Maggie Thatcher

[DelToro]

Only in those circumstances?

I personally don't support any military action other than when British lands are invaded or we are required to by a treaty. If I'm deadly honest I don't even believe that soldiers should be allowed to engage without being directly fired upon by the person and even then they should take every attempt to not kill them. But I'm a far left loony and that's my personal philosophy on killing.

However, the pragmatist within me understands that the support of Britain as an ally is a key political chip that can increase our relations and standings with our Allies and can lead to further agreements that economically benefit British workers. Just that I understand that competition on the international stage is such that any refusal would be taken as an offense and can lead to less treaties that benefit the British worker. Of course this has to be properly balanced by skilled diplomats and politicians who have all the information of specific circumstances.

One good example is that we often support the United States as allies on the understanding that further military manufacturing contracts are given to BAE Systems which is the largest employer in the manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom as well as the largest employer of British engineering graduates. BAE is also the largest manufacturer to the US military that isn't based in the US. This in turn puts money into the pockets of British workers and allows our economy to continue to grow in what have been troubling economic times.

Military interventions are more complex than simplistic notions right and wrong and politicians balancing out all of these variables often don't have the luxury of adhering to them without consideration. Doing what is best for the country does not always mean doing what is the most popular course of action for the country. We elect leaders to make decisions on our behalf and there is an implicit understanding in the democratic process that we will not always be in as an informed position as they are. We trust them to do the right thing for Britain and that's what grounds we elect them on.

Fuck.

Can't disagree with you.

*sigh

 

[Blue Til Death]

If I'm deadly honest I don't even believe that soldiers should be allowed to engage without being directly fired upon by the person and even then they should take every attempt to not kill them.

You come out with some good stuff Damo but this is not good stuff, as an ex Squaddie I can tell you that using your rules of engagement we would lose every war/conflict we ever engaged in and lose countless more soldiers lives. Looks good on paper but the reality of conflict is vastly different trust me..!

 

[mcfc1632]

We have a similar outlook on life SWP, one not shared by many... Marmite comes to mind..!

There are more about who remember things properly than you might think from reading some of the threads on here.

I agree with your post about where we would have ended up as a country if the 'inappropriate' stranglehold that certain extreme left wing union barons held over the country had not been broken by Thatcher - and it needed someone of her strength to achieve it. FFS they were running the country - a lot of the naïve that post on here probably only remember the Flying Pickets as a one-hit wonder band.

Bit like some football managers - Churchill was the perfect person at that time (he had not been with the situation both before and after) - and Thatcher was right for the battle with the unions.

Thing is though it is (simply IMO) generally only those that do not think beyond lazy sound bytes that peddle all the drivel. You can see a lot of threads on here just seem to be started and dominated by the same old cadre to give them a platform to spout - generally without substance. I will not call them 'extreme left wingers' because such a tag really is for those with beliefs born of a quality of analysis and understanding that few here possess (again only IMO).

Some of the crap is really playground stuff - 1-liners to label people extreme right-wing etc. - which is clearly bollocks as I know a number on here that do not hold with their view, such as me, come from a very Labour dominated background - just that they have learned to think for themselves rather than be herd-followers.

Fair play to you for having the tolerance to engage with them.

 

[Damocles]

If I'm deadly honest I don't even believe that soldiers should be allowed to engage without being directly fired upon by the person and even then they should take every attempt to not kill them.

You come out with some good stuff Damo but this is not good stuff, as an ex Squaddie I can tell you that using your rules of engagement we would lose every war/conflict we ever engaged in and lose countless more soldiers lives. Looks good on paper but the reality of conflict is vastly different trust me..!

I understand that! It's a good example of where personal beliefs clash with reality. That is how I want our soldiers to behave because I believe that all killing is wrong, no matter what the circumstances, but still understand that implementing my personal philosophy onto the Armed Forces is both unrealistic and extremely arrogant and would probably cause us to be invaded tomorrow.

Something I've always thought about 'the left', to use a term I despise, is that we are campaigning for principles in a world that we want to be reality because we believe that these principles will help that reality happen. But it doesn't change that it is not reality yet and whilst we can use it as a goal it shouldn't be at the expense of the people living in the country and serving now.

I want to engage only under very specific defensive circumstances and aim for non-lethal hits or even rubber bullets. Another person in the debate might want a kill on sight policy for all enemy combatants and carpet bomb defensive positions in built up areas. As long as we both understand that we can't actually get exactly what we want and must compromise to meet in the middle then we will always come up with both a workable and moral Rules of Engagement that provides safety for our soldiers and still supports our position as a Western nation who is held to standards of moral accountability.

I've said this before but the problem with politics today is that people allow their opinions to own them rather than owning their opinions. You SHOULD be able to change an opinion, or discard it when a better solution comes along yet we deride this in the press as "flip flopping". You SHOULD understand that you have to work with people with opposite opinions and come to a mutually agreeable solution yet we deride this as "weakness". One of my issues that coincidentally started under Thatcher or at least was made ten times worse under her, and something that people like Russell Brand or UKIP are utilising now, is that we shouldn't really think too much about things but instead just get behind our favourite football team because they are right and compromise is a sign of an immoral person willing to sacrifice their vision. This is leading us into an area where potentially we can't function efficiently as a democracy and it's a little concerning.

We celebrate her stubbornness under the banner of The Iron Lady and the celebration of this trait as admirable is one of the most troubling legacies she has left on the British landscape.

 

[Blue Til Death]

If I'm deadly honest I don't even believe that soldiers should be allowed to engage without being directly fired upon by the person and even then they should take every attempt to not kill them.

You come out with some good stuff Damo but this is not good stuff, as an ex Squaddie I can tell you that using your rules of engagement we would lose every war/conflict we ever engaged in and lose countless more soldiers lives. Looks good on paper but the reality of conflict is vastly different trust me..!

I understand that! It's a good example of where personal beliefs clash with reality. That is how I want our soldiers to behave because I believe that all killing is wrong, no matter what the circumstances, but still understand that implementing my personal philosophy onto the Armed Forces is both unrealistic and extremely arrogant and would probably cause us to be invaded tomorrow.

Something I've always thought about 'the left', to use a term I despise, is that we are campaigning for principles in a world that we want to be reality because we believe that these principles will help that reality happen. But it doesn't change that it is not reality yet and whilst we can use it as a goal it shouldn't be at the expense of the people living in the country and serving now.

I want to engage only under very specific defensive circumstances and aim for non-lethal hits or even rubber bullets. Another person in the debate might want a kill on sight policy for all enemy combatants and carpet bomb defensive positions in built up areas. As long as we both understand that we can't actually get exactly what we want and must compromise to meet in the middle then we will always come up with both a workable and moral Rules of Engagement that provides safety for our soldiers and still supports our position as a Western nation who is held to standards of moral accountability.

I've said this before but the problem with politics today is that people allow their opinions to own them rather than owning their opinions. You SHOULD be able to change an opinion, or discard it when a better solution comes along yet we deride this in the press as "flip flopping". You SHOULD understand that you have to work with people with opposite opinions and come to a mutually agreeable solution yet we deride this as "weakness". One of my issues that coincidentally started under Thatcher or at least was made ten times worse under her, and something that people like Russell Brand or UKIP are utilising now, is that we shouldn't really think too much about things but instead just get behind our favourite football team because they are right and compromise is a sign of an immoral person willing to sacrifice their vision. This is leading us into an area where potentially we can't function efficiently as a democracy and it's a little concerning.

We celebrate her stubbornness under the banner of The Iron Lady and the celebration of this trait as admirable is one of the most troubling legacies she has left on the British landscape.

That's fair comment and well put, I can understand where you are coming from whilst disagreeing with you in some areas.
At least you give a reasoned well thought response and are not just blurting back dogmatic nonsense as is often the case from all sides on here..!

 

[whp.blue]

If I'm deadly honest I don't even believe that soldiers should be allowed to engage without being directly fired upon by the person and even then they should take every attempt to not kill them.

You come out with some good stuff Damo but this is not good stuff, as an ex Squaddie I can tell you that using your rules of engagement we would lose every war/conflict we ever engaged in and lose countless more soldiers lives. Looks good on paper but the reality of conflict is vastly different trust me..!

as the lwnj would have it lose a few wars and we would never fight another one

mind you if they had their way we would already speak German

 

[DelToro]

If I'm deadly honest I don't even believe that soldiers should be allowed to engage without being directly fired upon by the person and even then they should take every attempt to not kill them.

You come out with some good stuff Damo but this is not good stuff, as an ex Squaddie I can tell you that using your rules of engagement we would lose every war/conflict we ever engaged in and lose countless more soldiers lives. Looks good on paper but the reality of conflict is vastly different trust me..!

as the lwnj would have it lose a few wars and we would never fight another one

mind you if they had there way we would already speak German

Hmmm.......I think Neville "Peace in our time" Chamberlain was a Tory.

 

[Len Rum]

i love how to this day she's hurting the lwnj's.

Do you love the fact that she covered up for her friends who raped children? Do you love the fact that she deliberately pinned the blame on the 96 innocent victims of the Hillsborough tragedy on the poor innocent people who died,innocent kids who just wanted to go and watch their beloved football team and died because the people who were supposed to serve and protect them didn't

knowing what a stand up no nonsense type of woman she was i'd say she was badly advised.

as someone said quite simply the greatest prime minister since churchill's second term in office, Clem Attlee being the greatest PM since the end of WWII.

Edited for clarity.

 

[johnnytapia]

If I'm deadly honest I don't even believe that soldiers should be allowed to engage without being directly fired upon by the person and even then they should take every attempt to not kill them.

You come out with some good stuff Damo but this is not good stuff, as an ex Squaddie I can tell you that using your rules of engagement we would lose every war/conflict we ever engaged in and lose countless more soldiers lives. Looks good on paper but the reality of conflict is vastly different trust me..!

as the lwnj would have it lose a few wars and we would never fight another one

mind you if they had there way we would already speak German

Given your mastery of English homophones, that might not be such a bad thing.

 

[Len Rum]

If I'm deadly honest I don't even believe that soldiers should be allowed to engage without being directly fired upon by the person and even then they should take every attempt to not kill them.

You come out with some good stuff Damo but this is not good stuff, as an ex Squaddie I can tell you that using your rules of engagement we would lose every war/conflict we ever engaged in and lose countless more soldiers lives. Looks good on paper but the reality of conflict is vastly different trust me..!

as the lwnj would have it lose a few wars and we would never fight another one

mind you if they had there way we would already speak German

"Ihre" nicht "dort", mein freund.