Maggie Thatcher

[Darat]

It was an old, WWII class battleship, that was sailing away from the conflict when it was sunk. It never had a chance against a modern submarine.

And what relevance does this point have?

The war was a stupid storm in a teacup that both sides should be ashamed of themselves for indulging in.

The UK did everything possible to avoid a military conflict despite the unprovoked military attack against the Falklands.

When the Argentineans launched a military attack against the Falklands, the UK should have done exactly what, (that it didn’t do) to avoid the necessity of launching an military force to reclaim the British sovereign territory?

 

[Jon_in_london]

It was an old, WWII class battleship, that was sailing away from the conflict when it was sunk. It never had a chance against a modern submarine.

The war was a stupid storm in a teacup that both sides should be ashamed of themselves for indulging in.

It was actually a cruiser.

It had six inch guns and armour, which meant that it was impervious to the British frigates exocet's and outgunned them by several orders of magnitude. Just because a ship is old, doesnt mean it isnt dangerous- witness USS Wissconsin in the first gulf war. Oh, and it was sunk by WWII torpedoes, so does that make it fair to you AUP?

Belgrano may have been sailing away from the exclusion zone at the time it was sunk, but it certainly wasnt withdrawing from the war altogether.

The war may seem like a 'stupid storm in a teacup' to you AUP, but I guess the fundamental human right to self-determination to be a part of a stable democracy rather than a militray junta doesnt matter to you.

So go on AUP, exactly what should Maggie have done differently in your opinion?

 

[Cain]

Awww, good for you, you found an anti-Reagan website on geocities. Now can you do better than the site and give the context of the alleged quote?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0007102623/202-9406306-1676645

Jeff Cohen, a top-notch media critic, uses the quote to attack bias:

During Reagan's 1988 Moscow summit with Gorbachev, the New York Times noted that the President had fallen asleep at a meeting with Soviet dignitaries. The Times subtitled the article: "REAGAN IMPRESSES SOVIET ELITE." Two days later, another summit-related article in the New York Times attributed this quote about Reagan to Britain's Margaret Thatcher: "Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears." The article's headline: "THATCHER SALUTE TO REAGAN YEARS."

In the thread on the Reagan mini-series, Brown, one of the posters here, kept referring to a book by Paul Slansky called _The Emperor has no Clothes_. Good read; maybe you should check it out.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

It was actually a cruiser.

It had six inch guns and armour, which meant that it was impervious to the British frigates exocet's and outgunned them by several orders of magnitude. Just because a ship is old, doesnt mean it isnt dangerous- witness USS Wissconsin in the first gulf war. Oh, and it was sunk by WWII torpedoes, so does that make it fair to you AUP?

Belgrano may have been sailing away from the exclusion zone at the time it was sunk, but it certainly wasnt withdrawing from the war altogether.

The war may seem like a 'stupid storm in a teacup' to you AUP, but I guess the fundamental human right to self-determination to be a part of a stable democracy rather than a militray junta doesnt matter to you.

So go on AUP, exactly what should Maggie have done differently in your opinion?

People who criticize the sinking of the Belgrano always seem to ignore the fact that it was on a zig-zag course. It was sunk sailing away from the task force, but it was likely to have turned back towards it.

People also forget that the Royal Navy had no idea what arnament it was carrying. Had it been fitted with missiles? British intelligence had no idea. Do you think we should have waited until it had fired a missile at a British ship? Or got close enough to the Task force so it could tell the Argentinain Air force it's position?

Maggie may have been one of the worst PM's in UK history, but she went to war with the right attitude. Protect our forces and bollox to everyone else.

 

[Roadtoad]

Much of this is still new to me, so if you Brits will forgive me a few silly questions:

(1.) Wasn't the Poll Tax voted on by the House of Commons? And wasn't Labour's vote required to pass the bill bringing the Poll Tax into effect?

(2.) In privatizing rail, how was it done, and why? And further, did it work?

(3.) I didn't know about the coal mines. Wouldn't she have needed active support from the Home Secretary to pull this off? And could the mines have reopened since she left office?

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Much of this is still new to me, so if you Brits will forgive me a few silly questions:

(1.) Wasn't the Poll Tax voted on by the House of Commons? And wasn't Labour's vote required to pass the bill bringing the Poll Tax into effect?

(2.) In privatizing rail, how was it done, and why? And further, did it work?

(3.) I didn't know about the coal mines. Wouldn't she have needed active support from the Home Secretary to pull this off? And could the mines have reopened since she left office?

1/ It was but the Tories had a substantial Majority. There are approx 650 MP's. If your party wins say 326 seats (the constituencies MP's stand for) then you have a majority in the House so when it comes to a vote you will always win. In practical terms you need something like a majority of 30 MP's to have a decent working majority (MP's have to vote in person in the House of Commons. If you only have a majority of say 2 MP's then if some are sick in Hospital your in trouble. Plus some MP's may "rebel" against the party line especially with controversial legislation)

Labour voted against the Poll tax, but it goes on a majority vote. More MP's say yes than no, it becomes law.

2/ Don't know the technicalities of it sorry. If your interested you may find this page interesting. Did it work? I think most people would say no.

3/ The Home secretary was also a Tory. He will usaully follow the Party line so there was no issue here.

The Miners main concern was that the Government was closing UK pits while still importing cheap foreign coal. But ultimately, the market for coal was in terminal decline. My father was a miner for 40 years since the age of 12. His pit was one of those closed.

He was glad to see the back of it

 

[Jon_in_london]

It wasnt Maggie that did for the railways.

 

[Ed]

I have awarded this thread 5 stars because we actually had a discussion about a potentially acrimonious topic in a civilized manner.

 

[Skeptic]

It was an old, WWII class battleship, that was sailing away from the conflict when it was sunk. It never had a chance against a modern submarine.

Tsk tsk. You mean Tacher actually dared to USE the UK's military superiority over Argentina in the war between them??? And then it actually fired on a retreating ship intead of letting it withdraw unharmed, to fight against the UK forces another day???

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!, I tell you.

 

[Seismosaurus]

It was actually a cruiser.

It had six inch guns and armour, which meant that it was impervious to the British frigates exocet's and outgunned them by several orders of magnitude. Just because a ship is old, doesnt mean it isnt dangerous- witness USS Wissconsin in the first gulf war. Oh, and it was sunk by WWII torpedoes, so does that make it fair to you AUP?

Belgrano may have been sailing away from the exclusion zone at the time it was sunk, but it certainly wasnt withdrawing from the war altogether.

The war may seem like a 'stupid storm in a teacup' to you AUP, but I guess the fundamental human right to self-determination to be a part of a stable democracy rather than a militray junta doesnt matter to you.

So go on AUP, exactly what should Maggie have done differently in your opinion?

I saw a documentary on this on Discovery just a few weeks ago. The guy who had commanded the british fleet said that the Belgrano had two destroyer escorts, both fitted with Exocet anti ship missiles - which the British fleet was largely unable to counter. He argued that if one or both of those had launched against the fleet, and scored a hit on a carrier, then the war would have been lost right there.

He also argued that it's completely irrelevant what direction the ship was going in because it takes only a minute or two to change direction. What mattered to him was the position, and with the Belgrano to the south west and an Argentine aircraft carrier to the north west, as far as he was concerned his fleet was facing a pincer attack.

 

[Jon_in_london]

I saw a documentary on this on Discovery just a few weeks ago. The guy who had commanded the british fleet said that the Belgrano had two destroyer escorts, both fitted with Exocet anti ship missiles - which the British fleet was largely unable to counter. He argued that if one or both of those had launched against the fleet, and scored a hit on a carrier, then the war would have been lost right there.

He also argued that it's completely irrelevant what direction the ship was going in because it takes only a minute or two to change direction. What mattered to him was the position, and with the Belgrano to the south west and an Argentine aircraft carrier to the north west, as far as he was concerned his fleet was facing a pincer attack.

Guess who built those destroyers and sold them to the Argies? Isnt the arms trade great!

BTW The Argie naval strategy was to launch a three pronged assualt on the British task force. One 'prong' was the Belgrano and two Type42s, the other three French built corvettes and the other the carrier 25 deMayo. Luckily the Argies were so worried about the loss of prestige that would accompany the loss of any other majot naval unit that they chickened out completely. The Royal Navy has always understoof that winning a war may involved losing ships. It may cost the lives of many British sailors but it wins wars.

 

[BillyTK]

But the amount of women moving into professional/managerial roles increased exponentially during Thatchers terms!

You proved me right! Cool.

I think people are just galled that the Tories (with the only Woman PM and the only non-Christian PM in British history) are the party of equality - if you can do the job you're in!

If this were the case, how do you explain Major, Hague or Duncan-Smith? Anyway, a quote from Thatcher, pre-leadership:

No woman in my time will be prime minister or chancellor or foreign secretary - not the top jobs. Anyway, I wouldn't want to be prime minister; you have to give yourself 100 percent.

She obviously recognised the "jobs for the boys" attitude of her party (and to be fair, the Tories are certainly not unique in this respect), and without the support of her husband's rather large pockets, a particularly scheming section of the Tory party and the recognition that the only way to succeed would be to "out boy the boys", I doubt if Thatch would've been little more than a footnote as the minister who took milk off the children.

Ah, if only that were the case
Labourites should remember the old saying "those who live under glass ceilings should not throw stones".

If you want to get critical about (New) Labour's selection of women candidates, go ahead, I'll join you; it reeks of the same "jobs for the boys" attitude of the Tories. However, this equivocation in no way supports your contentions about Thatch or the Tory leadership selection process.

 

[richardm]

(3.) I didn't know about the coal mines. Wouldn't she have needed active support from the Home Secretary to pull this off? And could the mines have reopened since she left office?

Well, the Home Sec. pretty much did what he was told.

The problem with closing mines is that once they're closed and the pumps stop, they tend to fill with water. They are then extremely expensive and dangerous to reopen, so they remain closed.

 

[BillyTK]

Well, the Home Sec. pretty much did what he was told.

This reminds me of another Thatcher quote:

I don't mind how much my ministers talk - as long as they do what I say.