So Mrs T got something right then!
- Thread starter Thermo
- Start date
Sponsored Links
D
david and julie
Damocles said:
Can you broaden your comment a little please. Particularly in relation to the council taxV poll tax and the doubling under labour, I would also welcome your comments on TB's apparent refusal to listen to other views on Iraq.
Maggie was a shocker, but I don't remember her doing anything she wasn't elected to do. TB is a totally different thing.
btw. you have left unanswered comments in the EU debate.
We are talking about council tax doubling under labour? Nothing new in that. If memory serves Mrs T et al introduced a special increase in the rate of VAT to finance a reduction in the poll tax since everyone was complaining that it was HUGE. They also introduced desperate measures to cap council budgets. Desperate, because the great majority of a council's expenditure is totally beyond its control. It all goes on services which they are obliged by central government to provide.
Mrs T was certainly principled and firm. Dear Tony respected both of these characteristics and I think follows them. But as Mrs T found out, following your principles can get you into a lot of trouble. I think Tony agreed to the war because Bush asked him to, but (importantly) also because he thought getting rid of Sadam was a good thing. His problems were a very firm legal argument that invading a non-threatening foreign country is illegal and also that the British public would never let him get away with starting a war involving massive expense and inevitable loss of life just to help a few arabs who would almost certainly be ungrateful for being invaded.
So he parroted all the rubbish being produced by the Americans to justify their position. His mistake. But what would prezzie Bush have said if Tony had said 'ok, we think the war is a good idea, but frankly this has absolutely nothing to do with world terrorism or any realistic threat from Iraq'. i think Bush would have been threatening sanctions against the UK.
Terribly sorry if I have not answered your queries point by point. I do not take notes on everything posted here. You are unrealistic to expect chapter, verse and references for every answer. I do not have the secret services acting solely for me to help with composing replies.
Mrs T was certainly principled and firm. Dear Tony respected both of these characteristics and I think follows them. But as Mrs T found out, following your principles can get you into a lot of trouble. I think Tony agreed to the war because Bush asked him to, but (importantly) also because he thought getting rid of Sadam was a good thing. His problems were a very firm legal argument that invading a non-threatening foreign country is illegal and also that the British public would never let him get away with starting a war involving massive expense and inevitable loss of life just to help a few arabs who would almost certainly be ungrateful for being invaded.
So he parroted all the rubbish being produced by the Americans to justify their position. His mistake. But what would prezzie Bush have said if Tony had said 'ok, we think the war is a good idea, but frankly this has absolutely nothing to do with world terrorism or any realistic threat from Iraq'. i think Bush would have been threatening sanctions against the UK.
Terribly sorry if I have not answered your queries point by point. I do not take notes on everything posted here. You are unrealistic to expect chapter, verse and references for every answer. I do not have the secret services acting solely for me to help with composing replies.
D
david and julie
Your first answer is pathetic, your second even more so, as you have said elsewhere Gov secret service employees are tied to the official secrets act, i am not one of them and I am not party to any information that is not available to you.
Sponsored Links
D
david and julie
Get real damocles, the inference was there, you are becoming kendorised and in your nonsensicle posts.
I seem to remember that Bush was exactly threatening countries to get them to join in his war. If they joined in they would get aid, trade and favours. If they declined they would have their aid cancelled, trading status revoked. Why do you think he would behave any differently to us?
Why do you mistake America for a slalwart friend rather than a big country out to get what it wants and to hell with everyone else?
Why do you believe what political spin doctors tell you? If governments always told the truth they would not need spin doctors.
Why do you mistake America for a slalwart friend rather than a big country out to get what it wants and to hell with everyone else?
Why do you believe what political spin doctors tell you? If governments always told the truth they would not need spin doctors.
Damocles said:
The Falklands may be one example Damacles, while the French persistantly dragged there feet on info on how many Exocets they had sold to Argentina, Ronnie actually gave Britan some assistance even though he couldnt see the point of hanging on to a cold baron piece of rock
You might remember that publically the Americans did not support us in the falklands. Their official position was that despite our territory having been invaded we should negotiate a settlement. Which would have meant leaving the Argentinians in possession of the Falklands.
Unofficially they allowed us to use their military bases and supplies. You are correct, we very likely could not have done anything without this aid. But they were not our stalwart friends through thick and thin. More precisely they were trying to be friends with both sides.
And as I have aluded elsewhere. Part of the price for their aid may very well have been our agreeing to join their war this time. so be it, but do not go round pretending we are doing it to fight terrorism rather than because a favour has been called in.
Unofficially they allowed us to use their military bases and supplies. You are correct, we very likely could not have done anything without this aid. But they were not our stalwart friends through thick and thin. More precisely they were trying to be friends with both sides.
And as I have aluded elsewhere. Part of the price for their aid may very well have been our agreeing to join their war this time. so be it, but do not go round pretending we are doing it to fight terrorism rather than because a favour has been called in.
You reckon we should not plan for the kind of future we want? You would rather leave it to the politicians?
If you want to know the politics of the Falklands war I suggest catching some of the documentary series next time they repeat them. I imagine there must be archive film of the Americans discussing their support for their friends, the Argentinians and objecting to british warmongering. Look up some old newspapers.
Maggie was rather brave deciding to try to recapture the islands by force. Britain is a very small state nowadays.
If you want to know the politics of the Falklands war I suggest catching some of the documentary series next time they repeat them. I imagine there must be archive film of the Americans discussing their support for their friends, the Argentinians and objecting to british warmongering. Look up some old newspapers.
Maggie was rather brave deciding to try to recapture the islands by force. Britain is a very small state nowadays.
Er, right. This is actually true so credit where it's due again. She regularly turned down her annual pay awards and, as far as anybody knows, didn't charge Pinochet anything for the biscuits.
PS: My knowledge of history isn't that good. Does anybody know whether Hitler slaughtered millions of jews, negroes, gipsies, communists, etc out of a deep conviction or for personal gain?
PPS: I'm not comparing Thatcher with Hitler, just making a point. In politics, conviction isn't everything
Damocles said:
Not sure they did actually, AFAIK no Tornados flew in the war because we didn't have access to any bases within range (however the Americans did). Hence our reliance on carrier-launched Harriers.
Argentina still reckons it's going to steal the Falklands back. Although to me it seems as stupid as Spain's ideas about Gibraltar. I mean, are their lives going to be somewhat improved by getting their hands on a small island? We don't moan about Normandy going to the French, for instance.
And before any body starts on how much the Falklands costs the British every year------------Now the people of the Falklands have turned a dependancy into a very profitable little place and they pay the £200 million it needs to defend the place every year.
Again Tony Blair has tried to meddle in this and give it little by little to the Argies.
Again Tony Blair has tried to meddle in this and give it little by little to the Argies.
Many Argentinians would be a little bit happier to have what they call the Malvinas back - and they do actually have a half decent historical claim. Would it improve their lives much? Probably not. Would it improve the lives of the Falkland Islanders? They might have been really pleased about it if only Argentina hadn't been a dictatorship. As one of them said at the time, "They could have had the lot if they'd only sent us a boat load of women!" This was not as facile as it sounded; the local population were on the verge of extinction at the time.
But now we come to what many believed to be the real reason Galtieri (did I spell that right) invaded the Falklands. No doubt it had a little to do with whipping up national pride - dictators are fond of that - but a lot more to do with coal. No, not in the Falklands/Malvinas/call them what you like. There's a massive coal seam lying right across Antarctica which was once tropical forest - in the tropics. Now that's a prize some would start wars for.
Sponsored Links
