Margaret Thatcher

[Androsphinx]

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.

The problem was that Labour in the 1980s was basically unelectable. Their 1983 manifesto was described by one of its own party "the longest suicide note in history", they got less than 30% of the vote, and only about 2% above the third party (which later became the Liberal Democrats). They advocated withdrawal from the EEC, abolition of the second chamber of Parliament, unilateral nuclear disarmament, and nationalisation of all major industries. In 1987 the Labour leader said that their proposed defence should the USSR attack was to (I quote from memory) "make an occupation untenable by all means possible". So she got away with a lot of things which she wouldn't have otherwise.

[Adrian Laguna]

In 1987 the Labour leader said that their proposed defence should the USSR attack was to (I quote from memory) "make an occupation untenable by all means possible". So she got away with a lot of things which she wouldn't have otherwise.

That's brilliant, as if the Soviets would actually want to occupy a radioactive wasteland. The problem with Britain is, it's so small and tightly clustered together, that blasting all valid targets pretty much reduces the entire country to ashes.

[Androsphinx]

That's brilliant, as if the Soviets would actually want to occupy a radioactive wasteland. The problem with Britain is, it's so small and tightly clustered together, that blasting all valid targets pretty much reduces the entire country to ashes.

The thinking was that unilateral disarmament would cause the USSR to retarget its nuclear weapons, and that by no longer threatening Soviet cities, they would respond in turn. It was a particularly perverse example of the "If I can't see you, you can't see me" logic.

[Elfdart]

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.

Cuban threat? Is that like the Yellow Rain threat? Or is it more like the threat of fluoride in tap water?

[Illuminatus Primus]

It wasn't unreasonable that Cuba would provide basing in the event of a general war during the height of the Cold War.

[Lord Pounder]

Funily enough she was the subject of my Government and Politics class this past Thursday. Untill the Falklands where invaded she had the lowest rating in the opinion polls of any PM ever, then when the HMS Shefield was sank, by a missile built in Shefield as irony would have it, and her approval rating shot up to one of the highest by a PM ever.

Ultimately she was a poor leader, she took power away from the cabinet and gave to to unelected yes men and women and practiced almost dictatorial power, so ofcourse she'd like Pinochete. Her policies crippled British industry and destroyed the shipbuilding industry.

Mostly I dislike her for being Tony Blairs role model. Is rise to power and eventual fall a carbon copy of Thatchers.

[K. A. Pital]

What the FUCK are you insinuating, Shep? The USSR didn't even have a fucking open-seas Navy. What sort of a non-nuclear war could you imagine? Are you fucking dense?

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.

Let's be honest - Western analytics lied their fucking ass off to increase military spending so that their presidents could wag their dicks as to how "secure" they were with their militaries. As if any non-nuclear confrontation could arise.

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

No, they were not. The USSR's economic progress stalled and become totally extensive since the ruling party could not run a massive industrialization upgrade. 1950-1960's machinery was used on many plants. Intensive upgrade program was started by Andropov, but it failed. In the military part, the USSR never spent as much as the US, because it never could. So, you're full of shit.

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.

The West never took that information as "true". The bullshit CIA reports which inflated Soviet economic and military capabilities were a deliberate forgery by a hardcore group of anti-Soviet russophobes and American dominionists, who, frankly, from my POV, deserve to bite the fucking dust - people like Zbigniew Brzezhinsky.

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.

Um... so what? The USSR did not have any open-seas Navy. Period. The USSR was a continental power with a rough nuclear parity, and it was obvious that any war would devolve into a nuclear exchange. You fail at argumentation. The US was not the underdog, it was the most powerful country and remained that after the USSR failed to upgrade it's industry and suffered a collapse.

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.

Um... so what? Interceptors are a defensive weapon, moron. They are meant to intercept enemy bombers that want to bomb the shit out of your country. And sorry, but the Soviet bomber fleet compared to American one, just like the Soviet Navy, was a fucking joke. Don't you fucking bullshit ME here.

...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).

The USSR did not have anything resembling an open-seas Navy. It had a protective fleet all the way long, it was designed to inflict maximum casualties on the attacking Navy, nuke enemy territory with SLBM expansion, and that's it. End of fucking story. The USSR never wielded a full-scale aircraft carrier, only ersatz-TAKRs.

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.

PARITY? Shut the fuck up. America and England remained secure from any type of Soviet attack sans a full-scale nuclear exchange. America had a massive edge over the USSR, it had a vastly more powerful military and economic bloc, and aviation and Navy that ALWAYS surpassed the Soviet ones at ANY given point in time. "Parity" my ass.

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.

You mean where Zbigniew Brzezhinsky orchestrated a radical islamist uprising and unrest in Afghanistan, and the USSR was forced to invade a country without substantial natural resources, so that could not be seen as resource imperialism like the recent American invasion of Iraq?

Yeah, sure. That "invasion" (I love the capital I ) has totally helped to boost up bullshit anti-Soviet hysteria and due to people like Brzhezhinsky, American administration one after another spoke about "peaceful Islamic people" and totally bought the idea of supporting radical islamists in Afghan with Pakistani help

I mean, it's not like America didn't invade a shitload of countries over the course of the Cold War, but the USSR is of course evil for invading a country with no strategic assets for the West and trying to institute a government which actually tried to improve the lives of people who lived in medieval islamic feudalism!

[Rye]

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

Not a fan.

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

I thought that was cool, not as cool as when that member of the public went after her on Newsnight over some unwarranted attack or other, though.

The woman who cracked down on the unions?

Yeah, and something had to happen, though perhaps miners starving and the usual conservative bullshit of attempting to kill the NHS to see how it can continue existing without proper funding, London is the only place that matters etc, doesn't make it worth it.

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

Indeed. I'm still unconvinced about the privatisation, and obviously hate all the normal tory bullshit.

[Thanas]

Margaret Thatcher forever lost my respect when she equalled the unified germany to the third reich, and tried to block the reunification.

[fgalkin]

Why? Are you suggesting that German re-unification was a good thing? Because it certainly wasn't for Germany.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[[R_H]]

Margaret Thatcher forever lost my respect when she equalled the unified germany to the third reich, and tried to block the reunification.

What was her justification for doing opposing the reunification?

And yeah, like fgalkin said, the reunification hasn't been a cakewalk, there still major problems with unemployment, not enough apprenticeship places, drug and alcohol problems etc.

[Thanas]

Why? Are you suggesting that German re-unification was a good thing? Because it certainly wasn't for Germany.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I am very interested in hearing your resoning for that.

BTW, didn't you read my post at all? She was equalling Germany with the Third Reich and the Kaiserreich, insinuating that a unified germany would turn on Britain as soon as possible. How in hell does "the unification was not a good thing for germany"

What was her justification for doing opposing the reunification?

I do not know. Probably fear of loosing british influence over Europe/Nato. Also, if one takes her literally, the fear of Germany invading Britain.

And yeah, like fgalkin said, the reunification hasn't been a cakewalk, there still major problems with unemployment, not enough apprenticeship places, drug and alcohol problems etc.

Hmmm. First off, I know all about Germany's problems. However, you will have to provide data saying that these are effects of the reunification.

Even if you somehow manage to prove that the reunification resulted in a net loss, you neglect the emotional factors of the division of Germany. Germany would have been obligated to act when the east would have collapsed. Heck, most people in germany had family in the eastern half of germany. Costs aside, that is the reason why the reunification was a good thing.

(Americans should remember that their country once fought a civil war and most americans still regard Lincoln as one of the greatest presidents, beside the fact that the northern states were generally better off than the southern states. Economic factors are not the only things when states are involved.)

[Starglider]

Margaret Thatcher forever lost my respect when she equalled the unified germany to the third reich, and tried to block the reunification.

Really? I don't recall her saying that. Of course I was too young to appreicate the sublties at the time, but I haven't seen it in any historical material either. My recollection is that she was concerned about Germany becoming too strong and effectively taking control over the EU. Of course that was before enlargement - and IMHO better the Germans did it than the former situation of it being effectively a French attempt to make the rest of Europe a) subsidise their farmers and b) dance to their tune.

[The Guid]

Thatcher swung the balance of power away from the Unions, and yes in some cases Unions had become self serving. On the other hand maybe these workers needed help coming off their jobs rather than see their livelihoods die with not so much as a "cya!"

Yes, Thatcher was the woman who fought for the Falklands (or sent people to go do it) but was that the only option? And was it worth those that died?

Don't even pretend the Soviets gave a shit about Downing Street. It was Washington they watched.

The fact is though that she changed Britain - she adopted the consumerist, individualistic, greed is good, selfish bull crap and made it a permanent stamp on the British psyche, and for that I dislike her.

[Starglider]

The fact is though that she changed Britain - she adopted the consumerist, individualistic, greed is good, selfish bull crap and made it a permanent stamp on the British psyche, and for that I dislike her.

Still better than the toxic apathy-dependence-spineless-pacifist-nihilist cocktail old labour was pushing as their vision for Britain.

[Thanas]

Margaret Thatcher forever lost my respect when she equalled the unified germany to the third reich, and tried to block the reunification.

Really? I don't recall her saying that.

"We've beaten the Germans twice and now they're back" were her exact words.

[The Guid]

The fact is though that she changed Britain - she adopted the consumerist, individualistic, greed is good, selfish bull crap and made it a permanent stamp on the British psyche, and for that I dislike her.

Still better than the toxic apathy-dependence-spineless-pacifist-nihilist cocktail old labour was pushing as their vision for Britain.

Apathy? Dependence? Define it & back it up please. Same with spineless. And there were other parties as well so the point is moot anyway.

[Adrian Laguna]

The thinking was that unilateral disarmament would cause the USSR to retarget its nuclear weapons, and that by no longer threatening Soviet cities, they would respond in turn. It was a particularly perverse example of the "If I can't see you, you can't see me" logic.

Well, it might have worked if they had also followed their disarmament with the expulsion of all US assets from British soil and withdrawal from NATO. That way only London gets hit. That's right, London is still a target. Why? Two reasons: 1) In simple terms, hitting London also hits the Americans in the wallet. 2) The Soviets had so many atomics that even nuking NATO twice over didn't justify the number, so many of their plans spread around the radioactive love, ostensibly to keep Argentina from becoming the next world super-power or something.

[Elfdart]

It wasn't unreasonable that Cuba would provide basing in the event of a general war during the height of the Cold War.

Of course it's unreasonable. Cuba was a Soviet client state just south of Florida. If the US and USSR had gone to war, guess who would have been pimp-slapped in the first round? The Russians wouldn't have been able to use Cuba as a base for the same reason the Americans couldn't use a Moscow suburb for a base. As Garry Wills pointed out in The Kennedy Imprisonment, Cuba was less than useless as a base for the Soviet Union to do anything against the US. No matter what the scenario, any attack from the USSR or Cuba would end with both countries getting thermonuclear enemas, as was made clear by the Kennedy administration and every successor during the Cold War.

[Stuart Mackey]

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.

.

Same Maggie who was quite happy to gut the RN the year before the Falklands and virtually give them away to the Argies in a blatant act of fascist appeasement? Hell, Invincible was to have been sold to Australia.

Thats the problem with Westminster politics, the left spend without thought for the consequences (excepting pet ideologies) and the the right cut spending without thought for the consequences (excepting pet ideologies).

[Darth Wong]

Imagine what would have happened if Argentina had played their cards a bit better and Britain lost the Falkland Islands war.

[Stuart Mackey]

Imagine what would have happened if Argentina had played their cards a bit better and Britain lost the Falkland Islands war.

The cost to the British would have been beyond any military or financial loss, Their standing in the world would have plummeted and they would be a laughing stock at minimum.

[Adrian Laguna]

Imagine what would have happened if Argentina had played their cards a bit better and Britain lost the Falkland Islands war.

The cost to the British would have been beyond any military or financial loss, Their standing in the world would have plummeted and they would be a laughing stock at minimum.

Meanwhile, Argentina would be every third-world tinpot dictators's new hero.

[Androsphinx]

Well, it might have worked if they had also followed their disarmament with the expulsion of all US assets from British soil and withdrawal from NATO. That way only London gets hit. That's right, London is still a target. Why? Two reasons: 1) In simple terms, hitting London also hits the Americans in the wallet. 2) The Soviets had so many atomics that even nuking NATO twice over didn't justify the number, so many of their plans spread around the radioactive love, ostensibly to keep Argentina from becoming the next world super-power or something.

If I didn't make it clear before, it was an exceptionally stupid idea

[Adrian Laguna]

If I didn't make it clear before, it was an exceptionally stupid idea

I know, I'm just saying it's not entirely without merit. You just have to go the whole way, and be prepared to make some sacrifices.