Associate
- Joined
- 8 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 182
No, I simply fail to see why so many should die to achieve so little.
Baroness Thatcher in Hospital
- Thread starter No1newts
- Start date
- Status
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 182
If it were legitimate, why would all the Conqueror's logs "Disappear" when the event was looked into?
And what point was that
That your simplistic comment was simplistic. I can make it more simplistic if you like and replace simplistic with stupid?
It was a military vessel so the exclusion zone didn't apply.
Wrong..again
"the British Government stated on April 23rd, that ‘the approach’ of any warship or aircraft which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of the British forces in the South Atlantic’ would encounter an ‘appropriate’ response"
Belgrano was not ‘approaching’ the task force.
"Once the Task Force had arrived, it then announced on 28 April the Total Exclusion Zone"
There was a peace treaty on the table but maggie sank the ship to get back in power every one knows that.
That would all be great, if only it wasn't completely subjective & wrong in my opinion.
Which makes you nothing more than a massive hypocrite.
A pretty fair evaluation.
The part highlighted in bold in the main reason for the hate in my experience, which is localised in certain areas.
Southern England didn't feel the impact of her policies in the same was as large areas up north - it should hardly be surprising that people who suffered under her government are going to hold a stronger negative viewpoint.
My dislike from her is based pretty much on her driving greed as a positive social trait & for further entrenching people into unproductive class warfare, that's ignoring the catastrophe neoliberal policies she put in place which the following labour government continued - not to mention she wasn't exactly blossoming with empathy.
Basically it seems,
Group 1 - Thatcher had no negative impact on my life, so she's great.
Group 2 - Thatcher negatively impacted either my life, or my parents life - so I hate her.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Sinking the Belgrano didn't win her the election. Michael Foot did.
You're forgetting Group 3. Sun readers. The Sun was a massive fan of Thatcher and so therefore their knuckle dragging readership were brainwashed into trogladiting (good new word there) themselves along to the booths and just about managed to sign the ballot papers with their crosses in the appropriate box.
Gotta love the way that a person who took things away and made lives a bit harder but made the country much stronger is seen in a worse light than Blair/Brown who gave people things yet bankrupted the country in the process and brought about our current situation
If she had lost her elections to some Labour wimp then today the Falklands would belong to Argentina (and most likely Gibraltar to Spain as a result). We would be spending Euros and be in a much weaker position in Europe and the world.
The sad fact is most people want an easy life. Labour sell the lie and most fools buy into it and the country suffers. It will keep happening too as people cannot see (or refuse to see) beyond the immediate.
You implied that my opinion was merely taken from wiki, at least that was impression I got, hence the nature of my reply. Apologies if I grabbed the stick at the wrong end
Of course I accept that everything comes from an emotional context of some form, it is unavoidable. However (and perhaps this comes from the dry nature of studying law
) I find that those most closely involved in something can be swayed overly by emotion and will refuse or be unwilling to take in a larger view due to this.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,409
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Quoted for truth
Labour historically had a terrible way of selecting no hoper leaders. Foot, Kinnock, I mean seriously?
IMO Milliband isn't too special either, but he was again selected by the unions not the party rank and file.
Labour learn't their lesson eventually and moved to the centre ground or basically as far to the right as they could to collect the centre ground. So they finally won an election, started spending other peoples money like it was going out of fashion and created a boom, of course they lied to the ignorant and unintelligent that boom and bust was eradicated so got elected again.
I think a lot of hatred was bred by the poll tax.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
To be fair, I actually think what Thatcher did to the unions was a good thing. Doing an Eco degree, I can go on and on about both the bad and good things about unions...
How much she should have helped some of the industries she destroyed is certainly a valid point.
The fact of the matter is though, very few prime ministers are so well known, and stir so much emotion in the populous. One thing you cannot deny about Thatcher is that she achieved a lot. Whether you think what she achieved was good, or came from the devil himself, she managed to achieve huge amounts of things in her time in power, she did have a long term as well, which says a lot in itself, but ultimately she achieved a hell of a lot more than a lot of PMs since, and at least managed to get stuff done, again, unlike a lot of today's modern PMs who step toe around everything.
There have been worse PMs since *cough*brown*cough*. What kind of person thinks boom and bust is over....
kd
How much she should have helped some of the industries she destroyed is certainly a valid point.
The fact of the matter is though, very few prime ministers are so well known, and stir so much emotion in the populous. One thing you cannot deny about Thatcher is that she achieved a lot. Whether you think what she achieved was good, or came from the devil himself, she managed to achieve huge amounts of things in her time in power, she did have a long term as well, which says a lot in itself, but ultimately she achieved a hell of a lot more than a lot of PMs since, and at least managed to get stuff done, again, unlike a lot of today's modern PMs who step toe around everything.
There have been worse PMs since *cough*brown*cough*. What kind of person thinks boom and bust is over....
kd
Apt username, I'm sure there will be a warm welcome for Thatcher when she finally does pop her clogs. It's not as if she will get into Heaven, the greedy cow would probably try and sell it.
Youre a horrid beggar but I chuckled
She made decisions that needed to be made
I didn't actually, I was making a general point about how our Internet fed society often takes one source for its facts and feels informed. I could have replaced wiki with any form of media.You implied that my opinion was merely taken from wiki, at least that was impression I got, hence the nature of my reply. Apologies if I grabbed the stick at the wrong end
Context is vital to a broader understanding and to remove emotion is to remove context. I appreciate how law can force you to coral things into nice pots of right and wrong but law does not help when reviewing history. It's there to associate actions with right and wrong against a defied criteria, which doesn't suit defining historical context and why forming an opinion from written history will never be as good as forming it with addition of experience.Of course I accept that everything comes from an emotional context of some form, it is unavoidable. However (and perhaps this comes from the dry nature of studying law
Do people actually understand the unions and the 'work' ethic they espoused in the 70's, the militancy and the impact it had on British industry? You have extreme left wingers seeking to fight the machine using normal folks as their army and British industry as their battlefield. They needed aligning and she did that effectively and though many people felt bitter about it I firmly believe it was a good thing as anarchy needs crushing in my book.
Agree.
I agree context and an emotional viewpoint can play an important part in telling the whole story my point is though that I don't find heavily emotionalised views to be as useful as others.
I would rather read/listen to someone speak on a subject who is far removed from it but presents a balanced view of all the facts than someone who, for example, was in one of the industries effected by Maggies actions. One can provide a balanced and reasoned view, the other will be emotionally charged.
- Status