|
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 10649467)
So the Argentinians were justified in invading were they? Isn't this a bit like blaming the victim of rape for dressing inappropriately?
Edit: I have just noted the comments as to why 1982 was the year for you. Thank you. |
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 10649488)
A fair chunk of his has been quoted above
|
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by mdizzle
(Post 10649356)
Maybe just admit you're wrong and admit ethics do play a part in war and we can all move on.
|
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 10649467)
So the Argentinians were justified in invading were they? Isn't this a bit like blaming the victim of rape for dressing inappropriately?
Thatcher just followed his lead. GOTCHA!! |
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 10649509)
The Argentinians weren't blameless either of course, but Galiateri (spelling?) had the same electoral problems at home as did Thatcher. When the only British presence was withdrawn he (as any reasonably intelligent person would have anticipated) saw an opportunity to please his proletariat.
Thatcher just followed his lead. |
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 10649524)
So, out of curiosity, are you Falklands or a Malvinas guy?
|
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 10649474)
She famously said, “there is no such thing as society.†She then proceeded to try and put that theory into practice. ;)
"They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" It is an attack on the idea that people can rely on "society" (effectively, the state) to get by, when she thinks that the responsibility is with the individual and families, and then after that, your neighbour. I think when she said there is no such thing as society in that context, she meant that in the sense of it being a term (kind of like a buzzword) that people use to make themselves feel entitled to rely on the state for assistance without working or making an effort. While that seems fair enough in the context of of benefit scroungers, in the other context of hundreds of miner's unemployed, this statement comes across as her stating "not my problem", which is rather horrible, and probably why she was disliked by many. The gov't should make life easier for those out of work by no fault of their own. |
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 10649526)
I'm bi.
|
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by CanadaJimmy
(Post 10649528)
Full quote:
"They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" It is an attack on the idea that people can rely on "society" (effectively, the state) to get by, when she thinks that the responsibility is with the individual and families, and then after that, your neighbour. I think when she said there is no such thing as society in that context, she meant that in the sense of it being a term (kind of like a buzzword) that people use to make themselves feel entitled to rely on the state for assistance without working or making an effort. While that seems fair enough in the context of of benefit scroungers, in the other context of hundreds of miner's unemployed, this statement comes across as her stating "not my problem", which is rather horrible, and probably why she was disliked by many. The gov't should make life easier for those out of work by no fault of their own. |
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by CanadaJimmy
(Post 10649528)
Full quote:
"They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" It is an attack on the idea that people can rely on "society" (effectively, the state) to get by, when she thinks that the responsibility is with the individual and families, and then after that, your neighbour. I think when she said there is no such thing as society in that context, she meant that in the sense of it being a term (kind of like a buzzword) that people use to make themselves feel entitled to rely on the state for assistance without working or making an effort. While that seems fair enough in the context of of benefit scroungers, in the other context of hundreds of miner's unemployed, this statement comes across as her stating "not my problem", which is rather horrible, and probably why she was disliked by many. The gov't should make life easier for those out of work by no fault of their own. I agree that people shouldn't think that they can simply depend on the State, but I believe strongly that the State has a responsibility to and for its people. |
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 10649435)
What would you have done? If, as its commander appears to suggest, it turned and headed towards the British Fleet (albeit a day or two later) and entered the exclusion zone, would you have shot at it? If not, why not? If so, how would the fate of its crew have differed?
And all this time it had been known exactly where it was and what direction and its capabilities. That it was sailing away from the zone surely means that previously it was not sailing away and may even have been in the zone to boot. There was ample opportunity to have fired previously when it was likely more of a threat. One can only speculate why it was fired upon then rather than earlier when the "danger to our shipping" was apparently greater and its sinking, therefore, more justifiable. |
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 10649467)
So the Argentinians were justified in invading were they? Isn't this a bit like blaming the victim of rape for dressing inappropriately?
I seem to recall the defense argument running along the lines of "we must have our weapons or our enemy will use their weapons on us" or "we employ our military to prevent our enemy invading." It seems a little foolish, then, to be advised that removal of our military is likely to result in invasion, only to withdraw the military and then see the predicted invasion. Does Thatcher strike you as being foolish? She was many things but I'm fairly sure that foolish wasn't one of them. |
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 10649597)
Look, everyone and their dog knows Thatcher lied about it being in the zone, then when found out, she lied about it sailing towards and then when that lie was found out it "was a danger to our shipping." Did she have something to hide or was there some other reason for her weaseling?
And all this time it had been known exactly where it was and what direction and its capabilities. That it was sailing away from the zone surely means that previously it was not sailing away and may even have been in the zone to boot. There was ample opportunity to have fired previously when it was likely more of a threat. One can only speculate why it was fired upon then rather than earlier when the "danger to our shipping" was apparently greater and its sinking, therefore, more justifiable. |
Re: Thatcher dies
Has there ever been a politician who has divided opinion to such an extent? I genuinely hadn't realised so many people liked her.
|
Re: Thatcher dies
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 10649640)
Not really. It would be more like leaving your door open when told there was a gang of thieves in the vicinity.
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 10649640)
I seem to recall the defense argument running along the lines of "we must have our weapons or our enemy will use their weapons on us" or "we employ our military to prevent our enemy invading."
It seems a little foolish, then, to be advised that removal of our military is likely to result in invasion, only to withdraw the military and then see the predicted invasion. Does Thatcher strike you as being foolish? She was many things but I'm fairly sure that foolish wasn't one of them. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 8:06 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.