thatcher

tolosenc

So does government intervention in private enterprise.

Dudess

Indeed. There are pluses and drawbacks to both. Worshipping at the altar of either is a bit too extreme, in my opinion.

moe_sizlak

this country needs someone like thatcher right now or the only people who will have any kind of decent lifestyle are public sector workers or those on our redicolously generous wellfare system , those who actually create wealth are being bled dry

Tchaikovsky

Will people stop saying that this country needs a leader like thatcher!?

Fratton Fred

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

Will people stop saying that this country needs a leader like thatcher!?

This country needs a leader with balls, like Thatcher.

dylano_k

Hi all,

Im 22 years old...Maggie Maggie...ehm who the fcuk is Maggie?

galwayrush

dylano_k wrote: »

Hi all,

Im 22 years old...Maggie Maggie...ehm who the fcuk is Maggie?

I thought that was Who the **** is Alice.;)

Tchaikovsky

One of the characters off Spitting Image

galwayrush

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

Will people stop saying that this country needs a leader like thatcher!?

We sure do, have you noticed the **** we're in.:rolleyes:

K-9

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This country needs a leader with balls, like Thatcher.

We had "Mac the knife" in 87. Best Finance minister we ever had.

Dyr

K-9 wrote: »

We had "Mac the knife" in 87. Best Finance minister we ever had.

And last seen sitting on the boards of the various banks and semi state bodies that are now sending us down the swannee, wasn't quite mac the knife when it came to lining his pockets.

Joycey

tbh wrote: »

From a British point of view, she refused to negotiate with people who'd planted bombs in the pubs in their cities

Yeah because refusing to negotiate is a surefire way to prevent more killing. The exploitation of the fears and prejudices of your populace in order to forward your own agenda, which does not necessarily corellate with the best interests of that same populace, is not constitutive of good leadership

tbh

Joycey wrote: »

Yeah because refusing to negotiate is a surefire way to prevent more killing

the killing is going to happen anyway. Even tho there can't be a terrorist in the world who doesn't know that the brits never negotiate, still people try. Imagine what it'd be like if they had set a precedent in the 70s, and any nutjob with an ax to grind could bend the British government to their will just by rounding up a couple of oil workers in some dustbowl somewhere. If this wasn't about the British, you'd agree with me.

remember the afghan hunger strikers in the pro-cathedral a couple of years ago? You would have been hard pressed to find half a dozen posters in the whole of AH who wouldn't have strung bertie up by the nads if he'd negotiated with them.

K-9

Bambi wrote: »

And last seen sitting on the boards of the various banks and semi state bodies that are now sending us down the swannee, wasn't quite mac the knife when it came to lining his pockets.

And Dukes, without whom it all wouldn't have happened, is head of Anglo Irish.

Dyr

and thats politics...public service me arse. :pac:

IIMII

I wouldn't wish pain on her as that would be sinking to her level. She was and is a ****. I take solace that in the end she won't get her way and that British involvement in Ireland will cease

brianthebard

tbh wrote: »

the killing is going to happen anyway. Even tho there can't be a terrorist in the world who doesn't know that the brits never negotiate, still people try. Imagine what it'd be like if they had set a precedent in the 70s, and any nutjob with an ax to grind could bend the British government to their will just by rounding up a couple of oil workers in some dustbowl somewhere. If this wasn't about the British, you'd agree with me.

remember the afghan hunger strikers in the pro-cathedral a couple of years ago? You would have been hard pressed to find half a dozen posters in the whole of AH who wouldn't have strung bertie up by the nads if he'd negotiated with them.

If the majority in AH were to choose one option then that's usually a sign to pick the other.

Lockstep

Basically; when she dies I'll be unable to comprehend anyone who feels strongly about her death. Be they pro-Thatcher or anti-Thatcher.

Fratton Fred

Is ronnie reagan dead?

Lockstep

He died in 2004 IIRC

Fratton Fred

Joycey wrote: »

Yeah because refusing to negotiate is a surefire way to prevent more killing. The exploitation of the fears and prejudices of your populace in order to forward your own agenda, which does not necessarily corellate with the best interests of that same populace, is not constitutive of good leadership

No, negotiating is a surefire way to ensure it happens again and again and again.

What if some Loyalist nutter started bombing Dublin insisting that Ireland rejoin the UK, would you give in to them so that they stopped? Or what if Al Qeada threatened to detonate a bomb every day until Ireland adopted Sharia law, would you give in?

That is pretty much what you are suggesting. Just becuase in Maggie's case the terrorists were Irish and you may empathise with their cause, it doesn't make them any less terrorists.

CiaranC

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, negotiating is a surefire way to ensure it happens again and again and again.

It may have escaped your attention, but the troubles were ended through negotiation.

Fratton Fred

CiaranC wrote: »

It may have escaped your attention, but the troubles were ended through negotiation.

eventually, as soon as the IRA leadership realised that they were never going to bomb the British government into submission.

CiaranC

Fratton Fred wrote: »

eventually, as soon as the IRA leadership realised that they were never going to bomb the British government into submission.

No, negotiation started, long, long before that. You know, by people who were actually interested in ending the conflict.

toiletduck

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is ronnie reagan dead?

Nope :eek:

Fratton Fred

CiaranC wrote: »

by people who were actually interested in ending the conflict.

There were plenty of them.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

eventually, as soon as the IRA leadership realised that they were never going to bomb the British government into submission.

Weren't you saying a few posts before that that negotiation would be submission?

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Weren't you saying a few posts before that that negotiation would be submission?

it depends on what grounds the negotiations take place. if it is a case of meet our demands or we will bomb people then it is submission. if it is a case of "We have given up our arms and we would like to talk" then it is a logical conclusion, no?

The only meaningful negotiations happened after the IRA started decomissioning did they not, after that, it was a stepped process, negotiations take place, more arms get decomissioned and so on.

IIMII

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it depends on what grounds the negotiations take place. if it is a case of meet our demands or we will bomb people then it is submission.

Wasn't that the approach by the British during the treaty that brought about partition in the first place?

ynotdu

[YOUTUBEXUvQzgxTxmE][/YOUTUBE]



Few quick points,I am Republic of Ireland(as were we come from seems to be more important than the morality of any act we defend)


The Belgrano was a rust-bucket that was heading AWAY from the exclusion zone when sank.

as other posters have said the Argentine leadership was a Junta with Galteri as its figurehead,the Argentine Navy leader refused to order his navy to sea and the Argie soldiers were defeated and demoralised even before the short ground war began.

The UK has freely admitted that they were almost out of ammunition when the white flag was spotted over port stanley.

Thatcher by taking away political status started the ball rolling for the dirty protest and then the hunger strikes knowing it was going to lead to death.

The IRA used the hunger strikers in a cynical way and were as willing as Thatcher to see them die.

To the poster who said words to the effect that just because an Island is beside a country It follows that the sovereinty belongs to same referencing 1916 in opposistion to what i said

the island close to Argentina(I am not going to name it as even doing that,would be construed as being on one side or another!)You&others claim it is under the Queens protectrate,well SURE simple reason is over the course of history the British empire *planted* people loyal to the crown in stategic areas all around the globe!nearest example being the Scots planted in Ulster(they were used as well)for military reasons.

I still say all those calling for Thatcher to die in agony really need to question how cruel THEY are?

It does look as if she is on the way though: OUT OUT OUT though!:)


She wont go to hell though,coz the devil would not survive the competition for who,s in charge:D

see the video below