EPTMargaret Thatcher dies at age 87 - Page 22
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
CajunMan
United States823 Posts
| ||
|
IPA
United States3206 Posts
Thatcher is remembered as The Iron Lady only because she possessed completely negative traits such as persistent stubbornness and a determined refusal to listen to others. Every move she made was charged by negativity; she destroyed the British manufacturing industry, she hated the miners, she hated the arts, she hated the Irish Freedom Fighters and allowed them to die, she hated the English poor and did nothing at all to help them, she hated Greenpeace and environmental protectionists, she was the only European political leader who opposed a ban on the ivory trade, she had no wit and no warmth and even her own cabinet booted her out. She gave the order to blow up The Belgrano even though it was outside of the Malvinas Exclusion Zone—and was sailing AWAY from the islands! When the young Argentinean boys aboard The Belgrano had suffered a most appalling and unjust death, Thatcher gave the thumbs-up sign for the British press. Iron? No. Barbaric? Yes. She hated feminists even though it was largely due to the progression of the women's movement that the British people allowed themselves to accept that a prime minister could actually be female. But because of Thatcher, there will never again be another woman in power in British politics, and rather than opening that particular door for other women, she closed it. Thatcher will only be fondly remembered by sentimentalists who did not suffer under her leadership, but the majority of British working people have forgotten her already, and the people of Argentina will be celebrating her death. As a matter of recorded fact, Thatcher was a terror without an atom of humanity. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
Asymmetric
Scotland1309 Posts
The economy grew largely in part because we had the (mis?)fortune of being slap in the middle of an oil boom during the 80's and unlike a country like Norway that set up extensive sovereign wealth funds with there energy deposits, Britain spent hard and kept corporation tax on oil company's low for a short term net boost in growth. | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On April 10 2013 04:13 Shiragaku wrote: Personally, I think the Falkland Wars were justified. The people of Falkland wanted to stay with Britain but Argentina said otherwise not to mention that Argentina had a military junta at the time. Leftists who justify Argentina really make me angry. I'm not sure there are any leftists who try to justify the Argentinian invasion, are there? | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On April 10 2013 04:19 Iyerbeth wrote: I'm not sure there are any leftists who try to justify the Argentinian invasion, are there? Some anti-imperialists will justify anything as long as it is against an imperial nation. I know a few of these guys in real life and more on the internet. Thank God they are not the mainstream left. EDIT - I am a leftist myself, but you cannot justify a fascist government to overthrow a liberal democracy just for the sake of weakening a powerful nation. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
edit: i guess i should say, i am not sure it would have cost more money and i'm not sure it would have cost more lives. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
| ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On April 10 2013 04:25 nunez wrote: i think it would be argentinas right to reclaim the falklands. i need only to look at a map to see whose land that is. britain could boat the people who considered themselves more british than argentine back to britain. it would have cost less money and fewer lives would have been lost. a war is not justified unless all other options are depleted. edit: i guess i should say, i am not sure it would have cost more money and i'm not sure it would have cost more lives. What you are justifying is what some far-right Israeli politicians say about the Palestinians. Also, the island was uninhabited when it was first discovered by the Europeans. | ||
|
Asymmetric
Scotland1309 Posts
On April 10 2013 04:13 Shiragaku wrote: Personally, I think the Falkland Wars were justified. The people of Falkland wanted to stay with Britain but Argentina said otherwise not to mention that Argentina had a military junta at the time. Leftists who justify Argentina really make me angry. Of all the things Thatcher did, the Falklands War is probably the least contentious. We were attacked and she answered. Non-interventionists will justify any pacifist stance regardless of how inane the situation. The problem was not the war, the contentious part is that she rode to a landslide victory in a snap election (British prime ministers don't sit fixed terms, they can call elections) on the back of it in 83 I always suspected the Argentina's got the better deal in that war, they got rid of a military junta we got stuck with Thatcher for another 2 terms. | ||
|
Rossie
136 Posts
On April 10 2013 04:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote: No. That is exactly the definition given in the government document that I linked to.Yes, the economy was more or less at 'full employment' during the 70's. The economy probably went beyond full employment at times as well. Your definition is off though - frictional unemployment is not about people taking breaks or going on maternity leave. On April 10 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: "The good" has proven a bum steer. Other European countries did not go down this path and they have fared much better than we have, despite not having anything close to the inherited and natural advantages of the UK.The economic record is mixed - some good some bad. You need to acknowledge the good. "Reaganomics" might work passably well for the United States to some extent. It doesn't work for the UK. It probably won't even work for the US once the proceeds of the dot com revolution start to thin out. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 10 2013 02:06 mcc wrote: That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution. land ownership is a rent seeking distortion. not the other way around. (only the portion of unimproved value though. so if you build a house on a land, that house is yours and you can own it, but the land itself is public) | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On April 10 2013 04:22 Shiragaku wrote: Some anti-imperialists will justify anything as long as it is against an imperial nation. I know a few of these guys in real life and more on the internet. Thank God they are not the mainstream left. Ok, so a bit of searching about and I'm actually amazed to see there really are people who hold that position! On April 10 2013 04:25 nunez wrote: i think it would be argentinas right to reclaim the falklands. i need only to look at a map to see whose land that is. britain could boat the people who considered themselves more british than argentine back to britain. it would have cost less money and fewer lives would have been lost. a war is not justified unless all other options are depleted. At the time of the conflict in the Tactcherite era, there were 2 Argentinians on the islands, who were married to islanders. The invasion was a last ditch attempt by a fascist government guilty of suppressing and murdering its own people to use nationalism as a balwark against a national strike. To allow the islands to fall under their rule would have been a far worse option. There was no legitimate claim. That's not to say I think everything the UK government did was correct at that time, but they were certainly not the villain in that instance. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
why? i thought i made a simple point. i wouldn't think a war was justified unless it was the last option. it does seem to me like that land rightfully belongs to the argentinian people. it could be an easier solution to just secede the land, and evacuate whoever considers themselves british from that island (considering how few people atually are living on them) back to britain. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Asymmetric
Scotland1309 Posts
On April 10 2013 04:35 nunez wrote: why? i thought i made a simple point. i wouldn't think a war was justified unless it was the last option. it does seem to me like that land rightfully belongs to the argentinian people. it could be an easier solution to just secede the land, and evacuate whoever considers themselves british from that island (considering how few people atually are living on them) back to britain. It seems to me like Denmark owns Norway. You mind moving to Sweden for the sake of peace? | ||
|
Grimmyman123
Canada939 Posts
She made the tough decisions when it mattered. Critics will be critics, and will often second guess her choices and actions, and that is easy to do because the critic is not the one who is accountable. | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
On April 10 2013 04:13 Shiragaku wrote: Personally, I think the Falkland Wars were justified. The people of Falkland wanted to stay with Britain but Argentina said otherwise not to mention that Argentina had a military junta at the time. Leftists who justify Argentina really make me angry. There's a third stance on it too, which is that the war was justified but some of the actions taken during it were not. An example from another section of history would be Stalin's war against Germany: he was attacked, and it was just that he retaliate. But the rapes committed by his soldiers against civilian women were not justified. What do you think of that condemnation of Thatcher? | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On April 10 2013 04:48 Acritter wrote: There's a third stance on it too, which is that the war was justified but some of the actions taken during it were not. An example from another section of history would be Stalin's war against Germany: he was attacked, and it was just that he retaliate. But the rapes committed by his soldiers against civilian women were not justified. What do you think of that condemnation of Thatcher? I am not too familiar with the aftermath of the war except for the fact that Britain won, but I do not think I read any atrocities or war crimes committed by Britain during the war. But as for her other policies such as union busting and Pinochet, it is something I find to be completely despicable. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
she's ideological and medieval | ||
| ||
