jaggybunnet Posted December 26, 2011 Report Share Posted December 26, 2011 Yes a party who strangled a growing economy at birth, purely for ideological reasons. And the bankers are STILL ripping us off, Its all about the rich getting richer and the poorer being crushed into the ground. A despicable political organisation. remember that the banking system put us in the mess we are in, and it started in the USA and your lot said that Labour were too tough on them???. Get a grip of reality mate!!! what growing economy, a steel and coal industry which was dying on its feet, dont think so no Labour said the tories were too tough which why Labour (brown) cut all the red tape and checks and balances which made this worse, so yes i have a good grip on reality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joejag Posted December 26, 2011 Report Share Posted December 26, 2011 what growing economy, a steel and coal industry which was dying on its feet, dont think so no Labour said the tories were too tough which why Labour (brown) cut all the red tape and checks and balances which made this worse, so yes i have a good grip on reality Im afraid you have got the wrong end of the stick as you dont even follow your own quotes??? The PRESENT government strangled the economy that was growing as I was answering your line that the present government are at least trying. As far as toughness on the banks, Labour were too soft but our present Prime Minister and Chancellor called for even lighter regulation on them?? So as before get a grip on reality mate!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted December 26, 2011 Report Share Posted December 26, 2011 Im afraid you have got the wrong end of the stick as you dont even follow your own quotes??? The PRESENT government strangled the economy that was growing as I was answering your line that the present government are at least trying. As far as toughness on the banks, Labour were too soft but our present Prime Minister and Chancellor called for even lighter regulation on them?? So as before get a grip on reality mate!!! ok on the present Gov that is unfortuanatly part of cutting labours debts, to do it the other way only puts off what must eventualy happen. where have they done this, please show as i havent seen it infact taxing bonuses and the banks themselves doesnt seem soft does it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyconnor Posted December 26, 2011 Report Share Posted December 26, 2011 because he knows me and knows how far off your tory boy is, don't let that stop you showing yourself up though i am sorry (not taking the piss) but your conscience cost money thats a fact so unlike Labour of course who spend money we dont have then moan when they binned and the tories have to sort out our budget again, if labour could show they can run a country on a budget i would look at them, they havent and cant (just listen to ball) so i have to stick with a party that a least trys make your mind up, are you a tory or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted December 26, 2011 Report Share Posted December 26, 2011 make your mind up, are you a tory or not? eh, yes i am a tory, why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted December 26, 2011 Report Share Posted December 26, 2011 eh, yes i am a tory, why? Usual rubbish. The thing about yer Thatcher wummin is that if wasn't her it'd have been someone else who shut pits, steelworks and the like. I remember the poison, the division and devastation of the 1980s and the brave new world. It wasn't just mines that vanished, an entire generation has grown up with no idea what grassroots democracy* is about. Mind you, that generation is finding out that its economy was re-founded upon a pack of lies and money changers who produced no real wealth - now that it's gone tits up - though 'we're all in this together - they're making up for lost time. My view is that if there's a 'project' that deserves p*ssed on from a great height for betraying the people who elected it then New Labour makes Thatcher look like an amateur. The yuppie face of politics. Blair, Brown and the rest - hopefully we get to bury them in the same big, deep hole in the ground as the mad woman in the attic. They deserve each other. *Can't have that now, can we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Murray Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) People keep bringing up the Falklands and the belgrano. I did not like Thatcher but I can’t blame her for either sinking the belgrano or defending the Falklands. The belgrano had orders to attack the British fleet and her two escorts were carrying Exocet missiles. Tam Dalyell and Galloway continue to argue this case even though the facts are comprehensively against them. They just don’t want to back down and admit they were wrong. The argentines should have won the Falklands war; the odds were very much in their favour. It did have the very unfortunate effect of helping Thatcher in the election but it was not started to help in the election, Thatcher was clueless on militarily matters. My point is many do hate Thacher but not all she did was wrong. Edited December 27, 2011 by Alan Murray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyconnor Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 i think the point with the belgrano is that that is was outside the "exclusion zone" set up by the british, and was sailing in the other direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) i think the point with the belgrano is that that is was outside the "exclusion zone" set up by the british, and was sailing in the other direction. it was a real threat to an already dangerous posn for the british ship, there was (with how mach damage the belgrano could cause) no other option or would you rather it was our forces that died? also just because she was pointing awy does not mean she was not a threat. the ecclsuion zone was just that and didnt mean they could not attack them Edited December 27, 2011 by jaggybunnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) it was a real threat to an already dangerous posn for the british ship, there was (with how mach damage the belgrano could cause) no other option or would you rather it was our forces that died? also just because she was pointing awy does not mean she was not a threat. the ecclsuion zone was just that and didnt mean they could not attack them The Belgrano was clearly in a highly threatening position, in a 'heading the other way' sort of style. What kind of mentality is at play when somebody feels minded to ask a question like "would you rather it was our forces that died?" Good old British lives were/are clearly more valuable than second rate foreign lives, eh? This whole jingoistic poison is just the sort of cack that is pumped out by the Tory propaganda machine, and aimed at those who read the S*n, buy into the British Bulldog spirit thing and wouldn't recognise a Tory Govt. bent on class war against its own population if one jumped out their sausage supper and bit their nose off. Thatcher was a slabbering fiend: a class warrior on behalf of the rich, privileged and patronised, thoroughly besotted with hurting the forces of labour and crushing the notion of working class community and working with right wing dogmatists of a like mind to bring her sick fantasies to fruition. Any individual whose identity and aspirations are not aligned with the forces of capital or patronage might well regard the passing of this quasi-despot as a good thing, and dance to the aroma of its demise, just as it did when poisoning the working class. All that's now required to kick the party season off is its final failure to absorb air. Edited December 27, 2011 by Blackpool Jags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) The Belgrano was clearly in a highly threatening position, in a 'heading the other way' sort of style. What kind of mentality is at play when somebody feels minded to ask a question like "would you rather it was our forces that died?" Good old British lives were/are clearly more valuable than second rate foreign lives, eh? This whole jingoistic poison is just the sort of cack that is pumped out by the Tory propaganda machine, and aimed at those who read the S*n, buy into the British Bulldog spirit thing and wouldn't recognise a Tory Govt. bent on class war against its own population if one jumped out their sausage supper and bit their nose off. Thatcher was a slabbering fiend: a class warrior on behalf of the rich, privileged and patronised, thoroughly besotted with hurting the forces of labour and crushing the notion of working class community and working with right wing dogmatists of a like mind to bring her sick fantasies to fruition. Any individual whose identity and aspirations are not aligned with the forces of capital or patronage might well regard the passing of this quasi-despot as a good thing, and dance to the aroma of its demise, just as it did when poisoning the working class. All that's now required to kick the party season off is its final failure to absorb air. so nothing of any substance came to mind then Blackpooljags, the exclusion zone was for neutral ships and aircraft not the argentine armed forces, who as we were at war with them didn't count as neutral. the Belgranos Capt (Héctor Bonzo) has even testified that the attack was legitimate and yes I would have the apposing forces die before our forces anytime its how you win wars. The rest was the usual Thatcher hatred, without any substance and thought for who else was to blame and shows up this massive chip shoulder attitude of its her fault so there. I am happy to admit that Thatcher could have dealt with some of the things better, not what her aim was (in most things) just how she went about it Edited December 27, 2011 by jaggybunnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arfur Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 I'd just like to thank her for being the main reason I ended up in New Zealand. The best decision I ever made. The only thing I miss is Firhill on a Saturday, on a good day! However, I will not shed a tear when she has finally shuffled off this mortal coil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Slightly off-topic (sorry) but I used to reeeealy fancy Meryl Streep . Ooooooh I feel so DIRTY now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Slightly off-topic (sorry) but I used to reeeealy fancy Meryl Streep . Ooooooh I feel so DIRTY now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) People keep bringing up the Falklands and the belgrano. I did not like Thatcher but I can’t blame her for either sinking the belgrano or defending the Falklands. The belgrano had orders to attack the British fleet and her two escorts were carrying Exocet missiles. I would have ordered the sinking of the Belgrano if I'd been in Thatcher's shoes (I don't do high heels though ). People forget the havoc and carnage wreaked by the exocets on the British Fleet. Sailors burned to death on HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry, the HMS Sir Galahad so badly damaged it had to be towed out to sea to be sunk and designated as a war grave. If the Argentine forces had got hold of more exocets the history books would now look very different. Sinking the Belgrano showed we were determined to win the war at pretty much any cost. Rightly or wrongly, that must have had a massive effect on the morale of the forces on both sides. Best way to bring a war to an end (once you're in it) is as quickly as possible. Thats not to say I was any sort of fan of Maggie in general, and her social policies lacked understanding and feeling. Anyone seen the film yet? Edited January 12, 2012 by The Devil's Point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Murray Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Nearly all argentine ships were equipped with the Exocet missile, one of the main reasons the pincer movement against the British fleet was so dangerous, the other being the Argentine air force numbered around 120 with the British having 20 harriers on board the two carrier’s with aircraft from both sides having very similar capabilities. The reason the belgrano was on course that was heading away from the Falklands was because the Argentine carrier had suffered boiler room problems and had insufficient wind to launch its aircraft. So to delay the attack the belgrano turned around with its two destroyer escorts to await further orders. This is the position of both the Argentine navy and the British. The belgrano was a shocking loss of life and the famous gotcha headline in the sun was shocking however the Falklands war is the fault of the then Argentine government. After the Falklands war they planned to start another war with Chile over some islands in the Beagle Channel. Not saw the film yet but would like to, though the reviews point to a lot of the controversial issues being given little time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantB Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Much as I detest Thatcher, the Argie military Junta were not any better. I've always wondered how we can have the nerve to call a group of islands 12,000 miles away 'British' based on the fact we put some inbred sheep farmers on the islands a few hundred years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Much as I detest Thatcher, the Argie military Junta were not any better. I've always wondered how we can have the nerve to call a group of islands 12,000 miles away 'British' based on the fact we put some inbred sheep farmers on the islands a few hundred years ago. I've wondered that myself and tried to look at it from this point of view: If, for some historical reason, the Isle of Man belonged to Argentina, how would our Brit Nat colleagues feel about that? Is there any possibility that the Brits would be happy just to leave things that way, without the thought of 'reclaiming' it ever entering their heads? I very much doubt it. Anyway, shouldn't be too long now before...you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 I've wondered that myself and tried to look at it from this point of view: If, for some historical reason, the Isle of Man belonged to Argentina, how would our Brit Nat colleagues feel about that? Is there any possibility that the Brits would be happy just to leave things that way, without the thought of 'reclaiming' it ever entering their heads? I very much doubt it. Anyway, shouldn't be too long now before...you know. :thinking: :thinking: .........not too long until what? Ah yes, not too long until you rush out to buy a bootleg copy of the new film on her, then religously watch it nightly, alone, in a locked room, secretly, in the dark, so you can get your daily fix of your dream woman, just you, a telly, box of tissues and you revelling in watching your dream woman (well Meryl playing your dream woman). Right, am i ? I am, ain't i ? Found out :crazy: :crazy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.