Margaret Thatcher in 2000

[melon]

Ah yes...good old Margaret Thatcher. Whether you like her or dislike her, she made a speech at the Hoover Institution (where she is an honorary fellow) at Stanford University on July 19, 2000. Here's the entire link:

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/004/thatcher.html

But allow me to show you what is most interesting, mostly because her sentiments seem to "prophetically" echo the current Bush Administration's foreign policy:

"Doubtless, it is also true that the Soviet system was doomed to ultimate failure by its own internal contradictions. But then it had been doomed ever since 1919, and it was still controlling much of the globe 70 years later. It took Ronald Reagan, with a little help from his friends, to exert the pressure that made the system finally crack.

This debate is important, not so much because of individual reputations but rather because of the consequences now. Simply put, if we learn the wrong lessons from the Cold War, we shall also risk the peace. If we come to believe that the best way to avoid danger is to evade rather than confront it; if we think that negotiation is always the statesmanlike option; if we prefer empty multilateral gestures to powerful national responses, then we shall pay a heavy price?and our children, and grandchildren, will pay it too."

Hmm...reminds me of his current stance on Iraq here.

"I have no doubt that we have broken with the era in which the West confronted a single doctrine and a single superpower implacably hostile to our values and interests. And, although communist China could still emerge as a significant danger, I don?t believe that anything like the Cold War will resume. What we have to do now is to apply to present dangers the lessons and insights drawn from the past.

Our tasks today are, therefore, threefold:

--First, we have to defend our homelands against present and future threats.
--Second, we have to maintain our military capabilities and our alliances in good shape.
--Third, we have to project our values and the institutions that nurture them across the globe."

Well, it appears that Bush has already harped on #1 through his Department of Homeland Security (funny how they both use the same word). Bush is working on #2, especially in regards to the alliances, although it is questionable currently as to whether he'll succeed. #3 is, perhaps, the most interesting statement, because it is something that hasn't necessarily happened yet--perhaps *this* is the end result of the "war on terror"? Of course, that generally amounts to a declaration of global cultural imperialism. "Our" values, I'm sure, amount to Thatcher / Reagan's style of capitalism, which generated sufficient controversy in their day.

The danger is already with us. In 1998 the Rumsfeld Commission noted that countries like North Korea, Iran, and Iraq ?would be able to inflict major destruction on the United States within about five years of a decision to acquire the capability,? adding that for much of that time America might not know that such a decision had been taken.

Oh look! The "Axis of Evil." And Rumsfeld seemingly pokes his head in. It looks like this course of action was premeditated even before 9/11.

Anyhow, read the entire speech. She certainly is about as political as she can get, passing around "liberal" like it's a dirty word (reminds me again of the 1980s), but, overall, I find it interesting how much this speech certainly reflects what is going on today here with the Bush Administration.

In an anecdotal reference, someone in the military once told a friend of mine that war with Iraq and in the Philippines (having to do with the terrorist groups there) was likely in the coming year--this was before 9/11. Thus, it is certainly worth posing the question: did Bush use 9/11 as an excuse to push through his already predetermined agenda?

Overall, even if this was a "predetermined agenda" or not, do you think this is a smart course of action?

Melon

 

[diamond]

Margret makes me hot ..

 

[hiphop]

Maggie, we won?t forgive you the Falklands! Rot in hell.

 

[melon]

Oh come on! There has to be *something* intelligent that someone can say about this thread. Or did I make it too much reading?

Melon

 

[hiphop]

The Falklands was serious enough for Roger Waters to make a whole album about it! Maggie had a bed-in with Reagan anyway.

On another note, I don?t think any American president needs an excuse to cut civil rights. A majority of American citizens might be against it, and so - what? Good governance rules, look at Nixon.

Anyhow, I agree that the similarities in speeches are somewhat touching. Who knows who wrote them... ah, Bill, just copy and paste it.