Is Celebrating Death Justifiable?

Sorry, I know this has been moved past, but I'm catching up here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

What I have problem with here is the notion that society is something other than ourselves; that it develops and behaves without us knowing or consenting. We are parts of the society we are discussing here; ourselves, our family members, friends, colleagues and neighbours so, if any changes are happening, it is never without our knowing or, in some cases, consent.

---

I have to disagree quite strenuously.

For a start, very, very few governments ever have a majority of registered voters, so you can't say those who didn't vote for the ruling regime gave consent to make societal changes, which is what governments do.

There are hundreds of historical examples of governments forcing change on populations despite enormous, and sometimes huge majority, opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I believe that Thatcher or any other leader, political or otherwise, cannot be held responsible for singlehandedly changing the way a society behaves.

---

Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot... or on the other side, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi and Nelson Mandela spring to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Maggie however was no no simple but more a complex stoic with no denouement if I may say so. Very randy and ferocious.

---

In taking up the irresistible challenge of finding evidence for this statement, I found this little missive on a Yahoo search site:


'Would you not agree that Margaret Thatcher was sexy in her youth?

Picture a 20 something Margaret Thatcher, dressed in leather as a dominatrix, with a whip in hand, ready to punish you for being naughty. How hot is that?

I have a picture of Bettie page, and I taped Margret Thatcher's face over Betty's..'


I had no idea who Bettie Page was until I checked her out:

http://imageshack.us/a/img17/7971/th...ettiepage0.jpg


It's most unlikely that Mrs Thatcher would have engaged in such activity but, as I have said, who knows what went on behind closed doors.:ihih:

The only people who could find Margaret Thatcher sexy are those who imagine being dominated by her. All I can see is the forties and fifties clothes that made everyone look middle-aged before they were, and that voice! Sounds like she had elocution lessons to get rid of a regional accent and took it too far. Like a cat scratching a blackboard.

In Scotland Margaret Thatcher was the most hated person since Edward I, the 'Hammer of the Scots'. Honourable mention to 'Butcher' Cumberland, for his cruelties after the battle of Culloden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaza

The only people who could find Margaret Thatcher sexy are those who imagine being dominated by her. All I can see is the forties and fifties clothes that made everyone look middle-aged before they were, and that voice! Sounds like she had elocution lessons to get rid of a regional accent and took it too far. Like a cat scratching a blackboard.

In Scotland Margaret Thatcher was the most hated person since Edward I, the 'Hammer of the Scots'. Honourable mention to 'Butcher' Cumberland, for his cruelties after the battle of Culloden.

---

Well if Scotland hadn't agreed to the Union in the first place, it could have saved itself a lot of grief. However, there will be an opportunity to redress the balance in the forthcoming independence referendum, and if Scotland refuses to leave the Union it will get all it deserves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

Well if Scotland hadn't agreed to the Union in the first place, it could have saved itself a lot of grief. However, there will be an opportunity to redress the balance in the forthcoming independence referendum, and if Scotland refuses to leave the Union it will get all it deserves.

---

The Roman Catholics will not lose Scotland no matter what. Scotland will remain Victorian. The illuminati have hopes of coming back and they will not let go. One gram of antimatter. ROFLMAO!!

I just saw The Iron Lady which was amazing. I don't pay much attention to politics, but I like the way she handled the Falkland Islands war at least the way the movie presented it. For the other stuff about the economy, if she had not done what she did, would Britain be better or worse off today?

Who knows? The Labour party was funded by the unions, so was hamstrung when it came to reforming the economy.- though Callahagn had tried to start. Thatcher's policy was to confront and destroy them utterly. Her Faikland Factor majority giving her a free hand.

I keep coming back to an interview with Dennis Healey about the North Sea Oil. The projections for the potential revenue came across his desk. (He was Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer.) It was an enormous sum - Remember, Britain was broke at the time - He described how he went to see the Prime Minister and showed him the figures. and how for the next hour or so they discussed (Fantasized) what they could do with the money. New roads, schools, hospitals, decent housing, modernise the nationalised industries and utilities.

After an hour or so, the Prime Minister said. You realise, with resources like this, whoever wins the next election will be in power for a long time. And so it proved.

Mrs Thatcher - or her Government - took the resource and squandered it on a monetary experiment - the money went directly into private hands,(and foreign hands) from which it was supposed to "trickle down" into the wider economy. Her absolute faith in "The Market" as the answer to everything was miss-placed, because The Market cares only for itself and prefers short term returns.

I would've liked someone like Harold Wilson to squander the money in the other direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I just saw The Iron Lady which was amazing. I don't pay much attention to politics, but I like the way she handled the Falkland Islands war at least the way the movie presented it. For the other stuff about the economy, if she had not done what she did, would Britain be better or worse off today?

---

I urge you to read my Pro Bono Publico that tells the true story of what happened to the UK from 1945-1979. It tells how in the aftermath of WWII, the UK was loaned $3.5 billion by the USA and Canada and the first post-war Labour government squandered it on a welfare system and nationalisation of the country's infrastructure that by 1976 had bankrupted the country and we had to call on the IMF to loan the UK a further £2.5 billion. By the time Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister three years later, the country was already riven with strikes as the unions rebelled against the strictures of the IMF and the Labour government, which was effectively the political arm of the unions, were unable to control the situation. The former Conservative government, under the weak and vacillating Ted Heath, had capitulated to the miners who had demanded ruinous pay increases that further damaged an industry that was already being kept afloat by taxation and money borrowed from abroad and a similar situation prevailed in the steel industry. The pattern had been set; all the unions had to do was to threaten to strike and the government would cave in, meanwhile the UK was becoming like the bombed out industrial landscape so noticeable in the smoke stack industries of communist eastern Europe. This was the situation when Mrs thatcher became PM; there was no room for compromise, the country was in dire straights and drastic measures were needed to bring the union barons and their minions to heel. They thought that by using the strong arm tactics employed previously, they could cow Mrs Thatcher but they miscalculated; she took them on brought them to heel and put them to bed.
As for North sea oil, had the Labour party been re-elected, they would have squandered it on trying to prop up a crumbling welfare state and its nationalised industries that always destroy the wealth needed to sustain them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I just saw The Iron Lady which was amazing. I don't pay much attention to politics, but I like the way she handled the Falkland Islands war at least the way the movie presented it. For the other stuff about the economy, if she had not done what she did, would Britain be better or worse off today?

---

Well let's just for a minute put the Falklands on a map . One can clearly see it is not particularly English is it? England's map is separate from the Faulklands map and so from this pedagogical point of view England and the Falkland's are not related. It is clear on the map that they do not belong together.
The sensible thing to have done is to avoid the war all together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Well let's just for a minute put the Falklands on a map . One can clearly see particularly English is it? England's map is separate from the Faulklands map and so from this pedagogical point of view England and the Falkland's are not related. It is clear on the map that they do not belong together.
The sensible thing to have done is to avoid the war all together.

---

It doesn't matter how far away it is, it was owned by Britain, and the people in the Falklands wanted to stay British (or at least, they do at the moment, not entirely sure about back then). And even if it weren't, allowing another nation to just invade your territory and take it over makes you seem weak in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

It doesn't matter how far away it is, it was owned by Britain, and the people in the Falklands wanted to stay British (or at least, they do at the moment, not entirely sure about back then). And even if it weren't, allowing another nation to just invade your territory and take it over makes you seem weak in my opinion.

---

Hi Volya and nice to see you back :)
I completely agree there is no doubt that one's invasion of someone else's land territory is wrong and must be defended.
When I first heard about the Falklands I was surprised about the distance in which it separates the UK from it. Strategically it is an English territory because it is not within the boundaries of the UK.
The other thing is it is not clear who discovered the islands first back in the 17th century and therefore in terms of where it stands it is neither here or there.
The British claims over its territory is bound to provoke wars. Who knows who may come up next with another reason to want to claim it back?
Wiki is saying it was the bore/dutch who discovered it first back in 1600 but then it also says it was discovered by the Europeans. What does wiki mean by Europeans?
Europe today is a mix of nationalities and European is therefore vague over its claim.
I personally feel that the UK and the Falklands is nothing but trouble as far as Europe is concerned. The Falkalnds war happened before it does not mean it won't happen again. I feel the the Falkland ownership makes the UK stand vulnerability. There are nutters born every minute I would not trust it as far as I can throw it. Basically I would not touch the falklands with a barge pole.
Owing English territories all over the world would mean that more and more English people would want to emigrate and live abroad where english is specifically spoken such as the US Canada Australia and Newzeland as well the Falklands or in neighbouring Europe such as Spain and alike.
So in terms of English identity it is already being scattered around the globe and eventually out of view. This is how it seems to me.
Eventually and with time England/UK will be fully non English European owned by non english europeans. Remember where there is people there is influx and so I think one day the UK will be solely inhabited by non English people from all over the world. It is already happening.
Those who are resident in the Falklands for example would be exposed to threats from invaders from outside Europe and alike I would not want to live there if I could help it. That is the plan it seems to me anyway. Let's say England is wanted out let's say pushed out . That is my honest opinion on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Well let's just for a minute put the Falklands on a map . One can clearly see it is not particularly English is it? England's map is separate from the Faulklands map and so from this pedagogical point of view England and the Falkland's are not related. It is clear on the map that they do not belong together.
The sensible thing to have done is to avoid the war all together.

---

There is some logic to this point of view. The islands are over 7000 miles from the UK and 300 miles from Argentina but Mrs Thatcher was right to send a task force to retake them from the Argentian military after they had been forcibly annexed by Argentina. It's worth remembering that she did this against the advice of cabinet colleagues who were, to put it bluntly, terrified of failure. The launch of the task force and retaking of the islands is one of the greatest logistical achievements in military history but personally I'm more impressed with what she achieved at home in rescuing the economy from another form of usurpation by the pro-communist union movement. Apart from the fact that the UK has to garrison the Falklands at great cost, the population is sparse to say the least. I think that the current Argentinian government should be negotiated with and some deal worked out that gives both countries a stake in any future oil revenues that may be discovered in the surrounding waters of the islands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

In taking up the irresistible challenge of finding evidence for this statement, I found this little missive on a Yahoo search site:


'Would you not agree that Margaret Thatcher was sexy in her youth?

Picture a 20 something Margaret Thatcher, dressed in leather as a dominatrix, with a whip in hand, ready to punish you for being naughty. How hot is that?

I have a picture of Bettie page, and I taped Margret Thatcher's face over Betty's..'


I had no idea who Bettie Page was until I checked her out:

http://imageshack.us/a/img17/7971/th...ettiepage0.jpg


It's most unlikely that Mrs Thatcher would have engaged in such activity but, as I have said, who knows what went on behind closed doors.:ihih:

---

This is looking good indeed big;)
Shame we cannot see the face of Maggie over Betty's. It would make for a real laugh haha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

There is some logic to this point of view. The islands are over 7000 miles from the UK and 300 miles from Argentina but Mrs Thatcher was right to send a task force to retake them from the Argentian military after they had been forcibly annexed by Argentina. It's worth remembering that she did this against the advice of cabinet colleagues who were, to put it bluntly, terrified of failure. The launch of the task force and retaking of the islands is one of the greatest logistical achievements in military history but personally I'm more impressed with what she achieved at home in rescuing the economy from another form of usurpation by the pro-communist union movement. Apart from the fact that the UK has to garrison the Falklands at great cost, the population is sparse to say the least. I think that the current Argentinian government should be negotiated with and some deal worked out that gives both countries a stake in any future oil revenues that may be discovered in the surrounding waters of the islands.

---

I agree. It is not the islands themselves but their location and the resources owning them gives one a right to that must be considered as you mention. For the Argentinian government to just take over the islands without negotiation was wrong and it seemed that Lady Thatcher met that challenge nicely.

The war that Bush and Blair later got themselves into in Iraq, on the other hand, was unjustified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I agree. It is not the islands themselves but their location and the resources owning them gives one a right to that must be considered as you mention. For the Argentinian government to just take over the islands without negotiation was wrong and it seemed that Lady Thatcher met that challenge nicely.

The war that Bush and Blair later got themselves into in Iraq, on the other hand, was unjustified.

---

Not to mention Kuwait and Afghanistan none of these wars are really the England's make up. England was made involved with both of them.
Having the falklands as a territory means the British navy gets to keep its formalities and keep training ie spending money on behalf of the working British population. One needs to justify the spending cuts and the Falklands is a very good reason why the navy is vital. Future wars await.
This means England is made the scape goat whenever the Us or France decide they have a war to run. England gets to send her troops for support. Another threat is soon coming from South Korea meaning England will fork out the help needed to support any of the allies suggestions to go to war yet again. The Falkland's is just a very good reason for the navy to subsidise while your average British worker slaves day in and day out to keep the war momentum going . The allies in the meantime get to peddle about and around looking hugely important because they know England is army prepared.