Should Maggie Thatcher get a State funeral.
- Thread starter mark vincent
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Ever heard of the saying the best form of defence is attack? There would have been no reason to assume that they would not represent a threat, if not then, at some point further into the conflict. Like I said, good call and fighting by the rules is something that only results in you getting smacked hard.I think the fact that they didn't either emerge from their own 12 mile limit, or stayed in port might represent 'not planning to attack' don't you...unless of course they had some 'super gun' which no-one else knew about (a bit like iraq and WMD's...)
No energy source is without its downsides.Does nuclear power have an enviromental impact?...
Go see 1984, bit of a different story then.
You haven'twouldn't want to kick you out of your cosy spot...
So anything that we don't know for sure isn't a threat we should attack?...
Bingo! - so don't dismiss one of them out of hand when you aren't in possession of the facts...
Skewing the market against one particular form of energy for political reasons is hardly a place to base an argument on is it!
In a war (whether declared as one, or not) situation, I would say that makes perfect sense. The SAS went off to tonk a few Super Etendards on the mainland - is that wrong in your book as well?So anything that we don't know for sure isn't a threat we should attack?...
What did I dismiss? At that time in 1984, it (coal) was not economical and environmental considerations were not part of the discussion that you and I were having.Bingo! - so don't dismiss one of them out of hand when you aren't in possession of the facts...
What was skewed about it? It was expensive, it was uneconomical to extract, there were cheaper sources in Europe. And Scargill was a prat for upping the ante, trying to protect his own, well-remunerated position. He should have learnt from the Belgrano incident that she was not above booting him in the balls when he wasn't looking. Some men, you just can't teach
.Sponsored Links
The Falklands war was a Godsend for her. We were at war but with no fear of being bombed by the Argies so we were really safe and could concentrate on ‘supporting’ our lads from a safe distance.
Euphoria reigned on 14 June 1982 when Argentina surrendered. That euphoria made everyone forget the problems and ‘hard times’ for a very long time. Less than twelve months later (9 June 1983) she went to the polls and we were reminded of how good a leader she was during the war.
Sinking the Belgrano and ‘winning’ the war certainly helped her get re-elected.
Euphoria reigned on 14 June 1982 when Argentina surrendered. That euphoria made everyone forget the problems and ‘hard times’ for a very long time. Less than twelve months later (9 June 1983) she went to the polls and we were reminded of how good a leader she was during the war.
Sinking the Belgrano and ‘winning’ the war certainly helped her get re-elected.
Ah...so given that those aircraft were engaging in warfare before the belgrano sinking, and the fact that an aircraft might have a slight advantage in 'reach' towards the fleet, what other basis do you have for equating these events?..
You said it was uneconomical, and therefore not worth subsidising...nuclear power has never been economical, and has benefitted from far greater subsidies that would have ever been necessary for coal!
Oh... so one minute it was a necesssary military action, but next it's a useful political threat!
I think you're just proving my points without thinking about it...
The post-war feeling of euphoria and that it helped her in the polls are true enough, but can you imagine the way the country (and the Bennies, of course) would have felt if the grinning numbskull or the dour Presbyterian had been in power back then, though? Completely miserable, as they stood by, did nothing and watched the Argies take over.
Ronny and Mags together would have sorted these Al Queda and other fundamentalists, no problem.
Ronny and Mags together would have sorted these Al Queda and other fundamentalists, no problem
.Ah...so given that those aircraft were engaging in warfare before the belgrano sinking, and the fact that an aircraft might have a slight advantage in 'reach' towards the fleet, what other basis do you have for equating these events?..
You said it was uneconomical, and therefore not worth subsidising...nuclear power has never been economical, and has benefitted from far greater subsidies that would have ever been necessary for coal!
And enviromental issues have always been around for nuclear, along with pollution from coal - so don't think 'green' issues have only been around since 'green' taxes have been introduced!
Oh... so one minute it was a necesssary military action, but next it's a useful political threat!
I think you're just proving my points without thinking about it...
[/quote]Those two with their foreign policies laid the foundations for the emergence of such groups!Ronny and Mags together would have sorted these Al Queda and other fundamentalists, no problem
I wasn't trying to: I was assuming that you, would, in some way; not least as the garden fence has already been brought into this for some arcane reason. In war, you take whatever advantage you can glean.
I did and it wasn't; nuclear power otoh, is not a finite supply of energy. But does have its downsides. Yin, yan...
Uh? It was a necessary thing to do, it had nothing to do with being a political threat, those avenues were long since exhausted by that stage, so off came the gloves. Why in this country do so many people seem to have a thing about being seen to play fair in war?
You keep on thinking that, if it makes you happyI think you're just proving my points without thinking about it...
.Ronny was a bit off the wall, maybe, but I don't recall Mags being gungho and telling or forcing with military might other countries - Argies excepted - how to conduct themselves.Those two with their foreign policies laid the foundations for the emergence of such groups!Ronny and Mags together would have sorted these Al Queda and other fundamentalists, no problem
you will of course forgotten her statements towards libya (and allowing the f111's to use our bases)...?
or the fact she was instrumental in propping up elder bush in the run-up to gulf war one?
like I say, your lack of facts betrays you...
No idea...and why do you say so many?
but it might just be that by 'not playng fair' in that instance, a chance (however slight, and the peace avenues were not fully exhausted at that point) for a diplomatic solution was scuppered for the political gain of one person!...and if she'd cared about those who would inevitably lose their lives as a result, as much as she did about her thick tw*t of a son in a desert with no sense of direction, she'd have come to a different conclusion...
Was that before or after Lockerbie? Genuine q, I don't remember the chronology.
Yep and I bet, had she not got the boot, that she wouldn't have chickened out on the Basra Highway either, the lack of will ultimately leading to the current situation there.
Because there seems to be this requirement for self-flagellation. Dresden got mentioned on here within the last few days. Yes it was carpet-bombed, but this was after how many years at war? NI another case in point: the RoE over there were ridiculous. With the will, PIRA could have been turned over, long before the GF sell-out and the emergence of the Chuckle Brothers - and all those pointless civvy and military deaths.
There was more chance of getting a fart out of a spacesuit than there was of a negotiated peace. Galtieri went in to Las Malvinas to try and bolster his flagging regime and would never have ceded any ground, literally or figuratively, having bigged it up on the mainland. Agree about MT, though, he is most def a knob!
Back on topic, did you vote yes or no then? After all this, it might surprise you t learn that I said no - but then that's from a pov that I don't think any PM should have one. Winnie was the exception: he deserved one just for his turn of phrase, as much as anything
.Bombing of libya: april 15, 1986
Lockerbie: december 21, 1988
So what was that about "I don't recall Mags being gungho and telling or forcing with military might other countries "...?
Do you need to ask?...
Sponsored Links
