Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Should Baroness Thatcher be tried as a war criminal?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 183 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jan 2010 18:40:46 GMT
P. Higgins says:
Since kulaks were a product of Imperialist Russia, I don't see the relevance of their place in a socialist state. They have no place and were offered by Socialist Russia an option to take their place in the classless society that was the ideal of the revolution. The situation was not handled well, resulting in the burning of farms and the deaths of both peasants and the somewhat wealthier (peasant) farm owners.

The socialist vision of a collective agricultural policy demands state ownership of the farms, and I would say you should be able to choose to run your farm for the benefit of the state or continue to sell your skills as a veterinary surgeon to the state. If neither option was acceptable, then a committee of local farm workers would take the decision for you, based on the greater local need- a farmer or a vet.

I ask myself why you would want to work as a vet and run a farm. I come to the conclusion that it is either greed or necessity. If it is greed then this is what socialism wishes to remove. If it is necessity, then socialism will lift the burden of one of your tasks giving somebody else the opportunity to be a productive member of the state.

Of course it could be one is a hobby, the other a job. But this still leaves either a vet or a farmer out of work.

Posted on 14 Jan 2010 15:00:17 GMT
Mark Evison says:
Yes please. And Blair, Raygun, Bush(es), Cheny et al.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jan 2010 16:13:38 GMT
Sovereign territory? A naive view. The possibility of OIL, in the South Atlantic and the protection of an asset stripping company who turned the entire islands over to a coal company is hardly 'sovereign territory.'

Falklanders who arrived here and were feted and spoiled after the war I met were arrogant, small minded curmudgeonly people whose lifestyle in these miserable Islands did not seem to justify all that death and maiming although of course, Thatcher's own survival in power by using a war, any old war, as propaganda was the real agenda.

No, apparently it's ok to dispossess an entire culture from Diego Garcia to use it as a weapons base in the 1960s then a short twenty years later send people to their death to protect the non indigenous Falklanders described above.

We didn't let the poor Diego Garcia islanders into Britain until a couple of years ago.

What should have happened is that the Falkland coal employees should have been repatriated to the UK and the Islands handed back to the Argentinians. This would have been the rational solution. No one in the UK governmen really cared how crazy their regime had become, since they had no oil, and the Falklanders would have adapted, let's face it, the UK is a lot more fun than that barren outpost.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jan 2010 17:20:49 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Jan 2010 18:45:52 GMT
Withnail says:
I would love to have met Raygun. In fact I might even change my name to Ray Gunn

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jan 2010 20:58:55 GMT
Liammons says:
P Higgins,
actually it was neither greed nor necessity which made those decisions for me. It is simply a choice i made in life, personally i would not have chosen to go to university at all, but the decision was largely made for me. In an effort to maintain the status quo at home i accepted my fate with a stiff upper lip! In hind sight i had a lot of fun, drank a lot, partied a lot and made a lot of new friends, so i have no regrets. Veterinary medicine was the lesser of all evils as a choice really, as it gave me a legitimate excuse to maintain my real passion for horses. For me the decision to practise at all was simply made on the grounds that it was an easy way to make a reliable income.
As regards the collectivisation of farms, this is for me the key flaw in extreme socialist/communist philosophy. The removal of ones basic free will. It is and should never be, anyones decision how i live my life except mine own. If i chose to build up a big veterinary business I could, instead i potter around and in reality undercharge compared to my 'competition'. Equally, i could reclaim a lot of flooded/callow and over grown land and keep a more efficient farming (have cattle as well) regime in place.
Essentially, my decision to keep my over all productivity to the state low is mine and mine alone to make. We overproduce food as it is, so in a roundabout way i am also helping save the environment for everyone. I would certainly fight to the bitter end to keep my free will, as a matter of pride and for my sanity i would refuse to abide to any decision made 'for' me or the 'greater good' and simply do nothing. As we were brought up to believe 'you can take away everything, but never our pride'.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jan 2010 01:19:16 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Jan 2010 01:21:22 GMT
P. Higgins says:
Well, Liammons you say you would refuse to have decisions made for you, then say the decision to go to university was made for you?

I suspect that what you mean is I refuse to have socialists make decisions for me, and you are perfectly entitled to that view.

Like most people, you make a big issue of freedom. But ask yourself just how free you are. Decisions are made for you every day by the government, whichever holds the most seats in parliament. There will never be a day when an elected government removes all law and gives us the ultimate freedom of no control. If they did, that would leave you free to annex your neighbours land. So your freedom to take land would restrict your neighbour's freedom to hold land. The point I try to make is that one man's freedom is another's' chains. So we have rule of law, to restrict freedoms seen as oppressive or harmful to others. The question is where we draw the line and in this you and I may disagree, but we must agree certain freedoms must be restricted for the good of us all.

I live in a house on a housing estate and have about 60-80 square feet of garden. I might argue that your freedom to own land but leave a portion of it flooded restricts my right to a bigger garden or a homeless person's right to have somewhere to live. I know you would not subscribe to that view, but is taking land you do not use any different (and I would argue it is morally superior) to the Enclosures Act that forced peasants off the land they had cultivated for centuries because the rich wanted it, and could afford to fence it?

As for the surplus of food you do not wish to exacerbate, why then are so many millions of people starving in the world? Because the greed of the capitalist is such that he would rather see his produce waste than give it to somebody who needs it.

The ultimate aim of socialism is the dissolution of central government, the creation of local autonomous communes (from which we derive the term `communist'), self controlling and self governing. This would give the greatest freedoms to the greatest number of people and can only be achieved through a transitory period of control to bring about the social and economic change which would facilitate this transformation.

Posted on 25 Apr 2013 19:46:43 BDT
Pendragon says:
Happened to notice this thread of possible interest to participants in the recent Thatcher threads.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Apr 2013 19:47:30 BDT
Last edited by the author on 28 Apr 2013 19:49:08 BDT
Obelix says:
'Since kulaks were a product of Imperialist Russia, I don't see the relevance of their place in a socialist state. They have no place'

Stalin thought the same, and consequently sanctioned genocide against them.

He was rather in the habit of doing that.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Apr 2013 20:40:02 BDT
Charlieost says:
Hi Dave Thomas. You are not the Dave Thomas I worked with at Brean are you. Just wondering.

Anyhow. Thatcher did not win the Falklands conflict any more than Churchill won the Second World War. The people who defeat the enemy are the strategists and soldiers. Churchill was an interfering old drunk with whom the the real commanders were more than tired of and pretty well ignoring towards the final stages of the war.

As for Thatcher. In what military unit did she train? Won the war. Don't make me laugh.

No you can't be that Dave Thomas. He couldn't stand her any more than I could. C

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Apr 2013 20:45:25 BDT
Charlieost says:
Hi Peter. Are you suggesting that the two warships accompanying the Belgrano should have moved into the target area and risked being torpedoed rather than attempting to find and neutralise the submarine that sunk the Belgrano. Now that would be stupid indeed. C

Posted on 28 Apr 2013 23:55:47 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 04:18:48 BDT
P. Higgins says:
He certainly was; in fact, he seized and maintained his grip on power by constantly disposing of dissenters. I wouldn't describe Stalin or the state over which he presided as communist or socialist. It was more akin to fascism, maintaining a ruling elite at the expense of the people. Stalin, in my view did a greater disservice to communism and socialism than any capitalist or democrat!

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2013 12:59:50 BDT
Pendragon says:
Hi Charlie

According to Mike Rossiter's 2007 book Sink the Belgrano, immediately the Belgrano was hit by the Conqueror's torpedoes (at 16:00 local time) the two destroyers accompanying her "steamed 30 miles to the north at high speed, as they had previously agreed they would do if there was an attack from a submarine."

The Argentine destroyers made no attempt to attack the submarine.

The two destroyers returned to search for survivors the next morning. The Conqueror had returned to the attack point and observed the searching ships, but made no attempt to attack them and instead resumed her patrol.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2013 14:03:25 BDT
T. S. C. says:
'P. Higgins says:

The point I try to make is that one man's freedom is another's' chains.'

Yes dear boy, it certainly is. In the 17th and 18th centuries in England, the Englishman was proud to live in a country where he and many of his countrymen had a certain amount of liberty and freedom, and the sense that they could live in liberty and freedom. This freedom for others fuelled empire, slavery, the plantation system, the conquest of India and many other places besides. One man's freedom can indeed be another man's literal chains.

'The question is where we draw the line and in this you and I may disagree, but we must agree certain freedoms must be restricted for the good of us all.'

No one can be completely free to do whatever he or she wants to do, that would lead to chaos. The Wild West had no law, for a time, each man doing what he pleased, leading to lawlessness, bloodshed, all kinds of feuds and localised wars over land especially, all in the name of freedom. Freedom without law, freedom without responsibility is no real freedom. The hypocrisy of much of this of course is when those who make the laws for the rest of us, do whatever they like to make money and consolidate their wealth and power and freedom and rights, whilst curtailing anyone else who doesn't belong to their 'club', those who are not part of the business elites or social elites or political elites. That's where it all begins to fall apart somewhat. Anyway, good comment.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2013 15:39:38 BDT
P. Higgins says:
You have the sense, lacking in some, to see that a line must be drawn. We may discuss and differ on where this line should be, but nevertheless, there must be restrictions on certain freedoms- that apply to us all- to ensure the freedoms we hold dear- for all.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2013 18:00:08 BDT
T. S. C. says:
'P. Higgins says:

You have the sense, lacking in some, to see that a line must be drawn.'

Why thank you my friend, I take that as a compliment because your post was well written and intelligent whilst being clear and easy to comprehend. I only usually reply to those who make relevant and salient points, but very occasionally crack a funny too! Seriously, there must be boundaries in life; boundaries of law within each person and boundaries that governments and states make for the (hopefully) good of all the people. If we could all just do what we wanted, I would not want to live in that society, because every evil, every vice imaginable (and unimaginable), and every act of revenge would be acted upon. Society would very quickly sink to the lowest common denominator.

'...there must be restrictions on certain freedoms'

Yes agreed. Even if laws are ultimately made for elites to control and dominate others, the wise person realises that good laws for one person can also be good for everyone else too.

Posted on 4 May 2013 20:40:48 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 5 May 2013 08:16:14 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2013 20:48:31 BDT
Pendragon says:
"you lot are sober,. think about it"

Thought about it. You obviously are not.

If I were not, I would say that tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be an idiot.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2013 20:54:13 BDT
Spin says:
Rock: The more one drinks, the less one cares. That is why the alcohol industry is so successful. Nobody wants to care...

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2013 20:59:48 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 5 May 2013 08:16:50 BDT]

Posted on 4 May 2013 21:19:30 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 4 May 2013 22:24:28 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 4 May 2013 22:31:24 BDT
Spin says:
As a young guy under the influence of the Tories, I always wondered how Thatcher could be considered a "woman". She was in no way "sexy"...I doubt she had interest in sex... A "woman" PM? No. A PM that fought to be a man...

Posted on 4 May 2013 22:49:57 BDT
Well she's dead now so let's get on with another argument then again so is Jimmy Saville

In reply to an earlier post on 5 May 2013 07:06:15 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 5 May 2013 09:45:59 BDT]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  68
Total posts:  183
Initial post:  10 Dec 2009
Latest post:  7 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions