Thatcher Dies

[Alf Bentley]

In other words, Saddam did hinder the inspection process. I don't understand why people are not more concerned about Saddam's chemical weapons. The mythology has arisen around this that Blair lied about the existence of chemical weapons to justify a war. The weapons clearly existed and Saddam had shown a will to use them on many occasions.

You misunderstand me in regards to the 'kindly uncle'. What I mean to say is, the kind of man Saddam was is totally lost under the hysteria about Blair being a liar. The world, and more importantly the Iraqis, are much better off with him and his regime. How many people actually give any thought to the regime which was changed?

The years following the war were obviously not easy. There were many reasons for continuing conflict: Saddam's supporters, hostility to the West, the encroachment of Al Qaeda, a power struggle between different groups. In the end and to date, a Western style democratic government exists in Iraq. It is very easy to criticise it. However, the Kurds are now building a prosperous and peaceful region in the north, the Shias are able to live peacefully in the south. Who is to say history won't judge Blair more kindly than those who lived through this?

For the record, there are far more birth defects and people living with permanent disabilities from Saddam's use of chemical weapons than from any bi-product of depleted uranium. Depleted uranium was used to destroy hardened military targets; Saddam used chemical weapons to kill civilians. I cannot see the comparison.

I agree that Bush wanted his war and recklessly pursued a policy regardless of any advice. It would've been much better if the UN had acted to stop Saddam, but would it? While the UN response to the Kuwait War was impressive and based on a broad consensus, the UN has no record of note of removing dictators who keep their violence contained within their own borders. Look at Syria.

Blair claimed one reason for joining the war with Bush was to influence decisions from within. To be honest, this butters no parsnips with me. It is no more a convincing argument here than when Nick Clegg claims to be moderating the Tories.

To bring this thread back to Thatcher, many thatcherites seem annoyed that younger people form an opinion on Thatcher based on the 'negative myths' which have sprung up around her. Well, I see their point with the Blair the liar shenanigans. Basically, a myth has arisen around the Iraq War and people who don't remember it make their judgements based on this myth rather than the facts.

Here's a surprising little fact for you. I left the Labour Party over the Iraq War. Over time, my perspective has changed, I tend to believe, to some extend at least, that the ends justify the means in this case.

A brief reply to particular points as this thread shouldn't be diverted for too long from Thatcher....

- Here's a contemporary pre-war report from when inspections were ongoing. It confirms that, unlike in earlier years, Saddam was substantially (if imperfectly) complying and that the inspections would have taken only "months, not years" to complete: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2829213.stm

- Yes, some naive opponents of Blair might overlook Saddam's tyranny or inaccurately claim that he had never had chemical weapons. But you can't use that to tar all Blair's opponents with the same brush, any more than Thatcher's opponents can all be dismissed because a few of them are immature half-wits.

- Chemical weapons clearly had existed and were assumed to still exist. The UN inspectors were in Iraq looking for them but didn't find them and they haven't been found since. Blair nevertheless repeatedly claimed that they were there, produced sexed-up dossiers to push this case, and joined Bush in taking pre-emptive military action in the face of international opposition at a time when the inspectors were still making progress and thought they could complete their work in months.

- It is possible to argue that Blair didn't "lie", strictly speaking, but he deliberately misled and deceived, and did so repeatedly.

- You have obviously come to believe in "regime change" as a justification for unilateral military action. North Korea and Zimbabwe undoubtedly have hideous regimes. So, when should we invade? What if the USA doesn't like the domestic policies of a British government of whatever persuasion - are they justified in invading us, without a proper UN mandate? I certainly wouldn't rule out any unilateral action, but international consensus should be sought wherever possible - and it was possible in Iraq.

- So, Saddam's filthy weapons may have caused more birth defects than ours? Are those the standards we judge ourselves by now? Shouldn't we aim a little higher than that?

- We'll never know whether a continuation of Saddam would have been worse for Iraq than what we inflicted on them (countless thousands dead, civil war, years of chaos and misery). The ends certainly don't justify the means for the thousands who died. Maybe it would have been worse. Alternatively, maybe he wouldn't have lasted long (he was aging and had a lot of enemies), or maybe an internal overthrow could have been facilitated with external military help, or maybe UN action would have got rid of him, or a broader alliance with a proper post-invasion plan that might have avoided the horrendous civil war?

- A couple of weeks ago, there was a "Newsnight" feature on Iraq today - and it sounded a lot more mixed than the rosy picture you seek to present; some improvements clearly (after thousands dead and the passage of 10 years), but still big problems.

- I left the Labour Party in the mid-90s, in opposition to what I saw as its inherently undemocratic culture...Blair's actions in misleading parliament, ignoring public opinion and sacrificing thousands of lives to suck up to Bush confirm that for me.

I'd still just about prefer to have Blair in No. 10 than Thatcher or Cameron, though.... Back to Thatcher?

[BoneDog]

The world, and more importantly the Iraqis, are much better off with him and his regime. How many people actually give any thought to the regime which was changed?

I'm not sure how the world is any better off without Saddam in it. Gangsters still run Iraq. Iraqis seem far worse off now. Hundreds of thousands have lost family members. Many more are suffering with types of cancer that were unknown before the wars. The country is destroyed and hundreds of millions of their rebuilding money has gone missing.

Before the 1991 war Iraqis were highly educated and many of them were middle class. They had great public transport and councils. Since 1991 they've been in deep trouble and their society has crumbled, starting with the sanctions that killed many and culminating in the destruction of the country recently.

For the record, there are far more birth defects and people living with permanent disabilities from Saddam's use of chemical weapons than from any bi-product of depleted uranium.

Over time, my perspective has changed, I tend to believe, to some extend at least, that the ends justify the means in this case.

Not sure about Saddam causing more problems than the masses of DU that now contaminate everything. It gets into everything including drinking water and soil. A nation has been poisoned. I'm sure the facts are twisted on this matter if you don't think it's too bad.

I can't understand how anybody could say that the ends justify the means. Hundreds of thousands dead. Many thousands injured and with limbs missing. Thousands more having to see family and neighbours heads, arms, legs and whatnot blown off, left with the psychological damage and much more. Nothing justifies all that in my opinion unless it is a total last resort, which it wasn't.

[Deucalion]

A brief reply to particular points as this thread shouldn't be diverted for too long from Thatcher....

- Here's a contemporary pre-war report from when inspections were ongoing. It confirms that, unlike in earlier years, Saddam was substantially (if imperfectly) complying and that the inspections would have taken only "months, not years" to complete: http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/2829213.stm

- Yes, some naive opponents of Blair might overlook Saddam's tyranny or inaccurately claim that he had never had chemical weapons. But you can't use that to tar all Blair's opponents with the same brush, any more than Thatcher's opponents can all be dismissed because a few of them are immature half-wits.

- Chemical weapons clearly had existed and were assumed to still exist. The UN inspectors were in Iraq looking for them but didn't find them and they haven't been found since. Blair nevertheless repeatedly claimed that they were there, produced sexed-up dossiers to push this case, and joined Bush in taking pre-emptive military action in the face of international opposition at a time when the inspectors were still making progress and thought they could complete their work in months.

- It is possible to argue that Blair didn't "lie", strictly speaking, but he deliberately misled and deceived, and did so repeatedly.

- You have obviously come to believe in "regime change" as a justification for unilateral military action. North Korea and Zimbabwe undoubtedly have hideous regimes. So, when should we invade? What if the USA doesn't like the domestic policies of a British government of whatever persuasion - are they justified in invading us, without a proper UN mandate? I certainly wouldn't rule out any unilateral action, but international consensus should be sought wherever possible - and it was possible in Iraq.

- So, Saddam's filthy weapons may have caused more birth defects than ours? Are those the standards we judge ourselves by now? Shouldn't we aim a little higher than that?

- We'll never know whether a continuation of Saddam would have been worse for Iraq than what we inflicted on them (countless thousands dead, civil war, years of chaos and misery). The ends certainly don't justify the means for the thousands who died. Maybe it would have been worse. Alternatively, maybe he wouldn't have lasted long (he was aging and had a lot of enemies), or maybe an internal overthrow could have been facilitated with external military help, or maybe UN action would have got rid of him, or a broader alliance with a proper post-invasion plan that might have avoided the horrendous civil war?

- A couple of weeks ago, there was a "Newsnight" feature on Iraq today - and it sounded a lot more mixed than the rosy picture you seek to present; some improvements clearly (after thousands dead and the passage of 10 years), but still big problems.

- I left the Labour Party in the mid-90s, in opposition to what I saw as its inherently undemocratic culture...Blair's actions in misleading parliament, ignoring public opinion and sacrificing thousands of lives to suck up to Bush confirm that for me.

I'd still just about prefer to have Blair in No. 10 than Thatcher or Cameron, though.... Back to Thatcher?

I'll make this short because, as you say, this thread is about something else.

I broadly agree with what you say, however I do see a few things differently. For instance, Saddam's son ( I can't remember his name at this moment) was hardly an angel, I don't think Saddam dying would've resulted in that much change. I also don't see how you can compare an unfortunate bi-product of using a weapon as the same as deliberately using a weapon known to cause lingering and painful deaths.

Let's not forget I wasn't too keen on this war when it happened. My real problem is the myth which has emerged around Blair. I don't believe many people actually know much about the Gulf War, but nethertheless they call Blair a liar.

I think there are negative and positive myths about Thatcher too. I would rather people made their opinions based on fact or experience. Otherwise, people are opening themselves up to being manipulated by a lie repeated loudly and often.

[Deucalion]

I'm not sure how the world is any better off without Saddam in it. Gangsters still run Iraq. Iraqis seem far worse off now. Hundreds of thousands have lost family members. Many more are suffering with types of cancer that were unknown before the wars. The country is destroyed and hundreds of millions of their rebuilding money has gone missing.

Before the 1991 war Iraqis were highly educated and many of them were middle class. They had great public transport and councils. Since 1991 they've been in deep trouble and their society has crumbled, starting with the sanctions that killed many and culminating in the destruction of the country recently.

Not sure about Saddam causing more problems than the masses of DU that now contaminate everything. It gets into everything including drinking water and soil. A nation has been poisoned. I'm sure the facts are twisted on this matter if you don't think it's too bad.

I can't understand how anybody could say that the ends justify the means. Hundreds of thousands dead. Many thousands injured and with limbs missing. Thousands more having to see family and neighbours heads, arms, legs and whatnot blown off, left with the psychological damage and much more. Nothing justifies all that in my opinion unless it is a total last resort, which it wasn't.

All good points.

[Alf Bentley]

My real problem is the myth which has emerged around Blair. I don't believe many people actually know much about the Gulf War, but nethertheless they call Blair a liar.

I think there are negative and positive myths about Thatcher too. I would rather people made their opinions based on fact or experience. Otherwise, people are opening themselves up to being manipulated by a lie repeated loudly and often.

Back to Thatcher (!)....

Agree with this. That is why I keep boring people by posting those figures for "deficit since 1980" in defence of Labour in general, and Brown, in particular, despite having very mixed feelings about the New Labour government (better than Thatcher, but nowhere near as good as it could/should have been). Myths and legends grow and start to be seen as the truth.

For example, I'm old enough (50) to remember that Thatcher was widely seen as a weak and unintelligent leader before she became PM. It was also distinctly possible that she would have been a 1-term PM given her unpopularity by 1982 (4m unemployed), until Labour imploded with the SDP breakaway and the Falklands war gave her a boost.

While she introduced some revolutionary policies early on (e.g. monetarist economics, council house sales), she was also seen as someone compelled to be a pragmatist, as the "wets" were still a powerful force in her first government. It was only in her 2nd and 3rd governments (after 1983 and 1987 - probably particularly after the miners' strike of 84-85), that she was able to be much more radical and forceful as a leader (mass privatisations etc.).

Some also overlook the fact that the Tories booted her out themselves in 1990, partly because the power had gone to her head (maybe the whisky, too; did you know she was a serious whisky abuser?!). She was given to suddenly starting picking up litter in front of the cameras, announcing "we are a grandmother" and pushing through the poll tax - a bonkers policy, even in purely tactical terms, and guaranteed to be unpopular as it imposed a massive tax hike on the poor and middle Britain.

I don't celebrate her death, though I'm not sad either. Celebrating someone's death seems a bit puerile and tasteless to me (unless it's an actively violent opponent like Hitler). Plus, Thatcher's damage is done - and still evident.

I do remember hearing about her 1990 overthrow, though. Of all places, I was listening to my radio in a hammock at the back of a cheap eaterie in Belize! I ordered several beers and had a mighty celebration. The locals probably thought I was bonkers!

Still very unhappy about this pseudo-state funeral she's getting, though - a divisive, party political gesture. The only serious grounds for it (that she was the first woman PM) is one Thatcher herself would have opposed. If it is because she was a "transformative PM" (undoubtedly true - transformative for the worse, in my view), then why were the Queen and the military not at Attlee's funeral? I hope there are some protests - away from the family, restrained and dignifiied - but large in scale.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Best way to make a protest that will get noticed on Wednesday.

1. Break into St Paul's.

2. Remove the sheet music for when the coffin is carried up the aisle.

3. And replace it with this...

Please, please, pleaaaaaaaaaase happen!!!

[flowwolf]

Best way to make a protest that will get noticed on Wednesday.

1. Break into St Paul's.

2. Remove the sheet music for when the coffin is carried up the aisle.

3. And replace it with this...

Please, please, pleaaaaaaaaaase happen!!!

Or we could invite Peter Tatchell , Denis Skinner and George Galloway to a Thatchers dead party and beat them to death with a baseball bat.

[MikeyT]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/apr/16/margaret-thatcher-funeral-10-million

[Parafox]

Back to Thatcher (!)....

Agree with this. That is why I keep boring people by posting those figures for "deficit since 1980" in defence of Labour in general, and Brown, in particular, despite having very mixed feelings about the New Labour government (better than Thatcher, but nowhere near as good as it could/should have been). Myths and legends grow and start to be seen as the truth.

For example, I'm old enough (50) to remember that Thatcher was widely seen as a weak and unintelligent leader before she became PM. It was also distinctly possible that she would have been a 1-term PM given her unpopularity by 1982 (4m unemployed), until Labour imploded with the SDP breakaway and the Falklands war gave her a boost.

While she introduced some revolutionary policies early on (e.g. monetarist economics, council house sales), she was also seen as someone compelled to be a pragmatist, as the "wets" were still a powerful force in her first government. It was only in her 2nd and 3rd governments (after 1983 and 1987 - probably particularly after the miners' strike of 84-85), that she was able to be much more radical and forceful as a leader (mass privatisations etc.).

Some also overlook the fact that the Tories booted her out themselves in 1990, partly because the power had gone to her head (maybe the whisky, too; did you know she was a serious whisky abuser?!). She was given to suddenly starting picking up litter in front of the cameras, announcing "we are a grandmother" and pushing through the poll tax - a bonkers policy, even in purely tactical terms, and guaranteed to be unpopular as it imposed a massive tax hike on the poor and middle Britain.

I don't celebrate her death, though I'm not sad either. Celebrating someone's death seems a bit puerile and tasteless to me (unless it's an actively violent opponent like Hitler). Plus, Thatcher's damage is done - and still evident.

I do remember hearing about her 1990 overthrow, though. Of all places, I was listening to my radio in a hammock at the back of a cheap eaterie in Belize! I ordered several beers and had a mighty celebration. The locals probably thought I was bonkers!

Still very unhappy about this pseudo-state funeral she's getting, though - a divisive, party political gesture. The only serious grounds for it (that she was the first woman PM) is one Thatcher herself would have opposed. If it is because she was a "transformative PM" (undoubtedly true - transformative for the worse, in my view), then why were the Queen and the military not at Attlee's funeral? I hope there are some protests - away from the family, restrained and dignifiied - but large in scale.

Totally agree. I've been trying to formulate a reasoned argument to put in this thread and you, Alf, have done my work for me.

I too am of an age to remember the facts you've mentioned, that she was weak, not considered to be a leader and too dogmatic to be popular. The Callaghan government was a shambles and Heath was a no hoper to come back. There were no real leaders and Thatcher rode in winning the leadership vote against even weaker contenders.

Her popularity came on the back of the Falklands, which had been threatening to happen for some time and which she ignored until too late, then cried crocodile tears over the Belgrano incident.

All the other things that made her so divisive have already been mentioned.

Thanks.

[Guest MattP]

Funeral tomoz. Getting the train at half 7.

In a weird way hoping for a bit of action.

[flowwolf]

http://www.guardian....eral-10-million

Did anyone question how much Princess Di's funeral cost ? and that was even her own fault for being too posh to wear a seat belt.

[flowwolf]

Funeral tomoz. Getting the train at half 7.

In a weird way hoping for a bit of action.

Yes going down myself , full kit medals and a wreath from my reg association. Kind of hoping some dirty white dredlock wearing lefty upsets me.

[BoneDog]

Did anyone question how much Princess Di's funeral cost ? and that was even her own fault for being to posh to wear a seat belt.

It wasn't her fault, it was whoever was in that tunnel and had control of the car by advanced satnav remote and also the guys who stopped in the ambulance on the way to the emergency room. And whoever gave the orders obviously.

That said, I don't want to derail this thread from Thatcher.

[Deucalion]

Well, some of us have jobs, so I will have to watch the fun on the TV when I get home.

Come on you reds !!

As long as the day is marred, I'll be happy.

[Captain...]

Funeral tomoz. Getting the train at half 7.

In a weird way hoping for a bit of action.

That could be mis-interpreted.

[Guest MattP]

Yes going down myself , full kit medals and a wreath from my reg association. Kind of hoping some dirty white dredlock wearing lefty upsets me.

Looking forward it. One day of the year I wish I was a copper. Fcuk me they will have some fun with the great unwashed.

Meeting a few of the Chelsea lads us. Could be very tasty.

[flowwolf]

It wasn't her fault, it was whoever was in that tunnel and had control of the car by advanced satnav remote and also the guys who stopped in the ambulance on the way to the emergency room. And whoever gave the orders obviously.

That said, I don't want to derail this thread from Thatcher.

If she and that playboy waster had been wearing seat belts they would have survived. That fact is born out in the report after the crash.

[flowwolf]

Well, some of us have jobs, so I will have to watch the fun on the TV when I get home.

Come on you reds !!

As long as the day is marred, I'll be happy.

You would be happy anyway. at your level of intelligence it's natures way of placating you.

[AjcW]

I don't have a good feeling about tomorrow.... mainly because i'm having to go into work two hours early just to be able to get there.... Cheers London.

[Deucalion]

You would be happy anyway. at your level of intelligence it's natures way of placating you.

Look at the righties being all hard.

Keep providing the laughs !!

[Deucalion]

Maggie...was...the best...th,th,th,thinnnngggggguugh, teh appen..., teh, teh teh teh, the the...c, c, c, count, count...trrreeehhhh.

lol lol lol

[Guest MattP]

Look at the righties being all hard.

Keep providing the laughs !!

Enjoy the 'fun'.

You lot have no idea what's coming to you tomoz

[flowwolf]

Look at the righties being all hard.

Keep providing the laughs !!

Is that it ? is that your cutting edge barb ? I had you down for being at least a half wit seems I over estimated by half.

[Deucalion]

Enjoy the 'fun'.

You lot have no idea what's coming to you tomoz

Is that it ? is that your cutting edge barb ? I had you down for being at least a half wit seems I over estimated by half.

Happy to leave the humour to you guys !!

lol lol lol lol

[Captain...]

Is that it ? is that your cutting edge barb ? I had you down for being at least a half wit seems I over estimated by half.

So he's a wit then?