[News] Margaret Thatcher Statue

[SeagullinExile]

Even the ships captain said it was legitimate action as have the Argentine govt

I don't doubt that. But what would the families think?

 

[beorhthelm]

Sorry? This is a widely acknowledged fact that no one has ever disputed. It was reported widely on the news at the time so I’m baffled how you would be unaware of it. Just Google any history of the time, here’s the first one I found in literally 10 seconds, from those terrible lefties at the US Naval Institute https://www.usni.org/staggering-war-falklands

It amazes me that a thousand mothers never saw their sons again, many others with terrible lifelong physical and mental traumas - all for what? Argentina was a dictatorship at the time but the Argentines themselves overthrew that and have created democratic institutions now lasting decades. Negotiations could have saved a thousand lives, all for the sake of which flag flew over 1,800 farmers. What a senseless death rate that was.

its a fact there were some negotitation, that ended. years later Argentina invaded Falklands. the will of the people there was to remain British, which should be the end of the matter for anyone believing in democracy. its a very odd mental gymnastics to conclude that Thatcher started it.

 

[London Irish]

its a fact there were some negotitation, that ended. years later Argentina invaded Falklands. the will of the people there was to remain British, which should be the end of the matter for anyone believing in democracy. its a very odd mental gymnastics to conclude that Thatcher started it.

I repeat 1,800 people looking at a flag, barely even the size of small Sussex village. Against a thousand mothers who never saw their sons again, many others with lives ruined through horrible disfiguring injuries. Those are genuinely pyschopathic costs.

 

[beorhthelm]

I repeat 1,800 people looking at a flag, barely even the size of small Sussex village. Against a thousand mothers who never saw their sons again, many others with lives ruined through horrible disfiguring injuries. Those are genuinely pyschopathic costs.

nice appeal to emotion, doesnt alter the facts. the ones you wanted to refer to, like who started the conflict. history is made of people and nations going to war, its not "pychopathic" to defend values and believes.

 

[Palacefinder General]

I repeat 1,800 people looking at a flag, barely even the size of small Sussex village. Against a thousand mothers who never saw their sons again, many others with lives ruined through horrible disfiguring injuries. Those are genuinely pyschopathic costs.

One thing that stuns me is that the British army didn’t fully understand or officially recognise PTSD until 2006, almost 100 years after we shot young WWI deserters. Many of those returning from the Falklands had no access to psychological support with devastating consequences (‘Summer Soldier’ by a Falklands vet is a great read on that topic) . Even today Iraq and Afghanistan veterans pay privately for counselling.

 

[theboybilly]

If only she were still here

 

[Blue3]

Her popularity continues to grow within the Tory membership apparently even death cannot tarnish her and for many a statue is right and proper.

For millions she enabled them to move into home ownership and become share holders in the many privatisations of public utilities, freed the markets, reduced spending of tax payers contributions, a world of the haves and have nots.

She gave the UK a last hurrah in world politics and internationally the uk punched way above its weight under heart tenure.

While for millions of others her legacy was one that decimated British coal mining, steel works, ship building and general manufacturing all largely went to the wall leaving huge swaths of the county with no work for decades to come.

My view is one that she and a large number of her supporters were and still are evil without an ounce of empathy for anyone that was not making a success in life.

Build and put up a statue as long as I am not paying anything towards its cost I will not care, I am not a fan of toppling of statues instead I favour that any plaque should reflects all the aspects of her legacy and for that I would be happy to contribute towards

 

[GT49er]

Her popularity continues to grow within the Tory membership apparently even death cannot tarnish her and for many a statue is right and proper.

For millions she enabled them to move into home ownership and become share holders in the many privatisations of public utilities, freed the markets, reduced spending of tax payers contributions, a world of the haves and have nots.

She gave the UK a last hurrah in world politics and internationally the uk punched way above its weight under heart tenure.

While for millions of others her legacy was one that decimated British coal mining, steel works, ship building and general manufacturing all largely went to the wall leaving huge swaths of the county with no work for decades to come.

My view is one that she and a large number of her supporters were and still are evil without an ounce of empathy for anyone that was not making a success in life.

Build and put up a statue as long as I am not paying anything towards its cost I will not care, I am not a fan of toppling of statues instead I favour that any plaque should reflects all the aspects of her legacy and for that I would be happy to contribute towards

Spot on - especially about the plaque truthfully reflecting all aspects of her legacy.

 

[NooBHA]

Slightly ironic that this is actually a bust not a statue.

Just fell off my chair laughing

I am sure my sense of humour is warped - I know that Scots can laugh watching an egg boil but I am sure I sometimes laugh at the weirdest things

I remember fighting with one of my siblings when I was a child - I slapped him - He threw a shoe polish brush at me - I ducked and the brush went though a window and smashed it . He got spanked for smashing the window. And I piss myself laughing almost 50 years later every time I think of the polish brush crashing through the window.

 

[maltaseagull]

I thought 1 or 2 people died in the Falklands war?

You are correct but I don't think she actually took part.

 

[London Irish]

nice appeal to emotion, doesnt alter the facts. the ones you wanted to refer to, like who started the conflict. history is made of people and nations going to war, its not "pychopathic" to defend values and believes.

It's not an appeal to emotion, it's asking you to consider the cost in human lives, which is how everything should be truly considered. Not the manufactured claptrap of jingoism and warmongering mouthed by politicians

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I heard the Falklands was about grabbing the oil fields in Ocean.
I think I remember Tony benn saying the Falklands was the first war fought over oil.

Indeed. It was worse than that, actually.

The Argies had been mobilising their fleet on a regular basis. It was a way for the generals (the dictatorship) to keep the people onside - 'we shall retake the Malvinas, don't worry about the oppression'.

When Callaghan was PM, he was regularly briefed about Argie boat movements. We had a ship on standby that would easily reach the Falklands before the Argies. It was used several times, and the Argies just slunk back home. Didn't even make the news (it was kept quite for obvious reasons).

When Thatcher got in she regarded the Argie dictators as a bulwark against communism. She was briefed several weeks before the invasion but refused to do anything against her 'allies', refusing to believe it was a real invasion. Our fleet was sent in when it was too late. Had we not sunk the Belgrano it was debatable we would have 'won' the war.

All this was heavily spun by the mainstream media who liked Maggie and were horrified at the possibility of a Michael Foot government. With good reason.

As I said, I agreed with the Falklands 'war' but knew about all the above and was sickened by Thatcher's weakness, dithering, and stupidity. And hypocrisy. The war was avoidable, but once it became necessary, it became necessary.

I also agreed with the Iraq war. At the beginning of the declaratory press conference by Colin Powell and Jack Straw I was skeptical. As they explained the situation, at the end I was persuaded. I listened to it all. And as I have said countless times, all the mainstream of the UK agreed with it at the time, and had Mr Tony not got involved, it would have been seen as a deliberate two fingers up at America and he would have been crucified for it.

After the fact, the dodgy dossier was one of the most unneccessary pieces of crass folly and horrible own goals I have ever seen. Then, the enemies of 'New Labour' - people on the far left, and the more craven chancers among the tories - embarked on a massive load of nauseating aftertiming about Iraq. This has created the false meme that the Iraq war was illegal and immoral, and became Blair's downfall. The lying about it afterwards was excruciating, but the lying was also unneccessary and made me wonder how thick Blaire was. Sadly lots of sensible people got sucked into the anti Blaire festival that followed.

One person who cosistently voted against the Iraq war was that great icon of common sense and, doubtless, [MENTION=12935]GT49er[/MENTION]'s political hero, the right 'onourable Jeremy Corbyn.

 

[London Irish]

You stated it is a widely acknowledged fact (it really isn't) and that no one has ever disputed it (they have). Both those statements are therefore wrong,

Therefore, bollocks.

Again, I've invited you to name one credible source that investigates the history properly who disputes that the UK were negotiating sovereignty with Argentina (ie. that means, not some yahoo sounding off on a messageboard).

Can you do this? Or are you just going to go with "bollocks" again?

 

[GT49er]

Again, I've invited you to name one credible source that investigates the history properly who disputes that the UK were negotiating sovereignty with Argentina (ie. that means, not some yahoo sounding off on a messageboard).

As opposed to pointing to one retired Yank who may well not be a friend of the UK (quite a lot of them aren't - lot of sort for 'the bhoys' over there, for example). Everyone knows that the war was started to try and win the junta a little domestic support, and the immediate trigger was the withdrawal of HMS Endurance.
Let's face it, if there had been ongoing negotiations to hand over the Falklands, there wouldn't have been any reason for the Argies to invade. Think about it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Again, I've invited you to name one credible source that investigates the history properly who disputes that the UK were negotiating sovereignty with Argentina (ie. that means, not some yahoo sounding off on a messageboard).

Can you do this? Or are you just going to go with "bollocks" again?

can you cite source of active negotiations? the source you posted earlier notes the Argentine decision to take the islands by force. and this skirts around the Falklanders right to self determination, unless you are saying that doesnt matter.

 

[The Clamp]

This, like Brexit, is one of those things nobody on here has campaigned for, nobody felt passionate enough about to give anything but the faintest of mentions, nobody on here showed any fervour for it whatsoever. Yet, when it becomes manifest, they act like it’s something they have passionately advocated for decades. Insulting anyone who may question it, before they’ve even questioned it!!

You’re fooling nobody, it’s just another thing you don’t really care about but see it as a reason to bash lefties and get all Gammony.

 

[Swansman]

nice appeal to emotion, doesnt alter the facts. the ones you wanted to refer to, like who started the conflict. history is made of people and nations going to war, its not "pychopathic" to defend values and believes.

To use the famous qute from Göring, who was by no means a good person but knew a thing or two about persuading people into war:

“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Saying that war is about "defending beliefs and values" is laughable. Its the argument leaders use, but nearly all of the time - throughout history - these argument just turn out to be excuses, with the real goal being to expand the borders or grab natural resources.

But hey, who can blame them. The mainstream never learn to question authority despite endless proof that it should be quite wise to do so. The most important lesson learnt from history is that people doesnt learn from history.

 

[Hampster Gull]

It’s quite likely/possible she would have lost the second election had it not been for the Falklands war.

And the miners’ strike seemed to show her smashing the unions (something was needed, but she went way too far) and deliberately destroying the communities around the mines. If that’s not divisive, what is?

Ifs, buts and maybes. She wouldn’t have been elected if......so many ons and offs....but the fact is she was elected to be your, our, PM on three occasions.

On the unions, quite a few industries did the same. Newspapers. Whatever, I have extensive knowledge of unions. I am not surprised at all that she had to go down the route she did.

 

[SeagullDubai]

Not everyone agreed with her , although lots of people did, but she didn’t kill anyone - she should be respected as our first female PM . It’s a disgrace that as a country we allow mob rule to dictate who we should and shouldn’t honour .

The Argentinians might disagree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[London Irish]

can you cite source of active negotiations? the source you posted earlier notes the Argentine decision to take the islands by force. and this skirts around the Falklanders right to self determination, unless you are saying that doesnt matter.

The US Naval Institute, link put on this thread earlier. What's your source for saying the negotiations over sovereignty never took place. I think this is the third or fourth time I've asked you now

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk