NationStates Jolt Archive


Mrs. Thatcher- Saviour or Satan?

Anglo Germany
01-04-2006, 15:02
I was reading the Who will you vote for in the local elections thread, and came across two people with completly opposite views of Mrs. Thatcher.
SO I made a new thread for her. Two quotes fro that thread

"her policies and her time in office which built the modern, wealthy and dynamic Britain we have today."

OR

"It was her that ruinged Britian. The one thingt hat she did right-curbing the pwoer of the unions she did wrongly. She used to much pwoer on the unions, instead of curbing them she crushed them. Who ruined the railways, THATCHER. Who ruined the NHS? Thatcher. See my point. The woman was mad and evil"

I would like to know what you have for/against her.

I have a poll now too!:)
Boonytopia
01-04-2006, 15:04
I vote Satan.
Anglo Germany
01-04-2006, 15:06
I vote Saviour
Kyronea
01-04-2006, 15:15
I vote mislead official. There are only a few politicians would were/are actually evil. Thatcher is not one of them.
Anglo Germany
01-04-2006, 15:16
I see there is 3:1 people voting, to messaging.
Aust
01-04-2006, 15:16
evil and wrong. She should be burnt at the stake. (well maybe thats a bit harsh...)
Anglo Germany
01-04-2006, 15:17
I also fail to see how she can be evil/mislead she raised Britain from being the sick man of Europe to an Economic powerhouse of Europe. Her legacy still lasts today, and people are still trying to reverse or forget things she did, eg EU Rebate.
The Campbell dynasty
01-04-2006, 15:26
She was great
Anarchic Christians
01-04-2006, 15:38
Anyone care to provide reasoning for those of us making u pour minds?

Thatcher pwnzorz j00 is not a cogent argument...
Eritrita
01-04-2006, 15:39
Thatcher damaged Britain possibly irreversibly. She broke the unions, she broke the people, and she broke the economy. what good can we say of her? that she mde us America's pawn? Wait...
BogMarsh
01-04-2006, 15:46
Tried to do the best for the country that she could think of.

Sandwiched between, ah... was it Callaghan? - and John Major, it actually made for a decent showing. But Saviour? Pobody is that nerfect!
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 15:46
Thatcher damaged Britain possibly irreversibly.

Bull!

She broke the unions,

And this was a bad thing? Your economy was going the way of France if the Unions weren't broken.

she broke the people,

Not entirely accurate.

and she broke the economy.

Social democracy did that. Not Thatcher. Thatcher pretty much got rid of alot of it. Which was a good thing.

what good can we say of her?

Get over your prejudice might be a good start in looking at the Thatcher Administration.

that she mde us America's pawn? Wait...

:rolleyes:

I vote savior because she did do alot to keep the economy going. Decisions may not have been popular but they were necessary. Social Democracy was running the nation into the ground and Thatcher ended alot of it.
Vetalia
01-04-2006, 15:52
I don't know; looking at the economic data presents a pretty mixed picture of the time she was in office, but given the macroeconomic situation in the world at the time it is hard to pin the high inflation necessarily on her. Nevertheless, unemployment and inflation were higher in 1990 than they were in 1979.

Since then, however, when compared to the rest of Europe the UK's economic performance has been vastly superior in terms of real output, real earnings and employment growth, and has been able to keep inflation under control while still maintaining strong growth.
Mushrooms r us
01-04-2006, 15:58
she was a women and she stood up for what she believed in! anyway she was better than tony blair. he sent us to war with iraq thatcher didn't do anything like that!!!!
Oxfordland
01-04-2006, 15:58
Yes.

Add the great resource of North Sea oil, which saw Norway and Denmark secure their economic powerhouse economies.

It is clearly just bad luch that unemployment rose to four million and we saw the two worst recessions since the depression. Still at least inflation was low, apart from it nudging 10% well into her term.

Add to that the damage done to the infastructure of the NHS is still not better and the damage to state school education and we see a stroke of genius.
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 15:58
she was a women and she stood up for what she believed in! anyway she was better than tony blair. he sent us to war with iraq thatcher didn't do anything like that!!!!

Falkland Islands?
-Somewhere-
01-04-2006, 16:04
Falkland Islands?
As much as I dislike Thatcher, I can't knock her with the Falklands. The Falklands War was a defensive one where we were regaining our territory that was invaded. Iraq wasn't defensive, it was a war that was of no concern to Britain.
Oxfordland
01-04-2006, 16:08
As much as I dislike Thatcher, I can't knock her with the Falklands. The Falklands War was a defensive one where we were regaining our territory that was invaded. Iraq wasn't defensive, it was a war that was of no concern to Britain.

Before the Falklands, she was the least popular Prime Minister of the C20th. Galtieri was eyeing up the Falklands and she dropped the guard. Whilst she did not invite the invasion of the Falklands, she certainly did not try to invade it.

On both sides, the Junta and Thatcher, there were unpopular leaders hoping to boost their popularity through military conflict. It is not certain it could have been avoided, but that there was no effort to avoid it is clear.
Yootopia
01-04-2006, 16:10
@Cornliu

You have a point about the Falklands. Eugh... what a terrible waste.

But there are two words which sum up why she was utter crap for Britain - Poll Tax.

That ruined all of our councils (as people were hiding and not paying Council Tax as well as Poll tax). Our education, social welfare and health is much, much more important than our economy. Money won't stop global warming, or help people learn, or treat people properly in prison or mental hospitals.

She also riled the USSR, which was stupid, after there was such an improvement in the early-mid seventies.

And the less said about what she did for the EU's views of us, the better, really.

Britain's only just recovering from what Thatcher did to us. Whilst it was great to have a woman at the top of the government, that doesn't stop what she did to Britain being terrible.
Heavenly Sex
01-04-2006, 16:10
Thatcher screwed up Britain big time. Trying to improve the economy at any cost by absuing the people as "human ressources" certainly isn't a good thing :mad:
-Somewhere-
01-04-2006, 16:14
Before the Falklands, she was the least popular Prime Minister of the C20th. Galtieri was eyeing up the Falklands and she dropped the guard. Whilst she did not invite the invasion of the Falklands, she certainly did not try to invade it.

On both sides, the Junta and Thatcher, there were unpopular leaders hoping to boost their popularity through military conflict. It is not certain it could have been avoided, but that there was no effort to avoid it is clear.
While I agree that there were a lot of faliures, I think the situation for Galtieri at home was so dire I doubt we could have done anything to prevent him from trying to invade. And my point still stands that defending our territory in the Falklands was nothing like us joining America to invade and occupy Iraq.
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 16:18
@Cornliu

You have a point about the Falklands. Eugh... what a terrible waste.

Despite the fact that they were defending British Territory?

That ruined all of our councils (as people were hiding and not paying Council Tax as well as Poll tax). Our education, social welfare and health is much, much more important than our economy.\

If you don't have money in your economy, how are you suggesting to pay for Education, social welfare, and health?

Money won't stop global warming,

Agreed it wont.

or help people learn,

If you believe this then why have a ministry of education?

or treat people properly in prison or mental hospitals.

Ministry of Health? No money no treatment.

She also riled the USSR, which was stupid, after there was such an improvement in the early-mid seventies.

Reagan did the samething.

And the less said about what she did for the EU's views of us, the better, really.

Britain really doesn't consider itself Europe to begin with.

Britain's only just recovering from what Thatcher did to us. Whilst it was great to have a woman at the top of the government, that doesn't stop what she did to Britain being terrible.

:rolleyes:
Vetalia
01-04-2006, 16:30
Britain's only just recovering from what Thatcher did to us. Whilst it was great to have a woman at the top of the government, that doesn't stop what she did to Britain being terrible.

You have the healthiest economy in Europe; the only comparable ones are the Scandinavian countries, and they're only going to be that way until the price of oil falls or the North Sea peters out (which is slowly happening).

The UK has one of the healthiest and most diversified economies in Europe, which means it will be able to sustain its social infrastructure and provide for its citizens far better than any other nation in the region.

Whether that is directly due to Thatcher is not directly provable, but the breakup of nationalized industry and reductions in the power of unions may have played a significant role in that economic strength.
Pompous world
01-04-2006, 16:42
i despise the bitch, apart from her policies she was indirectly responsible for unleashing cjd on the world. Thats what you get when you vote in a right winger.
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 16:44
i despise the bitch, apart from her policies she was indirectly responsible for unleashing cjd on the world. Thats what you get when you vote in a right winger.

Don't you just love those who are blind?
Nodinia
01-04-2006, 17:02
Thatcher - demagogic, right wing, pro-American and socially divisive. Friend of Pinochet, helped Apartheid struggle on. Destroyed whole communities which to this day are social disasters. The French got rid of their coal-mining industry too - but they took their time, did it over 20 years and without the ill effects. Scum.

Her good points - she was honest, in that you knew what you were getting. No so with Bliar.

The overall downside - there is no hell for her to get hers in.
Goshda
01-04-2006, 17:12
If thatcher did not get rid of the mines the economy would have sufered. As she privatised a lot of things the taxpayers money did not have to be wasted and could be used on other things.
Goshda
01-04-2006, 17:13
i despise the bitch, apart from her policies she was indirectly responsible for unleashing cjd on the world. Thats what you get when you vote in a right winger.
You pompous fool!
Oxfordland
01-04-2006, 17:29
Despite the fact that they were defending British Territory?



She could have kept the place well defended in the first place, therefore not have jepordised British territory and facilitated a conflict that ended in the deaths of many people.

If you don't have money in your economy, how are you suggesting to pay for Education, social welfare, and health?

..and four million unemployed is the route to that? We had the two biggest recessions since the depression.

As you put it:

:rolleyes:
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 17:33
She could have kept the place well defended in the first place, therefore not have jepordised British territory and facilitated a conflict that ended in the deaths of many people.

Oh so ignorant of the Falkland War we are.

..and four million unemployed is the route to that? We had the two biggest recessions since the depression.

Dude, if it wasn't for doing what she was doing, think what your unemployment rate would be today if Thatcher hadn't gotten rid of that social democracy crap.

As you put it:

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: back at you.
Vetalia
01-04-2006, 17:42
..and four million unemployed is the route to that? We had the two biggest recessions since the depression.

And now you have the lowest unemployment rate in Europe (with the exception of Liech./Lux.) and the healthiest growth rate with low inflation. Had you not reformed, it is very possible your economy would be as poor as that of France and your social infrastructure on the edge of collapse due to the economic stagnation which would reduce tax revenues relative to cost increases.
Oxfordland
01-04-2006, 17:42
Oh so ignorant of the Falkland War we are.



Dude, if it wasn't for doing what she was doing, think what your unemployment rate would be today if Thatcher hadn't gotten rid of that social democracy crap.



:rolleyes: back at you.

...right, you have asserted I am ignorant and that imagine it would be worse.


:p Well that is me refuted!

What next? Perhaps you could call me smelly?







PS :rolleyes: :p
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 17:45
...right, you have asserted I am ignorant and that imagine it would be worse.


:p Well that is me refuted!

What next? Perhaps you could call me smelly?







PS :rolleyes: :p

I could if want to but alas, I'm a tad to polite to tell someone who is smelly that he is smellly. :D
Oxfordland
01-04-2006, 17:48
I could if want to but alas, I'm a tad to polite to tell someone who is smelly that he is smellly. :D

:D

I thank you for your manners!

I return the favour, luv.

:D
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 17:48
:D

I thank you for your manners!

I return the favour, luv.

:D

Aww. If you were a girl I'd :fluffle:
Adriatica II
01-04-2006, 17:52
She did what was nessecary at the time
The Atlantian islands
01-04-2006, 17:57
And now you have the lowest unemployment rate in Europe (with the exception of Liech./Lux.) and the healthiest growth rate with low inflation. Had you not reformed, it is very possible your economy would be as poor as that of France and your social infrastructure on the edge of collapse due to the economic stagnation which would reduce tax revenues relative to cost increases.

Thats actually not true, Englands unemployment rate stands at 4.7%, while Switzerlands stands at a very low 3.8%.
Nodinia
01-04-2006, 17:58
She did what was nessecary at the time

nessecary for what and who though...the cow never had more than 40% of the vote at the best of times....
Vetalia
01-04-2006, 18:00
Thats actually not true, Englands unemployment rate stands at 4.7%, while Switzerlands stands at a very low 3.8%.

Corrected. Nevertheless, the UK also has a labor force 8 times as large as Switzerlands, making the comparison somewhat inequal.
Adriatica II
01-04-2006, 18:04
nessecary for what and who though...the cow never had more than 40% of the vote at the best of times....

You obviously dont know much about the Westminster model. The British system of First Past the Post generally means that very rarely does a party get an over 50% majority of votes. What the first past the post system does is let the single largest party in.

As for nessecary for what and whom for the country as a whole when facing the situations we were. Keynisanist controled economics could no longer work in an interdependent international society.
Nodinia
01-04-2006, 18:09
You obviously dont know much about the Westminster model. The British system of First Past the Post generally means that very rarely does a party get an over 50% majority of votes. What the first past the post system does is let the single largest party in. .

O I'm suprisingly aware of what goes on in the "Westiminister model". The fact is that she conducted vast change with a questionable mandate.


As for nessecary for what and whom for the country as a whole when facing the situations we were. Keynisanist controled economics could no longer work in an interdependent international society.

Yet other countries such as Germany and France managed to divest themselves of large nationalised industries without the same levels of violence, discord and long term hardship. Neither does this excuse her support for South Africa during the Apartheid period, her tacit support of Regans policies in Latin America etc.
Anglo Germany
01-04-2006, 18:39
[QUOTE=Nodinia]O I'm suprisingly aware of what goes on in the "Westiminister model". The fact is that she conducted vast change with a questionable mandate.



Yet other countries such as Germany and France managed to divest themselves of large nationalised industries without the same levels of violence, discord and long term hardship. Neither does this excuse her support for South Africa during the Apartheid period, her tacit support of Regans policies in Latin America etc.[/QUOTE

Look at Germany and France now though, one with post war high levels of unemployment nd th other paralised by strikes
The Atlantian islands
01-04-2006, 18:43
Corrected. Nevertheless, the UK also has a labor force 8 times as large as Switzerlands, making the comparison somewhat inequal.

Oh, of course the comparison is TOTALLY inequal, I was just saying. :p

I was just putting it out there ;)
The Atlantian islands
01-04-2006, 18:44
O I'm suprisingly aware of what goes on in the "Westiminister model". The fact is that she conducted vast change with a questionable mandate.



Yet other countries such as Germany and France managed to divest themselves of large nationalised industries without the same levels of violence, discord and long term hardship. Neither does this excuse her support for South Africa during the Apartheid period, her tacit support of Regans policies in Latin America etc.

You say that like its a bad thing. Many people, myself included happen to greatly admire Reagan, and his allies.

Reagan will probably go down as the best president of the 20th century...I'm pretty sure he was the most liked.
The Atlantian islands
01-04-2006, 18:46
[QUOTE=Nodinia]O I'm suprisingly aware of what goes on in the "Westiminister model". The fact is that she conducted vast change with a questionable mandate.



Yet other countries such as Germany and France managed to divest themselves of large nationalised industries without the same levels of violence, discord and long term hardship. Neither does this excuse her support for South Africa during the Apartheid period, her tacit support of Regans policies in Latin America etc.[/QUOTE

Look at Germany and France now though, one with post war high levels of unemployment nd th other paralised by strikes

Exactly, hes just an oppenent of liberal economics, he doesnt really have any good points why though. Your reasoning is much more on target than his.

He counters your aguements of economics with her policies in South Africa and South America. :rolleyes: :p
Thriceaddict
01-04-2006, 18:48
You say that like its a bad thing. Many people, myself included happen to greatly admire Reagan, and his allies.

Reagan will probably go down as the best president of the 20th century...I'm pretty sure he was the most liked.
Maybe with american right-wing conservatives. I don't know anyone left or right that liked the fucker
Anarchic Christians
01-04-2006, 18:49
You say that like its a bad thing. Many people, myself included happen to greatly admire Reagan, and his allies.

Reagan will probably go down as the best president of the 20th century...I'm pretty sure he was the most liked.

So toppling democratic governments is a good thing now...

I assume then you support Bin Laden's heroic opposition to the democratically elected Iraqi government.
The Atlantian islands
01-04-2006, 18:51
Maybe with american right-wing conservatives. I don't know anyone left or right that liked the fucker

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/ Thats in 1980

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/ Thats in 1984

That looks like alot more people than "American right-wing conservatives who liked that fuckers". Get your facts straight, asshole.
The Atlantian islands
01-04-2006, 18:54
[QUOTE=Anarchic Christians]So toppling democratic governments is a good thing now...[QUOTE]

If by "democratic governments" you mean communist/socialist hellholes then yes.
Vetalia
01-04-2006, 18:57
Maybe with american right-wing conservatives. I don't know anyone left or right that liked the fucker

Reagan won 59% of the vote, beating Mondale by 18% and winning the largest electoral vote since FDR...he was quite popular with a lot of people.
Anarchic Christians
01-04-2006, 18:58
[QUOTE=Anarchic Christians]So toppling democratic governments is a good thing now...[QUOTE]

If by "democratic governments" you mean communist/socialist hellholes then yes.

So democratically elected communists have no mandate to create Communism...

Same for Socialists...

Well that explains a lot. 'Self determination' is not in fact a right, good to know.
Thriceaddict
01-04-2006, 18:58
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/ Thats in 1980

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/ Thats in 1984

That looks like alot more people than "American right-wing conservatives who liked that fuckers". Get your facts straight, asshole.
So then it's Americans in general. That's still not a whole lot.
Nodinia
01-04-2006, 19:17
You say that like its a bad thing. Many people, myself included happen to greatly admire Reagan, and his allies.

Reagan will probably go down as the best president of the 20th century...I'm pretty sure he was the most liked.

Ronald Reagan did more to create anti-americanism than all the years of Vietnam/Cambodia. A mass murderer by proxy, and peddler of "schmaltz". He is indeed popular amongt Americans, as he told them exactly what they wanted to here, while doing the opposite abroad. A hypocrite, whose legacy is marked by unmarked graves in Latin American fields.

Not uncoincidentally, many of the hawks who thrived under him have returned to the fold now his surrogate Bonzo is at the desk with the Jellybeans.
Pompous world
01-04-2006, 19:26
Don't you just love those who are blind?

screw that. I know its an over simplification but I have no respect for right wing ideologies or for political correctness in this context. I will make jabs at the right wing for the fact that I enjoy it.
Pure Metal
01-04-2006, 19:26
evil and wrong. She should be burnt at the stake. (well maybe thats a bit harsh...)
not at all... though it would make it difficult for me to dance on her grave :(

just bury the bitch alive and have a party on top... :D
Thriceaddict
01-04-2006, 19:28
not at all... though it would make it difficult for me to dance on her grave :(

just bury the bitch alive and have a party on top... :D
Only problem is, she's dead already. (sort of)
Kroblexskij
01-04-2006, 19:33
i dont think people should be entitled to their opinion unless they lived in the 80s or are british. All this - margaret thatcher saved britian from socilism is utter complete shyte. - yes shite with a y.

Look at the trains, buses and all the other industries privatised by her. The miners, the unemployment that still plagues northern communities.

And of course who can forget the "there is no such thing as society"
The pole tax designed to keep the rich rich and the poor just as they are.
All that and shes an ugly brute of a man/thing.

Anybody who says she was a saviour is clearly mistaken and lucky they are at the end of a small fibre optic.
Refused Party Program
01-04-2006, 19:53
not at all... though it would make it difficult for me to dance on her grave :(

just bury the bitch alive and have a party on top... :D

Is it time to resurrect Refused Party Program's NS Survey regarding the song to which he should dance on Maggie's grave?
Yootopia
01-04-2006, 20:43
Despite the fact that they were defending British Territory?

\

If you don't have money in your economy, how are you suggesting to pay for Education, social welfare, and health?



Agreed it wont.



If you believe this then why have a ministry of education?



Ministry of Health? No money no treatment.



Reagan did the samething.



Britain really doesn't consider itself Europe to begin with.



:rolleyes:

The Falklands is an inbred dump with little strategic value. She should have let the Argentinians have it.

She took money away from social welfare to improve the economy. See any British music video from the 80's and you'll see what a shithole we were living it.

Her support of heavy industry ruined the environment and doubtless helped global warming and the acid rain also killed off most of the fishes and forests of Scandinavia. Sorry about that, Scandinavians!

The Ministry of Education is spiralling down again. Our education is fine how it is, why make all of the schools essentially miniture private schools?

The damage that the smoke etc. did to people doubtless counteracted whatever the NHS could have done. Also note that she took money away from the NHS.

Had I met him without his bodyguards, I would have gutted him with a spade. He was a corrupt fool, who supported several groups who you are now fighting. The Muhaj'adeen and Saddam Hussein are now your enemies and he pissed off the USSR, which was stupid. If the Cold War had ended sooner, more money from the army could go back to your people.

Also, well played on the whole South America issue. You really helped the people there, didn't you...?

The same goes for his support of Apartheid.

I'd also like to know how you can say that Britain doesn't consider itself a part of Europe. You're an American. How can you know this?

That'd be like me saying "The USA loves Canada like Ariel Sharon loved cake"

It's not true in the slightest, many people want to be a part of Europe, it's more that the people who think this are quite happy with the situation as it is, and the only people speaking up about the issue are people like VERITAS and the BNP.
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 21:08
screw that. I know its an over simplification but I have no respect for right wing ideologies or for political correctness in this context. I will make jabs at the right wing for the fact that I enjoy it.

And I make jabs at the left because I enjoy doing that however that does not give us the right to call the former prime minister a bitch and make a blanket about those of us on the right.
Nodinia
01-04-2006, 21:12
[QUOTE=Anglo Germany]

Exactly, hes just an oppenent of liberal economics, he doesnt really have any good points why though. Your reasoning is much more on target than his.

He counters your aguements of economics with her policies in South Africa and South America. :rolleyes: :p

Firstly its a valid criticism of any leader if they pitch in with some dodgy regime or other, and by pitching in with Raygun you automatically back some very dodgy regimes indeed.

I fail to see how pointing out that Frances efforts at avoiding unemployment-,crime, and drug-blackspots in ex-mining areas were the smarter option isn't a vaild point either. Thatcher may not have thought there was such a thing as society, but she managed to fuck up parts of it all the same.
Kravania
01-04-2006, 21:14
From reading these posts, I only have to say that President Ronald Reagan's quote comes into my mind here:

"The difference between a communist and a anti-communist is that communists READ Karl Marx and anti-communists UNDERSTAND Karl Marx."

I am not going to even respond to some of the stupid, far-left posters, for they are so irrational and ignorant of any historical realities that whatever facts and evidence you give them, they will close their eyes and cover their ears and scream about the evils of capitalism.

Until these braindead losers actaully get a decent level of education, I can only see thier posts for what they really are, are poor and sad reflection on the sorry state of today's educational system.
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 21:14
The Falklands is an inbred dump with little strategic value. She should have let the Argentinians have it.

And what nation in their right mind would allow another nation to take away a part of your nation without opposition?

She took money away from social welfare to improve the economy.

Good for her.

See any British music video from the 80's and you'll see what a shithole we were living it.

:rolleyes:

Her support of heavy industry ruined the environment and doubtless helped global warming and the acid rain also killed off most of the fishes and forests of Scandinavia. Sorry about that, Scandinavians!

:rolleyes:

The Ministry of Education is spiralling down again. Our education is fine how it is, why make all of the schools essentially miniture private schools?

Don't ask me, ask Tony Blair. I wish all schools in America were private schools with school uniforms and strict discipline in the classroom.

The damage that the smoke etc. did to people doubtless counteracted whatever the NHS could have done. Also note that she took money away from the NHS.

[quote]Had I met him without his bodyguards, I would have gutted him with a spade. He was a corrupt fool, who supported several groups who you are now fighting. The Muhaj'adeen and Saddam Hussein are now your enemies and he pissed off the USSR, which was stupid. If the Cold War had ended sooner, more money from the army could go back to your people.

Who are you tlaking about here?

Also, well played on the whole South America issue. You really helped the people there, didn't you...?

Are you talking about Reagan? I thought this was about Thatcher?

I'd also like to know how you can say that Britain doesn't consider itself a part of Europe. You're an American. How can you know this?

Could it be perhaps that I have heard many Brits on here who take offense to being called European? Not to mention my father has traveled to Britain and has told me the same thing?

That'd be like me saying "The USA loves Canada like Ariel Sharon loved cake"

Actually, I do like Canada.

It's not true in the slightest, many people want to be a part of Europe, it's more that the people who think this are quite happy with the situation as it is, and the only people speaking up about the issue are people like VERITAS and the BNP.

I suggest you actually turn down the rhetoric and actually leave the prejudice at home if your going to have an intelligent debate.
Nodinia
01-04-2006, 21:24
From reading these posts, I only have to say that President Ronald Reagan's quote comes into my mind here:

"The difference between a communist and a anti-communist is that communists READ Karl Marx and anti-communists UNDERSTAND Karl Marx."

I am not going to even respond to some of the stupid, far-left posters, for they are so irrational and ignorant of any historical realities that whatever facts and evidence you give them, they will close their eyes and cover their ears and scream about the evils of capitalism.


Please explain to me why you have to be "left wing" to think that training torturers in Fort Benning and them leeting them loose to kill and torture civillians in El Salvador was a bad thing? These are the bastards responsible for raping and killings Nuns, if you remember. Likewise how is it "left" to think that supporting the genocide against the Mayan Guatamalan population was a bad thing? And the illegal war against the Nicaraguan people, for that matter....
Bodies Without Organs
01-04-2006, 21:29
And the illegal war against the Nicaraguan people, for that matter....


...which is not to say that some of us 'leftists' don't also consider the treatment handed out to the indigenous population by the Sandinista regime an atrocity.
Nodinia
01-04-2006, 21:42
...which is not to say that some of us 'leftists' don't also consider the treatment handed out to the indigenous population by the Sandinista regime an atrocity.

True, but compared to the bastards they replaced they should have been welcomed as reformers and had a few carrots waved at them to walk "a higher path". Instead its the contras and fuckers in mirror shades....
Kravania
01-04-2006, 21:43
Please explain to me why you have to be "left wing" to think that training torturers in Fort Benning and them leeting them loose to kill and torture civillians in El Salvador was a bad thing? These are the bastards responsible for raping and killings Nuns, if you remember. Likewise how is it "left" to think that supporting the genocide against the Mayan Guatamalan population was a bad thing? And the illegal war against the Nicaraguan people, for that matter....

90% of ALL people killed in the various counter-terrorist operations in Latin America DESERVED it.

Most of them were MARXISTS and TERRORISTS.

Killing people is NEVER nice, but sometimes NEEDED when fighting a global plot that was run by the USSR and Cuba, to spread terrorism throughout Latin America in the hope that the region would fall under the oppressive grip of the Kremlin and the Tyrant, Fidel Castro.

If a El Salvadorian person tried to overthrow the government of his nation, he is a TERRORIST and thus a legitimate target for the security forces.

True, General Efrain Rios Montt's 1982-83 government in Guatemala was a LITTLE EXCESSIVE, but you have to understand the context of the conflict.

Civil war gripped the nation and an all out counter-terrorist offensive was the ONLY path left, for if things were left as they were, socialism and communism would have taken over Guatemala.

I mean, despite the harsh measures that Latin America's military regimes took, they did serve a good cause and solved the problems of the time.

Pinochet liberated Chile from Marxism and after a decade and a half, restored democracy and gave Chile a successfull free market economy.

The same can be said for the other nations too.

There is NOT ONE military regime left in Latin America, because when they destroyed the forces of terrorism, they kept to their word and promises and restored democracy.

However, the alternative would have been communism.

Look at Cuba, I don't see Castro having any intention of resotring democracy there. His brother will take the leadership once the tyrant Castro dies.

I only hope the USA has enough troops to liberate Cuba and destroy it's Castro supporters and allow Cuba to flourish under the free market economy.

The point being, the military regimes were TEMPORARY anti-terrorist governments which saved their people from tyranny.

Communism AIMS to be a PERMANENT system of state slavery.
The Atlantian islands
01-04-2006, 21:51
90% of ALL people killed in the various counter-terrorist operations in Latin America DESERVED it.

Most of them were MARXISTS and TERRORISTS.

Killing people is NEVER nice, but sometimes NEEDED when fighting a global plot that was run by the USSR and Cuba, to spread terrorism throughout Latin America in the hope that the region would fall under the oppressive grip of the Kremlin and the Tyrant, Fidel Castro.

If a El Salvadorian person tried to overthrow the government of his nation, he is a TERRORIST and thus a legitimate target for the security forces.

True, General Efrain Rios Montt's 1982-83 government in Guatemala was a LITTLE EXCESSIVE, but you have to understand the context of the conflict.

Civil war gripped the nation and an all out counter-terrorist offensive was the ONLY path left, for if things were left as they were, socialism and communism would have taken over Guatemala.

I mean, despite the harsh measures that Latin America's military regimes took, they did serve a good cause and solved the problems of the time.

Pinochet liberated Chile from Marxism and after a decade and a half, restored democracy and gave Chile a successfull free market economy.

The same can be said for the other nations too.

There is NOT ONE military regime left in Latin America, because when they destroyed the forces of terrorism, they kept to their word and promises and restored democracy.

However, the alternative would have been communism.

Look at Cuba, I don't see Castro having any intention of resotring democracy there. His brother will take the leadership once the tyrant Castro dies.

I only hope the USA has enough troops to liberate Cuba and destroy it's Castro supporters and allow Cuba to flourish under the free market economy.

The point being, the military regimes were TEMPORARY anti-terrorist governments which saved their people from tyranny.

Communism AIMS to be a PERMANENT system of state slavery.

Excellent post.

Although I think that once Castro dies the Cuban people might revolt agians the government. I too, would like to see a free Cuba, but hope that it can be done without militaristic measures.
Laerod
01-04-2006, 21:55
The point being, the military regimes were TEMPORARY anti-terrorist governments which saved their people from tyranny.
By instating it. Wow. You show a serious ignorance of what those dictatorships were like.
The Atlantian islands
01-04-2006, 21:56
So then it's Americans in general. That's still not a whole lot.

Sure it is, by this logic. if the majority of our country, which puts that number at anything over around an estimate of 120 million people, liked Reagan, then they would, in turn, like Thatcher. Thats at the very least 120 million people....which would be way more the UK's 55 million population.

So if you look at it by that logic AT THE VERY LEAST double your population liked Thatcher.
Niraqa
01-04-2006, 21:58
Breaking up nationalized industries was one of her best moves.

British Airways used to be a TERRIBLE airline until it was privatized.
The Atlantian islands
01-04-2006, 21:58
[QUOTE=The Atlantian islands][QUOTE=Anarchic Christians]So toppling democratic governments is a good thing now...

So democratically elected communists have no mandate to create Communism...

Same for Socialists...

Well that explains a lot. 'Self determination' is not in fact a right, good to know.

Nope...In South America's case democratically elected socialist/communists are only elected on account of their nations ignorance because the leader promises them food..welfare...etc and the people dont know any better.

Cuz lets face it...what sounds better, free food/welfare....or working for your money/food. Thats a no brainer.

But what is actually a reality....
Nodinia
01-04-2006, 21:59
90% of ALL people killed in the various counter-terrorist operations in Latin America DESERVED it.

Most of them were MARXISTS and TERRORISTS..

Out of the ten Nuns found down that well, who were the nine that "deserved it"?


Killing people is NEVER nice, but sometimes NEEDED when fighting a global plot that was run by the USSR and Cuba, to spread terrorism throughout Latin America in the hope that the region would fall under the oprresive grip of the Kremlin and the Tyrant, Fidel Castro.]..

As opposed to the pro-US oppressive grip of some bunch of local yahoos...so in other words its not the fact that they're beng bumped off its just in case the wrong sort of people are doing the oppressing and bumping...


If a El Salvadorian person tried to overthrow the government of his nation, he is a TERRORIST and thus a legitimate target for the security forces..]..

Just like religous working with the poor, journalists, Archbishops (always terrorist with that talk about the poor - you know what the poor are like...) and don't mention the fucking dirt farmers.....


True, General Efrain Rios Montt's 1982-83 government in Guatemala was a LITTLE EXCESSIVE, but you have to understand the context of the conflict...]..

Firstly that campaign had a length of about 30 years. Secondly the worst of it was during Regans time in office, in which over 100,000 (out of a total of 400,000) were killed. I have no clue offhand how many were raped (as there were rape squads) or how many were made refugees. Thats not "a little excessive" unless you're trying to be fucking sarcastic.



Civil war gripped the nation and an all out counter-terrorist offensive was the ONLY path left, for if things were left as they were, socialism and communism would have taken over Guatemala....]..

O No! Rather mass murder by a corrupt bunch of wankstains who keep the majority of their populations noses in the dirt than that!

I mean, despite the harsh measures that Latin America's military regimes took, they did serve a good cause and solved the problems of the time.


Pinochet liberated Chile from Marxism and after a decade and a half, restored democracy and gave Chile a successfull free market economy.....]..

Pinochet did not "liberate" save in the sense of taking a Government from the hands of a democratically government. A mass murderer and overseer of a police state. May he die roaring


There is NOT ONE military regime left in Latin America, because when they destroyed the forces of terrorism, they kept to their word and promises and restored democracy......]..

They killed off as much of the left as they could and, feeling that there was no chance of a leftist state arising, stood down, and went back to being members of an elite depriving the majority of the benifits of the wealth of their countries . However now the left is resurgent again they've already been making rumbles. And if some regime is overthrown, the pay for those doing it will more than likely be from the US.
Kravania
01-04-2006, 22:00
By instating it. Wow. You show a serious ignorance of what those dictatorships were like.

Err.... wrong!

Here is a list of terrorist groups that Cuba and the USSR supported:

EZLN (Mexico)
FARC/ELN/PLA (Colombia)
Shinig Path/MRTA (Peru)
Tupacmaros (Uruaguy)
Monteneros/EPG/EPR (Argentina)
ALN (Brazil)
FLMN (El Sav.)
FSLN (Nicaragua)

ALL of the above groups have over time got USSR or Cuban money, weapons, training and support.

The military regimes ONLY ever took power once these terrorist groups STARTED thei civil wars or attacks.

Force is needed to protect freedom.
The Atlantian islands
01-04-2006, 22:01
Ronald Reagan did more to create anti-americanism than all the years of Vietnam/Cambodia. A mass murderer by proxy, and peddler of "schmaltz". He is indeed popular amongt Americans, as he told them exactly what they wanted to here, while doing the opposite abroad. A hypocrite, whose legacy is marked by unmarked graves in Latin American fields.

Not uncoincidentally, many of the hawks who thrived under him have returned to the fold now his surrogate Bonzo is at the desk with the Jellybeans.

Maybe thats why people liked him. Because he wasnt Europes bitch and instead of sucking up to you guys and being a pussy, he actually just went ahead and did what he knew was right.

Maybe some Americans admire that?
Nodinia
01-04-2006, 22:03
90% of ALL people killed in the various counter-terrorist operations in Latin America DESERVED it.

Most of them were MARXISTS and TERRORISTS.


Considering the amount of whining you yanks do about NYC thats rather an Ironic comment.

But then again you people are always quick to trot out the "grim deeds that had to be done" crap or "they were guilty", because its always somebody else on the receiving end.
Kravania
01-04-2006, 22:07
Considering the amount of whining you yanks do about NYC thats rather an Ironic comment.

Im not American, I'm British!

But then again you people are always quick to trot out the "grim deeds that had to be done" crap or "they were guilty", because its always somebody else on the receiving end.

If those people advocate Marxism and anti-capitalism, then they should be on the receiving end!

I'm sorry but when you become a terrorist, then you lose all human rights.

BTW, it was not uncommon for nuns and others like journalists and preists to side with the terrorists, supporting them, thus they got what was comming to them.
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 22:08
Im not American, I'm British!



If those people advocate Marxism and anti-capitalism, then they should be on the receiving end!

I'm sorry but when you become a terrorist, then you lose all human rights.

BTW, it was not uncommon for nuns and others like journalists and preists to side with the terrorists, supporting them, thus they got what was comming to them.

I tone down the rhetoric if I was you.
Asbena
01-04-2006, 22:10
I tone down the rhetoric if I was you.

If I was you I say:

"Shut up you moron. Obligations exist and its not so simple as you put it."
Kravania
01-04-2006, 22:12
I tone down the rhetoric if I was you.

I'm sorry, but I get really pissed off when idiots make comments that amount to a cover story for terrorist groups and their supporters.

They make out that these so-called 'victims' were innocent.

Yeah right.... somehow taking up arms against a government means that those terrorists still have some right not to be attacked by the security forces.

What idiocy!
Nodinia
01-04-2006, 22:13
Maybe thats why people liked him. Because he wasnt Europes bitch and instead of sucking up to you guys and being a pussy, he actually just went ahead and did what he knew was right.

Maybe some Americans admire that?

Yeah, the xenophobic 'I don't care, their mass grave won't be in my backyard' fuckwit kind no doubt. And he did what he thought was right. He let others do what he thought was right. With his really well tuned winner of a brain.
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 22:14
I'm sorry, but I get really pissed off when idiots make comments that amount to a cover story for terrorist groups and their supporters.

They make out that these so-called 'victims' were innocent.

Yeah right.... somehow taking up arms against a government means that those terrorists still have some right not to be attacked by the security forces.

What idiocy!

And I take objections to words like "they got what they deserved" No one deserves what they got in Nicuragua or anywhere else.

Think before you type. It'll help you into the future.
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 22:15
Yeah, the xenophobic 'I don't care, their mass grave won't be in my backyard' fuckwit kind no doubt. And he did what he thought was right. He let others do what he thought was right. With his really well tuned winner of a brain.

Nodinia, its one thing to pick on a man who is alive. Its another to pick on him when he's dead.
Refused Party Program
01-04-2006, 22:15
Nodinia, its one thing to pick on a man who is alive. Its another to pick on him when he's dead.

He was a bastard in life, now he's a bastard in death.
Nodinia
01-04-2006, 22:16
Im not American, I'm British!


Then you'll be perfectly aware what I mean when I say that when a non-yank takes that line, it automatically qualifies them as a "fucking muppet".


Yeah right.... somehow taking up arms against a government

Fighting against an oppressive regime, or occupying force, is a moral imperative. I suppose when the Germans occupied france you think the resistance should have bent over and offered their arses to Vichy.
Asbena
01-04-2006, 22:17
He was a bastard in life, now he's a bastard in death.

That is just heartless.
Anarchic Christians
01-04-2006, 22:17
Yeah right.... somehow taking up arms against a government means that those terrorists still have some right not to be attacked by the security forces.

So you consider that the White Rose group got what they deserved?

Also, you do realise that Communism means that the results of labour are divided equally. Note emphasis. If there is no labour done there is no result to be shared.

It'd be nice if you thought about that before branding every communist/socialist a work-shy layabout.

But then asking you to think seems a little OTT...
Nodinia
01-04-2006, 22:18
Nodinia, its one thing to pick on a man who is alive. Its another to pick on him when he's dead.

When you die, or the people next door, thats true, because they've probably done nothing so wrong it requires it. However for the likes of Reagan, and that cow thatcher when she goes its different. Not only because of what they did in life, but because of the attempt to "canonise" them and use them to repeat the same things in the future.
Nodinia
01-04-2006, 22:20
That is just heartless.

Your description of a man who was responsible, one way or another, for hundreds of thousands of unnessecary deaths would be.......?
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 22:26
He was a bastard in life, now he's a bastard in death.

Its nice to see that people do not have any respect for those that are dead.
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 22:27
When you die, or the people next door, thats true, because they've probably done nothing so wrong it requires it. However for the likes of Reagan, and that cow thatcher when she goes its different. Not only because of what they did in life, but because of the attempt to "canonise" them and use them to repeat the same things in the future.

No they are not different. They deserve the same respect as anyother human being. It does not matter if they were involved in politics or not. They deserve the same dignities as you or I.
Thriceaddict
01-04-2006, 22:28
Its nice to see that people do not have any respect for those that are dead.
Why should he be nice? That would just be hypocritical.
"Oh he was such a nice man" people make me puke
Asbena
01-04-2006, 22:30
The secret lives of politicans have been subdueing the ignorant masses and have saved our asses countless times. Even WWIII was only SECONDS away from happening, the effect of one person is globally changing.
Asbena
01-04-2006, 22:31
Why should he be nice? That would just be hypocritical.
"Oh he was such a nice man" people make me puke

You be respectful. We don't make fun of Hitler every day even though he was worse. Stalin was 5x as bad and we actually have a large 'fan-base' that LOVE him. Don't mock the dead.
Corneliu
01-04-2006, 22:33
You be respectful. We don't make fun of Hitler every day even though he was worse. Stalin was 5x as bad and we actually have a large 'fan-base' that LOVE him. Don't mock the dead.

I agree. The dead should not be mocked regardless on how bad they were.
Thriceaddict
01-04-2006, 22:38
You be respectful. We don't make fun of Hitler every day even though he was worse. Stalin was 5x as bad and we actually have a large 'fan-base' that LOVE him. Don't mock the dead.
Oh please, the guy was an asshole and just because he's a dead asshole I shouldn't say anything?

Bugger off, I speak my mind whether he's dead or alive.
WesternPA
01-04-2006, 22:39
Oh please, the guy was an asshole and just because he's a dead asshole I shouldn't say anything?

Bugger off, I speak my mind whether he's dead or alive.

The dead should not be ill spoken too.
Loco Land
01-04-2006, 22:40
This is so pathetic. You believe in respecting the dead, eh? Would you disagree with me when I say "Hitler was a nutcase who should have been locked up before he could do any damage"? - Oh noes, I've insulted a dead person, that makes me bad!

Now, I happen to know a man who has a doctorate in economics, who has lived through the Thatcher years, and he has repeatedly stated that her economic policies were poorly thought out and largely failures. Who here has the credentials to put forth a more informed opinion than that?
Asbena
01-04-2006, 22:42
Oh please, the guy was an asshole and just because he's a dead asshole I shouldn't say anything?

Bugger off, I speak my mind whether he's dead or alive.

Get some respect for people. Dead or not it does not mean you can demean all of human kindness with such remarks. You act as if all people are scum if they don't think like you. Priests are supposed to have compassion for all, terrorists or not you should to. Terrorists have rights to, why wouldn't people have rights anymore?
Thriceaddict
01-04-2006, 22:43
The dead should not be ill spoken too.
Well then we just have to agree to disagree, because I will when I feel the need to. It's called freedom of speech.
Asbena
01-04-2006, 22:44
This is so pathetic. You believe in respecting the dead, eh? Would you disagree with me when I say "Hitler was a nutcase who should have been locked up before he could do any damage"? - Oh noes, I've insulted a dead person, that makes me bad!

Now, I happen to know a man who has a doctorate in economics, who has lived through the Thatcher years, and he has repeatedly stated that her economic policies were poorly thought out and largely failures. Who here has the credentials to put forth a more informed opinion than that?

Hitler was locked up, that's where he wrote Mein Kampf. He was let out early because everyone loved him and wanted him out.

Hitler was a morphine addict and was a genius. If it wasn't for his power and greed issues he would have been a wonderful leader.
WesternPA
01-04-2006, 22:44
Well then we just have to agree to disagree, because I will when I feel the need to. It's called freedom of speech.

There is such a thing as to much freedom of speech.
Asbena
01-04-2006, 22:46
Well then we just have to agree to disagree, because I will when I feel the need to. It's called freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech has its limits. Slander and such things are not covered by it. You do have a point you CAN say it, but it makes you look like a jerk.
Thriceaddict
01-04-2006, 22:46
There is such a thing as to much freedom of speech.
Yes, but freedom of speech does not mean to agree with popular opinion.
WesternPA
01-04-2006, 22:47
Yes, but freedom of speech does not mean to agree with popular opinion.

True. But to speak ill of the dead just makes you look very stoopid.
Thriceaddict
01-04-2006, 22:48
Freedom of speech has its limits. Slander and such things are not covered by it. You do have a point you CAN say it, but it makes you look like a jerk.
But I have the freedom to be a jerk. And you do not have the right to not be offended.
Thriceaddict
01-04-2006, 22:49
True. But to speak ill of the dead just makes you look very stoopid.
*shrug*
Doesn't bother me. I've been called worse.
Asbena
01-04-2006, 22:50
Well some of us are just put off by it. Like your signature clearly puts it.
Loco Land
01-04-2006, 22:51
Hitler was locked up, that's where he wrote Mein Kampf. He was let out early because everyone loved him and wanted him out.

Hitler was a morphine addict and was a genius. If it wasn't for his power and greed issues he would have been a wonderful leader.

Actually, Hitler was given a tiny prison sentence, in a prison that was more like a hotel, allowed to have as many visitors as he wanted, and then got released early, because the judge was a right-wing sympathiser. Ludendorff didn't even get sentenced.

PS: What's so bad about speaking ill of the dead? You haven't explained why it's so bad yet...

Especially as there's a rather blurry line between opinion and fact. I mean, if I said Hitler was a failure, would that be an opinion or a fact? Would it be wrong of me to speak ill of him at all?
WesternPA
01-04-2006, 22:53
PS: What's so bad about speaking ill of the dead? You haven't explained why it's so bad yet...

Its disrespectful regardless of how much it may be deserved.
Loco Land
01-04-2006, 22:54
Oh, I'm sorry, you're right, I should repect Hitler, my apologies.
Daktari
01-04-2006, 22:54
Good point- it's not as if they will be offended by it, besides Thatcher isn't dead yet, though when she is I will break out the champagne and throw a party.
Loco Land
01-04-2006, 22:55
Precisely. In Hitler's case, the only ones likely to be offended are Neo-Nazis, and, well, nobody cares about them, so...
Asbena
01-04-2006, 22:58
Actually, Hitler was given a tiny prison sentence, in a prison that was more like a hotel, allowed to have as many visitors as he wanted, and then got released early, because the judge was a right-wing sympathiser. Ludendorff didn't even get sentenced.

PS: What's so bad about speaking ill of the dead? You haven't explained why it's so bad yet...

Especially as there's a rather blurry line between opinion and fact. I mean, if I said Hitler was a failure, would that be an opinion or a fact? Would it be wrong of me to speak ill of him at all?


He was a tactical failure, but a master of the masses. People were SCARED by his voice and tactics if they were not German and in Germany people saw him as a god.

Though I see you get my Stalin point.
Loco Land
01-04-2006, 23:01
Oh, speaking of Stalin, I have to say I've never heard of this 'fan-base'. I've been on* a very radical left wing forum, and even there most of them thought that Stalin was a monster...

*and got kicked out of for my unconventional views on women's liberation, namely that women are just as stupid as men.
Asbena
01-04-2006, 23:04
The people of Russia still think of him as a wonderful man. Though the depth of his cruelty know no limit.
Bodies Without Organs
01-04-2006, 23:06
True, but compared to the bastards they replaced they should have been welcomed as reformers and had a few carrots waved at them to walk "a higher path". Instead its the contras and fuckers in mirror shades....

Ah, but the contras and fuckers in the cyberpunk glasses weren't in response to the abuse of the indiginous population: instead they were the result of changes in economy and general outlook. The 1980's US perspective: we don't care if you kill your own people, just don't fuck with international capitalism.
Bodies Without Organs
01-04-2006, 23:09
That is just heartless.

The chap is dead: as such he deserves no special treatment. A spade is a spade, yes?
Loco Land
01-04-2006, 23:10
Perhaps. I'm unaware of the general feeling in Russia. I know two Russians. One says that Communism screwed their country over and that the current government is wonderful, the other says that the current economy is totally screwed up, coincidentally a similar point of view as that took by my economic source mentioned earlier - he declines to comment on Russia's ecomomy, saying that the government is so corrupt that it's difficult to tell. Knowing his position in the UK's economic circle, this is information from a very high level...
Asbena
01-04-2006, 23:11
Ah, but the contras and fuckers in the cyberpunk glasses weren't in response to the abuse of the indiginous population: instead they were the result of changes in economy and general outlook. The 1980's US perspective: we don't care if you kill your own people, just don't fuck with international capitalism.

However true, I think this policy was one of our better ones then we have currently. We are bullying the world again, we're becoming oppressive.
Bodies Without Organs
01-04-2006, 23:14
... we're becoming oppressive.

Hang on, support of armed insurgents against a democratically re-elected government in a foreign sovereign state wasn't oppressive?
Asbena
01-04-2006, 23:15
Perhaps. I'm unaware of the general feeling in Russia. I know two Russians. One says that Communism screwed their country over and that the current government is wonderful, the other says that the current economy is totally screwed up, coincidentally a similar point of view as that took by my economic source mentioned earlier - he declines to comment on Russia's ecomomy, saying that the government is so corrupt that it's difficult to tell. Knowing his position in the UK's economic circle, this is information from a very high level...

Russia is an enigma no one knows everything about it. Though you would have to ask everyone for a general concenus. Since they abandoned communism I doubt Stalin would be as favored as previously after his death and before the fall of the Union.
Asbena
01-04-2006, 23:16
Hang on, support of armed insurgents against a democratically re-elected government in a foreign sovereign state wasn't oppressive?
It was, but we are getting far far worse as times go on. The American Empire is becoming a reality.
Loco Land
01-04-2006, 23:20
Indeed, it seems to me that a revolution always ends up being a complete 360 degree turnaround...
Bodies Without Organs
01-04-2006, 23:25
Indeed, it seems to me that a revolution always ends up being a complete 360 degree turnaround...

French? American?
Loco Land
01-04-2006, 23:27
Yeah, Americans fought against the English Empire, intending to make a stand against imperialism. The French Revolution lasted about 20 years.
Bodies Without Organs
01-04-2006, 23:28
Yeah, Americans fought against the English Empire, intending to make a stand against imperialism. The French Revolution lasted about 20 years.

Ah, that's why the pair of them are both monarchies now, is it?
Loco Land
01-04-2006, 23:33
Sigh, I didn't mean that everything always went back to exactly how it was...

Let me put it this way. You have a revloution, a huge dramatic shift in a country's government. It leaves deep marks, but the country will slowly drift back closer to how it was before.
Pompous world
01-04-2006, 23:45
And I make jabs at the left because I enjoy doing that however that does not give us the right to call the former prime minister a bitch and make a blanket about those of us on the right.


hohoho! as if the right dont get up to similar tactics!! besides she acted in a disgraceful manner, therefore in my discussion of her, I will treat her accordingly. It cancels things out.
Cypresaria
01-04-2006, 23:51
Also, you do realise that Communism means that the results of labour are divided equally. Note emphasis. If there is no labour done there is no result to be shared.

.

Yupp under socialism/communism, the leaders shared all the results, the workers shared the pollution, and the dissidents shared the labour camps or 9mm justice

but back to Thatcher

I left skewl in '81......... suffered the fun of unemployment thanks to thatchers government smashing the economy, managed to find a job in the civil service, and put up with crap pay for 6 yrs.

In 1984 came the miners strike, for better or worse rightly defeated, because even if you disagreed with thatcher's mob, they were elected by 10 million voters or so, what right has 200,000 miners got to try and overthrow the elected government?

Mind you Scargil the arsehole was rather outwitted by the government.....

Then came poll tax...... a great way to make the rich richer and the poor poorer... that was what sank thatcher and good riddance.

Come the day she dies, I'll shed a tear for her children... then sing "Ding dong the witch is dead " for 3 weeks:D
Anglo Germany
01-04-2006, 23:57
Im so happy- Ive actually made a thread interesting enough to attract over 100 voters and replies!

Whoopee:cool: :D

and its made it to 10 pages:)
Loco Land
02-04-2006, 00:00
Yupp under socialism/communism, the leaders shared all the results, the workers shared the pollution, and the dissidents shared the labour camps or 9mm justice

Well, then, it's not really communism, is it? If I claimed to be a nice guy and then beat some people up, then #1 I'm not a nice guy and so #2 It doesn't indicate that nice guys beat people up.

Come the day she dies, I'll shed a tear for her children... then sing "Ding dong the witch is dead " for 3 weeks:D

And, yeah, that's just what I'll do, I think.
Asbena
02-04-2006, 00:04
America has become an Empire. It should be renamed 'The American Empire' instead of "The United States of America" we're hardly a confederation anymore, yet we use a name that sounds like we are a confederacy.

We have VAST international power and rule other governments and do things no other government in the world will do. We are an economic empire. Many countries are America's bitch and we know it.
Corneliu
02-04-2006, 00:08
America has become an Empire. It should be renamed 'The American Empire' instead of "The United States of America" we're hardly a confederation anymore, yet we use a name that sounds like we are a confederacy.

We have VAST international power and rule other governments and do things no other government in the world will do. We are an economic empire. Many countries are America's bitch and we know it.

You do know that we are a Democratic Republic and NOT a Confederacy right? I sure hope so.
Nodinia
02-04-2006, 00:26
Ah, but the contras and fuckers in the cyberpunk glasses weren't in response to the abuse of the indiginous population: instead they were the result of changes in economy and general outlook. The 1980's US perspective: we don't care if you kill your own people, just don't fuck with international capitalism.


Much as I pointed out to Mr "90%" back there. As is the case today.


You do know that we are a Democratic Republic and NOT a Confederacy right? I sure hope so..

The thing about America is that what it says can often not match up to what it does.......
Corneliu
02-04-2006, 00:30
The thing about America is that what it says can often not match up to what it does.......

Can I ask you to clarify what you mean on this before I post something?
Yootopia
02-04-2006, 12:22
Come the day she dies, I'll shed a tear for her children... then sing "Ding dong the witch is dead " for 3 weeks:D

Her son was actually arrested for trying to start a revolution in Africa(?) I believe.

Did you not hear about it?
Eritrita
02-04-2006, 12:25
Her son was released on suspended sentence for trying to create and finance a revolution yes.
The Half-Hidden
02-04-2006, 13:20
Thatcher ruined Britain. The Americanisation of Europe is her fault, and the social breakdown of Britain is her fault as well.
Nodinia
02-04-2006, 14:38
Can I ask you to clarify what you mean on this before I post something?

Democracy - free and fair elections in Venezuela produce somebody the states hate, they back a coup to get rid of him in 2002. The Palestinians vote for Hamas, the US withdraws funding. And in the past there was Chile, Iran etc.

Likewise playing the violin over oppression when actively supporting repressive regimes, as in Latin America, the middle east etc. Never a peep about the way the russians are eliminating the chechens, because it couldnt give a flying fuck about them. Likewise it aided Saddams repression of the Kurds in the 70's (Kissinger had the Turkish border closed) and withdrew the funding from their insurgency.

And all the time claiming to be the "light of the free world". The only illumination its creating these days is coming from the light stick stuffed up some detainees arse.
Yootopia
02-04-2006, 14:54
Exactly my point. They like "democracy" when it suits them and only then.
Anarchic Christians
02-04-2006, 15:12
Yupp under socialism/communism, the leaders shared all the results, the workers shared the pollution, and the dissidents shared the labour camps or 9mm justice

So now we're on to wilful stupidity because you've run out of useful arguments.

Even if I claim it until I go blue in the face I will never be a little green man from Mars. Even if Stalin shouted it from the roof every morning Soviet Russia would not be Communist (and only just about Socialist... and even then only if Socialism is taken purely as government control of all industry.)
Aust
02-04-2006, 19:04
So now we're on to wilful stupidity because you've run out of useful arguments.

Even if I claim it until I go blue in the face I will never be a little green man from Mars. Even if Stalin shouted it from the roof every morning Soviet Russia would not be Communist (and only just about Socialist... and even then only if Socialism is taken purely as government control of all industry.)
well said, the USSR was a dictatorship, not a communist state.
The Half-Hidden
02-04-2006, 23:24
Nodinia, its one thing to pick on a man who is alive. Its another to pick on him when he's dead.
What a silly statement. So we should never call Stalin and Caucescu evil just because they are dead?
Lisburn Mateys
04-04-2006, 17:36
if she didnt save Britain she saved Northern Ireland, and stuck two fingers up to terrorism, unluky Bobby Sands