How Will History Remember Margaret Thatcher ?

[BAYLOR]

And that's Tony Blair and George W Bush? Guess I just don't see it.

The camera definitely agreed with Blair . And Bush could be a very persuasive on camera. He convinced us to go to war in Iraq

Reagan's training as an actor aided him in his quest to becoming President. He knew how to talk to the public , Knew what the voters wanted to hear .

 

[thaddeus6th]

To be fair, Baylor, Blair had an interesting interpretation of the facts (WMD turned out to mean battlefield munitions, for example).

Thatcher will be treated far better by history than Blair. Leaving aside greater competence, she'll always have many rightwingers on-side. Brown will always have at least some leftwingers on-side. Who will Blair have? It's hard to see many, right or left, backing him. Those disinterested in politics generally will remember only Iraq (and that's fair enough, it's the defining feature of his decade long premiership).

As an aside, it's curious that of recent PMs John Major appears to be remembered surprisingly fondly. Perhaps it's because he was a fundamentally decent bloke, whereas those before and after him appear either too harsh, or smarmy chancers.

 

[Gramm838]

To be fair, Baylor, Blair had an interesting interpretation of the facts (WMD turned out to mean battlefield munitions, for example).

It seems incredible to me that people seem to gloss over the fact that the UN WMD inspectors gave Saddam so much time to get his chemical weapons hidden away in Syria. It's a good job they won't ever get used. Oh, wait....

 

[AnyaKimlin]

It seems incredible to me that people seem to gloss over the fact that the UN WMD inspectors gave Saddam so much time to get his chemical weapons hidden away in Syria. It's a good job they won't ever get used. Oh, wait....

Not in the UK we didn't. Most people I knew were asking what had happened to them and who was pointing them at us.

 

[Foxbat]

What's most astonishing is not that WMD were not found but that they were actually used in the 1980s by Saddam against the Kurds and Iranians. Thatcher was in power at the time and - given her staunch defence of Pinochet and his regime later on - is it any surprise that nothing was done then? The Iranians were seen as the greater threat and the old 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality was prevailant at the time.

By the time Blair came along, the WMD situation became more of an excuse to invade rather than a principle to fight for.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Foxbat, it could be argued, given the current situation with ISIS that, using the 10 year plus situation as the sole criterion, Thatcher made the right call and Blair the wrong one.

Of course, there's more to it than that.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Mrs Thatcher was many things but on this I see where she was coming from. Her later support of Pinochet was less understandable but .... when it comes to world affairs she achieved a lot that felt forward thinking whereas Blair had his nose surgically implanted up Bush's rear end.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

WMD were not found but that they were actually used in the 1980s by Saddam against the Kurds and Iranians

More weapons of local & limited destruction. I think mostly against the Marsh Arabs in south. Kurds are North.
Chemical weapons are not actually WMD unless you have huge bomber force / loads of missiles and vast quantity. They are undoubtedly horrible and the Marsh Arabs had small villages and no Anti-aircraft.
The Iraqi-Iranian conflicts largely conventional.

 

[Foxbat]

More weapons of local & limited destruction. I think mostly against the Marsh Arabs in south. Kurds are North.
Chemical weapons are not actually WMD unless you have huge bomber force / loads of missiles and vast quantity. They are undoubtedly horrible and the Marsh Arabs had small villages and no Anti-aircraft.
The Iraqi-Iranian conflicts largely conventional.

As you will see here the Kurds did suffer chemical attack (I remember this when it hit the news).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

 

[Gramm838]

More weapons of local & limited destruction. I think mostly against the Marsh Arabs in south. Kurds are North.
Chemical weapons are not actually WMD unless you have huge bomber force / loads of missiles and vast quantity. They are undoubtedly horrible and the Marsh Arabs had small villages and no Anti-aircraft.
The Iraqi-Iranian conflicts largely conventional.

If a chemical weapon of any kind kills all of your family, to you that's a WMD. To try and classify them in any other way is simply hair-splitting to a pointless degree.

 

[Michael Colton]

If a chemical weapon of any kind kills all of your family, to you that's a WMD. To try and classify them in any other way is simply hair-splitting to a pointless degree.

This is not quite true. WMD has to have a specific meaning in order for international law, inspectors, and conversations to be coherent. By your definition drowning a whole family in bleach would classify said bleach as a WMD. Terms have meanings and they are important - especially in political and legal situations.

A good example of the importance of terminology was the coining of the term 'enemy combatant.'

 

[Foxbat]

The problem with such definitions is the double standards that follows them around like a bad smell.

Here is the complaint against the Boston Bomber. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/27/us/28tsarvaev-indictment.html

as you can see, charged with the use of a Weapon Of Mass Destruction.

If a bomb planted at a marathon can be a WMD then why can't a village of Kurds wiped out in a chemical attack?

 

[BAYLOR]

The problem with such definitions is the double standards that follows them around like a bad smell.

Here is the complaint against the Boston Bomber. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/27/us/28tsarvaev-indictment.html

as you can see, charged with the use of a Weapon Of Mass Destruction.

If a bomb planted at a marathon can be a WMD then why can't a village of Kurds wiped out in a chemical attack?

Interesting point, that last bit.

 

[paranoid marvin]

To be fair, Baylor, Blair had an interesting interpretation of the facts (WMD turned out to mean battlefield munitions, for example).

Thatcher will be treated far better by history than Blair. Leaving aside greater competence, she'll always have many rightwingers on-side. Brown will always have at least some leftwingers on-side. Who will Blair have? It's hard to see many, right or left, backing him. Those disinterested in politics generally will remember only Iraq (and that's fair enough, it's the defining feature of his decade long premiership).

As an aside, it's curious that of recent PMs John Major appears to be remembered surprisingly fondly. Perhaps it's because he was a fundamentally decent bloke, whereas those before and after him appear either too harsh, or smarmy chancers.

Anyone after Thatcher would have been seen as a 'good thing'! To be honest though, many people's perceptions of political (and other) characters was defined by Spitting Image. They treated JM pretty decently , and I think that the general concensus of him was that he was a nice bloke.

 

[BAYLOR]

Anyone after Thatcher would have been seen as a 'good thing'! To be honest though, many people's perceptions of political (and other) characters was defined by Spitting Image. They treated JM pretty decently , and I think that the general concensus of him was that he was a nice bloke.

He wasn't as polarizing as Thatcher.

 

[BAYLOR]

I don't think we've seen the last of Thatcherism.

 

[Gramm838]

This is not quite true. WMD has to have a specific meaning in order for international law, inspectors, and conversations to be coherent. By your definition drowning a whole family in bleach would classify said bleach as a WMD. Terms have meanings and they are important - especially in political and legal situations.

A good example of the importance of terminology was the coining of the term 'enemy combatant.'

Who died and put lawyers in charge? They are part of the problem, not part of the solution

 

[BAYLOR]

Who died and put lawyers in charge? They are part of the problem, not part of the solution

Lawyers tend to put themselves in charge.