Petition to privatise Thatcher's funeral

Fratton Fred · 21-12-2011 09:34PM

later10 wrote: »

Let me see...

Why yes, I would.

It was nothing but an exercise in the pompous sort of nationalism that Thatcher espoused combined with a faint interest in the economic advantages that the Falklands might hold for Britain.

The British had been ignoring the Falkland islanders for years before the war, allowing their economy to stagnate and even face a serious crisis. The UK government were very poorly equipped to govern the island.

So let me ask you again and this time you might answer.

Were 300 British deaths worth it, and what did they achieve for the UK?

It achieved very little for the UK, other than showing other like minded countries that it hadn't gone soft.

What it did achieve though is that it gave the people of the Falklands the continued right to determine their own future. I'm surprised an Irishman questions that.

Jimmy Garlic · 21-12-2011 09:35PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

I bet she's still fondly remembered in the towns and cities that became unemployment blackspots thanks to her.

Practically every major town and city north of Peterborough.

flutered · 21-12-2011 09:39PM

quite a while back while pm, in the commons blair announced that 3mil had been set aside for her burial, by now there must be a tidy bit of interest gained on that figure.

Mr Trade In · 21-12-2011 09:41PM

I would have thought their concern would be the fear of Necrophiliacs hunting her down.

Chuck Stone · 21-12-2011 09:48PM

bwatson wrote: »

I had taken it for granted that no users of this forum were around to witness the Norman Invasion of the 12th century. That'll teach me to be so presumptuous. None of you have witnessed or experienced an invasion.

Oh I see. So the rules are that you have to have been alive at the time of an invasion to have any empathy with any other people, nation or territory?

What an unusual game.

bwatson · 21-12-2011 09:56PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Oh I see. So the rules are that you have to have been alive at the time of an invasion to have any empathy with any other people, nation or territory?

What an unusual game.

I fail to see the relevance of the point you are trying to make. I suggest you go back and read the interchange between myself and "Later10". Nobody is talking about feelings of empathy.

Later10 maintained that he would not have advocated the British counter offensive against the Argentines. I suggested he was not in a position to make a statement with such conviction, due to being an Irishman and not a Briton. He therefore cannot identify with the British decision or any factors, be they social, political or economic which led to it. This is probably due to a deep-rooted resentment of Britons, both on the mainland, in the north, and in the Falklands.

As an Irishman he is in absolutely no position to comment on what he may have felt, or how he many have reacted to this issue. As I stated earlier, no Irishman posting in this forum has ever experienced an invasion of their territory, despite the vitriol many come out with.

Out of interest, who does your "empathy" lie with in the situation discussed here - the falkland islanders or those who wish to see the islands in Argentine hands, for no reason other than the humiliation of Britain? I can probably guess in fairness.

Chuck Stone · 21-12-2011 10:24PM

bwatson wrote: »

Later10 maintained that he would not have advocated the British counter offensive against the Argentines. I suggested he was not in a position to make a statement with such conviction, due to being an Irishman and not a Briton. He therefore cannot identify with the British decision or any factors, be they social, political or economic which led to it. This is probably due to a deep-rooted resentment of Britons, both on the mainland, in the north, and in the Falklands.

As an Irishman he is in absolutely no position to comment on what he may have felt, or how he many have reacted to this issue. As I stated earlier, no Irishman posting in this forum has ever experienced an invasion of their territory, despite the vitriol many come out with.

I've never read Later10 pour anything other than scorn on Nationalism as a doctrine tbh.

Out of interest, who does your "empathy" lie with in the situation discussed here - the falkland islanders or those who wish to see the islands in Argentine hands, for no reason other than the humiliation of Britain? I can probably guess in fairness.

I don't know enough about the Falklands to form an opinion I'd be happy to give tbh.

I just thought your idea that Irish people would know nothing about invasion was kind of odd. Invasion and colonization are a huge part of our history.

later12 · 21-12-2011 10:28PM

bwatson wrote: »

Your answer means nothing anyway, you are an Irishman. The emotions of the British public and government at the news of an invasion of sovereign territory in this manner are something which you obviously cannot relate to.

In fact I have an entitlement to a UK passport and am, however inadvertently or unwillingly, a UK citizen. Opinions like yours only remind me why my right to UK citizenship is a right I am unlikely to wish to exercise.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What it did achieve though is that it gave the people of the Falklands the continued right to determine their own future. I'm surprised an Irishman questions that.

I question how on Earth 2000 British people ended up living on an island cluster of the Argentine coast.

later12 · 21-12-2011 10:34PM

bwatson wrote: »

Later10 maintained that he would not have advocated the British counter offensive against the Argentines.

Perhaps I should have mentioned I would not have advocated the Argentine policy on the Falklands or The Malvinas or whatever you want to call them either.

130,000 years of homo sapiens as we know ourselves, and still blasting to shreds those who invade our half of rood of rock.

InTheTrees · 21-12-2011 10:35PM

later10 wrote: »

In fact I have an entitlement to a UK passport and am, however inadvertently or unwillingly, a UK citizen.

You can be entitled to a UK passport if your parents were alive before independance. I believe thats the rule.

So it is possible to qualify for a brit passport while being a citizen of the ROI.

I'm not sure whether it means you then become a british citizen once you obtain the passport though? Presumably yes?

later12 · 21-12-2011 10:47PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

You can be entitled to a UK passport if your parents were alive before independance. I believe thats the rule.

So it is possible to qualify for a brit passport while being a citizen of the ROI.

I'm not sure whether it means you then become a british citizen once you obtain the passport though? Presumably yes?

OT but I enquired about this and the official answer is that you're considered a UK citizen if you don't have a UK passport, but you can provide documentation to support your citizenship (i.e. a birth certificate, or parents' citizenship documents, or approval of application for citizenship by the Home Office, and so on).

A passport is not a requirement for citizenship in itself, and there is no obligation to own a passport.

Fratton Fred · 21-12-2011 10:47PM

later10 wrote: »

I question how on Earth 2000 British people ended up living on an island cluster of the Argentine coast.

Pretty much the same way 40 million white, Spanish speaking people ended up in Argentina I guess. What's your point?

Except of course when the British arrived in the Falklands there was no indigenous people so, unlike Argentina, no one was killed/enslaved to get hold of it.

later12 · 21-12-2011 11:01PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Except of course when the British arrived in the Falklands there was no indigenous people so, unlike Argentina, no one was killed/enslaved to get hold of it.

How many more appeals to hypocrisy can be made in this thread?

Margaret Thatcher was a terrible leader
-Yeah but so is Bertie!

The British should never have fought over the Falklands
-Yeah but the Argentines started did too!

A silly hangover from British imperialism
-The Argentines had an imperialist history as well!

Why do the defenders of Thatcher and the Falklands' War so rarely engage logically on these issues?

The point about the (relatively recent) colonisation of the Falklands, in historical terms, is that it was up to the British (and yes, yes, the Argentines) to recognize the sensitivities of the counterparties to the dispute and engage sensibly and diplomatically on the issue, or if the use of force was necessary, a much more intelligent use of force might have been employed. Instead much of the war in the Falklands consisted of gratuitous and indiscriminate killing.

1000 men died so that 2000 men (who were not full citizens of the UK) would be able to raise the Union Jack over their police stations, does that make sense to you?

InTheTrees · 21-12-2011 11:03PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Pretty much the same way 40 million white, Spanish speaking people ended up in Argentina I guess. What's your point?

An excellent point. I never could figure out why the Argentinians felt they had more of a right to the islands. It was mostly domestic political posturing by gen.galtereri.

I was never a thatcherite but she did the right thing as regards the falklands.

Gotcha. (remember that?)

:rolleyes:

InTheTrees · 21-12-2011 11:08PM

later10 wrote: »

1000 men died so that 2000 men (who were not full citizens of the UK) would be able to raise the Union Jack over their police stations, does that make sense to you?

Yes, of course it does. Because thats not what it was about.

Its much more to do with oil rights in the south atlantic and establishing ones right to be in an area. Whether its 2000 people, 200 people or 2 million.

A perfectly legitimate national concern and certainly well worth defending from invaders.

You dont just roll over and give it to them depending on how many people would be affected.

later12 · 21-12-2011 11:18PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yes, of course it does. Because thats not what it was about.

The only thing you left out was to specify, almost 30 years later, much oil has been profitably raised, or can be so, in the Falklands and the BAT?

Chuck Stone · 21-12-2011 11:20PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

You dont just roll over and give it to them depending on how many people would be affected.

So let's say the FI's were invaded and colonized by 100,000 Argentinians of which 25,000 were soldiers would it still have been worthwhile for the UK to attempt to recapture an island for the sake of a few thousand penguins, I mean, islanders?

pavb2 · 21-12-2011 11:22PM

I think Thatcher saw the Falklands war as a great opportunity. Her popularity in the UK at that time was at a low ebb so to beat the drum of nationalism, patriotism pride etc couldn't have come at a better time.

She went from strength to strength after the Falklands this was the best thing that could have happened to her politically

If I remember correctly there were nightly bulletins (guy who gave them became a cult figure) and almost an attempt to re create a whole atmosphere similar to the blitz, WW2 spirit

InTheTrees · 21-12-2011 11:25PM

later10 wrote: »

The only thing you left out was to specify, almost 30 years later, much oil has been profitably raised, or can be so, in the Falklands and the BAT?

It could be decades. Maybe never. I dont know that they're even looking for it.

But so what?

I do know the UNited states, the UK, Australia and I think even Russia(?) actively assert their "rights" to the area.

Big Nasty · 21-12-2011 11:25PM

pavb2 wrote: »

If I remember correctly there were nightly bulletins (guy who gave them became a cult figure) and almost an attempt to re create a whole atmosphere similar to the blitz, WW2 spirit

Arthur Scargill?

later12 · 21-12-2011 11:31PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

It could be decades. Maybe never. I dont know that they're even looking for it.

But so what?

I'm not convinced that the deaths of 300 British soldiers (or 700 Argentines) deserves to be met with a "so what?", frankly; or that it can be excused by the vague but unsubstantiated notion that there might be a profitable oil field.

InTheTrees · 21-12-2011 11:32PM

pavb2 wrote: »

If I remember correctly there were nightly bulletins (guy who gave them became a cult figure) and almost an attempt to re create a whole atmosphere similar to the blitz, WW2 spirit

Yes. I remember the guy. The name slips my memory... wait...

Max hastings? I think he went on to become editor of the daily telegraph?

InTheTrees · 21-12-2011 11:39PM

later10 wrote: »

I'm not convinced that the deaths of 300 British soldiers (or 700 Argentines) deserves to be met with a "so what?", frankly; or that it can be excused by the vague but unsubstantiated notion that there might be a profitable oil field.

Whatever. And my name isnt frank.

Until you read up on Antarctica our "discussion" will necessarily include such phrases as "so what".

Its an odd place. a whole continental land mass with no nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

later12 · 21-12-2011 11:44PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Whatever. And my name isnt frank.

I have no idea if your name is Frank or not.

I also have no idea how much accessible oil is underneath the BAT or the Falkland shelf, and neither do you, and neither did Thatcher.

pavb2 · 21-12-2011 11:49PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2002/feb/25/broadcasting.falklands

I thought this was a good summation not sure of the accuracy but the implication that GB was trying to offload the islands prior to invasion and that the conflict was like 'two bald men fighting over a comb'

Richard · 22-12-2011 12:43AM

Nodin wrote: »

That depends on where you stand on a man who sponsored some of the worst regimes in the area, and branded the ANC terrorists.

But they were terrorists. Of course, they were fighting apartheid South Africa, a brutal, brutal, regime, but... well the ANC weren't Greenpeace, shall we say?

Dudess · 22-12-2011 12:46AM

I need some attention. How to get it... Hmmm... I love Margaret Thatcher!

Richard · 22-12-2011 12:55AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So let's say the FI's were invaded and colonized by 100,000 Argentinians of which 25,000 were soldiers would it still have been worthwhile for the UK to attempt to recapture an island for the sake of a few thousand penguins, I mean, islanders?

It's the principle of the thing. The people of the Falklands had the same right to be defended against foreign invasion as, say, Cornwall.

But I suppose if the Argentinians had a much, much larger army then maybe Thatcher wouldn't have fought back.

Look at Hong Kong. It was a different situation. Part of the territory was on a lease, so had to be returned anyway, but if the UK had tried to hold on to the rest, they couldn't have kept it against the might (and proximity) of the Chinese People's Liberation Army.

But the whole thing with Hong Kong was handled well, diplomatically by both sides and the UK did not lose face.

The UK was sending out signals in the years leading up to the Falklands War that it didn't really want the islands and this was one of the reasons the Argies invaded. If the Argies had not invaded, there may have been a change in sovereignty since then (although this may have been against the wishes of the Falkland islanders).

later12 · 22-12-2011 12:57AM

Richard wrote: »

It's the principle of the thing. The people of the Falklands had the same right to be defended against foreign invasion as, say, Cornwall.

That depends.

Are the Cornish not full British citizens either?

Nodin · 22-12-2011 01:24AM

Richard wrote: »

But they were terrorists. Of course, they were fighting apartheid South Africa, a brutal, brutal, regime, but... well the ANC weren't Greenpeace, shall we say?

Greenpeace weren't dealing with one of the most odious regimes since 1945.

You'll note that while labelling Mandela and co "terrorists" Ronnie was funding the Contras.

Petition to privatise Thatcher's funeral

Comments