![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mintogrubb.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIf you want to know what happened , you could go here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margeret_thatcher#Leader_of_the_Opposition_.281975.E2.80.931979.29
But even the neutrality of this entry is disputed.
Not suprisingly, for although mrs Thatcher famously quoted Francis of Assisi when she came to power, hopint to bring peace in place of strife and hope where there was only dispair, she remains a very much debated and highly debateable figure in British political history.
Although a rather attracive woman in her youth, her charming and elegant appearance was not matched by her voice - a point that her political detractors seized upon with gusto. She sounded as though she was talking down to her audience in a condescending tone, and this was because actually, she usually was!
Even so, she understood the importance of image management and took voice coaching lessons with a view to overcoming this. As Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, she made a name for her forthright views, and eventually won a decisive victory over the Labour Government and became Britain's first woman PM in May, 1979.
She was a staunch opponent of Russian expansionism in the Cold War, and the Russians declared that she was 'trying to wear Winston Churchill's trousers' and dubbed her 'The Iron Lady', she rather liked that epithet. It was, as we shall see, well deserved. She was indeed strong willed, rather determined and very combatative.
And yet her approval rating at it's highest, was only 52%. Personally, I admire her tenacity and resolute character, but I feel that her entire approach was usually wrong, if not totally simplistic. She did not do subtle, yet even so, she did get a few things right.
In her first major clash with her political opponents, she needed to tame the unions.
Now, it has to be said that under Labour, the Unions had gone from being regarded as the underdogs to being the nation's bully boys. Big Unions had a ' block vote' in the TUC.
So if the Trade Union Congress was going to vote on an issue, 3 small unions with 10,000 members each would be out-voted by a big union with 50,000 members. Even if half the membership of the big union disagreed with their Union Leader. Because nobody asked every union member their own personal views - it was simply that each union leader used all his members votes as one block. Hence the phrase 'the block vote'.
Yes, the Labour movement should have sorted this out themselves, but they never got round to doing it. This, and the 'show of hands', plus other measures like 'secondary picketing' ensured that the militants had a bigger say in the Union that the ordinary member. Reform was needed.
It is ironic that the person who made the Unions more accountable to the members, who gave more freedom and democracy into Union workings was not even a Socialist- but gove her her due, she did what no one else had dared. She brought Union legislation into force.
One member, one vote on the TUC Asembly meant that no big union could force smaller unions to toe a line they did not agree to.
A secret ballot ensured that those who voted against strike action could not be identified and victimised.
And although a Union could still call a strike, they had to ask for members backing first - and could not go and picket another firm that was not in dispute with it's workforce.
Industrial relations did improve. Union bosses became the servants of the Union membership instead of the overlords. All well and good. But Thatcher was not always so good at fixing things. Her solution to the problems of industrial decline in the UK did not stop with Union Reform. she also adopted monetarist policies. In Thatchers Britain , this meant that the weakest went to the wall. She culled a lot of industries out of spite, I feel. It was revenge for the way they put paid to Ted Heath. she was prepared to see the UK buy coal from Spain rather than see men from Yorkshire in work. In the North, they hate her still.
Her determination and iron resolve were not just firm, they were inflexible. The more moderate members of her own party - men like Ted Heath or James Prior, she derided as 'Wets'. A term usually applied by upperclass schoolboys ( and maybe girls0 whom their peers deemed to be sentimental or 'cissies'. And it has to be said that these were men who tried to strike a balance - be fair to both sides, and were genuinely concerned for the less well off. "One nation Tories2 they called themselves. They felt that they were not just there to support their own social class, but to help the whole nation prosper.
Contrast this with Thatcher's remark that anyone who was an adult and was using a bus or other form of public transport was to be considered a failure.The upshot of thatchers policies was to put many millions of young people on the dole - and she just did not care. if people starved because they were poor, they had it coming, according to her.
She sold off national assets - the coal industry, British Steel, British Gas and many others.
all at knockdown prices, and righ folks bought the shares. True, smaller people got some too - but the big shareholders dominated the markets and the board meetings. a bit like the Union Block Vote, but no reforms happened here. The other problem was that she allowed firms to take on young people and gave them a subsidy if they did. The trouble was that she did not reckon on employers taking on kids as cheap labour for 6 months, and then dropping them and getting another newbie in on the cheap. Perhaps she felt that privatisation was a good thing and wanted to encourage people to get work and also take on workers. But the Employers cynically abused the scheme and it led nowhere as a result. Like I said, she was too simplistic sometimes.
When it came to the Falklands War, though, many Labour people got it wrong. the falklands wee a trouble spot. Argentina never renounced any claim on the islands just off their coast, but Labour governments had mainatied a discreet but viable military presence in the South Atlantic that kept Argentina at bay. And thatcher, in a mad bout of money saving , went and scrapped the ice patrol vessel, 'Endurance'. The Naval cheifs protested that this would send the Argentine Junta the wrong signal. thatcher ignored them.
And she even went ahead and was going to sell britain's biggest aircraft carrier to the Australians. galtieri saw no reason not to invade - would Thatcher, who had sold what little naval might she had have the stomach to fight if he invaded? Thatcher was a fool - but no coward.
Most Britons did not relish seeing British speaking people being lined up and menaced by swarthy looking Dagoes pointing rifles at them. There was righteous fury at the way that Britain had been humiliated, and we wanted our islands back. Thatcher realised that this would cost her dearly, if it never happened. A task force was sent and and a conscript army of Angentines dug themselves in - the Americans on TV who voiced the opinion that Britain could not possibly go half way round the world, fight a war and expect to beat an army five times bigger than they could muster were howled down with fury.
The British army that re took the Falklands was a force of professional volunteers. The army they faced was composed mostly of teenage conscrits, living on meagre rations, on widswept hills far from home. A British soldier explained that ensuring Argentine morale swiftly collapsed was easy "Shoot the Argie's officer- the man waving a pistol, and they all run away", he told a journalist.
Yes, Thatcher won a war - but her disregard of professional military advice and her blinding desire to cut costs actually -caused- that war in the first place. Oh, and she backed the sale of Stinger missiles to the Taliban as well. Her affection for Pinochet, the bloodstained Chilean Dictator knew no bounds. She was not always the strong supporter of democracy and freedom that she said she was. Whatever I may have said about giving her her due, about my admiration for her tenacity, be clear that I did not like this woman, overall. She was not totally bad, a completely failed PM , but her worst points took away from her good points to a very great extent. In my veiw at least.
The British public, who she hoped to benefit, got poorer under her rule. the gap between the richest and poorest got wider. John major- a 'One Nation Tory', a virtual unknown , succeeded her. John Major brought the rich and poor of Britain together in a way that Blair never matched. Major was what Thatcher would have called ' a wet'. I will say more on him again.
But it was her inflexibility that brought her down. the pool tax was what did it. Some say that she had outlived her usefulness, and they got rid of her. but like Thatcher, Major himself was brought down by his own people.
Britain had gone into the ERM. it was agreed that european currencies would be set at a stable level. it made imports and exports easy. And if anyone's rate got to high or low, the governments agreed to step in - buying or selling at a loss untill currency values went stable again. Remember how union greed and selfishness sank the labour Government, and gave Thatcher a clear run?
Well, it was the city bankers and brokers who shafted John Major. Black Wednesday, it was called. The pound went down , and the London financiers had a stark choice. they could either
a)not trade at all, and lose money
b) trade on sterling at a bare minimul level. All their dealings would hurt the British economy, and every pensioner in britain would have to pay the pice for every trade they did.
or
c) the selfish, greedy scumbags could sell every note they had, knowing that there was a run on the pound and the govt would be picking up the tab on every trade. The venal, stinking swine went and hit the trading floors like pigs coming off of hunger strike. They blew millions. Champagne corks were popped as they hauled in a mega dose of money - all at the taxpaeyers expense. Social services would suffer, pensioners would freeze or starve as a result - but what did they care?
Ok, so This was linked to other scandals involving govt ministers taking bribes as well, but it was Black Wednesday that got the voters goat. Blair swept in and the Tories were out of office for the first time in almost 15 yrs.
Blair described major as 'a thoroughly decent man who led a thoroughly appalling party'. And I, like a lot of people, made him right. but Blair, in spite of being a Labour PM , did not repeal Thatcher's ideas . In fact, Blair had abolished Clause 4 in order to get elected. "Tony Blur' , they called him . "He's not much different to a Tory", they said . Even Major was a better friend to the poor - their lot did improve for a while under him. I recall reading the figures on that.
But the future of Socialism - that must be summed up in another OP. and it will be, God willing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margeret_thatcher#Leader_of_the_Opposition_.281975.E2.80.931979.29
But even the neutrality of this entry is disputed.
Not suprisingly, for although mrs Thatcher famously quoted Francis of Assisi when she came to power, hopint to bring peace in place of strife and hope where there was only dispair, she remains a very much debated and highly debateable figure in British political history.
Although a rather attracive woman in her youth, her charming and elegant appearance was not matched by her voice - a point that her political detractors seized upon with gusto. She sounded as though she was talking down to her audience in a condescending tone, and this was because actually, she usually was!
Even so, she understood the importance of image management and took voice coaching lessons with a view to overcoming this. As Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, she made a name for her forthright views, and eventually won a decisive victory over the Labour Government and became Britain's first woman PM in May, 1979.
She was a staunch opponent of Russian expansionism in the Cold War, and the Russians declared that she was 'trying to wear Winston Churchill's trousers' and dubbed her 'The Iron Lady', she rather liked that epithet. It was, as we shall see, well deserved. She was indeed strong willed, rather determined and very combatative.
And yet her approval rating at it's highest, was only 52%. Personally, I admire her tenacity and resolute character, but I feel that her entire approach was usually wrong, if not totally simplistic. She did not do subtle, yet even so, she did get a few things right.
In her first major clash with her political opponents, she needed to tame the unions.
Now, it has to be said that under Labour, the Unions had gone from being regarded as the underdogs to being the nation's bully boys. Big Unions had a ' block vote' in the TUC.
So if the Trade Union Congress was going to vote on an issue, 3 small unions with 10,000 members each would be out-voted by a big union with 50,000 members. Even if half the membership of the big union disagreed with their Union Leader. Because nobody asked every union member their own personal views - it was simply that each union leader used all his members votes as one block. Hence the phrase 'the block vote'.
Yes, the Labour movement should have sorted this out themselves, but they never got round to doing it. This, and the 'show of hands', plus other measures like 'secondary picketing' ensured that the militants had a bigger say in the Union that the ordinary member. Reform was needed.
It is ironic that the person who made the Unions more accountable to the members, who gave more freedom and democracy into Union workings was not even a Socialist- but gove her her due, she did what no one else had dared. She brought Union legislation into force.
One member, one vote on the TUC Asembly meant that no big union could force smaller unions to toe a line they did not agree to.
A secret ballot ensured that those who voted against strike action could not be identified and victimised.
And although a Union could still call a strike, they had to ask for members backing first - and could not go and picket another firm that was not in dispute with it's workforce.
Industrial relations did improve. Union bosses became the servants of the Union membership instead of the overlords. All well and good. But Thatcher was not always so good at fixing things. Her solution to the problems of industrial decline in the UK did not stop with Union Reform. she also adopted monetarist policies. In Thatchers Britain , this meant that the weakest went to the wall. She culled a lot of industries out of spite, I feel. It was revenge for the way they put paid to Ted Heath. she was prepared to see the UK buy coal from Spain rather than see men from Yorkshire in work. In the North, they hate her still.
Her determination and iron resolve were not just firm, they were inflexible. The more moderate members of her own party - men like Ted Heath or James Prior, she derided as 'Wets'. A term usually applied by upperclass schoolboys ( and maybe girls0 whom their peers deemed to be sentimental or 'cissies'. And it has to be said that these were men who tried to strike a balance - be fair to both sides, and were genuinely concerned for the less well off. "One nation Tories2 they called themselves. They felt that they were not just there to support their own social class, but to help the whole nation prosper.
Contrast this with Thatcher's remark that anyone who was an adult and was using a bus or other form of public transport was to be considered a failure.The upshot of thatchers policies was to put many millions of young people on the dole - and she just did not care. if people starved because they were poor, they had it coming, according to her.
She sold off national assets - the coal industry, British Steel, British Gas and many others.
all at knockdown prices, and righ folks bought the shares. True, smaller people got some too - but the big shareholders dominated the markets and the board meetings. a bit like the Union Block Vote, but no reforms happened here. The other problem was that she allowed firms to take on young people and gave them a subsidy if they did. The trouble was that she did not reckon on employers taking on kids as cheap labour for 6 months, and then dropping them and getting another newbie in on the cheap. Perhaps she felt that privatisation was a good thing and wanted to encourage people to get work and also take on workers. But the Employers cynically abused the scheme and it led nowhere as a result. Like I said, she was too simplistic sometimes.
When it came to the Falklands War, though, many Labour people got it wrong. the falklands wee a trouble spot. Argentina never renounced any claim on the islands just off their coast, but Labour governments had mainatied a discreet but viable military presence in the South Atlantic that kept Argentina at bay. And thatcher, in a mad bout of money saving , went and scrapped the ice patrol vessel, 'Endurance'. The Naval cheifs protested that this would send the Argentine Junta the wrong signal. thatcher ignored them.
And she even went ahead and was going to sell britain's biggest aircraft carrier to the Australians. galtieri saw no reason not to invade - would Thatcher, who had sold what little naval might she had have the stomach to fight if he invaded? Thatcher was a fool - but no coward.
Most Britons did not relish seeing British speaking people being lined up and menaced by swarthy looking Dagoes pointing rifles at them. There was righteous fury at the way that Britain had been humiliated, and we wanted our islands back. Thatcher realised that this would cost her dearly, if it never happened. A task force was sent and and a conscript army of Angentines dug themselves in - the Americans on TV who voiced the opinion that Britain could not possibly go half way round the world, fight a war and expect to beat an army five times bigger than they could muster were howled down with fury.
The British army that re took the Falklands was a force of professional volunteers. The army they faced was composed mostly of teenage conscrits, living on meagre rations, on widswept hills far from home. A British soldier explained that ensuring Argentine morale swiftly collapsed was easy "Shoot the Argie's officer- the man waving a pistol, and they all run away", he told a journalist.
Yes, Thatcher won a war - but her disregard of professional military advice and her blinding desire to cut costs actually -caused- that war in the first place. Oh, and she backed the sale of Stinger missiles to the Taliban as well. Her affection for Pinochet, the bloodstained Chilean Dictator knew no bounds. She was not always the strong supporter of democracy and freedom that she said she was. Whatever I may have said about giving her her due, about my admiration for her tenacity, be clear that I did not like this woman, overall. She was not totally bad, a completely failed PM , but her worst points took away from her good points to a very great extent. In my veiw at least.
The British public, who she hoped to benefit, got poorer under her rule. the gap between the richest and poorest got wider. John major- a 'One Nation Tory', a virtual unknown , succeeded her. John Major brought the rich and poor of Britain together in a way that Blair never matched. Major was what Thatcher would have called ' a wet'. I will say more on him again.
But it was her inflexibility that brought her down. the pool tax was what did it. Some say that she had outlived her usefulness, and they got rid of her. but like Thatcher, Major himself was brought down by his own people.
Britain had gone into the ERM. it was agreed that european currencies would be set at a stable level. it made imports and exports easy. And if anyone's rate got to high or low, the governments agreed to step in - buying or selling at a loss untill currency values went stable again. Remember how union greed and selfishness sank the labour Government, and gave Thatcher a clear run?
Well, it was the city bankers and brokers who shafted John Major. Black Wednesday, it was called. The pound went down , and the London financiers had a stark choice. they could either
a)not trade at all, and lose money
b) trade on sterling at a bare minimul level. All their dealings would hurt the British economy, and every pensioner in britain would have to pay the pice for every trade they did.
or
c) the selfish, greedy scumbags could sell every note they had, knowing that there was a run on the pound and the govt would be picking up the tab on every trade. The venal, stinking swine went and hit the trading floors like pigs coming off of hunger strike. They blew millions. Champagne corks were popped as they hauled in a mega dose of money - all at the taxpaeyers expense. Social services would suffer, pensioners would freeze or starve as a result - but what did they care?
Ok, so This was linked to other scandals involving govt ministers taking bribes as well, but it was Black Wednesday that got the voters goat. Blair swept in and the Tories were out of office for the first time in almost 15 yrs.
Blair described major as 'a thoroughly decent man who led a thoroughly appalling party'. And I, like a lot of people, made him right. but Blair, in spite of being a Labour PM , did not repeal Thatcher's ideas . In fact, Blair had abolished Clause 4 in order to get elected. "Tony Blur' , they called him . "He's not much different to a Tory", they said . Even Major was a better friend to the poor - their lot did improve for a while under him. I recall reading the figures on that.
But the future of Socialism - that must be summed up in another OP. and it will be, God willing.
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 01:17 (UTC)I used to call him Tony Blahblahblah. Or Tony Blaaaaaaah.
I can't remember Thatcher being in power - I was much too young. But my dad and his family absolutely loathe her. (My mum likes her simply because she's a woman. I always found this problematic. The rest of my mum's family don't care for her.) When I got a bit older I read up on her policies and decided that I disagree with a lot of what she did.
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 09:08 (UTC)He was, in essence, Thatcher's child.
The question of the Welfare State was thrown into sharp relief after WW1.
up till then, Britain had need of a small , professional army.
Strong, healthy farm boys like my grandpa fought in the Sudan and in South Africa against the Boers. But when WW! came , all of a sudden , literally every man was needed in the war against the Kiaser.
many men came to the recruiting office from the slums of east London , and the major cities, but were turned away. they had rickets, TB, and a whole list of medical impairments that made them unfit.
it was decided that if ever wewent to war again , that the poor would be better quality cannon fodder next time.
We got, and always kept our NHS, but Mrs Thatcher, apart from taking the navy dangerously close to the point where we could not repel galtieri's attack on the Falklands, also decided against issuing free school milk to every child.
She is also known as 'Thatcher the milk snatcher', 'Snatcher Thatcher' or just ' the Milk Snatcher' for this reason.
the fact that she was a woman , but also a pretty bolshie one got her the nickname of 'Attilla the hen' - and she was also known as 'Tina' - short for 'There Is No Alternative' - an excuse she often made when challenged on her heartless and extremist policies.
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 23:18 (UTC)Obviously, I never lived through her term, but I see the concequences of her actions every day.
Did you know there's going to be a party in London the weekend after she dies?
(no subject)
Date: 21/8/10 07:57 (UTC)Interestingly, our current Tory toff, 'Call me Dave'Cameron, has said "there is such a thing as society. It's just not the same thing as the State, though'.
So, already, Thatcher has been reconsidered, contradicted even - by her own party. She is no ' going on and on' as she said she would be. Ideologically, the Tories are burying her.
And although I can well imagine such a a stunt happening - The Tory toffs of the Young Conservatives were cheering when they sank the Rainbow Warrior - well, I won't be going to her funeral party.
This sort of thingdoes not strike me as a mature and progressive sort of thing to do. Everyone dies. her eviction from Downing Street, yes. But her dying of old age, or anything else, will have no effect.
I intend posting on the future of Socialism, and I wonder what someone like you, of a different generation to mine will make of it.
(no subject)
Date: 22/8/10 12:18 (UTC)Though I doubt that's what Call Me Dave means when he says it's different from the state.
I think it's mostly going to be ex-miners and Socialist Workers Party members attending, as well as a others who may or may not have had their lives affected, but who disagree with her ideologies.
I agree, it's not exactly....humanist. I hear she's suffering from mental illness. Whatever she did in the past, her family and friends should be able to mourn her passing without a bunch of drunken louts getting up in their grill.
I feel like she's often used as a scapegoat. I'm not sure if her gender has much to do with that. As the first (and only) woman prime minister, she was under much more scrutiny than any male PM. I wonder if her 'legacy' will be that women won't be trusted in office again.
She was tough as old boots, and I guess she had to be.
I'm really interested to see what you write about the future of socialism!
It's interesting, I never identified as a socialist until you referred to me as one. I didn't want to be lumped in with condecending Socialist Workers Party members (of which I know a fair few from the Leeds branch.) I've spoken to them many times, and refuse to regognise that they have internalized society's sexism. (To illustrate the fact, I spoke to them as they were speaking to me. They accused me of being 'condecendingly aggressive'.) Also, they seem to think having a Women's Representative come The Revolution will be enough to eradicate sexism :S
(no subject)
Date: 22/8/10 23:08 (UTC)If you have read my further comments, you will see that I agree with marx on one thing at least.
The working class ahave got to free themselves by themselves. It is not good enough for middle class people to come along and hand out freebies for which you and I should be grateful. this was what happened in Russia.
Tony Cliff and his mates talked about a revolution , but had no clear plan for making it happen. Seemed to me that it was just about getting people to join , pay party subs so he could live on the pay check he got for 'running the political party'.
No, sorry -Labour are not what they used to be, but you can say that the labour party was a victim of its own success. The SWP has yet to succeed.
(no subject)
Date: 29/8/10 13:08 (UTC)I get overly irritated with them as they refuse to see that class, race, ability, gender etc intersect and create barriers for people. They seem to think that only class matters, and once that is sorted out, there'll be no oppression. But their attitudes toward my gender (treating me like I'm a simple little girl with ridiculous views) say otherwise. Though, to be fair, they're condecending towards anyone who don't share their views, but if they're talking to a man they use longer words and/or agree with them more. One once patted me on the head! ON THE HEAD MINTO! While saying 'Awwww'.
(no subject)
Date: 29/8/10 21:23 (UTC)The money thing was just one small part. this bit shocked me, even for them!
The way that certain things intersect is something i worked out for myself.
gener lays out 'roles' for women , roles create social standing, standing reinforces class and role.
But even as a working class bloke ( what the party is 'supposed' to be about is 'my' social class, don't forget) I saw ways in which the itellectuals were lionising an ideal.
like, working class kids on sink estates go round terrorising little old dadies and commit vandalism - but this is because they are oppressed and poor. take them out of that environment and they will be ok.
rubbish. i know several people who had a hard time growing up, but who stayed out of trouble with the law. it's so middle class to go on about poverty and not factor in the fact that people, even in the direst situations, still make their own choices.
it was the raid on the supermarket that did it for me. these people did not take over England , or even the BBC - all they had was a supemarkett to themselves when a demo got out of hand and a store window got smashed.
And did any OAPs get a bottle of milk? Did a packet of disposable nappies get ' liberated' and turned over to a young mum and her baby? Er, no - but all the fgs and the booze dissappeared! seriously , food left on shelves and ciggies go missing. What does this say about the priorities and te political concosiusness of those involved? It was the turning point for me.
Eeven so, patting you on the head -AND saying ' Awww'? I mean , words fail me !!!
The point is that they do feel that revolution and not reform is the answer, but if you are going to go that way, you have to be very clear and very disciplined about what is and is not revolutionary behaviour.
You may not believe me, but go check - there was once a government under Clement Atlee that owned the mines, the steel works , the railways and much more. Iit put milk on tables for school kids when I was one. it did healthcare and education. it was Socialist, even by the Classical standard.
"Civilisation" simply means that people live in settled communities. Yet we equate it with standards of decency and sophisticated technology- Democracy and proper drains.
I much suspect that Greens like me are doing the same thing with 'Socialism' - it no longer means just nationalising industries. To me and others, its about caring for the sick and elderly and stuff like that.
Ok - if you wanna get technical, it is Liberalism combined with a Social Justice element in it's thinking - Social Liiberalism, some call it.
The SWP posits itself as being able to answer everything through a Revolution. but what is happening is that people buy the paper, join the party, get fed up and leave. It is a revolving door. it lets people in , then sees the back of them , but goes nowhere itself.
Maybe you are right not to call yourself a Socialist. Ii adopted the green party because I see it not just growing in nubers, but influence, too. it wants to do definite things and gets them done. Electing a green MP was a big step, and Ii am sure more will follow.
Another thing is , that the SWP were ' sectarian' - they had nothing to do with those who were different , and yet somewhat similar. no attempt to get behind greenPeace, or LRA's. It was always workers on strike - even if the workers simply wanted more money and nowt else. I dunno if you have seen ' Life of Brian , the Monty Python film , but it satirises left wing british politics as much as religious fanaticism. the SWP were much like that, I think.
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 03:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 05:52 (UTC)Thatcher was not in power when the Taliban took control of Afghanistan.
The Stinger is an American weapon.
Nobody (as in the US or UK governments) ever sold them to the Taliban.
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 08:49 (UTC)True - but this does nothing to erase the memory of a picture of her patting a goat on the head as she talked to Afghan tribal leaders as she talked with them and promised them help to drive out the Russians.
The Afghan rebels back then called themselves the Mujahadin 'the Holy Warriors.'
The Stinger is an American weapon.
Not only that buddy, but it's a hand held heat seeking SAM with an altitude range of 15,000 feet. unlike earlier hand held SAMs, it could be launched at an aircraft approaching head on - earlier SAMs were only 'tail chasers' that could latch onto the heat plume from an aero engine.
The Mujahadin claimed that they only needed two things - the Koaran and the Stinger. Ok, it was the CIA who supplied them these missiles but Thatcher got herself in the frame as well.
I also recall a time when Kuwait was invaded, and Bush I ( father of the President famous for not getting to Ground Zero in the aftermath of 9/11 till the Mayor of New York had popped up first) turned to the Iron lady and sought her advice. She said that ' Now was not the time to go wobbly'.
Oh , I have no doubt that she missed Ronald reagan and was the real steel in the core of the NATO by this time.
The Taliban were going under a different name, and the Americans were putting up the hardware, but I think you'll find that this op has our Maggies prints all over it. I will see what I can find for ya. :)
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 16:33 (UTC)I have to say you have an unusual way of saying I am right.
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 22:30 (UTC)So thatcher was helping a bunch of Afghans who were kicking out the Soviets.
The guys who are the Taliban are a completely different bunch of Muslims from the Muslims who are now kicking American and British arses. Whatever makes you happy.
I just think it's a bit ironic, that's all.
I mean, who were we supplying back in the 80s?
And who is blowing up US and UK troops right now. did someone say 'Afghans'?
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 09:11 (UTC)The CIA sent the missiles, but that was just one of a whole bag of tricks that maggie used to fight a proxy war against the Russians.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_mujahideen_control.html
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 16:34 (UTC)Seriously?
Print the part about the Queen and drugs!
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 22:36 (UTC)And who is the Lyndon la Rouche anyway?
I was talking talking about thatcher - at least I thought I was.
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 09:47 (UTC)I'm sure you missed out a word.... "female" or Chemist :S
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 09:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 10:02 (UTC)Socialism I can't see working, well not till we 'Brits' understand there's much more to life than the collection of cash and buying "Stuff", I get much more satisfaction these days from buying everything second-hand and reconditioning it, hell I've given away more reconned items recently than I've ever paid for, I may be poor and sick, but I'm happier now than at any point i've been in my life.
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 14:08 (UTC)For that matter if *Reagan* had dealt with a USSR that was led by actually able and talented leaders he'dve been given repeated run arounds too. The Soviets had plenty of sufficient ruthlessness to run around people with Alzheimer's.
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/10 22:44 (UTC)"In place of strife was a Labour initiative, but the unions ank it.
Only the Winter of Discontent opened people's eyes to the nature of Unions and their use of bullying tactics and their complete disregard for working people who were not their own members. That killed public sympathy.
The Unions started the fight when most people were poor, and they fought to raise all workers. once it was about striking for a bettr deal for *skilled* workers - the ones who were best off anyways, the public sympathy evaporated.
There was a cartoon that appeared a few weeeks afer maggies landslide, in which Thatcher was saying " We would like to thank all those who manned the picket lines for us in the Winter of Discontent. We would never have won this election without you."
It was intended as a joke. Thatcher never actually said that, but it was fair comment. Thatcher was elected on a tide of animosity felt towards the undemocratic Union barons who tried to hold the country to ransom.
Forgot to add: Maggie also had Gorbychev in power in the kremlin. 'A man we can do business with'. Thank God that it wasn't stalin.
In conclusion , she was tough , but she was not smart, or very intuitive.
So long as she had others who could supply that, she did well.
She never won the elections, so much as various Labour leaders lost them.
She never won the Falklands war - that was the Harrier, the SAS, and #2 Para brigade, who were brilliantly professional soldiers pitted against homesick conscripts whose officers never gave a damn about their welfare.
She was fortunate to have some lousy opponents, in other words.
She proudly proclaimed that she would go 'on and on ' - a force in politics and in the Labour party, wheeled out at every Conference and held in awe. In fact, she was rapidly sidelines and forgotten , and has not made any statements about politics since she quit. She was not a statesman in the sense that churchill was.