Is it time to get Maggie out of her stay fresh wrapper?

« The Apologists | What now for the 15 British Sailors and Marines »

Is it time to get Maggie out of her stay fresh wrapper?

by shaz_the_prole @ 2007-03-26 – 18:23:40

Ok so old Iron knickers was never the most popular Prime Minister the UK has seen but by gum was she tough when it came to the security of the nation and the safety of her forces. She had the Dunkirk spirit and the heart and stomach of a king and a king of england too! Remember her after the Brighton Bombing! Remember the Belgrano! Maggie would have put a shot across the bows of the Iranian vessels engaged in an act of piracy against Her Majesties Forces, I have no doubt she would have acted in a tough way and ensured that the Matelows never became potential hostages in Iran.

Instead we have Blair who was missing in action for a couple of days and then crawled out of the EU woodwork to make a statement which went something like, 'I say you chaps, let our sailors go, its simply not cricket to behave like this, if you dont let our sailors go we will get serious about this' Tougher than a soggy fish finger in this instance Mr Blair! You weren't so polite about taking the UK into an illegal war in iraq or so weak willed when lying to the House of Commons over the weapons of mass destruction, why have you turned into a spineless jelly fish when the fate of the matelows is at stake?

I would like to remind you of a Pink Floyd song Mr Blair, perhaps it will inspire you to make the fuzzy wuzzies give back our Matelows.

Breshnev took Afghanistan,
Begin took Beruit,
Galtieri took the Union Jack
and Maggie over lunch one day
took a cruiser with all hands
apparently to make him give it back!
( Pink Floyd the final cut - get your filthy hands off of my desert)
Options:
Tags:
- news
- life
- politics

25 Comments to Is it time to get Maggie out of her stay fresh wrapper?

Hide subcomments

- Rooticalee
- http://www.che-lives.com/home/
- 2007-03-26 @ 18:27:49
Thatcher was the anti-christ. The thought of her returning makes me gag involuntarily. I look forward to her death.
- - shaz_the_prole
  - 2007-03-26 @ 18:29:06
  Yes she was terrible wasnt she but with regard to sticking up for Britains interests on the International stage - you couldnt call her weak could you?
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- shaz_the_prole
- 2007-03-26 @ 18:46:07
the term fuzzy wuzzies is meant as humour and stems from a character in Dads army. It is no way meant to be a racist comment and therefore before I get streams of people yelling racism I would like to apologise if this causes any offence.
- - Rooticalee
  - http://www.che-lives.com/home/
  - 2007-03-26 @ 19:03:41
  I disagree I'm afraid. If you've got the time and inclination I have posted my dissertation on racism on my blog. Chapter two 'Cultural reflections' deals specifically with how 'others' were percieved ethnocentrically by the British of all classes. The Mackenzie quote discloses that the terms 'fuzzy wuzzy' was around long before Dad's Army and in addition that it is not as benign as you might think.
  - - shaz_the_prole
    - 2007-03-26 @ 19:57:26
    many thanks for that root I shall look forward to reading your dissertation.
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink
- - dances_with_haggis (Visitor)
  - 2007-10-26 @ 04:44:40
  OH for the days of empire and gunboat deplomacy when britania ruled the waves...NOT.. shazza as usual your politics are all over the place you like to claim left wing credentials and then dream of a thatcher MK2.you obviously admire her despite knowing the devestation she brought to commuities at home{no soldiers sent into protect those commuities from tories}.Thatcher protected the intrests of her class,and peoples live brit{servicemen included} or foriegn did not matter and were expendible if they got in the way.The other contributer deals with the imperialism bit very well so no need for my wee bit. so i'll just say why dont you just come out of the closet and declare for the tories as that is where yer heart lies shazza...oh and the pink floyd song was a condemnation of those leaders and not meant to inspire admiration{will be grassing yae tae R Waters and D Gilmore}
  - - shaz_the_prole (Visitor)
    - 2007-10-27 @ 14:58:06
    I know what Walters was writing about haggis ! But you can also spin it a bit to give it an inspirational quality in times of adversity. Partisan not I, bring on consensus politics and the idealist Plebiscitory Democracy hehe
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink
- (Visitor)
- 2007-03-26 @ 18:56:59
I VE JUST OPENED MY BLOG IM HAVING DIFFICULTY LIVE IN FRANCE NEED HAND HHHEEEELLLLPPPP
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- Rooticalee
- http://www.che-lives.com/home/
- 2007-03-26 @ 18:58:46
Sticking up for Britain's interest on the international stage? Like the illegal occupation of the Malvinas? The only thing she was defending there was Britain's imperialism. See what I mean about stuff being culturally reproduced? Most people think the Falklands actually originally belonged tp Britain. It's accepted as commons sense that they were. People either don't know or look the other way when the issue of the Falklands being an imperialistic enterprise comes up.
- - shaz_the_prole
  - 2007-03-26 @ 19:56:32
  British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and Dependencies rests on a secure historical and legal foundation. In 1690 the British, led by Captain Strong, made the first recorded landing on the Falkland Islands, which had no indigenous population before the arrival of settlers in the second half of the eighteenth century. The first British settlement was established in 1766. But up to 1833 there was a period of some confusion, when France, Britain, Spain and then the Buenos Aires Government at various times established small, local settlements, none of which endured for more than a few years.
  
  Apart from having a small settlement and penal colony for a short period on the Islands before 1833 (the greater part of this was ejected for 'piracy' by the United States Navy in 1831) Argentina's claim to the Islands is based mainly on her having been a successor to the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate, which also governed most of modern Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Chile. In 1833 the British resumed control of the Islands, and from that date they have been in open, continuous, effective and peaceful possession, occupation and administration. The British people who came to live there thereafter became the first permanently established population of the Islands.
  
  I personally know falkland Islanders who lived through the conflict. They consider themselves BRITISH and are proud of their heritage. The Argentinian claim is based on geography alone and has more to do with the resources which surround the falklands - namely deep oil feilds, which when coupled with a natural deep water port make the falklands a very appetising bit of land, particularly if Antartica was ever opened for her resources to be exploited at some point in the future. I think that the conflict itself had everything to do with Britains interests both the interests of the Falkland Islanders and future economic interests.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- wowbagger ^Pro
- 2007-03-26 @ 19:47:57
I very much wish Thatcher to remain wherever it is she is right now. Blair, whatever he may wish to do, can do nothing without George Dubya onboard, otherwise we would have another Suez, and right now Dubya seems not to have his troubles to seek and is unlikely to give Blair a free hand to rattle the Iranian cage.
- - shaz_the_prole
  - 2007-03-26 @ 20:20:21
  I would like thatcher to remain where she is too wowbagger, i just wish that some of her IRON WILL was present in our current government when it comes to the safety of our service personnel. Sending them off to an illegal war in Iraq and then not taking the necessary steps to ensure their safety is something I cannot and will not condone.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- miramaze
- 2007-03-26 @ 21:25:17
I know precious little about politics- but in my honest opinion it isn't iron will , but skillful will , skillful leadership and wisdom that will help put the country back on track.
- - shaz_the_prole
  - 2007-03-26 @ 22:01:20
  Hi Mira, Sadly I think that Blair et al are lacking in those qualities with regard to the detention of the 15 Matelows.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- jenray ^Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2007-03-27 @ 00:27:52
I loathed Maggie Thatcher and still do. She ruined our country, and there's nothing you can say that will make me change my mind...she's one of the people I would have gladly removed but can't because I don't believe in violence..and she won't damned well die :-(
- - shaz_the_prole
  - 2007-03-27 @ 10:06:52
  I live in Scotland and hereabouts people cannot bring themselves to say the word Thatcher without spitting in anger! She quite literally decimated the town I live in with her policies. Add to that the unfair imposition of the poll tax a year before the rest of the UK, the end of the scottish mining industry and the general high levels of unemployment her policies led to and you can understand the level of hatred there is for Thatcher. Yet I still admire her spirit in the face of adversity. I detested her stance on many things, but loved the way she stood up to anyone when it came to what she saw as Britains interests. The sole point I was trying to make, is that Maggie in someways had all the courage we as British people expect from a leader with regard to protecting our service men and women, whereas Blair seems happy to engage them in illegal occupations and allow them to be in harms way when there is no need. He lacks the courage the UK needs in its leader - but I cannot think of one politician of any political party who has that courage today.
  - - jenray ^Pro
    - http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
    - 2007-03-27 @ 20:06:39
    I’m sorry but I profoundly disagree with you. Thatcher was the ace opportunist. Her ratings in the polls were really low until the Argentinians invaded the Falklands. You could almost see her lifting herself up and visualizing herself as the strong, powerful woman who was going to take on a country daring to attack an island, made up incidentally of Brits who had left the UK because they no longer wished to have anything more to do with it, and the rest is history.
    The Belgrano, allegedly refused to turn back, but it was in the process of doing so when it was sunk. The Argentinian forces on the island were mostly composed of very poorly trained, very young conscripts, so were no match for our well trained forces. The sea battles proved to be something less easy to combat, and Britain was forced to buy more armaments from the USA to defeat the Argentinian navy. Also, several of their missiles failed to detonate, which does make you wonder whether they were sold duds in the first place from, I believe, us.
    It was also raised in Parliament that she had targeted a city in the centre of Argentina for a nuclear attack should the ship carrying one of the Queen’s son be sunk and he was amongst the dead. This is utterly unforgivable, and she would have become the first leader to use a nuclear weapon since the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    There is nothing in her behaviour to proclaim her a hero…or heroine during that war. It was an unnecessary war with dozens of soldiers and sailors returning home gravely injured, and who were kept well out of sight during the celebrations afterwards. I still wonder how they are doing now, and nobody has ever mentioned them again. The same thing will happen to the maimed after the Iraqi invasion is over. (There was also a small article in today’s Independent confirming that the estimate of 650,000 dead Iraqi’s since the war began is accurate. It was previously denied by the government, but they have been forced to admit it was right.) I wonder how many of them are maimed now too but this is a digression though linked because Blair has followed in her footsteps to such an extent, he might as well be a clone.
    For many years, she has lived on her laurels in the USA, going around giving speeches on her successful campaign, and, it is only there that she is hailed as a great leader. Here, amongst those of us, who believe she ripped the heart out of our country, she is despised and loathed. It was she who initiated monetarism with the resulting rise of the yahoos and the increase in the divisions between those who have and those who have not. Greed was praised and those who couldn’t rise up and grab the opportunities presented to them because impossible to acquire were classed as lazy failures. She also privatised every utility for which we are now paying dearly as shareholders’ payouts become far more important than the customer’s needs.
    I’ll end here, but I could go on listing grievances till the cows come home…nothing she did was truly justifiable.
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink
- Hugo Rudd (Visitor)
- http://www.conservatives.com
- 2007-03-27 @ 16:09:58
The idea that she was loatheful or the anti-christ is utterly foolish, and the commentary of some on this page is bizarre to say the least. The only type of leadership which can be admired is skilful leadership, leadership based on an understanding of the probable outcome; Thatcher knew Galtieri hadn't that skill, and had the balls to go after the rightful territrory of the UK. she saw that the probable outcome of doing nothing would be other nations taking liberties, and perhaps in a way we'd be less capable of dealing with.

I don't on the other hand think that she'd do anything different in this circumstance; her objective would be to get the troops home, and then consider retaliation. Action against Iran could result in Iran's use of some of their new weapons, possibly losing hundreds of UK personnel. If there is to be a confrontation with Iran, Thatcher would make it on our terms, usign the tools we have available to us.

I hate to say it, but Blair's probably handling this about right.
- - shaz_the_prole
  - 2007-03-27 @ 20:39:32
  I have to disagree on this one Hugo I believe that Maggie would have ordered a warning shot across the bow of the Iranian vessels as they attempted to aprehend our Matelows. But thats because I trusted Maggie to put the Soldiers, Sailors and airmen before worrying about offending other nations.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- - Rooticalee
  - http://www.che-lives.com/home/
  - 2007-03-28 @ 21:54:00
  What about her other policies? We're talking about a woman who said 'There's no such thing as society' lololol how idiotic.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- wowbagger ^Pro
- 2007-03-27 @ 22:14:40
Don't think there is that sort of moment to moment political control available when such a situation develops as quickly as occurred recently. I believe that the rules of engagement for the Conqueror (I think) to sink the Belgrano had to be changed and this was possible because of the slow development of the engagement, the Belgrano being shadowed for hours if not days.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- Trackback from: http://blogs.orange.co.uk/news/2007/03/best_of_the_blo.html
best of the blogs: Iranian hostage drama
Posted by Christopher Smith Disquiet in the Middle East is always a tinderbox for opinion among bloggers ? and the Iranian imprisonment of 15 British sailors is no different. Topics for fierce disagreement include the Iranians' motives, parallels wit...
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- Agent Provocateur (Visitor)
- 2007-03-30 @ 15:25:15
It would indeed be nice if Bliar were to grow testicles and a backbone of his own. Interesting that critical comments fail to appear on Steph's blog, but what can one expect from an apologist for the Tehran regime? As I said in that comment that failed to appear, 'No wonder the BNP is gaining support if this is what the British left has degenerated into'. Good to see that this blog is radical, but with a bit more bottle and not quite so politically inept Shaz. British troops are operating on a UN mandate, to parade them in this manner breaches the Geneva Convention, to deny diplomats access denies basic human rights. I am certainly no supporter of US imperialism, or invading countries to steal oil, and I'm highly critical of Israel, but that does not mean that one must perforce touch ones forelock to dark-age Islamist theocratic repression. Shaz, you are absolutely correct over the history of the Falklands, and they can hardly be described as being in Argentinian waters. The Belgrano had been playing cat and mouse by sailing in and out of the exclusion zone for many hours. Even then the two escort vessels were not sunk. Thatcher certainly used the conflict to get re-elected, she also ignored the MI6 report which stated that Argentina would invade were the RN icebreaker withdrawn. By seizing British personnel Iran has now created a situation where the vast majority of the British public would be willing to support military action, something Bush and the neo-conservatives want. The US has been amassing a fleet in the Gulf for just this purpose.
- - shaz_the_prole
  - 2007-03-30 @ 18:10:08
  thank you so much for your informative comment agent. It appears that this crisis is really hotting up now. Criticism of the UN response abounds and there are also questions surrounding a fracture within the Iraqi political structure - this could all get very nasty indeed. We are seeing Russian and Chinese interests in Iran taking precedence over the illegal detention of British Service Personnel engaged in their duties under a UN mandate. I cannot understand why the UN hasnt taken this as an act of hostility against the UN. I feel that Iran is 'testing the waters' for some future event against the coalition forces in the gulf region or perhaps some retaliatory event against the UN for the sanctions imposed due to their continued intention to develop nuclear power.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- Agent Provocateur (Visitor)
- 2007-03-30 @ 21:40:38
Right on again Shaz. The Tehran regime isn't that popular with it's own people, and such blatant propaganda is probably as much directed at its own population as the outside world. In addition, President Aftabuyadinnerjacket (I still think it's really David Blunkett) is attempting to present himself as a spokesperson for Islam. Yet another tin-pot dictator trying to steal the cloak of Nasser and Saladin. The footage released today has obviously been edited, and very badly edited at that. To anyone who has studied the decoding of linguistics (and I did with an acknowledged world expert at post-graduate level) it is obvious that the so called 'letters' are constructed by a non-native speaker. I find those who swallow the 'good treatment' somewhat amusing, even the Nazis were known to engage in such media manipultion for external consumption. Their assumption that anyone who does not regurgitate received politically correct dogma, as they do, is 'stupid' is more ominous. Of course, if it does come to war, they could be judged as being guilty of treason and sedition, but what is more worrying is that they play into the hands of Bush and the neo-conservatives, while discrediting any serious opposition to such imperialist policies with the mass of the population. The Iranian regime is repressive in the extreme, it oppresses women, imprisons all political opponents, refuses to allow free elections, controls all media, restricts access to information, funds and arms illegal militias, and has repeatedly acted in this piratical manner. Were their blogs written in Iran they would be executed if caught. Somewhat odd that those apologists seem to regard themselves as left-wing, but I imagine they'd have been appeasing Hitler in 1939. Odd also that they cite Iranian opposition group's offices in London as grounds for Iran's actions, the very same argument that Bush uses against Damascus. Perhaps it's Palmerston that we need to reincarnate, rather than Thatcher. He was the man who 'invented' jingoism ... "We don't want to fight, but by jingo if we do ...". It was a long time ago Shaz, I forget the rest of the song.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink