And it’s done with puppets!
I was actually wondering yesterday what the producers of that show will do the week she dies.
As a Brit that grew up under Thatcher (born in 1974) and left the UK in 1999 to move to Sweden, I’d say you are right on the money with that. The selfishness of a large number of Brits sickens me. I’m a lot happier here due to being away from it and have no intention on moving back.
Even better, the British claim to the islands predates Argentina’s existence as a country.
The Argentinean claim to the islands basically comes down to “they’re a little bit close to us”. If that’s the way these things work, I look forward to the whole of Ireland becoming part of the UK again.
I’m sure the Irish people, one and all, would welcome that! :eek:
So much so, that during Thatcher’s time in office, many of them forgot to eat!!!
Nitpick: the hunger strikers weren’t from the ROI but from Northern Ireland, and they were specifically striking because the Thatcher government (quite reasonably, even to this anti-Thatcherite) reclassified them as ordinary criminals when they had previously enjoyed POW status, and some relatively nice amenities that came with it.
I’m aware of that – but I felt I’d throw it in anyways. It just seemed to fit.
Just to make sure we’re all on the same page here, I am not actually advocating the incorporation of the Republic of Ireland into the UK.
This simply goes to prove that those who were not there, either time, during the war and during the deterrent mission seem to have felt the boost that was bought by the lives of British service personnel.
Naturally I felt far more insulated from real events, all I had to worry about was being blown up, while our brave trumpet blowers were back at home 8000 miles away cheering us on.
The lads we took on board after HMS Ardent was hit must have been relieved to know they were not facing reality too.
casdave, please address my point earlier in the thread re: your claim that inflation levels in the 1970’s had little to do with government policy and more to do with successive oil crises, even when Britain had double the peak inflation rate of America during the 70’s, and Germany had a peak inflation rate of 7% with Japan having a peak of 25%, despite both having a similar dependence on oil imports.
They’re both apparently (though this is the first time I’ve ever heard that the Falklands War was a hot spot in the “Cold War”) viewed as great victories by the West in the “Cold War”.
Meanwhile a serious look at either one seems to show that the only really “super” thing about the “Super Powers” was their ability to unleash planetary annihilation at the push of a button, as the Soviets would learn in Afghanistan.
CMC fnord!
Yeah, the hotspot in the Cold War thing is overblown, and slightly embarrassing. More defensible, possibly, is the position that the Falklands Campaign forced the Soviets to consider the UK as a force in their own right rather than a simple extension of the US. I believe that there is a quote from a former Soviet bigwig supporting this view, somewhere, but cannot find it, at the moment.
Well, I would have been worried too, had (as a Soviet bigwig) I discovered that the U.K. could sink an Argentine battleship. Shaking in my boots, indeed. Nuking Buenos Aires might have impressed me a bit more.
(I’ll note here that I believe the Argentine invasion was certainly ill-considered, and Britain’s recapture of the Falklands and S. Georgia certainly appropriate. I simply doubt that the activity terrified the USSR.)
I could see that. GB has been overlooked too much the past few decades, considering they are packing considerable heat.
As for Mrs Thatcher, never liked her much, but her road to death is a hard one, only eased by her forgetting the steps she took yesterday. In some ways the forgetfulness is a blessing, but without excess pain I believe everyone should be able to face their death with open eyes.
Yeah, I’m a romantic softie. Fuck you. 
Um, “you,” in this case being the generic “you” and isn’t intended toward any specific poster. 
None of that heat would bother the Soviets. The Royal Army, though well-equipped and superbly trained, simply didn’t have the manpower to do anything other than slow down the Soviets a bit as they rolled into western Europe.
The Royal Navy was equally effective, and much more relatively numerous, but since the Soviets didn’t have much of a blue-water naval presence themselves its use would be limited in any theoretical non-nuclear engagement.
She’s out of office and no longer able to influence policy. So isn’t welcoming her death pretty much just the most cowardly possible act of vengeance?
Do you, for some reason, believe that those who support her hagiography will not take advantage of her death for political purposes?
I’m not entirely sure what your point is, or why you chose to quote me and then go off on something that I never said.
I never implied that the USSR was shaking in their boots' or were terrified’ after the Falklands War, and in fact my post was in opposition to Quartz who was claiming that. I said that the war forced the Soviets to realise that the UK could still act on their own, without massive assistance from the US. This was, of course, the widespread misunderstanding that resulted in the Falkland Islands being invaded in the first place.
I doubt it terrified the USSR as well. I think that it really showed more that the UK was really poorly prepared and had a massive intelligence failure in not predicting the action.
Nitpick. The General Belgrano was an aging heavy cruiser, not a battleship.
BTW I also believe the British response was appropriate.