Prime Minister Thatcher -The Mod Made Thread

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Margaret Hilda Thatcher, chemist, barrister, politician, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, shall always be remembered for providing me with my favorite three sentences: No. No. No.

My favourite sentence, the one that after she uttered it, the country realised she was in fact mad as a box of frogs -

"We have become a Grandmother."

[Souseiseki]

Did Thatcher personally hate these people and order their deaths? No.

I don't know her reasoning behind these decisions but she Prime Minister, which means that she had the country's best interests at heart.

As i said yesterday, she chose the side she thought was less dangerous to the west and was the least bad of the two sides. It must be noted at the time that the Kamer rouge was the recognized government of Cambodia by the UN.

Let's jump to Indonesia. Tell me why you believe or why you think she believed that genocide is the less bad option.

[Britannic Realms]

Alright guys, it's fucking over. The Khmer Rouge goes down, tonight.

No. No. No. *Sends troops to train the Khmer Rouges troops and tries to keep you out*

What the fuck are you doing?!

I AM THE IRON LADY, WE ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY (DON'T YOU DARE BLAME ME FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS)

Did Thatcher personally hate these people and order their deaths? No.

I don't know her reasoning behind these decisions but she Prime Minister, which means that she had the country's best interests at heart.

Did she call the guy who was killing them one of Britians best and most valuable friends, and give him billions of pounds with which the genocide would be significantly harder if not impossible to commit? Yes.

What do you mean? You don't know her reasons for supporting a genocidal dictator so you're just going to make assumptions?

This was during the Cold War when right-wing dictators were considered to be better than Communists by almost every major Western government.

[Souseiseki]

Alright guys, it's fucking over. The Khmer Rouge goes down, tonight.

No. No. No. *Sends troops to train the Khmer Rouges troops and tries to keep you out*

What the fuck are you doing?!

I AM THE IRON LADY, WE ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY (DON'T YOU DARE BLAME ME FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS)



Did she call the guy who was killing them one of Britians best and most valuable friends, and give him billions of pounds with which the genocide would be significantly harder if not impossible to commit? Yes.

What do you mean? You don't know her reasons for supporting a genocidal dictator so you're just going to make assumptions?

This was during the Cold War when right-wing dictators were considered to be better than Communists by almost every major Western government.

Yes. It was. Do you think the people that suffered a genocide give the slightest fuck about how scared you are of DA COMMIEZ?

[Imperiatom]

"RIP LADY THATCHER - She did the right thing. Especially in Indonesia and Vietnam."

You thought that enabling/supporting genocide and protecting the Khmer Rouge was just SO GOOD that you just HAD to let the ENTIRE forums know with every single post you make.

I am... not sure what to say about that.

Well, I dislike it when people use two things to cover up all of the good things Thatcher did. It usually goes like this:

Person 1: "RIP Lady Thatcher, she privatised the ineffective industries."
Person 2: "They were fine nationalised."
Person 1: *Gives several good reasons and sources about these industries*
Person 2: "Oh well, she supported genocide"

Essentially, it's playing the genocide card when things don't go your way.

As I despise that so much, I put things like that in my signature to annoy those kinds of people.

I agree with that statement. Highly perceptive of you.

[Chinese Regions]

Alright guys, it's fucking over. The Khmer Rouge goes down, tonight.

No. No. No. *Sends troops to train the Khmer Rouges troops and tries to keep you out*

What the fuck are you doing?!

I AM THE IRON LADY, WE ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY (DON'T YOU DARE BLAME ME FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS)



Did she call the guy who was killing them one of Britians best and most valuable friends, and give him billions of pounds with which the genocide would be significantly harder if not impossible to commit? Yes.

What do you mean? You don't know her reasons for supporting a genocidal dictator so you're just going to make assumptions?

This was during the Cold War when right-wing dictators were considered to be better than Communists by almost every major Western government.

Ah, morality is "arbitrary" and "subjective" argument, which in itself is also arbitrary.
"That was in a different time and place."
"They thought what they were doing was best for their country."
"They didn't hate ______ personally."
"I don't know the reasoning behind why they did it, but they were the leader(s)."

[Britannic Realms]

This was during the Cold War when right-wing dictators were considered to be better than Communists by almost every major Western government.

Yes. It was. Do you think the people that suffered a genocide give the slightest fuck about how scared you are of DA COMMIEZ?

You don't seem to understand the Cold War mentality. The threat of nuclear war was constantly hanging over people's head, they genuinely thought the Soviet Union would and could start a nuclear war. Therefore, the Western powers felt like they needed as many right-wing allies as possible.

[Souseiseki]

Yes. It was. Do you think the people that suffered a genocide give the slightest fuck about how scared you are of DA COMMIEZ?

You don't seem to understand the Cold War mentality. The threat of nuclear war was constantly hanging over people's head, they genuinely thought the Soviet Union would and could start a nuclear war. Therefore, the Western powers felt like they needed as many right-wing allies as possible.

That doesn't answer the question.

At the very least you could now say "yeah, supporting genocidal dictators was wrong". But you won't. It's not like he tortured and murdered his own citizens like Pinochet, he outright fucking invaded another country and committed genocide there and we gave him the weapons to do it. But that's ok as long as he is right-wing and our friend.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Yes. It was. Do you think the people that suffered a genocide give the slightest fuck about how scared you are of DA COMMIEZ?

You don't seem to understand the Cold War mentality. The threat of nuclear war was constantly hanging over people's head, they genuinely thought the Soviet Union would and could start a nuclear war. Therefore, the Western powers felt like they needed as many right-wing allies as possible.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Nothing like an enemy to keep ones populace in line....

[Machtergreifung]

Yes. It was. Do you think the people that suffered a genocide give the slightest fuck about how scared you are of DA COMMIEZ?

You don't seem to understand the Cold War mentality. The threat of nuclear war was constantly hanging over people's head, they genuinely thought the Soviet Union would and could start a nuclear war. Therefore, the Western powers felt like they needed as many right-wing allies as possible.

His point was that people were dying on the killing feilds that had nothing to do with, nor cared about, the feelings of British leaders regarding the spread of communism.

Britain felt that it needed to defeat Germany during WW2, with the threat of defeat hanging over their heads. That doesn't make things like the Dresden bombing alright.

[Chinese Regions]

Yes. It was. Do you think the people that suffered a genocide give the slightest fuck about how scared you are of DA COMMIEZ?

You don't seem to understand the Cold War mentality. The threat of nuclear war was constantly hanging over people's head, they genuinely thought the Soviet Union would and could start a nuclear war. Therefore, the Western powers felt like they needed as many right-wing allies as possible.

You don't seem to know Mesoamerican mentality. The threat of starvation was constantly hanging over peoples' (apostrophe goes after the s when it is plural). Therefore, the political and religious leaders felt they needed as many human hearts sacrificed as possible. Still doesn't justify what they did.
That only explains why they did it (Bravo! Now you know Thatcher's reasoning! Do you want a jelly baby?), doesn't mean they are right.
We understand why a lot of bad things happen, but it doesn't make them right in any sense.
An explanation is not necessarily a justification.

[Machtergreifung]

America and the rest of Europe would have told Britain to stop fighting a power with next to no military capability.




I read Guderian's book myself. Doesn't make the book worth a academic damn, seeing as he seems to forget key events around sensitive issues that could affect his public image. Ditto for most of the German WW2 generals.

quote="Imperiatom";p="13914447"]

Maybe you should attend a read the book before one make's sweeping statements class?

He uses extracts and quotes from these books he mentions through the main body of his work. Be they the first hand accounts of diary extracts to out of other academic sources. "the first and only time the complete defeat of British arms" this key phrase is accurate.

I find it sad how some individual's such as yourself will dismiss the academic work of another without having read the book or any of the books or first hand sources he quotes. It's rather pathetic that you don't have any academic sources to back up your view that the Army suffered complete defeat more than once. Having read quoted and cited books he has personally studied for the writing of his own book your "EDIT" sounds like a large dose of both sour grapes and an example of your ignorance. If you have any academic books on the subject that contradict what he said then let me know! If you don't then i suggest you read a few to become better informed on the subject before you make such unintelligent sweeping statements on the work of another and all of those who he as used to put across his view.

I've read works that have more extracts than words actually written by the author. Again, still doesn't make them worth a damn. You can state that the moon is green, then have quotes and extracts galore - it doesn't make your statement true, nor add weight to it.

Now, I suggest you go and read this excellent book, and come back and say to us that the British Army hasn't only been defeated several times in it's history, but is being defeated now.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Losing-Small-Wa ... 321&sr=1-1

I have admit i have only read parts of his book Achtung Panzer but from the best of my knowledge Guderian writes a very concise and authoritative peace on the theory of armored warfare. Your mistake is to compare panzer leader and autobiographical work with that of a work of military history. It is obvious to me the chance of an autobiography being 100% accurate are slim but it is worth noting that allies decided that he had behaved as a professional soldier should throughout the war.

The army is not being defeated right now. As in Vietnam the public at large are preventing the army from doing what is needed to be done to win. At the time of withdrawal the aim of replacing the Taliban as the national government in Afghanistan will be complete. A good read on this are the later chapters of perilous glory by john france where he likens the war in Afghanistan to fighting a war with one arm tied behind ones back due to the public back home. We need a leader of thatchers resolve to change this prevailing attitude.

On the book Losing small wars, a quick Google of reviews has found many that are highly critical on some of the authors assertions about the army and its conduct during the war. His accusation British troops never left there bases for example is totally wrong, most troops do on a regular basis. I also don't believe he has any grasp at all of the objectives the army has in afghan an furthermore to declare a war lost before it is over is highly questionable. It sounds to me like it is a very good account of the failings of the army in the beginning of the occupation but is not an accurate refection when compared to the reasons we are pulling out and the objectives we set before entering.

lololololol

That was my first reaction to this post.

The point I was making with Guderian was that military figures will be unreliable. If you're a general in the British Army, are you likely to say it's a complete mess of elitism?

Do you know why the public isn't behind the Army? Because it doesn't support the war in the slightest. Go to a high street in any town in the country and do a poll about supporting a war in a country that has little and less to do with Britain, other than shady neo-colonialist deals for the oil that suddenly appeared after the occupation.

The war is lost, it was lost a long time ago. All the supposed plans and timelines of withdrawal are mere fantasy. What will happen is that the US/UK/NATO presence will gradually pull out and the ANA and the Afghan government will be too corrupt to actually get anything done, the country splinters up again and it's back to where it was before the invasion. All in all, a huge waste of men, money and material for no lasting change. How can you claim that the war is being won when the organization set to replace the NATO troops (the ANA) so utterly unsuitable that it's involved in killing the troops they are supposed to replace?

[Soviet Post Punk]

Do you know why the public isn't behind the Army?

That's not true at all, the public is veritably jacked up on the notion of our freedom loving oh so brave soldier boys, it's nauseating. Borderline American.

Might not support the war, doesn't mean they don't love the romance.

[Imperiatom]

You don't seem to understand the Cold War mentality. The threat of nuclear war was constantly hanging over people's head, they genuinely thought the Soviet Union would and could start a nuclear war. Therefore, the Western powers felt like they needed as many right-wing allies as possible.

His point was that people were dying on the killing feilds that had nothing to do with, nor cared about, the feelings of British leaders regarding the spread of communism.

Britain felt that it needed to defeat Germany during WW2, with the threat of defeat hanging over their heads. That doesn't make things like the Dresden bombing alright.

I totally agree the bombing of those German city's was the wrong thing to do, we were both already winning the war at that time and our own moral during the blitz proved that it would not break the German people. It is totally understandable from the perspective of the time but looking back we should have stuck to industrial complexes.

I think his point is like mine, She had Three choices. support one side or the other or invade, she chose the side she thought was best.

[Soviet Post Punk]

I think his point is like mine, She had Three choices. support one side or the other or invade, she chose the side she thought was best.

How about not doing anything.

Might not be moral but I don't think saying it's less immoral than aiding genocidal dictators is much of a stretch.

[Souseiseki]

I think his point is like mine, She had Three choices. support one side or the other or invade, she chose the side she thought was best.

And she thought the nation that invaded the much smaller one and proceeded to commit genocide there was the best side, and she was wrong (and not because she didn't know, she knew damn fine well), so fuck her, because genocide vs not genocide lends itself to a very very very easy "which is less evil" conclusion.

At the very least, don't call them one of our best and most valuable friends.

[Souseiseki]

Miss Thatcher, this man has aggressively invaded another nation and is now committing a brutal genocide against the people there. We have three options, we can...

A) Aid the genocidal dictator
B) Not aid the genocidal dictator
C) Fight to stop the genocidal dictator

Hmm... Let me think...

*picks up large stamp with A on it*

[Imperiatom]

I have admit i have only read parts of his book Achtung Panzer but from the best of my knowledge Guderian writes a very concise and authoritative peace on the theory of armored warfare. Your mistake is to compare panzer leader and autobiographical work with that of a work of military history. It is obvious to me the chance of an autobiography being 100% accurate are slim but it is worth noting that allies decided that he had behaved as a professional soldier should throughout the war.

The army is not being defeated right now. As in Vietnam the public at large are preventing the army from doing what is needed to be done to win. At the time of withdrawal the aim of replacing the Taliban as the national government in Afghanistan will be complete. A good read on this are the later chapters of perilous glory by john france where he likens the war in Afghanistan to fighting a war with one arm tied behind ones back due to the public back home. We need a leader of thatchers resolve to change this prevailing attitude.

On the book Losing small wars, a quick Google of reviews has found many that are highly critical on some of the authors assertions about the army and its conduct during the war. His accusation British troops never left there bases for example is totally wrong, most troops do on a regular basis. I also don't believe he has any grasp at all of the objectives the army has in afghan an furthermore to declare a war lost before it is over is highly questionable. It sounds to me like it is a very good account of the failings of the army in the beginning of the occupation but is not an accurate refection when compared to the reasons we are pulling out and the objectives we set before entering.

lololololol

That was my first reaction to this post.

The point I was making with Guderian was that military figures will be unreliable. If you're a general in the British Army, are you likely to say it's a complete mess of elitism?

Do you know why the public isn't behind the Army? Because it doesn't support the war in the slightest. Go to a high street in any town in the country and do a poll about supporting a war in a country that has little and less to do with Britain, other than shady neo-colonialist deals for the oil that suddenly appeared after the occupation.

The war is lost, it was lost a long time ago. All the supposed plans and timelines of withdrawal are mere fantasy. What will happen is that the US/UK/NATO presence will gradually pull out and the ANA and the Afghan government will be too corrupt to actually get anything done, the country splinters up again and it's back to where it was before the invasion. All in all, a huge waste of men, money and material for no lasting change. How can you claim that the war is being won when the organization set to replace the NATO troops (the ANA) so utterly unsuitable that it's involved in killing the troops they are supposed to replace?

We have grown both soft and selfish here because of the last 60 years of peace in Europe. I am behind the wars because they have the chance to bring freedom and democracy to the people of those nations, the troops are broadly in support of their mission. The ironic thing is that there more people hold the view we can make no lasting change the more chance there is there won't be. One might call it the self fulfilling prophecy. We have to be determined to succeed and be willing to be there in some capacity for the next 10 years. We can win if we as nation commit to bring freedom to those who have none, no-matter what the cost the moral justification is right.

EDIT: Before you say the usual " what are you doing to help people there" .

1) the mother of one of my housemates at school set up the charity afghan connection which i have supported with many donations over the last ten years.
2) i am considering applying to sandhurst.


I also urge anybody who has any compassion for the people of Afghanistan to support the charity and its work.

[Imperiatom]

I think his point is like mine, She had Three choices. support one side or the other or invade, she chose the side she thought was best.

And she thought the nation that invaded the much smaller one and proceeded to commit genocide there was the best side, and she was wrong (and not because she didn't know, she knew damn fine well), so fuck her, because genocide vs not genocide lends itself to a very very very easy "which is less evil" conclusion.

At the very least, don't call them one of our best and most valuable friends.

i can understand your view, although it is possible to commit both genocide and be one somebodys best and most trusted allies.

[Soviet Post Punk]

i can understand your view, although it is possible to commit both genocide and be one somebodys best and most trusted allies.

Protecting and facilitating (allying with) genocidal states is pretty monstrous.

[Imperiatom]

i can understand your view, although it is possible to commit both genocide and be one somebodys best and most trusted allies.

Protecting and facilitating (allying with) genocidal states is pretty monstrous.

should we have allied with the soviets in WW2?

[Napkiraly]

And she thought the nation that invaded the much smaller one and proceeded to commit genocide there was the best side, and she was wrong (and not because she didn't know, she knew damn fine well), so fuck her, because genocide vs not genocide lends itself to a very very very easy "which is less evil" conclusion.

At the very least, don't call them one of our best and most valuable friends.

i can understand your view, although it is possible to commit both genocide and be one somebodys best and most trusted allies.

And be capable in crimes against humanity. Well done.

[Soviet Post Punk]

should we have allied with the soviets in WW2?

In order to defeat nazi germany yes.

What the fuck did supporting a bunch of tinpot dictators win us in the cold war? Increased tension.

Clap clap well done maggy.

[The Godly Nations]

My favourite sentence, the one that after she uttered it, the country realised she was in fact mad as a box of frogs -

"We have become a Grandmother."

I see nothing wrong with it- Queen Thatcher has every right to announce her grandmotherhood.

[Imperiatom]

i can understand your view, although it is possible to commit both genocide and be one somebodys best and most trusted allies.

And be capable in crimes against humanity. Well done.

When all options lead to a similar result one has no choice.

I would personally say Marx is guilty of crimes against humanity for inspiring such delusion and militancy with his view. It was not his intention though at the time.