It boils down to a binary choice, both sides were at odds with each other and you either had direct confrontation or a rather nasty game. Sometimes Nation X would ask Nation Y to support Nation Z, as Nation Y would have provide information in exchange for that. The SAS training may have been unnecessary, alternatively it may have been part of horse trading. Neither of us know, and can sit in our armchairs playing "what if" from the comfort of hindsight and without all the information at hand. Actually you do, you are here condemning Thatcher supporting a murderous regime. Your own past includes support for a terrorist organisation, a group who used violence, murdered people and targeted civilian areas, and accepted support from dictators - things which are currently an anathema to you. Was "Young Rick" "scum"? Or was "Young Rick" making decisions based on the current information and experiences he had? It may not geopolitically equal, but from a moral perspective you either implicitly supported their crimes by regarding them as acceptable prices for your agenda, or explicitly supported them by agreeing with them.
...something you seem eminently prepared to do, in your determination to excuse it with an argument that as I noted, makes those peddled by Dayton look remarkably intelligent. If hindsight and full information were such problems, then we'd have to keep schtum about everything. Alternatively we can make judgements based on the information that we do have. A contemptible lie.
Not really, I'm choosing to recognise reality is slightly more complex than the morality of yourself allows. They're not such problems, you just seem intent on ignoring any possibility that fails to fit into your perception of her. You like to liken me to Dayton, but perhaps you should try looking a mirror? Both you and he share a distinct dislike for anything that falls outside of your personal opinions. Several of us remember your cheerleading for the IRA over at TBBS, so no lie, merely a, *ahem*, inconvenient truth.
No you're not. You are proposing that the only realistic alternative to aiding the Khmer Rouge was nuclear war. Get over yourself. You remember no such thing. My attacks on the British conduct in Ireland (Hi Maggie) were, and seemingly continue to be, distorted into a parody. I have always considered the IRA to be terrorists.
Erm, no. I'm proposing the realistic alternative to the kind of politics which allows for aiding the Khmer was nuclear war. I'm proposing that maybe the likes of Thatcher made decisions that were morally dubious for what they, at the time, regarded as good reasons rather than actual personal desire to make them. Nope, I distinctly recall you coming out with all kinds off pro-IRA justifications. Fairly sure a few other Brit members will recall it too. I definitely recall a conversation that bordered on the satirical where you defended them for making phone calls first, I sometimes wonder if Richard Herring ever came across that for his "Good Terrorist" sketch.
Morrissey's statement on Thatcher's passing (of interest, as I like some of his music). It's pretty brutal:
^ I will not speak to a lot of that, but sinking the General Belgrano was fully justified. While the Belgrano might've been sailing away from the islands (temporarily) it was also sailing TOWARD the British task force with a clear intent to engage the smaller British ships. And the Belgrano was about to cross a stretch of shallow ocean where the RN submarine tracking her would've been forced to disengage. So from every possible standpoint, sinking the Belgrano was fully justified. Besides, it was war. A war that Argentina started. Tough luck for the Belgrano crew but war is war.
And he's an idiot because without her the country would currently be a 3rd world socialist shithole. No she wasn't perfect. No one is. But she put the brakes, even if only temporarily, on the United Kingdom's slide into a 3rd world socialist shithole.
And that's being stupid. The argument at the time was whether the aim of certain IRA bombings was to cause civilian casualties. I argued that it wasn't, accurately, while still recognising that they were completely unjustified. Prompting much frothing at the mouth.
There is a substantial difference between "having flaws" and "being a complete dick". Maggie is the former and Obama is the latter.
Nope. Thatcher did good for the UK and had a few mistakes during her time. Obama is wrecking America and has had a few good things during his time.
President Obama's greatest achievement has been and always will be getting elected in the first place. Making the U.S. the first major nation where a formerly enslaved MINORITY has had a member of that minority elected as head of state and government.
At least our lefties show respect when the enemy dies for the most part. I don't remember anything like this happening when Reagan died. They must be serving a special kind of haterade in Britain.
Reagan did not have the personality that tended to provoke hatred. And if had problems with critics he could trot out the "doddering old man persona". In truth, Reagan was anything but. He and his advisers adopted the "doddering old man persona" in 1979-80 because the prevailing impression up to that time was that Reagan was a heartless cold warrior who would "get the U.S. into another war".
Remind me to use that the next time you pull out the "you're a troll and that's why you deserve to be ignored" speech whenever you can't hold your own in an argument.
More fucking nonsense. The majority of those celebrating looked under 40. And according to a policeman I know in Bristol they were almost all twenty something trustafarians. She won three ejections. The 'hatred' was nurtured and grown by a vocal minority of opinion formers and propagated by the BBC onto unquestioning simpletons much like yourself. And I suspect when Bush 42 croaks y'all will have nothing to teach us about civility.
Adios Ma'am, thanks for your good works. Man, the hatred and vitriol is dripping in here. I have to ask myself if it's entirely about Thacher or just the usual suspects finding another excuse to piss on someone great's grave.
Not at all, it's recognising the world at the time was a political quagmire where morality was a casualty of the Cold War in an effort to stop it being a very hot war. What is stupid is your automatic assumption that these actions were done out of desire rather than necessity. Ahh, back in the days I actually got angry at an argument on the internet. Somedays I miss those times. I still stand by claim you defended the IRA on more than one occasion on the TBBS. The frothing certainly wasn't one sided.
