30 Years to the day

[wijit]

Manufactured a war to enable her to be re-elected. Are all right wingers also warmongers? Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Bliar?

Hardly true. had she not acted on the Argentinian invasion you would have accused her of rolling over. the Falklands are a strategically important land for us because of the instability around the countries around the South Atlantic and no other political leader would have forced their way to get us to maintain our rightful hold on these Islands.

[Curly]

Manufactured a war to enable her to be re-elected. Are all right wingers also warmongers? Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Bliar?

Hardly true. had she not acted on the Argentinian invasion you would have accused her of rolling over. the Falklands are a strategically important land for us because of the instability around the countries around the South Atlantic and no other political leader would have forced their way to get us to maintain our rightful hold on these Islands.

Could you explain that further?

[Heysham_Shrimp]

I remember Maggie coming to power, within 3 months I was made redundant, she f*cked the north up good and proper

If you lost your job within 3 months of Maggie coming to power then the blame would be more accurately aimed at Callaghan and the Winter of discontent. The economy takes more than 3 months to be affected by anything.

[wijit]

Manufactured a war to enable her to be re-elected. Are all right wingers also warmongers? Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Bliar?

Hardly true. had she not acted on the Argentinian invasion you would have accused her of rolling over. the Falklands are a strategically important land for us because of the instability around the countries around the South Atlantic and no other political leader would have forced their way to get us to maintain our rightful hold on these Islands.

Could you explain that further?

Certainly can. The Islands were first discovered by a Dutch exporer (or generally accepted to have been, chap by the name of Sebald de Weert) but the Dutch at the time had no interest in the Islands. The first settelyment was by a French bloke, Louis Antoine de Bougainville, but again, the french had no interest and so the Spanish (who had earlier claimed to have been first there, as did the British) took over from the French. John Byron then claimed the Islands in the name of King George 3rd after sailing around them, although at that time he never knew there had aleady been french occupation there. Although we withdrew from the Islands in 1776 (something to do with the American war of independance) we maintained our claim to the Islands. At the same time Spain claimed the Islands, but this was from Buenes Aires and like us, left a plaque to assert the claim. Argentinas claim started in 1831. In 1833 the British sent another set of forces to re-assert our claim to the Islands, informing the Argentinian commander (Louis something) of the claim. This claim went largely un-challenged (real word?) until 1982 when we all know what happened. the reason it is "rightfully ours" is that we have had the most claims along with the longest occupation and are still the only claimants to have actually asked the islanders for their opinion. As they want to remain with the rest of the UK, we are merely protecting our citizens and defending our own territory, as would any other country.
This is very much condensed but misses none of the essential facts regarding our claim.

[Keith]

Manufactured a war to enable her to be re-elected. Are all right wingers also warmongers? Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Bliar?

Hardly true. had she not acted on the Argentinian invasion you would have accused her of rolling over. the Falklands are a strategically important land for us because of the instability around the countries around the South Atlantic and no other political leader would have forced their way to get us to maintain our rightful hold on these Islands.

In a nut shell...

Argentine right wing junta was in need of a 'success' as they were coming under intense pressure from within.

Thatcher was at an all time low in popularity and heading for a massive defeat at the next election.

The USA broadly supported the junta in Argentina because of their (& Chile's) stand against the left wing in South America. USA (& France) had been arming the Argentine military.

Bearing that in mind...

The Argentines were 'led to believe' that Britain would not defend the Falkland Islands. They set off to 'reclaim' the islands.

Suddenly, to their surprise, Thatcher sent down a task force.

Thatcher wins, lots of celebrating (unless you were a member of the families of the 200 or so Brits who were killed out there). Thatcher re-elected on a wave of national pride.

Galtieri lasted a very short time after their defeat.

Clear enough so far, nothing contentious...

However a senior US aid to Ronald Regan claimed that British diplomats had 'suggested' to the Yanks that the British wouldn't defend the Islands. The Americans, keen to prop up the ailing Galtieri fed this information to the Argentinian diplomats, giving them the 'green light' for a bloodless take over. Neither the Americans or the Argentinians expected Thatcher to defend the Falklands. The Americans took a very long time to decide which side to back. The Exocet missiles sank HMS Sheffield & The Atlantic Conveyor as well as damaging HMS Glamorgan. According to the aid (whose name I've been trying to recall but failed totally) Regan only publicly backed Thatcher when it became obvious that Britain would lose without US support. Regan couldn't afford to lose a strong, right leaning ally in Europe, certainly not to Michael Foot, CND member and a one time member of the Communist Party! US intelligence (an oxymoron?) gave Britain the edge.

Did Thatcher deliberately use the US diplomats as unwitting conduits to enable her to take Britain to war? Well, while I detest her for her policies I would say that she was the greatest politician of the 20th century. She was ruthless and would have no qualms what-so-ever about destroying entire communities, so why suppose that she would have concerns about the lives of service men? I have no doubt that it would have genuinely hurt her when 'our boys' died, but she wouldn't have given the slightest consideration for Argentine deaths and would, in my opinion, have seen the outcome as being most important. In fact, in her eyes, she probably believed there was a 'bigger picture' and that only with her government still in power, could Russia be kept at bay. Some may even say, she was right?

Did she manipulate the Falklands conflict? Of that I have no doubt.

[Curly]

Manufactured a war to enable her to be re-elected. Are all right wingers also warmongers? Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Bliar?

Hardly true. had she not acted on the Argentinian invasion you would have accused her of rolling over. the Falklands are a strategically important land for us because of the instability around the countries around the South Atlantic and no other political leader would have forced their way to get us to maintain our rightful hold on these Islands.

In a nut shell...

Argentine right wing junta was in need of a 'success' as they were coming under intense pressure from within.

Thatcher was at an all time low in popularity and heading for a massive defeat at the next election.

The USA broadly supported the junta in Argentina because of their (& Chile's) stand against the left wing in South America. USA (& France) had been arming the Argentine military.

Bearing that in mind...

The Argentines were 'led to believe' that Britain would not defend the Falkland Islands. They set off to 'reclaim' the islands.

Suddenly, to their surprise, Thatcher sent down a task force.

Thatcher wins, lots of celebrating (unless you were a member of the families of the 200 or so Brits who were killed out there). Thatcher re-elected on a wave of national pride.

Galtieri lasted a very short time after their defeat.

Clear enough so far, nothing contentious...

However a senior US aid to Ronald Regan claimed that British diplomats had 'suggested' to the Yanks that the British wouldn't defend the Islands. The Americans, keen to prop up the ailing Galtieri fed this information to the Argentinian diplomats, giving them the 'green light' for a bloodless take over. Neither the Americans or the Argentinians expected Thatcher to defend the Falklands. The Americans took a very long time to decide which side to back. The Exocet missiles sank HMS Sheffield & The Atlantic Conveyor as well as damaging HMS Glamorgan. According to the aid (whose name I've been trying to recall but failed totally) Regan only publicly backed Thatcher when it became obvious that Britain would lose without US support. Regan couldn't afford to lose a strong, right leaning ally in Europe, certainly not to Michael Foot, CND member and a one time member of the Communist Party! US intelligence (an oxymoron?) gave Britain the edge.


Did Thatcher deliberately use the US diplomats as unwitting conduits to enable her to take Britain to war? Well, while I detest her for her policies I would say that she was the greatest politician of the 20th century. She was ruthless and would have no qualms what-so-ever about destroying entire communities, so why suppose that she would have concerns about the lives of service men? I have no doubt that it would have genuinely hurt her when 'our boys' died, but she wouldn't have given the slightest consideration for Argentine deaths and would, in my opinion, have seen the outcome as being most important. In fact, in her eyes, she probably believed there was a 'bigger picture' and that only with her government still in power, could Russia be kept at bay. Some may even say, she was right?

Did she manipulate the Falklands conflict? Of that I have no doubt.

Maybe, but the French had a lot to do with giving Britain an edge.
They supplied Super Etendard and Mirage aircraft for British pilots to practice targeting
and gave away a lot of info on how to tamper with Exocets and then gave away all the
possible suppliers/sellers of the missiles so that we could out bid any argentinian bid, if we
hadn't already got agents to tamper with them already.

But back to the thread,
I remember bunking off school in the early eighties and getting caught by a teacher,
who vigorously marched me into the heads office for a bollocking, telling me how important
my education was, funded by the tax-payer, teachers go to a lot of trouble...
Next day at afternoon registration we were told not to come in the next day as the teachers
were on strike.
Ah, Thatchers Britain

[Crimson Crust]

Does nobody remember what she did to The North of England ?

Instigate and successfully expand the Financial services sector?














.....running for cover!!

[USA Shrimp]

Does nobody remember what she did to The North of England ?

Instigate and successfully expand the Financial services sector? )

Nowt to do with her, was it ?

[Heysham_Shrimp]

Manufactured a war to enable her to be re-elected. Are all right wingers also warmongers? Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Bliar?

Hardly true. had she not acted on the Argentinian invasion you would have accused her of rolling over. the Falklands are a strategically important land for us because of the instability around the countries around the South Atlantic and no other political leader would have forced their way to get us to maintain our rightful hold on these Islands.

In a nut shell...

Argentine right wing junta was in need of a 'success' as they were coming under intense pressure from within.

Thatcher was at an all time low in popularity and heading for a massive defeat at the next election.

The USA broadly supported the junta in Argentina because of their (& Chile's) stand against the left wing in South America. USA (& France) had been arming the Argentine military.

Bearing that in mind...

The Argentines were 'led to believe' that Britain would not defend the Falkland Islands. They set off to 'reclaim' the islands.

Suddenly, to their surprise, Thatcher sent down a task force.

Thatcher wins, lots of celebrating (unless you were a member of the families of the 200 or so Brits who were killed out there). Thatcher re-elected on a wave of national pride.

Galtieri lasted a very short time after their defeat.

Clear enough so far, nothing contentious...

However a senior US aid to Ronald Regan claimed that British diplomats had 'suggested' to the Yanks that the British wouldn't defend the Islands. The Americans, keen to prop up the ailing Galtieri fed this information to the Argentinian diplomats, giving them the 'green light' for a bloodless take over. Neither the Americans or the Argentinians expected Thatcher to defend the Falklands. The Americans took a very long time to decide which side to back. The Exocet missiles sank HMS Sheffield & The Atlantic Conveyor as well as damaging HMS Glamorgan. According to the aid (whose name I've been trying to recall but failed totally) Regan only publicly backed Thatcher when it became obvious that Britain would lose without US support. Regan couldn't afford to lose a strong, right leaning ally in Europe, certainly not to Michael Foot, CND member and a one time member of the Communist Party! US intelligence (an oxymoron?) gave Britain the edge.

Did Thatcher deliberately use the US diplomats as unwitting conduits to enable her to take Britain to war? Well, while I detest her for her policies I would say that she was the greatest politician of the 20th century. She was ruthless and would have no qualms what-so-ever about destroying entire communities, so why suppose that she would have concerns about the lives of service men? I have no doubt that it would have genuinely hurt her when 'our boys' died, but she wouldn't have given the slightest consideration for Argentine deaths and would, in my opinion, have seen the outcome as being most important. In fact, in her eyes, she probably believed there was a 'bigger picture' and that only with her government still in power, could Russia be kept at bay. Some may even say, she was right?

Did she manipulate the Falklands conflict? Of that I have no doubt.

Keith, have a word with yourself.

Do you know who the opposition leader was at the time of the Falklands War ? Michael Foot !!

If you think Maggie could ever have lost an election to such a crackpot then the men in white coats will come and take you away.

[marky No.1]

In a nut shell...

If that speech is in a nut shell then all I can say is you must have very large nuts!

Everyone grabbed on to Maggie 30 years ago but not where WE were

[Crimson Crust]

Does nobody remember what she did to The North of England ?

Instigate and successfully expand the Financial services sector? )

Nowt to do with her, was it ?

Pensions, Mortgages, Pensions, Savings plans, Pensions!=Yes!

[Keith]

...Regan only publicly backed Thatcher when it became obvious that Britain would lose without US support. Regan couldn't afford to lose a strong, right leaning ally in Europe, certainly not to Michael Foot, CND member and a one time member of the Communist Party! US intelligence (an oxymoron?) gave Britain the edge.

Keith, have a word with yourself.

Do you know who the opposition leader was at the time of the Falklands War ? Michael Foot !!

If you think Maggie could ever have lost an election to such a crackpot then the men in white coats will come and take you away.

Typical Daily Mail reader, can't see beyond the headline!!!*

Did you know that Michael Foot is the oldest player ever registered with the Football League? (No, really!**)

Quite sad the manner in which the right wing press lampooned Foot, who was by all accounts an extremely well regarded parliamentarian by all sides of the house and by the Royal Family.




* Okay, that may not be true and was written in an attempt to get a cheap laugh
** Okay that may not be true either, but that's what it said on Wikipedia...

In 2003 Foot turned 90. He has been a passionate supporter of Plymouth Argyle Football Club since childhood, and served for several years as a director of the club. For his 90th birthday present, the club registered him as a player and gave him the shirt number, 90. This made him the oldest registered player in the history of football. He has stated that he would not 'conk out' until he had seen his team play in the Premiership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot

[Crimson Crust]

...Regan only publicly backed Thatcher when it became obvious that Britain would lose without US support. Regan couldn't afford to lose a strong, right leaning ally in Europe, certainly not to Michael Foot, CND member and a one time member of the Communist Party! US intelligence (an oxymoron?) gave Britain the edge.

Keith, have a word with yourself.

Do you know who the opposition leader was at the time of the Falklands War ? Michael Foot !!

If you think Maggie could ever have lost an election to such a crackpot then the men in white coats will come and take you away.

Typical Daily Mail reader, can't see beyond the headline!!!*

Did you know that Michael Foot is the oldest player ever registered with the Football League? (No, really!**)

Quite sad the manner in which the right wing press lampooned Foot, who was by all accounts an extremely well regarded parliamentarian by all sides of the house and by the Royal Family.




* Okay, that may not be true and was written in an attempt to get a cheap laugh
** Okay that may not be true either, but that's what it said on Wikipedia...

In 2003 Foot turned 90. He has been a passionate supporter of Plymouth Argyle Football Club since childhood, and served for several years as a director of the club. For his 90th birthday present, the club registered him as a player and gave him the shirt number, 90. This made him the oldest registered player in the history of football. He has stated that he would not 'conk out' until he had seen his team play in the Premiership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot

Ah yes! I remember this.

Position=Right Back, could be useful.




I'll get me mack!

[Mark S]

I met Michael Foot once. Very nice man who spent a good 5 minutes talking to an 18 year old spotty guy with a very limited understanding or interest in politics (Yes Keith, some things never change) about what a twat Kinnock was (maybe that was mostly me) and the grip of a greedy nation that Mrs T (not related to Twissy) had at the time.

I then finished wiping his table and moved on the the next one where he promptly forgot about me.

I remember thinking that he was much taller than he seemed on TV even though he walked with a bit of a stoop.