Margaret Thatcher

[PainRack]

So, nearly two decades after the end of her rule, what's your opinion of Margaret Thatcher?

Iron lady who stuck tough on Argentina and the Falklands island? The woman who cracked down on the unions?

The woman who caused massive unemployment and screwed up the public sale of British owned corporations?

[K. A. Pital]

Thatcher? Just a quick run over the bullshit she spouted over the years:

Military men are always warning us that the strategic balance is tilting against NATO and the west.

Of course they are, and any good conservative knows the military lobby is correct.

She's [Russia] ruled by a dictatorship of patient, far-sighted determined men who are rapidly making their country the foremost naval and military power in the world.

They are not doing this solely for the sake of self-defence.

A huge, largely land-locked country like Russia does not need to build the most powerful navy in the world just to guard its own frontiers.

No. The Russians are bent on world dominance, and they are rapidly acquiring the means to become the most powerful imperial nation the world has seen.

What a load of crap... but that's only until you see what is coming next.

Last year on the eve of the Helsinki Conference, I warned that the Soviet Union is spending 20 per cent more each year than the United States on military research and development

Of course, the USSR didn't even have as much money to spend "more than the US"

Her economic views:

There have been far more price cuts in the supermarkets than in the nationalised industries. This shows the difference between the government doing the job itself and the government creating the conditions under which prices will be kept down through effective competition.

Superstore chain price dumping is a method of levelling the field by "killing off" competitors and institute monopolies.

[Starglider]

So, nearly two decades after the end of her rule, what's your opinion of Margaret Thatcher?

Awesome. Scary-awesome, but as long as that stays the right side of insane it's the best kind of awesome.

Iron lady who stuck tough on Argentina and the Falklands island?

Hell yes. Not only was this critical in taking out an odious junta, it was an awesome PR and morale move for the UK in general and her government in particular.

The woman who cracked down on the unions?

Fuck yes. Those bastards had it coming. Unfortunately this happened a decade too late to save the UK car industry (or a lot of other UK industry). Likewise, conservative defence spending (relative) sanity came a decade too late to save the UK military aerospace industry. Every single time Labour got into power prior to the Blair era, they did the best to utterly screw over the UK's economy, military and global prestige. The /only/ area in which they did well was government services - the NHS and social security were actually good ideas (though if the Conservatives hadn't stopped them they would have bloated them up to obscene levels).

The woman who caused massive unemployment

Half of them had it coming. The union workers killed their own industries with commercially ludicrous demands (three day work week crap).

and screwed up the public sale of British owned corporations?

The real disaster was nationalising them in the first place - which was followed by three decades of competitive decay. Privatisation didn't go so well either, but if those industries hadn't been nationalised the problem wouldn't have occured in the first place.

Thatcher rocked. Admittadly she was over the top with stuff like 'there is no such thing as society' (though that quote is out of context), but that's what early-80s Britian /needed/ to shock it out of Labour-induced sluggishness, half-assery and dependence culture.

[MKSheppard]

Thatcher? Just a quick run over the bullshit she spouted over the years:

Lets be honest. The Soviet Union in the Early 1980s looked like an invincible Behemoth to the West; which was creaking through a period of little, if any modernization during the 1970s; while the Soviet Union cranked out program after program.

[Keevan_Colton]

Thatcher? Just a quick run over the bullshit she spouted over the years:

Lets be honest. The Soviet Union in the Early 1980s looked like an invincible Behemoth to the West; which was creaking through a period of little, if any modernization during the 1970s; while the Soviet Union cranked out program after program.

Lets be honest. You know jack and shit about this, only the big bad red boogeyman bullshit you read in your wanking material. You were in no position to have an opinion back then and all you've had is after the fact rationalisations.

[Dartzap]

I was born right at the end of her reign, so all the knowledge I have of her was mainly through what my parents have said of her, and since they are very much liberal...yeah, probably my opinion would be slightly biased.

[Starglider]

all the knowledge I have of her was mainly through what my parents have said of her, and since they are very much liberal...yeah, probably my opinion would be slightly biased.

I'm fairly liberal. But 1970s Britain was a festering pit of apathy-socalist stagnation. The taxation levels were utterly ridiculous, everyone competent and even moderately well off was fleeing the country. A bit of yuppie nationalist conservatism was exactly what was needed to kick the country out of that rut. Thatcher style conservatism was a lot more healthy than the recent US kind; no religious angle, no backwards morality (she was a feminist idol!), no pre-emptive invasions and relatively restrained personal greed (compared to the current runaway US wealth gap).

[NecronLord]

My earliest memory is of my mother stamping and shouting "Maggie maggie maggie, out out out."

Yep, I'm from the north.

[thejester]

The two dominating images of Thatcher:

- Rik blaming her for everything in The Young Ones ("Vyvyan's baby will grow up a pauper! I HOPE YOUR SATISFIED, THATCHER!")

- Alan Clark's description of her ankle. Those who saw the dramatisation need no further explanation as to how mentally scaring that was.

[MKSheppard]

Lets be honest. You know jack and shit about this, only the big bad red boogeyman bullshit you read in your wanking material.

I love the smell of strawmans in the morning. They're fresh and toasty! Like Donuts!

We've actually been through this two years ago, albeit tangentially, over "Team B".

Link to revelant thread

The Late 70s and Early 1980s were bad times for the West's strategic and economic positions in general.

The Western economies were still reeling from the shocks of the 1970s, the oil embargo, Stagflation, etc etc. Compared to them, the USSR did look somewhat healthy, at least from what information the Soviets publically released to the West.

Strategically, the Western position was pretty much fucked. For the US, no real improvements in military equipment had really taken place other than the introduction of the F-15 into service in the mid 1970s. Most of our defense programs continued in development hell due to low funding by Congress; while entire systems and units were taken out of service. The SAGE centers were shut down, the interceptor squadrons were killed off, and the SAM sites slowly whittled down until ARADCOM had ceased to exist except for a very thin screen of SAM sites in Florida for defense against the Cuban threat.

Meanwhile, the Soviet position, both Offensive and Defensively continued to grow ever more, they quadrupled the number of re-entry vehicles they had between 1970 and 1979; deployed about 18,000 SA-5 missiles, and continued to grow their interceptor capabilities; by replacing completely obsolete aircraft with newer, faster, deadlier aircraft.

While the US wasted most of the 1970s bickering over what makeup the USN would have; should we have big deck nuclear carriers, or smaller Sea Control Ships? (look at the order dates for the Nimitzes), and was faced with the block obsolescence of it's huge fleet of World War II ships, the USSR was actually modernizing it's fleet rapidly during the 1970s with new ship classes coming on, making the Soviet Navy something other than Sverdlov Cruisers (aka, World War II Gun Cruisers).

It wasn't until the mid to late 1980s that our recapitalization programs across the board were able to redress the Soviet Threats and restore strategic parity almost to what it had been in the 1960s.

[MKSheppard]

Oh yes, and lets not forget the shock that the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 had, effectively ending the decade long "perhaps the soviets are just nice people like us" period of detente during the 70s.

[MKSheppard]

Of course they are, and any good conservative knows the military lobby is correct.

She was right, during the 70s; force modernization plans across the West effectively were on hold for various reasons ranging from "Why do we need to spend money?" in Europe, to the Post-Vietnam slump in military spending in the US. Meanwhile, the Soviets continued ahead with their modernization and recapitalization programs.

What a load of crap... but that's only until you see what is coming next.

What was the point of Gorshkov's navy, then? To die gloriously like the Kriegsmarine in WW2?

Of course, the USSR didn't even have as much money to spend "more than the US"

Well, consider the time period when she made that statment. The USSR wasn't exactly being 'honest' with it's economic statements. There was really no way for anyone to know exactly how much the USSR was spending and where it was going, in the era of Soviet Secrecy.

[Big Orange]

I have mixed feelings for Mrs. Thatcher - she could be very ruthless when necessary (Unions, Old Labor, IRA, Commies, Argentinian Fascists) and unnecessarily cruel (normal workers caught up in Union BS, AIDs victims, homosexuals, Poll Tax and the NHS). She doesn't inspire as much anger as Bush and much good has come from her policies (along with much shit).

[Glocksman]

Thatcher? Just a quick run over the bullshit she spouted over the years:

Lets be honest. The Soviet Union in the Early 1980s looked like an invincible Behemoth to the West; which was creaking through a period of little, if any modernization during the 1970s; while the Soviet Union cranked out program after program.

Lets be honest. You know jack and shit about this, only the big bad red boogeyman bullshit you read in your wanking material. You were in no position to have an opinion back then and all you've had is after the fact rationalisations.

Reagan wasn't elected solely on the strength of his domestic platform, you know?
Sure, the USSR was slowly disintegrating economically but the CIA didn't catch it and in fact produced 'intelligence' that was showing the opposite.

From what I remember of the time (I was 13 years old in 1980), the news was full of 'Doom & Gloom' both domestically (gas crisis, stagflation, high interest rates, etc.) and internationally (USSR invades Afganistan, Marxist insurgencies in Africa and Central America, Iranian hostage crisis, etc.) during the late 70's/early 80's.

[Glocksman]

As far as the OP goes, my impression of Thatcher at the time was that she was exactly what Britain needed and restored the 'sick old man of Europe' back to some semblance of its former glory.

Today my impression is still favorable overall, but more mixed as I hear about her failures and misconceptions.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see why the Right should be exonerated for spending huge amounts of money to counteract the perceived Russian military superiority, when subsequent developments have revealed that the Right actually invented the mythology of Russian military superiority in order to terrify the populace into supporting them. To this day, we are still paying the price for the rise of right-wing military culture, including the entire Iraq misadventure.

The way right-wingers spin it, the Right was just reacting to a widespread perception of the day. But the Right was instrumental in creating that perception.

[MKSheppard]

But the Right was instrumental in creating that perception.

You mean the truth?

I actually own a source document from that period, the evil retarded counterpart to the Soviet Military Power books.

SOVIET MILITARY POWER*

*The Pentagon's Propaganda Document, Annonated and Corrected

by Tom Gervasi, Author of Arsenal of Democracy

Such gems as:

"Soviet crews have not used the autoloader since 1979 on the T-72"

The Soviets also agreed to comply with the Biological and Toxin Weapons COnvention, which bans development and production of BW agents. They are certainly "Capable" of developing and producing such agents, just as we are. But if we can only conclude that they have the capability, and not the agents themselves, then what sort of "Activity" are they engaged in, of which we claim to observe "no reduction"

And when he comments on the US DOD comment:

"The SA-X-12B/GIANT may have the potential to intercept some types of strategic Balltistic missiles"

"Since Soviet Missiles specifically designed for the purpose like the GALOSH, have seldom been able to hit such targets in tests, it isn't too likely that a missile designed merely to hit aircraft is going to do any better."

As Vympel on HAB said it at the time:

"What a fucking moron- Jeez, the Pentagon was right more than this asshole."

[MKSheppard]

And here's a blast from the past.

New York Times Mar 16, 1980
SOVIETS INTRODUCING NEW TANK IN EUROPE

Officials Fear That Allied Missiles Will Not Penetrate the Armor on the Russian Models

By DREW MIDDLETON

While the United States has been moving toward the production of its first new tank in 20 years, the Soviet Union has been improving the quality and quantity of its tank forces and has embarked on the production of its fourth new tank in 20 years, the T-80.

The Russian tank program could be viewed with more equanimity by the United States and its NATO allies if there was reasonable confidence that the Soviet tanks now deployed, the T-64 and the T-72, were vulnerable to the antitank guided missiles in the American and allied armies.

But the evidence of European intelligence sources and Defense Department officials who have testified before Congress is that the two Russian battle tanks are equipped with a new form of armor resistant to penetration by the United States TOW and Dragon antitank missiles and against the European HOT and Milan missiles as well.

Both TOW and Dragon are being modified to insure penetration of existing Russian armor. But some analysts of the Soviet tank forces doubt whether these modifications will produce weapons that will destroy the T-80's, which are expected to reach Russian armored divisions late this year.

Soviets Deploy More Tanks

The qualitative lead that the West hoped to assume through the production of the American XM-1 tank, the West German Leopard II, the British Chieftan II and hundreds of thousands of antitank guided missiles has been put in doubt. And the Russians have added to their quantitative superiority.

By the middle of last year about 9,900 T-64's and T-72's had been deployed by the Soviet Union. About 7,800 of these were with armored units in Eastern Europe and in the western military districts of the Soviet Union. In addition the Soviet army has about 12,000 tanks, most of them older models, in storage, according to European intelligence sources.

The United States Army's goal for production of the XM-1 is about 7,700 tanks by late in the decade.

The military problem posed for the West by the Soviet superiority in numbers and quality has been exacerbated by the improvement in the body armor of the T-72 and, to a lesser extent, in late models of the T-64. The T-80 is expected to have even better armor.

In testimony to Congress last year William J. Perry, Under Secretary for Research and Engineering in the Defense Department, and Percy A. Pierre, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition, made some significant disclosures.

Incapable of Penetrating Armor

Mr. Perry said that the TOW antitank missile was incapable of penetrating the T-64 and T-72 and that even after the planned modifications the new TOW-2 might be incapable of stopping the T-80.

Mr. Pierre was equally frank. He told Congress that both the T-64 and the T-72 were superior to the M-60, the American tank now deployed in Europe, and that "in face of the overlapping succession of new tank developments we no longer are on safe ground contending that our yet-to-be-deployed XM-1 will be vastly superior to future Soviet models."

American and European specialists see these elements in the armored equation:

*Until modified American and European antitank missiles are produced and deployed, Soviet tanks, already numerically superior, will be able to take a hit on their frontal armor and keep moving.

*The quality of the new American tank and of advanced West German, British and French tanks will be matched by the Soviet T-80, which, if past performance offers a criterion, will be produced at greater speed and in greater numbers.

The United States is attempting to improve the range and lethality of the more than 100,000 TOW missiles in the Army's inventory and to improve the range of the Dragon missile by over 50 percent of its present rangeof 1,000 to 1,500 meters.

Promising Weapon for Future

A more promising weapon for the future is the Assault Breaker, a new antitank weapon being developed by the United States and a French-British-West German consortium that, barring delays in funding and development, will be deployed in the last half of the decade.

Assault Breaker will fire multiple missiles carrying large numbers of small heat-seeking bombs, or, alternatively, small missiles with a range of almost 100 miles.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, according to arms specialists, already has awarded a number of contracts for components of the Assault Breaker system. The next steps are the assembly of the missiles and tests against tanks.

Some senior officers, who asked for anonymity because of their roles in operational planning, said they thought the Assault Breaker was like other panaceas promised in the past: "Pie in the sky."

What the Army needs in the next "dangerous years," they said, is a weapon available today "or at latest tomorrow." The recurring theme is that the Army may not have the time to develop, test and produce : "We need something now. "

[Illuminatus Primus]

Thatcher? Just a quick run over the bullshit she spouted over the years:

Lets be honest. The Soviet Union in the Early 1980s looked like an invincible Behemoth to the West; which was creaking through a period of little, if any modernization during the 1970s; while the Soviet Union cranked out program after program.

Not according to the CIA. But we need the Group B report to enrich defense contractors, elect Republitards, and run up the debt...and then the USSR collapsed under its own weight. The CIA saw that it was increasingly dysfunctional, it was only Rumsfeld and idiots et al who pushed that they were bigger and scarier than ever, and only totally uneducated blue-collar myrmidons like you who were sold, hook-line-and-sinker.

[MKSheppard]

The CIA saw that it was increasingly dysfunctional, it was only Rumsfeld and idiots et al who pushed that they were bigger and scarier than ever, and only totally uneducated blue-collar myrmidons like you who were sold, hook-line-and-sinker.

Keep deluding yourself to that. I noticed a name in that article I reposted above; as well in other articles I found set during that time period -- William J. Perry; who at the time (1977-81) was Carter's Undersecretary of Defense; basically in charge of DARPA -- he later went on to become Clinton's Second Secretary of Defense from (1994-97); he was pretty much saying the same things that Team B was saying -- the Soviets had used the "Lost Decade" of the 1970s to catch up with us in weapons technology, and that we needed to counter them.

[Keevan_Colton]

The CIA saw that it was increasingly dysfunctional, it was only Rumsfeld and idiots et al who pushed that they were bigger and scarier than ever, and only totally uneducated blue-collar myrmidons like you who were sold, hook-line-and-sinker.

Keep deluding yourself to that. I noticed a name in that article I reposted above; as well in other articles I found set during that time period -- William J. Perry; who at the time (1977-81) was Carter's Undersecretary of Defense; basically in charge of DARPA -- he later went on to become Clinton's Second Secretary of Defense from (1994-97); he was pretty much saying the same things that Team B was saying -- the Soviets had used the "Lost Decade" of the 1970s to catch up with us in weapons technology, and that we needed to counter them.

Yeah, then went out and specialized in investment in high technology firms through the Regan years and made a fortune from it...gee...

[Androsphinx]

Well, she stuck up for Pinochet, lobbied against his extradition and said only good things about him when he died, that she was "greatly saddened" by his death, and that he was a "loyal ally" in the Falkland's war. I'm a fan, but she was a deeply flawed personality with a deeply flawed administration

[Illuminatus Primus]

The CIA saw that it was increasingly dysfunctional, it was only Rumsfeld and idiots et al who pushed that they were bigger and scarier than ever, and only totally uneducated blue-collar myrmidons like you who were sold, hook-line-and-sinker.

Keep deluding yourself to that. I noticed a name in that article I reposted above; as well in other articles I found set during that time period -- William J. Perry; who at the time (1977-81) was Carter's Undersecretary of Defense; basically in charge of DARPA -- he later went on to become Clinton's Second Secretary of Defense from (1994-97); he was pretty much saying the same things that Team B was saying -- the Soviets had used the "Lost Decade" of the 1970s to catch up with us in weapons technology, and that we needed to counter them.

And that mattered how? You keep repeating WELL LOTS OF PEOPLE BOUGHT RIGHT WING AGITPROP SO, IT WAS OKAY. Well, the CIA correctly predicted the fate and current state of the USSR prior to Team B, and the military spending Reagan did he did on the national credit card, destroying his Republican successor who had no choice but to pay the bill, and generally conducting domestic financial malfeasance. We should have allowed them to collapse while not stressing our own economic center of gravity unnecessarily; especially when all that excess capacity proved to be largely pointless.

[Frank Hipper]

I couldn't give a fuck if I tried about Thatcher's Cold War militarism; socially she was a bigotted whore, an outspoken and blatant enemy to justice.

Fuck her, and fuck the memory of her.

[Stark]

I don't give a shit about Shep's cut'n'paste argument either, but regardless of results I'd be surprised if Thatcher's activities were the most efficient, least fractious method of achieving them.