Prime Minister Thatcher -The Mod Made Thread

[Imperiatom]

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.

Well done for contradicting yourself. The soviets were more genocidal than both Hitler or pol pot.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

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. I was not his intention though at the time.

Writing things does not make one guilty of crimes against humanity, funnily enough.

[The Godly Nations]

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.

It's Khmer Rouge, not Kamer rouge.

And, continuing to support a brutal dictator who you know killed off a third of his country's population and is now a synonym of evil does not seem ever to be the lesser of two evils.

[Britcan]

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.

I totally forgot that Karl Marx supported genocidal dictators.

[Imperiatom]

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. I was not his intention though at the time.

Writing things does not make one guilty of crimes against humanity, funnily enough.

Considering at least half of the un natural deaths of the 20th century can be traced back to his writings he is guilty by association. The modern term being inciting racial and class hatred.

[Napkiraly]

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

Vietnam ended a genocide. Pretty clear who has the moral high ground.

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.

Freedom of expression is not a crime against humanity. Please educate yourself.

[Soviet Post Punk]

Well done for contradicting yourself.

I'm sorry are you unable to read? Did you miss the IN ORDER TO DEFEAT NAZI GERMANY bit? do i have to spoon feed you and explain why those are exceptional circumstances? do i have to explain why holy shit we're fighting hitler is different than "th-the soviets believe different things than us we have to aid genocide to spite them ;_;"

Are you going The soviets were more genocidal than both Hitler or pol pot.

Not actually true, pretty sure the Cambodian genocide was the greatest per head of population ever.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Writing things does not make one guilty of crimes against humanity, funnily enough.

Considering at least half of the un natural deaths of the 20th century can be traced back to his writings he is guilty by association. The modern term being inciting racial and class hatred.

Funnily enough, actually directly supporting genocidal and/or generally brutal dictators is generally considered worse than writing books in the 19th century which are then taken up by lunatics in the 20th.

[Machtergreifung]

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.

Soft and selfish? As in, realizing that wars are inherintly bad things?

If those people wanted freedom and democracy, they could have managed themsleves. If the Arab Spring has showed us anything, it's that the Muslim world can overcome totalitarian systems if it wants to.

That isn't the case in Afghanistan. You have Western troops backing up a democratic and corrupt government in what remains a feudalistic tribal nation that keeps falling back into factional warfare. The only difference the Western troops have made is that one faction is in a better position than the others, a position that will disapear when the Western troops withdraw.

Basicly, who are we to tell them how they run their country.

If you're applying for Sandhurst, you've lost all crediability in my eyes. If you want to be a part of a organization that is involved in backing up a morally bankrupt and corrupt regime and prolong a unwinnable war in a country that Britain just can't keep away from, that's your choice.

[Imperiatom]

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

Vietnam ended a genocide. Pretty clear who has the moral high ground.

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.

Freedom of expression is not a crime against humanity. Please educate yourself.

Well genocide's do tend to end when you run out of people you want to kill, as in Vietnam. It is if it inspires hatred and violence in others.

[Royal Balmoral]

RIP Baroness Thatcher. You saved Britain domestically and internationally. A woman with her handbag who played a major role in ending the cold war, reversing Britain's post war decline with vast and racial economic revitalization and deregulation. Deploying a task force of over 110 ships to retake the British overseas territory of the Falkland Islands from Argentine occupation and being Great Britain's longest serving Prime Minister of the 20th century, winning three elections (two of which were a landslide) are just two achievements of many. I am saddened I was never fortunate enough to meet her however I can rest in the knowledge that the great bulk of Thatcherism will influence British politics and policy for decades and centuries to come.

"I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end."

"Disciplining yourself to do what you know is right and important, although difficult, is the highroad to pride, self-esteem, and personal satisfaction."

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

-Lady Thatcher.

[Napkiraly]

Vietnam ended a genocide. Pretty clear who has the moral high ground.

Freedom of expression is not a crime against humanity. Please educate yourself.

Well genocide's do tend to end when you run out of people you want to kill, as in Vietnam. It is if it inspires hatred and violence in others.

There was no genocide in Vietnam. Please, educate yourself.

[Imperiatom]

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.

Soft and selfish? As in, realizing that wars are inherintly bad things?

If those people wanted freedom and democracy, they could have managed themsleves. If the Arab Spring has showed us anything, it's that the Muslim world can overcome totalitarian systems if it wants to.

That isn't the case in Afghanistan. You have Western troops backing up a democratic and corrupt government in what remains a feudalistic tribal nation that keeps falling back into factional warfare. The only difference the Western troops have made is that one faction is in a better position than the others, a position that will disapear when the Western troops withdraw.

Basicly, who are we to tell them how they run their country.

If you're applying for Sandhurst, you've lost all crediability in my eyes. If you want to be a part of a organization that is involved in backing up a morally bankrupt and corrupt regime and prolong a unwinnable war in a country that Britain just can't keep away from, that's your choice.

I'm sorry you think that an individual who feels morally compelled to protect those people in the world that have no freedom to have no credibility, it reflects rather more poorly on you though. Military action if used responsibly has the power to change the world for the better.

Being an idealist is all well and good but the world and its people are not as enlightened as you, In trying to build a stable, free and fair county, one has no option to be idealistic in the beginning until the nation becomes a safe free place like our own nation. Education is the key to Afghanistan and that takes time.

[The Godly Nations]

Vietnam ended a genocide. Pretty clear who has the moral high ground.

Freedom of expression is not a crime against humanity. Please educate yourself.

Well genocide's do tend to end when you run out of people you want to kill, as in Vietnam. It is if it inspires hatred and violence in others.

Indeed- there was still a third of Kampuchea left to murder- more than enough people to continue a genocide, seeing as Papa Doc and Baby Doc managed a kill-fest with even fewer people.

[The Godly Nations]

I'm sorry you think that an individual who feels morally compelled to protect those people in the world that have no freedom to have no credibility, it reflects rather more poorly on you though. Military action if used responsibly has the power to change the world for the better.

Being an idealist is all well and good but the world and its people are not as enlightened as you, In trying to build a stable, free and fair county, one has no option to be idealistic in the beginning until the nation becomes a safe free place like our own nation. Education is the key to Afghanistan and that takes time.

Education is needful here seeing as you can't put two sentences together without violating three misspellings and four grammatical error.

I suppose that's another legacy of Thatcher- cutting funds for the schools.

[Imperiatom]

Well genocide's do tend to end when you run out of people you want to kill, as in Vietnam. It is if it inspires hatred and violence in others.

There was no genocide in Vietnam. Please, educate yourself.

If you think the VC and the North killing around 600,000 south Vietnamese in killings, executions and "re-education champs" is not an act of genocide i think it is you who needs educating. (preferably not at a Vietnamese re-education champ)

[Imperiatom]

I'm sorry you think that an individual who feels morally compelled to protect those people in the world that have no freedom to have no credibility, it reflects rather more poorly on you though. Military action if used responsibly has the power to change the world for the better.

Being an idealist is all well and good but the world and its people are not as enlightened as you, In trying to build a stable, free and fair county, one has no option to be idealistic in the beginning until the nation becomes a safe free place like our own nation. Education is the key to Afghanistan and that takes time.

Education is needful here seeing as you can't put two sentences together without violating three misspellings and four grammatical error.

I suppose that's another legacy of Thatcher- cutting funds for the schools.

Errors but carry on.

[The Godly Nations]

There was no genocide in Vietnam. Please, educate yourself.

If you think the VC and the North killing around 600,000 south Vietnamese in killings, executions and "re-education champs" is not an act of genocide i think it is you who needs educating. (preferably not at a Vietnamese re-education champ)

So, causalties in war is now 'genocide'- then Margaret Thatcher is personally responsible for the genocide of around a thousand people, both British and Argentinian, during the Falklands. How does it feel to be defending the legacy of a regime that is, by your own standards, genocidal?

[The Godly Nations]

Education is needful here seeing as you can't put two sentences together without violating three misspellings and four grammatical error.

I suppose that's another legacy of Thatcher- cutting funds for the schools.

Errors but carry on.

'Errors', but carry on.

Also, as a reminder, the pronoun 'I' is capitalised.

[Giant Tank Factory]

How has a Maggie Thatcher thread become about Pol Pot and the Vietnam war? I always thought she came to power in 1979 and therefore did not have much influence on the indochina conflicts. I was also unaware that Britain was ever involved in wars in indochina.

[Imperiatom]

If you think the VC and the North killing around 600,000 south Vietnamese in killings, executions and "re-education champs" is not an act of genocide i think it is you who needs educating. (preferably not at a Vietnamese re-education champ)

So, causalties in war is now 'genocide'- then Margaret Thatcher is personally responsible for the genocide of around a thousand people, both British and Argentinian, during the Falklands.

I was under the impression that Executing prisoners and those who do not hold the same view as oneself in "re-education" was against both against the rules of war as stipulated by the Geneva convention and as such constitutes a crime against humanity. The fact the killings took place during a war is of no consequence, It is the nature of the crime not the state the country was in that determines if the Deaths were genocidal.

NB: see the holocaust.

[The Godly Nations]

How has a Maggie Thatcher thread become about Pol Pot and the Vietnam war? I always thought she came to power in 1979 and therefore did not have much influence on the indochina conflicts. I was also unaware that Britain was ever involved in wars in indochina.

She also funded Pol Pot, and send people to train 'em to be more efficient in killing their own people- and fighting the Viets.

[Chinese Regions]

How has a Maggie Thatcher thread become about Pol Pot and the Vietnam war? I always thought she came to power in 1979 and therefore did not have much influence on the indochina conflicts. I was also unaware that Britain was ever involved in wars in indochina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian% ... namese_War

[Unicario]

This might not be totally relevant, but has anyone noticed that nearly all the best (or at the very least, most influential) leaders of our country have been women?

Naming the four most important names of the last 500 years:

Elizabeth I
Victoria
Churchill (Wartime hero, but to be fair he was important)
Thatcher (Good or bad, she was undeniably influential)

And even today, our current Queen, while not exactly in power, is still damn good at what she does and her role. Really you couldn't ask for a better role model to have, so a nod to our current Queen as well.

Churchill was a famous name, and made the very commendable decision of going against the Nazi regime, so I felt it necessary to add him. Still, he is the only male there.

Frankly, I find it sort of depressing that there aren't more women in politics because of this, they seem to do a damn better job of it.

>No George III
>No George VI
>No George V
>No William of Orange

Yeah, that's a very bad generalisation.

[The Godly Nations]

I was under the impression that Executing prisoners and those who do not hold the same view as oneself in "re-education" was against both against the rules of war as stipulated by the Geneva convention and as such constitutes a crime against humanity.

Crime against humanity, yes, but Genocide, no.

Genocide- n. The deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group

Not what happened in 'Nam.

The fact the killings took place during a war is of no consequence, It is the nature of the crime not the state the country was in that determines if the Deaths were genocidal.

The fact that they look like saints compared to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge doesn't change, nor does it change the fact that the Vietnamese killed considerably less people than the Khmer Rouge (last I checked, it was around three million). It doesn't even change the fact that the Khmer people actually welcomed the Vietnamese and were glad that the Khmer Rouge was gone.

NB: see the holocaust.

Deliberate- yes
Systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group- yes
Is relevant to this discussion- no.