The Glade 4.0

See, almost everything Morrissey thinks is a negative, I see as a positive.

Take the coal miners...Unions were choking England's economy to death. Other politicians had tried to stand up to them and lost. She won. That's a great, great thing.

If only we had someone today who would stand up to the unions in so many countries...

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yes, and this fool can only classify it as "hating miners". Yes, that's it; she just had some irrational anti-miner (or whoever) rage.

Everything he mentions he just claims is bad without the slightest justification whatsoever, like a little kid talking about the "bad guys" and the "good guys". He may as well have just called her a big poopie-head; that'd carry about the same weight.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

She had hit squads on call, and used them, specifically for the problems in Northern Ireland. Google Pat Finucane.
She supported the Pinochet Dictatorship.
She supported the fundamentalist General Zia dictatorship in Pakistn.
She supported the Khmer Rouge inCambodia.
She repeatedly referred to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and opposed his release from prison.
The Falklands War was a political mess all around and only British Imperialism could cause the fuss it did. The Argentinians were just as boneheaded though.
And when given the world stage to discuss the problems in Northern Ireland she callously refused to open negotiations, allowing ten political prisoners to starve themselves to death rather than open negotiations. Google Bobby Sands.

Every Prime Minister since has bad to apologize or otherwise fix some of her misdeeds.

It will be a long time before the Brits allow another conservative old biddy that much political power. She was okay on the Brit economy, though that was the issue that finally got her tossed from power.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Thing with Northern Ireland, is the vast majority of Irish there were Orangemen, and supported staying in England. The IRA were not freedom fighters, they were the worst kind of terrorists.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That all you've got?

During the American Revolution/War for Independence it was about 1/3 revolt, 1/3 Tory and 1/3 leave me alone.

The IRA were only the media's flavor of the month for worst kind of revolutionary. They were bad, I'm not pretending they weren't, but there have been many much worse types of terrorists. Once we realized we couldn't win fighting their kind of war, we became the worst terrorists they had seen.

The IRA was asking to negotiate, the Evil Empire turned them down flat. The deaths of the hunger strikers and the election of Bobby Sands as a Member of Parliament solidified the leaders of the IRA to make it a political war, pretty much the only sane thing that came out of that time.

Even if you toss that one, which I will not, the other charges still stand. She was only good in a few areas and worse than incompetent in others. She was a malicious evil woman in a lot of ways.

I haven't even throw in yet how much she fought against women's rights during her tenure.

A villain for the most part, definitely not a heroic politician.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

She supported the Khmer Rouge after they had been ousted from power in order to continue to harass the communist Vietnamese.

Hardly a ringing endorsement since no aid was given to the regime while it was in power. She also stated she did not wish to see Pol Pot return to power.

Lets understand Cold War politics for what they were.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Dying because you refuse to eat, for whatever reason, is no ones fault but yourself.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

It is an incredible distortion to claim Thatcher had "hit squads on call" and there is no evidence that she ordered the killing of Finucane. At most, it can be traced to police corruption in Northern Ireland. Just because the Orange behaved as badl as the Green does not make the British government responsible for every misdeed of the loyalists.



All due to the Cold War. The simple reality of the Cold War was that you either supported the dictator who would work with you, or they ended up with a dictator anyhow that would also oppose the West. There weren't too many other options.



British Imperialism pretty much had zero to do with it. The Falklanders didn't want Argentine government, the islands belonged to Britain, and Argentina pretty much had no reason to claim them besides their proximity to the Argentine mainland.



That's their own fault. No government leader should allow dramatic pressure tactics like a hunger strike to force them into negotiating with terrorists.



The British really should stop apologizing. Excessive political correctness is a problem for Britain in general. This same attitude is responsible for the general decay of civil liberties there.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Irrelevant. The American revolutionaries won (albiet with allied help) their independance in open battle.



If the IRA are not the worst terrorists, then neither were the loyalists or the British. Furthermore, by definition an established government is not terrorists. It can sponsor terrorists, and that label might be applied to some loyalists, but they are hardly the worst ever seen.



The deaths of hunger strikers are utterly meaningless. Had the British agreed to negotiate, the IRA would have had its violent tactics rewarded and shown that the British could be made to cave with enough violence. The British did not cave.

That's the only responsible action by any government dealing with terrorists. It's irrelevant who is right and wrong; a government that can allow law-skirting criminal/revolutionaries to get it to negotiate as equals is doomed. There is no negotiating.



No, she's not a villain, and pretty much none of your charges stand. This is utter nonsense and propaganda.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I disagree.

If the British PMs since should have not apologized, they would not have. There was much that we did not know about, and the general belief among the Irish is that she was guilty of all those charges. I'll argue that the propaganda goes both ways.

Point of view is relevant. One country's hero is another's war criminal.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Northern Ireland in the 70's and 80's was about 60% orange, 35% green, 5% leave me alone. The IRA was campaigning against the people of Northern Ireland, not against the crown.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Cold War Politics were like that, by the way. You sided with the brutal dictator who would work with you, because the alternative was letting commies take over.

It's not an issue of morally "right" or "wrong" (there's no such thing, anyway.) It's siding with whoever gave you the best advantage in keeping the red threat at bay.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

And from the side of the commies, it was pretty much the same thing. You let some nutcase run the show, or the Imperialists would take over.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Facts are more relevant that point of view. The idea that the PM was controlling hit squads worrying about whacking individual solicitors is laughable. The idea that if you go on a hunger strike that somehow obligates the other side to listen to you is more so.

The fact that "one person's hero is another's war criminal" illustrates just how illegitimate the concept of a "war criminal" is in the first place. The status of "war criminal" exists for two reasons - A) letting winners take individual revenge against losers with the trappings of legal proceedings and B) to let people that can't win a war create political distractions.

It's a strategic reality that a government cannot negotiate with terrorists. Once you do, you've demonstrated that you can't protect the citizens from them. The fact that the terrorists decided to go on a hunger strike doesn't change that. Thatcher did what was good for Britain and for the loyalists, not for the enemy. That's what she was supposed to do. She got all pissed off over the Grenada invasion too. I don't get all butt hurt about that because that's her job, just like it was Reagan's job to protect American students and prevent a Cuban puppet from taking over the place. Both of them understood that too.

Nations do not survive by setting examples for other nations. Nations survive by making examples of other nations.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Check out the news from different countries today, including Britain. Coverage on her passing as divided as it was during her tenure over 20 years ago. I still think of her as an evil person bad at her job, which apparently is a common view in her homeland.

Of course, I was raised "Green" and admit to bias on my part, a bias that I do not wish to change no matter how many excuses and reasons you trot out for her misbehavior and general incompetence.

Individually the British can be fine and wonderful people. Collectively, the British Empire is evil. Thatcher was a good example of making that evil look acceptable and necessary. She put on the Iron ***** persona and destroyed instead of creating.

That is what you get. I am not going to change my position.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

See, that's where we differ. I see the British Empire, collectively as the source-spring of western society and freedoms as we know it. It's a bastion of culture and science and art, and the people were empowered long before America began its revolution (admittedly because England didn't think about empowering the colonies until later). The British Empire is a symbol to me and the Union flag always represents tradition, military strength, pride and "the good guys" in my mind.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This is justification for a decision, but not an excuse. You can argue that it was the best alternative, and other will disagree. But it was a choice, and that support was not forced on the leaders. As such, they are responsible for those decisions, and should (rightfully) be judged for them.

I didn't claim it was an excuse. I said there is no such thing as mora "right" or "wrong." It's simple pragmatism, and this is something that requires no excuse. It's simply being smart. In short, I believe that cold war politics were "right" because they were necessary. We've gotten soft in the years since, and expect people to follow whatever our own unique moral code deems is good, which isn't realistic. You do what will help you win, what will help you survive. The victor gets to determine what was right or wrong.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This is the sort of language that is causing me to twitch. If it was necessary, leaders had no choice. If they had no choice, they aren't responsible.

Nitpicking, probably, but just making a point.

Margaret Thatcher pretty much saved the Empire. She's the Tyrion Lannister of England.

_________________

This might hold more weight if not for the common habit of ignoring the other side's leaders and their choices. The choices of the leaders of either side are driven by the actions of the others, and they need to be judged in light of how things were as they knew them to be at the time.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Something is "necessary" in order to achieve an end. You still have a choice whether or not to perform the "necessary" acts in order to achieve the end. In this case, a leader chose to do what was necessary to be assured that their country remained secure, solvent and sovereign. As we can see from our own country, leaders can still choose not to do what is "necessary" for the health and security of the country. The leaders still make a choice, even if it's to do nothing. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice..."



+1

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

As you can see, "Good" and "Evil", "Right" and "Wrong" are completely and totally subjective. If you oppose the British Empire, then doing what is necessary to save it is no virtue.

But we're not speaking of "good" or "evil," "right" or "wrong." We're speaking of the Prime Minister of England. She was a great PM because it was her job to do what was necessary for the health of the Empire and its allies.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That's a clever turn of phrase, but I don't think modern history supports that idea. Quite the contrary in fact. Among the European colonial powers of the 18th and 19th century, Britain was very keen on leading by example - establishing British-style governing institutions in its colonial holdings and seeking to deepen their control over those holdings through assimilation and integration - whereas the French and Spanish were much more inclined to extend control through brutalization and autocracy. In the end, it was the Brits who ended up as the dominant global power of those eras. Then in the 20th century, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, for all their ruthless brutality, couldn't defeat the more humane British and US forces and societies (the Soviets were key to Allied victory in Europe, of course, but the US and Britain wouldn't have lost without the Soviets and may well have been able to win eventually anyway). And the Cold War, in particular, is a great example of surviving by setting an example yourself rather than making one of others. The US didn't win by force of arms, but by virtue of its obviously greater economic success and personal/political freedom. Now, I'm not saying that military strength wasn't a crucial component of the British and American successes of the last few centuries. However, I am saying that there's a fairly clear pattern here that the winning combination is to lead by example and have the strength to back it up when necessary (but even then to exercise restraint and magnanimity), whereas ruthless brutality seems to lose time and time again.

^

Carpet bombing of Dresden
Fire-bombing of Hamburg
Fire-bombing of Tokyo
Moroccan Goumiers
Fat Man
Little Boy

Very much more humane.

_________________