All I know is that she was buddy buddy with Reagan. Could someone bring me up to date?
She was a prime minister for England, and during a critical time, inacted laws basically ensuring that everyone in the production industry (think coal mining) lost their jobs, and people in the finance industry experienced a boom. At least, that's what reddit told me.
Its a real tricky issues and one that can't really be easily explained. If your a Tory then she saved the nation, if your Labour/Liberal democrat then she gutted the unions and is responsable for the current fate of the nation. At least by my interpretation she did some stuff that was a bit shitty but was necessary. At the end of the day she was elected three times by popular vote. The same can be said for Tony Blair who was just as bad, if not more so.
Edit; She is a very very controversial figure in British politics. She was our first female Prime minister and at the end of the day had back bone of iron and balls the size of space hoppers to dominate the very mans world of British politics.
Of all the reasons that Thatcher is demonised, the fact she was female is way down the list somewhere near what hand she used to write with or the colour of her hair.
Of all the reasons that Thatcher is demonised, the fact she was female is way down the list somewhere near what hand she used to write with or the colour of her hair.
She may have enacted political policies you don't agree with, even acted immorally or against the best interest of Britain. But you can't say that criticism of Thatcher wasn't colored by an underlying sexism in the very same way that American conservative hate for Obama "isn't" colored by racism.
I was watching the NHK World report on her death and one of the sound bites they showed was some guy on the street saying that "The most important thing was that she stuck to her positions. Whether those positions were right or wrong doesn't matter; you've got to stick to one position." Stupid.
Section 28, calling HIV the gay plague, Hillsborough cover up, supporting the leader of Apartheid South Africa for financial gain, supporting Pinochet and Khmer Rouge, anti feminist, destoried entire communities in the North with her industrial "reform", stole milk off children, championed greed and helped create the culture that lead to the banking crisis. The list goes on but yeah it is because she is a woman that she is getting all this stick from the left wing press and working class communties (oh sorry they don't exist now because of her) and the right wing love her. It may have had a small part to play but a very small part. Her actions as PM were more than enough for the hate no matter what her gender.
Yes it was your own people, but there were all of 2000 of them. It doesn't hold economic power. So why'd 900 people die fighting for it?
For all the many things Thatcher did wrong, I think the Falklands is one example of a pretty good call on her part. Britain has fuck-all empire any more, but all the empire it lost was due to the people who lived there getting their land and autonomy back. The Falklands wasn't about giving up the rights to rule 2000 people, it was about the rights of those 2000 people determining their rule.
Also, the numbers you are quoting are totally devoid of meaning. It's like this classic line from Demolition Man:
"Fuck you, lady!"
Nobody joins the British Navy or Army or Air Force under duress. It's a professional outfit. Those signing up know the risks, and it's not as though none of them thought the war worth fighting for. As for the losses on the Argentinian side... well, their leaders knew the risk of poking the bear! Individual cases are controversial, of course, but trying to say 2,000 people aren't worth fighting for is dumb. The Argentinians thought they were worth fighting for. Unfortunately for everyone, so did the British.
One could argue that the Falkland Island war's issues came primarily from the UK's weak ability to project force outside of their general vicinity. The US is the only nation in the world with true global force projection capabilities, and this was just as true then as it is now.
One could argue that the Falkland Island war's issues came primarily from the UK's weak ability to project force outside of their general vicinity. The US is the only nation in the world with true global force projection capabilities, and this was just as true then as it is now.
True, and the UK would have been fucked if not for the US air-to-air missiles it used. Actually, if you read a book on the Falklands War you realize just how close the British forces were to being fucked in sooooo many ways. If they'd lost a few more ships, they'd have been fucked. One more helicopter (as they only had one remaining!) and they'd have been fucked. The war going on a few more days.... fucked. It's pretty remarkable.
Then again, the Falklands is about as far away from anywhere as you can get from friendly territory and still have a go at an invasion and fighting a war. It's like the definition of force projection. Or force extension. Having sailed there many times, and even sailed on ships that were troop carriers for the war, it's amazing that either side thought the whole endeavor was worth the trouble.
We should have sent a sniper in to kill Hitler before he consolidated so much power. That was a bad call, not doing that.
Well, technically, Argentina and the UK never actually declared war, and restricted all combat to a zone around the islands. The British could have, with difficulty, bombed Argentinian air bases on their mainland, but didn't.
The start to the war was very sudden (with Argentina taking the Falklands overnight) and very drawn out, due to taking ages for the British forces to get down there. All the talks happened in that time, and it took a lot of time. The British got a good deal from the Americans, and due to politicking, I'm not sure how much more America could have done.
Well, technically, Argentina and the UK never actually declared war, and restricted all combat to a zone around the islands. The British could have, with difficulty, bombed Argentinian air bases on their mainland, but didn't.
Well apart from when the Belgrano was involved, then the combat zone didn't really count.
Well, technically, Argentina and the UK never actually declared war, and restricted all combat to a zone around the islands. The British could have, with difficulty, bombed Argentinian air bases on their mainland, but didn't.
Well apart from when the Belgrano was involved, then the combat zone didn't really count.
True! The Belgrano sinking was fucked up and didn't help anyone. It was, however, in A zone around the islands if not in THE zone. Nitpicking, sure, but the broader point stands.
Comments
Edit; She is a very very controversial figure in British politics. She was our first female Prime minister and at the end of the day had back bone of iron and balls the size of space hoppers to dominate the very mans world of British politics.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2013/04/08/disney-annette-funicello-dies/2063545/
That is all.
The list goes on but yeah it is because she is a woman that she is getting all this stick from the left wing press and working class communties (oh sorry they don't exist now because of her) and the right wing love her. It may have had a small part to play but a very small part. Her actions as PM were more than enough for the hate no matter what her gender.
Also, the numbers you are quoting are totally devoid of meaning. It's like this classic line from Demolition Man:
"Fuck you, lady!"
Nobody joins the British Navy or Army or Air Force under duress. It's a professional outfit. Those signing up know the risks, and it's not as though none of them thought the war worth fighting for. As for the losses on the Argentinian side... well, their leaders knew the risk of poking the bear! Individual cases are controversial, of course, but trying to say 2,000 people aren't worth fighting for is dumb. The Argentinians thought they were worth fighting for. Unfortunately for everyone, so did the British.
Then again, the Falklands is about as far away from anywhere as you can get from friendly territory and still have a go at an invasion and fighting a war. It's like the definition of force projection. Or force extension. Having sailed there many times, and even sailed on ships that were troop carriers for the war, it's amazing that either side thought the whole endeavor was worth the trouble.
Britain probably should have made a deal for more US assets to be used earlier in the conflict.
The start to the war was very sudden (with Argentina taking the Falklands overnight) and very drawn out, due to taking ages for the British forces to get down there. All the talks happened in that time, and it took a lot of time. The British got a good deal from the Americans, and due to politicking, I'm not sure how much more America could have done.