|
Northern Ireland25172 Posts
On April 09 2013 05:27 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed. Something the British economythe regions affected have still to this day not recovered from.
The 'economy' has been in rude health at various places. I don't really regard the GDP of a country as necessarily a particularly good indicator of it being in rude health mind.
The increasing divide isn't just between the poor and the wealthy in this country, but is also more and more geographic in basis as well. Perhaps Thatcher didn't desire this and it was an unwelcomed consequence of trying to wrest control back from power-mad unions, but that it has happened is rather beyond dispute.
|
On April 09 2013 03:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:58 Clbull wrote:
On the coal miners strike and the manufacturing industry in Britain, we should have tried to save it instead of leaving it to decline like Thatcher did.
On Northern Ireland, a hard-line stance should not have been pursued especially towards Republican prisoners on hunger strike. The Good Friday agreement and a second Bloody Sunday inquiry should have happened years ago. We tried to save the mining and manufacturing industry for decades, nationalising each business that went bankrupt in turn as they were unable to find buyers for their merchandise, failed to properly invest and became unprofitable. The result is that in 1976 the country went bankrupt. Literally. The PM had to go to the IMF and ask for a loan to pay the wages of those who were employed by the state because their labour did not pay for itself because it had been subsidised after it ceased to be productive. She didn't hate miners, it's not that simple. The country didn't have any money. On Northern Ireland, the hunger strikers demanded to be treated as political prisoners after planting bombs that killed civilians. Thatcher insisted that they be treated as common criminals because in her view once you start murdering people over your politics that's what you become. Politics is politics and murder is murder, there isn't a crossover and being really hungry doesn't change that. It's unfortunate that Bobby Sands thought that if he got hungry enough then murder would become political but his eventual death wasn't enough to convince me.
First of all, I'd like to say I'm offended and disgusted by what you wrote.
You seem to ignore a lot of facts. Irish people have been mistreated by English people in the past over many centuries. I would recommend you deal with these topics with that in mind seeing the side you appear to be on.
When there is such discrimination over many centuries, there will come a time where enough is enough. This happened in Northern Ireland. Due to British rule, civil rights were all but non-existant for Roman Catholics and that alone is atrocious to have happened.
Yes, this lead to conflict. There were civilian casualties.
And you, you try to tell me that these were common criminals? You dare to strip away their cause, their beliefs? That is what disgusts me. These men were brave beyond anything you'll ever fathom.
You should try to realise that things don't revolve around your country. There are other opinions, views, and cultures. And yes, this is still the case in Ireland. Even though your country has tried it's best to destroy that culture over centuries, we still hang on to whatever little we tragically have left.
Here are some stats about the causalities of the Troubles: http://cl.ly/image/2Z2w091o2C25
As you can see, of the total number of casualties, the Republicans have the lowest percentage of civilian casualties. That doesn't relieve the sadness of this but it might shed some light on what actually happened, as you seem to be blind.
Please, think.
I'm sorry for having gone off topic. I found myself very upset by such narrow minded and thoroughly offensive views.
|
On April 09 2013 05:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 05:27 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote:
Why does Scotland hate her? Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed. Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from. If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
Shutting them down entirely was definitely a better idea than modernising them for sure.
The reason we're doing so well right now and Germany so poorly is because Thatcher ruined all our industry and manufacturing, we were so lucky to have a Prime Minister with such foresight.
|
On April 09 2013 05:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 05:27 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote:
Why does Scotland hate her? Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed. Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from. If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
thats your opinion but definitely not the truth.
|
to the guy above
Although the irish have suffered at the hands of the english, those guys on the hunger strike were murders, aka common criminals, no matter how they wanted to spin it.
|
On April 09 2013 05:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 05:27 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote:
Why does Scotland hate her? Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed. Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from. If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
You know that is a false analogy.
Lets make the analogy of Maggie herself. She died at 87. She developed Alzheimer's earlier, her actions would have been like beheading her in front of her family at the hospital where it was first diagnosed. Swift, brutal, and without a thought for the victims, but at the same time kind of humane and necessary.
|
United States42640 Posts
I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
|
Wow man, a politician not everyone agreed with. That's so weird. You can still show some respect. Even if it's the internet.
|
United States42640 Posts
On April 09 2013 05:34 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 05:32 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 05:27 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote:
Why does Scotland hate her? Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed. Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from. If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society. Shutting them down entirely was definitely a better idea than modernising them for sure. The reason we're doing so well right now and Germany so poorly is because Thatcher ruined all our industry and manufacturing, we were so lucky to have a Prime Minister with such foresight.
That would have been a helpful comment in the 50s, maybe even in the 60s, not so much by the 70s. Although your plan would need to be fleshed out slightly more than "hey, you know how we're inefficient, unproductive and a complete drain on national resources, why not not be that?".
|
Northern Ireland25172 Posts
On April 09 2013 05:33 Atom Cannister wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 03:04 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:58 Clbull wrote:
On the coal miners strike and the manufacturing industry in Britain, we should have tried to save it instead of leaving it to decline like Thatcher did.
On Northern Ireland, a hard-line stance should not have been pursued especially towards Republican prisoners on hunger strike. The Good Friday agreement and a second Bloody Sunday inquiry should have happened years ago. We tried to save the mining and manufacturing industry for decades, nationalising each business that went bankrupt in turn as they were unable to find buyers for their merchandise, failed to properly invest and became unprofitable. The result is that in 1976 the country went bankrupt. Literally. The PM had to go to the IMF and ask for a loan to pay the wages of those who were employed by the state because their labour did not pay for itself because it had been subsidised after it ceased to be productive. She didn't hate miners, it's not that simple. The country didn't have any money. On Northern Ireland, the hunger strikers demanded to be treated as political prisoners after planting bombs that killed civilians. Thatcher insisted that they be treated as common criminals because in her view once you start murdering people over your politics that's what you become. Politics is politics and murder is murder, there isn't a crossover and being really hungry doesn't change that. It's unfortunate that Bobby Sands thought that if he got hungry enough then murder would become political but his eventual death wasn't enough to convince me. First of all, I'd like to say I'm offended and disgusted by what you wrote. You seem to ignore a lot of facts. Irish people have been mistreated by English people in the past over many centuries. I would recommend you deal with these topics with that in mind seeing the side you appear to be on. When there is such discrimination over many centuries, there will come a time where enough is enough. This happened in Northern Ireland. Due to British rule, civil rights were all but non-existant for Roman Catholics and that alone is atrocious to have happened. Yes, this lead to conflict. There were civilian casualties. And you, you try to tell me that these were common criminals? You dare to strip away their cause, their beliefs? That is what disgusts me. These men were brave beyond anything you'll ever fathom. You should try to realise that things don't revolve around your country. There are other opinions, views, and cultures. And yes, this is still the case in Ireland. Even though your country has tried it's best to destroy that culture over centuries, we still hang on to whatever little we tragically have left. Here are some stats about the causalities of the Troubles: http://cl.ly/image/2Z2w091o2C25 As you can see, of the total number of casualties, the Republicans have the lowest percentage of civilian casualties. That doesn't relieve the sadness of this but it might shed some light on what actually happened, as you seem to be blind. Please, think. I'm sorry for having gone off topic. I found myself very upset by such narrow minded and thoroughly offensive views.
Nope not buying it. Wah wah oh noes you're 'offended'. Being brave is not laudable if what you are doing is killing people, for whatever cause it happens to be. Tying in a modern resident of the UK with historical actions going back hundreds of years, of which he had nothing to do with is ridiculous, guilt-tripping nonsense.
The Civil Rights movement, which had cross-community representation accomplished things in a non-violent manner. The people who participated in that are worthy of respect.
Terrorists and killers, from both sides of the divide don't have to be.
|
United States42640 Posts
On April 09 2013 05:36 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 05:32 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 05:27 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote:
Why does Scotland hate her? Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed. Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from. If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society. You know that is a false analogy. Lets make the analogy of Maggie herself. She died at 87. She developed Alzheimer's earlier, her actions would have been like beheading her in front of her family at the hospital where it was first diagnosed. Swift, brutal, and without a thought for the victims, but at the same time kind of humane and necessary.
Keeping Maggie alive after she got Alzheimer's didn't bankrupt the nation and force it down a path to inevitable ruin. The two aren't really comparable in my opinion.
|
Sad to see that this thread had to turn into a pointless debate about politics. smh
RIP
|
On April 09 2013 05:35 Jaaaaasper wrote:
to the guy above
Although the irish have suffered at the hands of the english, those guys on the hunger strike were murders, aka common criminals, no matter how they wanted to spin it.
one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
|
Northern Ireland25172 Posts
On April 09 2013 05:41 clementdudu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 05:35 Jaaaaasper wrote:
to the guy above
Although the irish have suffered at the hands of the english, those guys on the hunger strike were murders, aka common criminals, no matter how they wanted to spin it. one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
No, no, no. This is the most over-quoted sentiment out there, god :p
|
On April 09 2013 05:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 05:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 09 2013 05:32 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 05:27 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote:
Why does Scotland hate her? Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed. Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from. If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society. You know that is a false analogy. Lets make the analogy of Maggie herself. She died at 87. She developed Alzheimer's earlier, her actions would have been like beheading her in front of her family at the hospital where it was first diagnosed. Swift, brutal, and without a thought for the victims, but at the same time kind of humane and necessary. Keeping Maggie alive after she got Alzheimer's didn't bankrupt the nation and force it down a path to inevitable ruin. The two aren't really comparable in my opinion.
what i am trying to say (admittedly in avery clumsy way) is that yes she had to shut the industry down, but it was done in such a way that left whole sections of the country with absolutely no hope of recovery. Maybe it was the only way, but it was brutal and harsh at the same time.
|
United States42640 Posts
On April 09 2013 05:41 clementdudu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 05:35 Jaaaaasper wrote:
to the guy above
Although the irish have suffered at the hands of the english, those guys on the hunger strike were murders, aka common criminals, no matter how they wanted to spin it. one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
They killed innocent civilians. I don't think they're in the wrong because I'm English, I just think they're in the wrong. Killing people doesn't meet my ethical standards.
|
On April 09 2013 05:41 Noro wrote:
Sad to see that this thread had to turn into a pointless debate about politics. smh
RIP
I don't mean to pick on you particularly, but what else would you expect from a thread discussing the death of a political figure like her? I've seen this comment a few times and I honestly don't understand. Are you suggesting we should write "RIP" and move on?
|
Northern Ireland25172 Posts
On April 09 2013 05:43 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 05:40 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 05:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 09 2013 05:32 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 05:27 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote:
Why does Scotland hate her? Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed. Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from. If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society. You know that is a false analogy. Lets make the analogy of Maggie herself. She died at 87. She developed Alzheimer's earlier, her actions would have been like beheading her in front of her family at the hospital where it was first diagnosed. Swift, brutal, and without a thought for the victims, but at the same time kind of humane and necessary. Keeping Maggie alive after she got Alzheimer's didn't bankrupt the nation and force it down a path to inevitable ruin. The two aren't really comparable in my opinion. what i am trying to say (admittedly in avery clumsy way) is that yes she had to shut the industry down, but it was done in such a way that left whole sections of the country with absolutely no hope of recovery. Maybe it was the only way, but it was brutal and harsh at the same time.
The Unions had become power mad at the time. It's a shame that both sides produced a situation in which they had to face off on such an issue, with the people who suffered being the men and women on the ground.
|
Northern Ireland25172 Posts
On April 09 2013 05:44 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 05:41 Noro wrote:
Sad to see that this thread had to turn into a pointless debate about politics. smh
RIP I don't mean to pick on you particularly, but what else would you expect from a thread discussing the death of a political figure like her? I've seen this comment a few times and I honestly don't understand. Are you suggesting we should write "RIP" and move on?
Well the BBC has pretty much done that all day, so it's not an entirely atypical response.
|
On April 09 2013 05:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 05:34 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 05:32 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 05:27 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote:
Why does Scotland hate her? Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed. Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from. If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society. Shutting them down entirely was definitely a better idea than modernising them for sure. The reason we're doing so well right now and Germany so poorly is because Thatcher ruined all our industry and manufacturing, we were so lucky to have a Prime Minister with such foresight. That would have been a helpful comment in the 50s, maybe even in the 60s, not so much by the 70s. Although your plan would need to be fleshed out slightly more than "hey, you know how we're inefficient, unproductive and a complete drain on national resources, why not not be that?".
There's modernising existing industries, there's retraining and financing/providing incentives for new industries and there's taking a gigantic dump on the working class completely removing their livelyhood and leaving them with nothing.
And the huge hilarity here is that having completely removed the jobs and industries the working class used to do the right wing of this country to this day spend all their time (well the time not spent whining about people who aren't white) complaining about how working class people are work shy. No shit, you were the ones who took their jobs away in the first place. They can't all work in shops if there's no one around with money to buy anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
