Margaret Thatcher on Nuclear Weapons

I admire greatly Maggie, but world would be much more safer place to live without nuclear weapons.

An unstable economy would ineffect be unstable for the country. Oh but yes this comes from the same fellow Who with many others on Tony Benns speech bend over for anything that appears socialist. Because of how good it sounds on paper. In reality it brings about division, people feling indifferent and stops the country at its knees, bringing the many down! It is a priority to protect this country and not just for economic concerns, but defensive ones! All to maintain stability for the nation.

It's interesting how Britain is eager to 'liberate' certain 3rd world countries from oppression, only if there is financial incentive, yet U.S and U.K client states (who are under the most oppressive regimes) like Saudi Arabia, are left alone because of their oil wealth. And this hypocrisy and corruption is fine with you; as long as you're taxes don't go up marginally? I'm sorry my friend, but your views are very introverted to say the least.

Economists like Thatcher have most to lose from any positive changes and real democracy in places like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, (you will be aware of her links with the oil companies I take it, and various other questionable organisations)? If they enforce those types of regimes over there, they'd dam well do it here. Thatcher was a crook plain and simple; she even went as far as to hide her and her son's dodgy dealings in the national secrets act -designed for reasons of national security.

You being a resident of this country if not of british identity makes you one to protect. Where the hell would this nation be without the use of force if it had not said 'NO' to the likes of napolean and Hitler. Honestly Tell me that. Do you feel so indifferent from others that your caight up with your problems and feel no such pride for your country. And yes the ward occuring today are so wrongly about because of the many cover ups about the reasons for going.

Firstly, evolution didn't end with us growing thumbs; I hope you do know this. I'd like to think that the human race has moved on since the First and Second World War, Germany is no longer a threat to this country, and bears no relevance to the issue of nuclear weapons. Secondly I hate patriotism; it was a round world the last time I checked!

Yes but at that time Those countries was a threat. and if britain had just handed over and dropped their weapons of which were the most powerfull at that time, it would of been a far different outcome. Thats the simularity im pointing out and it is of clear relevance to the subject.

But the issue here about nukes are wrongly disputed. Yes they are destructive but its for that reason being they hold a detterant. Without Britains deterrant, they would only impose it on us. In result, puts this country in the jeapody of those who wish to dismantle if not use it to their own advantage as a political tool of which would undermine Britain entirely.

Not having nuckes hasn't done Japan any harm, one of the strongest economies in the world.

Your right about Japan yes, but of course why would they? You think the USA wuld of allowed it? They dropped the bomb on them and there was no way they would let them near it. Economically they are strong, muc however under the influence of America. U think they wouldnt of craved for it? Dam right they would if they had the chance.