thatcher

brianthebard

Who came up with i ain't gonna work on maggie's farm no more? Brilliant!

ejmaztec

keano_afc wrote: »

I think he's referring to the footballer with a penchant for knocking out other players, see Pedro Mendes.

I know that but I tend to go of on a tangent.:pac:

Crotchety

Stop dissing mags. You'd do her if you had the chance ye hypocrites.

ejmaztec

brianthebard wrote: »

Who came up with i ain't gonna work on maggie's farm no more? Brilliant!

Half the voting population of the UK a week after she got elected.

Dudess

♫ wrote: »

The woman should be gone. The IRA were unlucky. If they blew her up nobody would care in comparisson to the "innocent" people they killed

Why the quote-marks? And thank **** the IRA didn't kill her - imagine how miserable life would have been made for the already crappily treated Irish living in England had the IRA succeeded...

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

A lot of people in Chile are still pro Pinochet. Irish people have a thing against her because of the way she treated terrorists in the 80s. She took a hard line in dealing with terrorists who tried to blow her up on occasion. Can't really blame her can you?

I don't see anything on my posts indicating I had a problem with her taking a hard line against the provos (strangely enough though, there wasn't anywhere near such a hard line taken by her against loyalist paramilitaries). Although Gibraltar was outrageous - a "shoot to kill" policy without a trial is anti-democratic no matter who it is (cue: "and I suppose the IRA were democratic" from Thatcher apologists).
I'm Irish and the main thing I have against her is her friendship with Pinochet (one of her reasonings for the Falklands was to save its people from a brutal Argentinian dictator - LOL :rolleyes:) - just Google "Pinochet torture"... although don't if you have a weak stomach. And so what if some Chileans are pro Pinochet? That doesn't lessen the horror of what he did. His fans are greedy fat cats anyway who had a vested interest in him being in power.
And not all Irish people have a problem with her because of her hard line against the IRA - some of us dislike her simply because she's an awful person, and she was anti Irish, IRA or no IRA.
LOL at people who say she "showed" the IRA - she may as well have recruited for them...

Have to say I'm pretty surprised at some of the people here (not all of them) who just skirt around the awful things she did - you can express your admiration of her economic policies while acknowledging she was a **** you know and without going on about how "great" a person she is... The two aren't mutually exclusive. I agree people genuinely believe some of her policies were highly beneficial, but calling her "one of the greatest leaders ever" etc just looks really attention-seeking - and designed to rile.

ejmaztec

♫ wrote: »

Stop dissing mags. You'd do her if you had the chance ye hypocrites.

I think you must be out of tune with the rest of humanity.:P

toiletduck

Dudess wrote: »

Have to say I'm pretty surprised at some of the people here (not all of them) who just skirt around the awful things she did - you can express your admiration of her economic policies while acknowledging she was a **** you know and without going on about how "great" a person she is... The two aren't mutually exclusive. I agree people genuinely believe some of her policies were highly beneficial, but calling her "one of the greatest leaders ever" etc just looks really attention-seeking - and designed to rile.

So when people do the above ("Great leader") it's attention seeking, whereas expressing a will to kill/that she be killed/tortured in ever more inventive ways by posters is... Really seems like selective reading of the thread.

I'm Irish and the main thing I have against her is her friendship with Pinochet (one of her reasonings for the Falklands was to save its people from a brutal Argentinian dictator - LOL :rolleyes:)

I haven't heard that, protecting the remnants of the Empire (a few bloody islands) did her just fine. But the resulting war did help with the collapse of a horrible regime in Argentina. I could go into a WW2 comparison between Stalin and the Western Allies but even I wouldn't buy it

old boy

i lived and struggled through her reign, she championed the likes of richard branson and rubert murdock, (remember wapping how many jobs went there)not alone did she detest the irish people she actually despised them as well, she turned on her own the lower middle classes, does any one know of an english shopkeeper, even harrods is not english owned. as other posters have said she sold the family silver to subsidise unemployment, i will not comment on her political activitys, she was lucky all her live now she has dementia still lucky. i almost forgot to say there is 3 million put aside for her funeral, who will be the biggist cheerleader, murdock

javaboy

brianthebard wrote: »

Who came up with i ain't gonna work on maggie's farm no more? Brilliant!

Bob Dylan but when I added it as a tag I made it my own.

An Fear Aniar

old boy wrote: »

i lived and struggled through her reign, she championed the likes of richard branson

Whatever about Murdoch, I think Richard Branson is not a villain, and a good employer by all accounts.

.

ynotdu

Really enjoyed this thread,read every post,watched every video,some great and educational posts!

To the OP(and some who agreed with you)wishing pain or suffering or death on another is in my opinion a bit sick!

Historians always wait hundreds of years to figure out who was right and who was wrong(if only things were that black and white)

before she came to power.Denis Healy had spent a night on the phone to the IMF as the UK was going to be bankrupt the next day!

Jim Callaghan had sent in the Brit troops at the request of Paddy Devlin as catholics were being overun.Catholics were giving the soldiers cups of tea!

when Callaghan got to be PM after wilson stepped down mid-term(turned out he knew he was in the early stage of dementia)Callaghan got NO support from the unions>Winter of discontent and was hammered by Thatcher.It could be argued that the unions brought Thatcher to power?
well whatever the truth they made way for *that woman*(glad to see the Belgrano was mentioned,on her orders sunk with heavy loss of life as it was sailing AWAY from the Island.The UK had big problems,Thatcher was NOT the answer!

Crotchety

As soon as she mentions Francis the crowd jeer at the bitch.

ynotdu

♫ wrote: »

As soon as she mentions Francis the crowd jeer at the bitch.

LOL so they did 608! I had not noticed until on your prompt I listened again

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manic Moran

(glad to see the Belgrano was mentioned,on her orders sunk with heavy loss of life as it was sailing AWAY from the Island.

And the problem with this is?

Direction has nothing to do with anything, it can change as quickly as it takes to say 'hard rudder left.' As Woodward very correctly points out, what's important is capability, and the ship was very capable of being the Southern pincer of a move to trap the Task Force between the Belgrano's group and the Venticinco de Mayo's Northern group. And, as it turned out, those were precisely the instructions that Belgrano was operating under. It was moving West to buy time as the prevailing weather conditions did not permit a launch of the A-4s from the Argentine carrier.

Basically, there was nothing legally or militarily wrong with the sinking. If Argentina didn't want its second-largest warship sunk, it shouldn't have taken on the Royal Navy in the first place.

How's your Spanish?

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=702442&high=belgrano%20pico%20malvinas

From the Google Translation:

At 23 years of sinking, the Navy insists on considering the attack on the Argentine cruiser warfare as a painful but legitimate on the part of United Kingdom. Still, the persistent myth of "war crime" appeared in the fog of propaganda.
<snip>
Immediately to your left crossing Admiral (R) Enrique Molina Pico, former head of the Navy, who through a letter to the editor of La Nacion stated its position, common in the navy, that the cruiser General Belgrano fell in battle .
<snip>
"Every time I hear talk of the victims of the Belgrano me sick. They are heroes and should be remembered," explained Bonzo the nation in 1997. He wrote a book in which the real story of that day. I commented on several occasions with chroniclers of this newspaper: "I do not like when talking about the Belgrano as a war crime. If I had seen an English ship at the time of the withdrawal does not have any doubt that we had attacked. We were not a white harmless. The Belgrano had 15 guns 152 mm, was equipped with Exocet missiles

If the Captain of Belgrano said it was a fair kill, if the Navy who owned it said it was a fair kill, and if nobody can point to any rule at all that says it was not a fair kill, there's nothing much more to say, is there?

NTM

samantha2000

I've always admired Maggie. She had more balls than Cowen and Browne will ever have, even their freaking names almost rhyme.

A_SN

samantha2000 wrote: »

I've always admired Maggie. She had more balls than Cowen and Browne will ever have, even their freaking names almost rhyme.

If Cowen and Brown rhyme then Thatcher rhymes with Hitler :pac:

ynotdu

Manic Moran wrote: »

And the problem with this is?

Direction has nothing to do with anything, it can change as quickly as it takes to say 'hard rudder left.' As Woodward very correctly points out, what's important is capability, and the ship was very capable of being the Southern pincer of a move to trap the Task Force between the Belgrano's group and the Venticinco de Mayo's Northern group. And, as it turned out, those were precisely the instructions that Belgrano was operating under. It was moving West to buy time as the prevailing weather conditions did not permit a launch of the A-4s from the Argentine carrier.

Basically, there was nothing legally or militarily wrong with the sinking. If Argentina didn't want its second-largest warship sunk, it shouldn't have taken on the Royal Navy in the first place.

How's your Spanish?

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=702442&high=belgrano%20pico%20malvinas

From the Google Translation:


If the Captain of Belgrano said it was a fair kill, if the Navy who owned it said it was a fair kill, and if nobody can point to any rule at all that says it was not a fair kill, there's nothing much more to say, is there?

The problem with it is :HAVE a look at the globe and explain to Me why in the name of Jazus did Britain think what happened was ANYTHING to do with them?what idiotic behaviour for her to defend a few islanders 1000,s of miles away at the possible cause of thousands of UK troops deaths for some stubborn idiots who knew well that it is an island off the coast of Argentina and a union jack ever being placed there was ridiculous.but then again the union jack ended up in a lot of places it did not belong,did,nt it?

Imagine Argentina sending its armed forces to say Isle of white or even a place off the coast of Ireland called Rockall were a union jack was planted,how effin stupid,still it must be hard to let go when imperialism and death was along the lines of cricket and rugby as a sport to a nation?

Your WRONG about the Belgrano AND You know You are,It was a war crime,just dont expect the Channel *Blighty*to tell it like it was.

Dyr

Not a fan of the ould bag, but if you're at war with a country I'd consider their warships fair game no matter what. Though maggie never declared war if memory serves

Fratton Fred

ynotdu wrote: »

The problem with it is :HAVE a look at the globe and explain to Me why in the name of Jazus did Britain think what happened was ANYTHING to do with them?what idiotic behaviour for her to defend a few islanders 1000,s of miles away at the possible cause of thousands of UK troops deaths for some stubborn idiots who knew well that it is an island off the coast of Argentina and a union jack ever being placed there was ridiculous.but then again the union jack ended up in a lot of places it did not belong,did,nt it?

Imagine Argentina sending its armed forces to say Isle of white or even a place off the coast of Ireland called Rockall were a union jack was planted,how effin stupid,still it must be hard to let go when imperialism and death was along the lines of cricket and rugby as a sport to a nation?

Your WRONG about the Belgrano AND You know You are,It was a war crime,just dont expect the Channel *Blighty*to tell it like it was.

so islands automatically belong to their nearest neighbour? wasn't there a bit of a fuss back in 1916 about that?

An Fear Aniar

ynotdu wrote: »

The problem with it is :HAVE a look at the globe and explain to Me why in the name of Jazus did Britain think what happened was ANYTHING to do with them?what idiotic behaviour for her to defend a few islanders 1000,s of miles away at the possible cause of thousands of UK troops deaths for some stubborn idiots who knew well that it is an island off the coast of Argentina and a union jack ever being placed there was ridiculous.

Because the islanders are British subjects. Their wish was to remain in the UK and not become Argentine citizens. It's the same principle at work in the Northern Ireland peace accords.

.

Acacia

LOL at the tag "Iron Lady seeks Iron Man". :pac:

ejmaztec

Anyway, when she does go, she'll spend eternity eating overdone toast with Pinochet.

dr oatker

Why are a bunch of (mainly) Irish people getting so worked up about Thatcher? She was BRITISH! nothing to do with us

Thundercats Ho

When lucifer finally calls her home, i imagine i'll give a few mates a bell, and nip out for a beer or two. I'm not saying i'll be blaring Wolfe Tones songs or anything, but a quiet pint and a wry smile will do me nicely.

walshb

netwhizkid wrote: »

Margaret Thatcher the greatest political leader of the late 20th century in Europe, alongside Ronald Reagan she is a legend and had the world followed their examples more we might not be in the current mess we are in now.

I wonder would the relatives of those 323 killed on the Belgrano agree?

tolosenc

walshb wrote: »

I wonder would the relatives of those 323 killed on the Belgrano agree?

The 323 members of the Argentinian Armed Forces killed when their invasion of sovereign British soil was crushed by a superior army?

walshb

How about the many relatives of the men she allowed starve to death in the H-Blocks?

A nasty nasty piece of work and one only has to look at Maggie to see the 'evil' within!
She really does actually look evil. I'd say her like would have made great nuns
in those industrial schools!

Poccington

walshb wrote: »

I wonder would the relatives of those 323 killed on the Belgrano agree?

Obviously they wouldn't, the same way the relatives of the 20 people killed on HMS Sheffield and the other British dead would think Galtieri is a ****.

I fail to see your point though?

walshb

Poccington wrote: »

Obviously they wouldn't, the same way the relatives of the 20 people killed on HMS Sheffield and the other British dead would think Galtieri is a ****.

I fail to see your point though?

Who said I had a point?

I am simply asking a question!