and the whole thing in the Falklands led to the collapse of the despotic regime in Argentina and democracy being introduced. Surely most would say that was a good thing? I remember the arguments against the taskforce going out there by the opposition of the time, so it's very unlikely they would have done what she did and gone anyway. British people might still be prisoners in their own home and Argentinians might still be being 'disappeared'.

Any contrast with Tories using Blair as an example is diminished by the fact that Blair was a Tory himself, just wearing his coat turned inside out.

Do you mean like those folks in Chile, under Thatcher's good mate, Pinochet?

If I may, I don't think this is an answer.

It's a common tactic to turn around criticism of one political party by simply criticising the other.

Not only does such a tactic not answer the original point, but it also (often incorrectly) assumes that the original poster is a die-hard supporter of the other party anyway.

I'd like to see an end to it on LBC and indeed, anywhere else, too!

I wonder who you think the 'they' in this sentence are? How much choice did the dead soldiers have in accepting the invasion and the consequences?

I think their lives are worth a few tears.

I asked a question in reply to a statement made. As I am on LBC Politics thread I feel I have every right to reply to a political statement. I made no assumption about any die-hard supporter. May I ask what question I did not answer and what you would like to see an end of?

So you'd rather Argentina had stayed as it was just because other countries didn't change? And Chile didn't invade British sovereign territory, Argentina did, so were totally responsible for the reaction. They thought it would be easy because the state this country was in at the time and never expected Mrs Thatcher to take them on. Their bad judgment.

edit: and because they thought it would be easy they sent a lot of young conscripts as well as regular forces. Again, very unlucky for those men but totally their government's responsibility when it went wrong for them.

The topic was the Belgrano and The Sun's headline, what Thatcher did or didn't say and then her 'not shedding any tears'.

I'm just saying that I find referring to Tony Blair as a response to this an irrelevance and a distraction. And I went on to say that it's a tactic that I think is unhelpful and over-used. It also, I think, makes the (often incorrect) assumption that someone who is anti-Thatcher is pro-Blair (or at least pro-Labour), so it's not really any response at all.

Edit: I don't think I at any point challenged your right to post or reply, did I?

You mean a distraction tactic like when I mentioned the dictatorship in Argentina being brought down because of the Falklands you immediately said but what about Chile?
Just because one thing is wrong (or perceived by some to be wrong) doesn't make the other less positive or valid.

Gosh, what an awful lot of assumptions you're making. It might be better to ask me first before jumping to all those conclusions.

I think it was right to go into the Falklands.

But the Belgrano is a different issue. Those lives are certainly worth shedding tear over, which was the theme of ths discussion. I'm not sure 'unlucky' is the word I would have chosen.

But my point remains... Thatcher picked and chose her moments, didn't she? Would you like to comment on her relationship with PInochet?

I notice that you have not answered what question it was that I did not answer and what you want an end of. When you make a statement it would be nice to explain it. You seem to have replied with irrelevance and distracted from the answer.

I used 'unlucky' as it could have been avoided if their government hadn't taken the first step and sent them there. Of course it was bad and very sad that people died on both sides but if the invasion hadn't happened they wouldn't have. As to Pinochet, no, I didn't think it was right 'we' had a 'relationship' with him at the time. However being a leader means often having to pick and choose your allies and enemies. They all do it, and they have to depending on what's going on at the time. At the risk of being distracting, for example Blair actively cosied up to some very unpalatable regimes, including Libya and they all do to China as China is much bigger than us despite their appalling record on just about anything decent.

Honestly, I'm not running from your question, but I think I was pretty clear in the original post and I re-stated it in my last post. I don't think I need to say the same thing 3 times, do I?

But I, too, note that the above is not a response to me.

There's nothing there I would disagree with.

I would, however, add that Thatcher was very very matey with Pinochet right up until his end, and I would just ike to see more pro-Thatcherites acknowledge her darker side.

I don't think anyone's ever said she was 100% right over everything? Is any politician? Just some get it right more often than others, depending on your POV. I think it's just that the Thatcher-haters are venting so much bile about her rather than stating their case, and often being inaccurate or selective about why she did what she did, that it rubs, though of course it says more about them than about her.

But to be fair, I think you're being quite selective in saying that.

SOME Thatcher-haters are not stating their case. Plenty of others know exactly what they're talking about and are articulating it very well.

I think there's just as many 'blind' pro-Thatchers out there right now, some of whom seem to think she was a saint.

I think Simon Hoggart in today's Guardian was right - like all politicians, she got some things right and some things wrong. My personal view is that the wrong out-weighed the right. In my view, the worst legacy she left was to make greed and selfishness into virtues.

To bring this back to LBC, I think they have often failed to show that kind of nuance and subtlety, and I wish they were better at it.

Even Iain Dale, who I generally find a good listen, has been overly-gushing and a little silly over Thatcher. I can't listen to NF for more than 10 seconds these days, so the worst I have actually heard has been JHB.

Edit - I wanted to also say that her friendship with Pinochet is no small thing, IMO. It's really not that far away from buddying up to Hitler

Nice line from LBC presenter and ex-London Mayor Ken Livingstone:

"I haven't had an invite (sic) for Margaret Thatcher's funeral, so I haven't been able to decline it!'

I suspect he's been waiting all week to deliver that.

Which also brings up the old chestnut of grammar usage:

'invite' = verb

'invitation' = noun

The Americanisation of the English language continues...

I don't understand what that has to do with headlines about Thatcher's reaction to events in the Falklands.

That is irrelevant; the ship was retreating and it was the equivalent of being shot in the back.

At the least the reference to Pinochet was relevant to Thatcher and her activities in South America.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.n...94867983_n.png

Some points you don't hear on LBC or the BBC very often.

It's totally relevant. If the Argies hadn't invaded, the Belgrano would still be afloat.

The DS Navy experts in war pile in and seem to know more than the Captain of the ship hmself who admitted it was only sailing temporarily in a westerly direction and was under orders to fire on any British vessels.

Ooh - I'd be interested to see your source for that. I've not heard that before.

JOB quoting the DWP's own figure that the benefit cap will save £110 million per year. Chicken feed... but so much unnecessary stress