hung up about sinking the Belgrano? It was the flagship of the enemy fleet, and could have been a menace to the fleet. It's WWII era gun armament could also have been used to support Argentine ground forces, acting as aditional artillery.

In war, the objective must be to destroy the enemy's ability and will to resist.

The kind people have a wonderful dream....


Maggie on the guillotine

The kind people have a wonderful dream....


Maggie on the guillotine

The kind people have a wonderful dream....

Trotsky on the guillotine

The kind of people have a dream,

Maggie, Marx and Conservatives forever gleam,

Though the people cast to hell,

Capatilism, Dubya, a funeral knell.

Pinochet was a benevolent dictator who only did it because he wanted Chile to be a better place.

So, torture of foreign nationals carried out under a benevolent dictator is a good thing then?

The kind people have a wonderful dream....

Trotsky on the guillotine

Genius....

Just genius.

The war was mainly because the FALKLANDS, which were rightfully ours, had access to oil, which was very expensive at that time. And besides. Pinochet was a benevolent dictator who only did it because he wanted Chile to be a better place.

Pinochet And Thatcher should be given the highest commendations available internationally!

I have no issue with the UK exercising sovereignty over the Falklands, nor do I care what you call the aforementioned islands, or why you feel the UK went to war over them.

I am merely trying to put the issue into context. The dictators who ran Argentina at the time were hoping to claim the Malvinas, or Falklands if you prefer, without the UK reacting. When it became apparent that the UK were responding, they surrendered almost immediately.

Pinochet, for your information, killed thousands of people for the crime of protesting his regime, assasinated the democratically elected president and exiled thousands of people. Several countries want to put him on trial for crimes against humanity. I will assume your statements come from naiveté or ignorance of history, rather than malice.

Genius....

Just genius.

Oh, I know. I am so great.

So, torture of foreign nationals carried out under a benevolent dictator is a good thing then?
Depends who? I only know that pinochet became a dictator because of a chilean french substitute teacher at my school, which progressed onto me nearly getting a detention.

Yay Pinochet!

The kind people have a wonderful dream....

Trotsky on the guillotine

I think the icepick was sufficient.

Maybe Margaret didn't keep the finest company, but this Labour government is perfectly happy to do business with Zimbabwe. No politician can be moral 100% of the time.

Against a foreign force with completely modern and well trained aircraft, two capital ships, an ex british carrier, the Exocet missile, and 10,000 soldiers against 2 brigades of marines and 1 para and the Royal Navy, over 9000km away from home. The Falklands was a great victory for Britain - the only real modern naval conflict since Midway. Do you seriously understand the logistic strain of moving a battleforce across the entire atlantic ocean being supported from only the Ascension Islands, and then going on to defeat an enemy far closer to home that can launch up to three times the amount of aircraft you have from airfields?

The Argentine military could have, but they didn't. Why not? I don't know. Consequently, it wasn't much of a war, was it?

Depends who? I only know that pinochet became a dictator because of a chilean french substitute teacher at my school, which progressed onto me nearly getting a detention.

Yay Pinochet!

Huh? Are you claiming that a Chilean teacher at your school helped Pinochet get into power, or just confessing that you know very little about the affair?

He means a teacher at his school told him.

Huh? Are you claiming that a Chilean teacher at your school helped Pinochet get into power, or just confessing that you know very little about the affair?

Let's give Impy the benefit of the doubt and assume he or she speaks from ignorance.

Huh? Are you claiming that a Chilean teacher at your school helped Pinochet get into power, or just confessing that you know very little about the affair?

The chilean teacher told me about pinochet getting into power. I did some background research afterwards. pretty biased against him.

Let's give Impy the benefit of the doubt and assume he or she speaks from ignorance.
He speaks from personal views and background research.

He speaks from personal views and background research.

A little tip: speaking in the third person about yourself isn't the best way to convince people of your point of view.

A little tip: speaking in the third person about yourself isn't the best way to convince people of your point of view.

I'm bordering on the edge of insanity. This is the escape to reality. Take evrything into consideration then enter denial. Type the password, have a drink and welcome to my world.

He speaks from personal views and background research.

Okay, I'll bite. Show me the research that shows how selfless and good Pinochet was.

Here's why I think he was a ruthless dictator:

Case histories compiled by Amnesty International, tortures, etc.:
http://www.trentu.ca/~mneumann/pinochet.html

Victor Jara:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/165363.stm

Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#Suppression_of_opposition

The list goes on.

I'm bordering on the edge of insanity. This is the escape to reality. Take evrything into consideration then enter denial. Type the password, have a drink and welcome to my world.

woteva treva :confused:

The chilean teacher told me about pinochet getting into power. I did some background research afterwards. pretty biased against him.

So the killing of Victor Jara, for example, was entirely justified and done for the good of the country under a benevolent and loving dictator?

Yeah. I found a load of stuff like that too. It's mainly personal views, media misunderstanding and bias that made me choose the unpopular choice.

Yeah. I found a load of stuff like that too. It's mainly personal views, media misunderstanding and bias that made me choose the unpopular choice.

So what evidence do you actually have to show that he was (in your own word) 'benevolent'?

Multiple biased press reports.

So what evidence do you actually have to show that he was (in your own word) 'benevolent'?

I just wandered in, but I'd also love to see evidence of how Pinochet was anything over than a murdering dictator.

We're a little off-topic! Going back to Maggie, I think her greatest achievement was the crushing of the unions, because it laid the foundations for future prosperity.

Multiple biased press reports.

Thats not actually evidence. Thats your own personal opinion. Got any actual facts to back up your statement?

Thats not actually evidence. Thats your own personal opinion. Got any actual facts to back up your statement?
If i did I'd show them. I haven't claimed there is anything proving he is good. Personal Opinion.

Yay Pinochet and Thatcher

We're a little off-topic! Going back to Maggie, I think her greatest achievement was the crushing of the unions, because it laid the foundations for future prosperity.

How does crushing unions ensure long-term prosperity? (Not that I care, but this hijack has been going on too long.

How does crushing unions ensure long-term prosperity? (Not that I care, but this hijack has been going on too long.

By preventing the development of uncompetitive working practices, which in the end only help to increase unemployment and decrease the worker's prosperity by allowing their company to be undercut by more efficient foreign rivals.

I just wandered in, but I'd also love to see evidence of how Pinochet was anything over than a murdering dictator.

I'm sure his mother loved him.

Evidence that pinochet was a enevolent dictator. Look inside my brain, I know it's somewhere.

I've got an overwhelming urge to lick my athlete's foot. Eeeeew!

By preventing the development of uncompetitive working practices, which in the end only help to increase unemployment and decrease the worker's prosperity by allowing their company to be undercut by more efficient foreign rivals. Although even after crushing the Miners Union, the British Mining industry was still continually undercut by cheaper foreign rivals (read: cheaper does not mean necessarily mean more efficient) and is now practically non-existant as arguably is most Britain's Heavy industry. It's the byproduct of living in a developed western society where standards of living rise and thus so too drive up the cost of living making them struggle to compete in a world market where less developed nations don't have to worry about such things. Unions have relatively little to do with it.

By preventing the development of uncompetitive working practices, which in the end only help to increase unemployment and decrease the worker's prosperity by allowing their company to be undercut by more efficient foreign rivals.

But couldn't you do the same thing with protectionist laws that would support British companies and penalise foreign ones?

Although even after crushing the Miners Union, the British Mining industry was still continually undercut by cheaper foreign rivals (read: cheaper does not mean necessarily mean more efficient) and is now practically non-existant as arguably is most Britain's Heavy industry. It's the byproduct of living in a developed western society where standards of living rise and thus so too drive up the cost of living making them struggle to compete in a world market where less developed nations don't have to worry about such things. Unions have relatively little to do with it.

The problem was that they controlled the British government, whichever party was in power. By breaking their monopoly over basic infrastructure, Thatcher put power back into the hands of elected representatives, rather than unelected shop stewards.

But couldn't you do the same thing with protectionist laws that would support British companies and penalise foreign ones?

That reduces the incentive for British companies to be efficient, so the consumer ends up with reduced choice and higher prices.

The problem was that they controlled the British government, whichever party was in power. By breaking their monopoly over basic infrastructure, Thatcher put power back into the hands of elected representatives, rather than unelected shop stewards.And yet this was not your initial point was it? You argued that unions make industries uncompetitative and as such lead to them being undercut in a world market. The point is that the industry with the biggest Union that Thatcher brought down crumbled in the absence of its union just as it probably would have done with it. It was not the unions that made the British Coal Mining industry unable to compete with foreign rivals, it was the fact that the average British miner would not and could not live on £3 a day in unregulated death trap mines which it would have to do if it were to compete with mining industries in other less developed countries. I'd argue thats the byproduct of living in a nation like Britain...unless you are wanting to blame the Unions for making those miners get 'above themselves'

And yet this was not your initial point was it? You argued that unions make industries uncompetitative and as such lead to them being undercut in a world market. The point is that the industry with the biggest Union that Thatcher brought down crumbled in the absence of its union just as it probably would have done with it. It was not the unions that made the British Coal Mining industry unable to compete with foreign rivals, it was the fact that the average British miner would not and could not live on £3 a day in unregulated death trap mines which it would have to do if it were to compete with mining industries in other less developed countries. I'd argue thats the byproduct of living in a nation like Britain...unless you are wanting to blame the Unions for making those miners get 'above themselves'

The problem was that union pressure meant that the government felt it had to bail out every failing industry, because if they didn't strikes would have crippled the country. This meant that many British companies stayed in business despite being loss-making, which had a great cost to the average taxpayer.

The Malvinas War, as it is known in Latin America was fought by conscripts. As many died form cold as from british bullets. The officers present often surrendered without firing a shot, as exemplified by Frigate Lieutenant Alfredo Astiz, the first person to surrender. This man, by the way, was instrumental in the arrest and subsequent disappearance of the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo.

The generals who planned the war never showed up for the fight. It would appear that they were too busy killing old women who protested their regime.

The only Latin American leader who supported Thatcher during this war was Pinochet. He was returning the favour, so to speak, as she was instrumental in providing support for his dictatorship.

So, she fought a war against freezing conscripts and a corrupt and absentee command, countenanced by dictators, with the resources of one of the world's most powerful navies.

*snip*

All of which may well be true but nontheless misses the point.
Regardless of how pointless/worthless the Falkland Islands are/were (nb I've since read the Falklanders have become very rich owing to the seafood they can harvest in their waters and sell to Japan. Anyone know any more about that?)... the point is this.

The Falklands were British Territory. The people who lived there were British. Britain had a duty to defend its people and its territorial integrity. So it did. Simple as that.

As far as the Belgrano goes, I've just read the articles on Belgrano & Conqueror on WikiP. Seems that what happened was entirely appropriate and sensible in the normal course of war. Other posters have mentioned 'lies' afterwards. I didn't see/read anything about that. Could you please explain more?

Thanks

We're a little off-topic! Going back to Maggie, I think her greatest achievement was the crushing of the unions, because it laid the foundations for future prosperity.


I agree with this one.

Another poster asked how crushing unions could possibly help. I advise reading this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_discontent

Basically, Maggie privatised many of the nationalised industries, broke the power of the unions (especially the mining unions) and removed much of the state from economic life. I think we all can agree on that. Whether you think it is 'good' or 'bad' depends on your viewpoint.

I think it was ultimately 'good' even though it caused a lot of 'bad' in the first instance. Britain today is far better off now than at any point during my memory.

I remember all the horrible old things ... terrible customer service, being told what to do all the time by councils and mini-empires (step forward the nationalised industries) and it was a very insular kind of place. I recently ran across an old cookery book from the early 80s. It was a tie-in to a tv programme called 'Farmers (or Farmhouse?) Kitchen.'

In it were invocations for women to stay at home and cook, and how 'our' farmers needed 'our' support and how 'our' farmers could provide better goods than any of 'their' farmers (although, of course, who 'they' were was never spelt out. I suspect 'they' were those dirty Johnny Foreigner types). How were ever 'our' farmers anyway? (I mean, I've never owned a farmer, have you? Or felt any kind of kinship with them either. Not that I've got anything against farmers, they're just not part of my monkeysphere and I don't see why I should be forced to include them as such by a cookery book! :p )

Anywho, Thatcher opened us up competition (Big Bang in the City anyone?) and that led us both to our current prosperity and to our current state of more open-ness to other cultures.

On the whole, Thatcher gave Britain a sorely needed kick up the arse :D

Sehr gut für die British

Nicht als gut als Angela Merkel zwar

(Angel Merkel ist meine engel :fluffle: lmao)

Basically, Maggie privatised many of the nationalised industries, broke the power of the unions (especially the mining unions) and removed much of the state from economic life. I think we all can agree on that. Whether you think it is 'good' or 'bad' depends on your viewpoint.
Not really.

I'm an Econ student, and they teach us to look at these things by their result. And the results of the labour market reforms are actually somewhat underwhelming.

I agree that the privatisation was good, but the war on unions wasn't.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1467-8462.00077