Margaret Thatcher has died.

[MoogleViper]

One could argue that if Blair didn't take us to war in Iraq then that £8bn could have been put to better use.

 

I'll agree that we shouldn't have gone to war. But I find it interesting how everyone blames Blair for the war, and says we shouldn't have gone, but supports the soldiers.

 

And, "the soldiers are just doing there job, they didn't decide to go" doesn't stand up. Yes they did decide to go. It wasn't a conscription, these people signed up for that. Most of them signed up during the Iraq war. They CHOSE to go to war.

[Grazza]

I'll agree that we shouldn't have gone to war. But I find it interesting how everyone blames Blair for the war, and says we shouldn't have gone, but supports the soldiers.

 

And, "the soldiers are just doing there job, they didn't decide to go" doesn't stand up. Yes they did decide to go. It wasn't a conscription, these people signed up for that. Most of them signed up during the Iraq war. They CHOSE to go to war.

 

For one thing, it's not the soldiers who were the problem, it was more the mass slaughter via bombing.

 

Secondly, anyone in the armed forces - whether Army, Navy or RAF - is acting in good faith. They should be able to do their job in the knowledge that their leader has sent them there for a good reason. Public and armed forces alike should always be able to trust a British Prime Minister not to lie about something as important as war.

[Jonnas]

And, "the soldiers are just doing there job, they didn't decide to go" doesn't stand up. Yes they did decide to go. It wasn't a conscription, these people signed up for that. Most of them signed up during the Iraq war. They CHOSE to go to war.

 

They weren't the ones who decided that the UK would be involved in the war, now were they? Even if they chose to fight in the war, they didn't create the opportunity to do so.

[MoogleViper]

They weren't the ones who decided that the UK would be involved in the war, now were they? Even if they chose to fight in the war, they didn't create the opportunity to do so.

 

They took the opportunity. They signed up, knowing that they were going off to fight a war. They signed up to kill people.

[Charlie]

Most of them signed up during the Iraq war. They CHOSE to go to war.

 

Have you got a source on that because I really doubt that's even close to being true.

 

Edit:

 

This Guardian article says there were 207,000 active military personell in 2003. When the last troops left Iraq in 2011 there were 186,000.

 

So yeah, that fact is completely untrue unless there was a massive turnover of soliders, which there wasn't. The soldiers signed up to the army knowing that they might go to a war, but they didn't know which war as obviously it was in the future. People go into the army as a career, and it's a very good career with great prospects.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Charlie

[MoogleViper]

Have you got a source on that because I really doubt that's even close to being true.

 

Edit:

 

This Guardian article says there were 207,000 active military personell in 2003. When the last troops left Iraq in 2011 there were 186,000.

 

So yeah, that fact is completely untrue unless there was a massive turnover of soliders, which there wasn't. The soldiers signed up to the army knowing that they might go to a war, but they didn't know which war as obviously it was in the future. People go into the army as a career, and it's a very good career with great prospects.

 

British forces recruit around 20,000 people a year (varies year by year). So since 2003, that's around 200,000 people. So yes, the vast majority.

 

http://www.informedchoice.org.uk/informedchoice/informedchoiceweb.pdf

http://data.gov.uk/dataset/uk_armed_forces_quarterly_manpower_statistics

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0133.html

[Iun]

I'll agree that we shouldn't have gone to war. But I find it interesting how everyone blames Blair for the war, and says we shouldn't have gone, but supports the soldiers.

 

And, "the soldiers are just doing there job, they didn't decide to go" doesn't stand up. Yes they did decide to go. It wasn't a conscription, these people signed up for that. Most of them signed up during the Iraq war. They CHOSE to go to war.

 

And that is exactly the point I would make, but against yours.

 

Serving military personnel don't get involved in politics. If they do, you end up with something like the Chinese PLA that happily guns down civilians because they have a vested interest in maintaining their own position in the political and social hierarchy.

 

The military does what the government tells them to do to safeguard the ethereal notion of "National Security", if they can say "no" for a good reason, what's to stop them from saying "no" for a bad reason?

 

I don't like it much either, but military and state should be kept separate. Unless the government orders soldiers to turn their guns on the nation.

[MoogleViper]

And that is exactly the point I would make, but against yours.

 

Serving military personnel don't get involved in politics. If they do, you end up with something like the Chinese PLA that happily guns down civilians because they have a vested interest in maintaining their own position in the political and social hierarchy.

 

The military does what the government tells them to do to safeguard the ethereal notion of "National Security", if they can say "no" for a good reason, what's to stop them from saying "no" for a bad reason?

 

I don't like it much either, but military and state should be kept separate. Unless the government orders soldiers to turn their guns on the nation.

 

I'm not advocating a military coup, or the freedom for soldiers to disobey. But these people weren't always soldiers. They didn't have the war forced on them. They joined during the war. They joined knowing they'd go to war. They joined TO go to war.

 

These are the people we should respect? People who've chosen to spend their life killing foreigners?

[ipaul]

Although I'm not really sure I can advocate the Iraq war given the vested interests that appear to have been part of the decision making, I resent how many people seem to completely overlook what an evil tyrant Saddam was in discussions about the war.

[Iun]

I'm not advocating a military coup, or the freedom for soldiers to disobey. But these people weren't always soldiers. They didn't have the war forced on them. They joined during the war. They joined knowing they'd go to war. They joined TO go to war.

 

And they believed that the war was just - either through personal convictions or what they were told by others. If they did it because they were blinded by propaganda, then that's the fault of the propagandists.

 

The war was unlawful, but the soldiers are not the ones who chose to prosecute it.

 

These are the people we should respect? People who've chosen to spend their life killing foreigners?

 

You have to make the distinction between "foreigners" and "enemies of the state" but firstly consider the question of "what is the state and what is its function?"

 

"Foreigners" in the UK are any persons without a UK passport. There's about... 6 billion people who are therefore caught in the net of "foreign".

 

What is the state and what is its function? Well, tough question. In an authoritarian state, such as the one I'm sitting in, the "state" is actually "The Communist Party" in a general sense and "The Politburo" in a specific sense. In an authoritarian state, we assume that any threats to the government are an issue of National Security, and that's why they shoot children in the back as they run away and forcibly abort third trimester fetuses.

 

In a Liberal Democracy - where most of you will be sitting - the state is a combination of the electorate and the elected. It varies from state-to-state exactly what the balance is considered to be. However, the liberal democracies espouse a doctrine of common rights and rule of law, and therefore any threat to those rights and that law are defined as threats to National Security and by extension, become the enemy of the state.

 

You will disagree, but seen through that lens, it's perfectly logical to go to war on a 1% risk of harm to National Security. Is it in the interest of the state, however? Debatable and depending on what they expect to get out of it.

 

Retrospectively we are able to say that the war was an error of judgement on the part of the state: but those who carried out the orders to kill were not to blame.

 

 

 

Although I'm not really sure I can advocate the Iraq war given the vested interests that appear to have been part of the decision making, I resent how many people seem to completely overlook what an evil tyrant Saddam was in discussions about the war.

 

Evil is irrelevant and a matter of perspective. To thousands of poverty stricken socialists, Thatcher was an evil tyrant. Would you have welcomed the Americans to liberate us all from the Iron Lady? Doubtful.

[Fierce_LiNk]

These are the people we should respect? People who've chosen to spend their life killing foreigners?

 

A lot of this has to do with perception. Many people join the army because it widens their career opportunities. Many see it as serving and protecting their country, or even going to help others. There will no doubt be some that just see it as a bit of "action" and want to join because they can legally kill people, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to find many who see that as the primary reason they've joined.

[Rummy]

I haven't really waded into this topic because a.) I don't know much about Thatcher and the things she did that were so terrible, except what people kinda half mention all the time but I don't know how accurate that is b.) I was kinda taking the half foolish stance of not speaking ill of the dead etc. However this article by Mark Steel is maybe flipping the latter for me, it seems there are many who have good reason to;

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mark-steel-you-cant-just-shut-us-up-now-that-margaret-thatchers-dead-8568785.html

 

Me though? I'm still not sure she wronged me much in particular.

[Agent Gibbs]

That article makes a very good point, and a whole lot better than i've been trying to make,

its the whole double standard of it, people who hated here in life coming out and gushing with admiration for her in death, and the whole argument of you may not agree with her actions but you have to respect their principle is utter madness, the burglar analogy is perfect.

 

I've seen so many people coming out saying never celebrate a death no matter what......and yet with all of them i can bet they celebrated bin laden....

[Iun]

 

I've seen so many people coming out saying never celebrate a death no matter what......and yet with all of them i can bet they celebrated bin laden....

 

OH BEHAVE.

 

There's a very distinct difference between someone who says "Get on a plane and go kill some people, I don't care who" and someone who structurally reforms a country -leading to unemployment - as it's democratically elected leader.

[Daft]

Apart from Thatcher's reign of terror lasting over a decade, what is the difference? They both committed heinous violent acts that ruined lives, except Thatcher did it on a much larger scale.

[Serebii]

I continue to see her compared to Hitler in Facebook statuses and similar posts. It's really grating. Yes, she screwed people due to her policies, but she didn't kill thousands.

 

Seriously, it is getting ridiculous now.

 

She's dead, she left office over a decade ago. It's pointless now

Edited April 12, 2013 by Serebii

[Iun]

Apart from Thatcher's reign of terror lasting over a decade, what is the difference? They both committed heinous violent acts that ruined lives, except Thatcher did it on a much larger scale.

 

I'm going to raise my eyebrow at you, and that's it.

[Daft]

Why don't you just answer the question instead.

[Agent Gibbs]

OH BEHAVE.

 

There's a very distinct difference between someone who says "Get on a plane and go kill some people, I don't care who" and someone who structurally reforms a country -leading to unemployment - as it's democratically elected leader.

 

I'm not comparing her to Bin Laden re read my post! i'm saying i'm sick of people saying you should NEVER celebrate a death EVER, yet these same people DID celebrate a death.

 

They can't have it both ways Celebrate nobody or depending on your beliefs your allowed to be glad someone is dead,

I'm complaining at the double standards of a lot of people and media outlets

 

How about if i'd used Pinochet as the example of people they have celebrated the death of? would that have made a difference? being a friend and supported leader of Thatcher....oh and also a genocidal dictator

 

and for a time Thatcher would herself have celebrated the death of one Nelson Mandella who she branded a terrorist, she swallowed a lot of pride when they met years later

[Iun]

Right, I'm taking the high ground and walking away from this. Enjoy the remainder of the debate.

[bob]

 

She's dead, she left office over a decade ago. It's pointless now

 

Two decades ago even!

 

I agree though, hating someone who died because of something they did decades ago is even more bizarre and pointless than hating someone who had dementia.

[Agent Gibbs]

Right, I'm taking the high ground and walking away from this. Enjoy the remainder of the debate.

 

How are you taking the high ground? you misinterpreted what i said, and thought i was comparing her to Bin laden

 

fine you don't want to address this don't, all i'm trying to do is point out the hypocrisy in all the reporting of this

[Iun]

How are you taking the high ground? you misinterpreted what i said, and thought i was comparing her to Bin laden

 

fine you don't want to address this don't, all i'm trying to do is point out the hypocrisy in all the reporting of this

 

 

 

I misinterpreted what you said, and I'm sorry for that.

[Agent Gibbs]

I misinterpreted what you said, and I'm sorry for that.

 

I should feel vindicated of something but yet i feel like a bitch, god damn scumbag brain of mine

 

Kiss and make up?

[gaggle64]

I just can't wrap my head around including a full military procession in her funeral, amongst other things. It's difficult to shake the impression somebody's chasing some imperial fantasy half-remembered from an outdated textbook. It's not as if she inspires the same cohesion as Churchill - I thought when they called it the "Thatcherite Military Junta" in The Young Ones I thought it was a tongue in cheek line. Now it looks like a descriptor that her supporters would welcome.