MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Meryl Streep considering playing Margaret Thatcher with Director Lloyd
Hollywood Academy Award winning actress Meryl Streep is planning a reunion with her “Mamma Mia!” director, Phyllida Lloyd: Streep is in talks to play controversial former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in “The Iron Lady,” according to The Hollywood Reporter. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWTK!!
Jul 02nd, 2010 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Warning, please take a Reliveran before enter the cinema!!
The Iron Lady too strong for your stomach Billy? Too mcuh guts?
Jul 02nd, 2010 - 06:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Esta es la banda loca de la Argentina, la que de las Malvinas nunca se olvida”
Jul 02nd, 2010 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telam.com.ar/vernota.php?tipo=N&idPub=191253&id=364447&dis=1&sec=1
“This is the crazy band of Argentina, the one that of the Falklands never forgets”
Jul 02nd, 2010 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How intelligent and relevant!!!!!
HOYTRED: Keep on being so recalcitrant obsequent with your baroness, thanks to her you have a british passport at the moment, otherwise you would be still a second class citizen, or worst for you, maybe you would be argentine, noooooooooooooooooooooooooo, that's your worst nightmare isn't it, you and your compatriots will allways prefer to cut your balls before having an argentine passport on your hands.
Jul 02nd, 2010 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway meryl streep is such a great actress, she can interpret any character, maybe some day i can be as prestigious as her, in my carear as an actor too.
Axel. Meryl Streep is a great actress. Not a lot of chance of her appearing in a C grade movie.
Jul 03rd, 2010 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0HOYTRED. HARRIER61.
Jul 03rd, 2010 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HARRIER: I have an answer for you in the articule of june 24th, the tittle is, timerman will categorecally etc etc.
HOYTRED: I have to apologize to you, because i have been to much ironic with my comment, and i think it was cheap.
The point is that for me your baroness will allways be just a miserable oportunist like galtieri, who used a war to try to save her pathetic government, the dictatorship wanted to do exactly the same, but they lost, that's the only one diference betwen the militars and your baroness, instead of finding a negotiated solution to the conflict, they decided to continue a war, because a militar victory would give then a new posibility to remain in the power, as human beings they are just crap.
Anyway i understand that surelly you admire her because she defended the islands, and i respect your feelings, it's comprehensible.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel. “HARRIER: I have an answer for you in the articule of june 24th, the tittle is, timerman will categorecally etc etc.”
Jul 03rd, 2010 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you're letting your personal affairs interfere with your comments. Was that word supposed to be title or titty.
By the way, Timerman has been revealed as a “political chameleon”. The equivalent in modern English is “brown noser”.
Incidentally, when you initiate a military invasion expect a military response. You are fortunate that you had any cities left. But the UK's capabilities are better now.
Keep your fingers crossed. If you want to try the same again, the British government MAY not listen to the British people.
HARRIER:
Jul 04th, 2010 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Everytime i read your answers i confirm how brainwashed you are, if you really think that my country could invade the islands again, it means that you are more of your countrymen who didnt' learn separate the context of 1982 from the actual context, keep on living out of the reality, some times living in an fancy world could a choice of life.
Regarding timerman's articule, i mean that the headline of the articule was, timerman will categorically etc etc, there i have an answer for you.
Axel, your first mistake is to assume that I am an islander, I am not so my British passport has never been in doubt.
Jul 04th, 2010 - 06:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0You also assume that when PM, Thatcher only went to war to prop up her government. How little you know us. If her popularity had been sky high at the time Argentina invaded our islands it would not have made an ounce of difference. The U.S.A. attempted negotiation but gave up because OF THE ATTITUDE OF THE ARGENTINES. Maggie stuffed you and she did it with the support and blessing of the vast majority of the British people. Yes, it benefited het politically but then she had no choice. It would have been political suicide to have ignored such an act of aggression against British territory.
You didn't know us then, and it would appear that you have little idea today! We are BRITISH.... and when you work out what that really means then you'll know that you have no chance of forcing our hand!
axel: There you are.
Jul 04th, 2010 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0A short question that you should find easy to answer. Don't be shy. Here it is. What were you doing and where in 1982?
@Axel: There is a great difference between Thatcher & Galtieri; Thatcher was a democrat whilst Galtieri a criminal dictator. Agreed, both were leaders of their countries, but that is where the similarity ends
Jul 04th, 2010 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is an Argentine fallacy to claim Thatcher chose war over peace; the reality is Thatcher chose to liberate the Falklands under UK terms not Argentine. Sadly, this could only be achieved by force of self-defence after Argentina refused to comply with UN SCR 502. I think you are very wrong to think the British public would have accepted a Peruvian Peace Proposal that did not restore the status quo, but allowed the aggressor to profit through their aggression. The British are also under no illusion that Argentine Tasks Force 79.1 & 79.3 would have prosecuted their attack on the British Task Force at that time, if they could have succeeded in locating the British
However, the Falklands War is not her entire story, just as it is not the entire story of Argentina or Britain, rather only a small, but important, part of the whole
I found whatever my views of her as a politician, some good, some bad, she epitomises strength of character, determination and political vision She is remarkable in that she managed to succeed & lead in a male dominated world
Her story and her struggle against the then very misogynistic political establishment has recently been dramatised by BBC4:
“Margaret Thatcher: The Long Walk to Finchley”
which is quite entertaining
Sadly, I imagine Thatcher represents something of a bête noire in the shared national Argentine psyche, but I think this a mistake
Thatcher held no anti-Argentine views, rather simply acted as a Prime Minister must act. You may not agree with some or all of her views or her decisions, some you may say were wrong and there were better choices
I would say none were made out of malice, but out of a rationale view that they were the best choices for her country
It is too easy to demonise her, reality is more balanced
Well I am no fan of Margaret Thatcher, show me a Scotsman who is, but I agree totally with what Hotyred says above. The left in the UK try to claim that Thatcher chose war to boost her popularity but that is utter bunk.
Jul 04th, 2010 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0The facts are that the Government did try to achieve a negotiated settlement and in doing so made major concessions. Perez de Cuellar commented that he was amazed at just how far the British had been prepared to go to avoid war. That they would do so was down to a simple political calculation that a negotiated settlement was perferrable to a very risky, where defeat would guarantee her downfall.
The Belgrano? Blame the foolish commanders who put the ship in harms way in an attack against the British task force. The TEZ? Utterly irrelevant, that British cabled the Argentine Government on April 23 that any warship would be attached. And the Peruvian Peace Proposal? Accepted by the British on May 4, rejected by Argentina and it was Argentina preparing a naval assault whilst it was being prepared. I do not believe Galtieri for one second, when he claimed he was about to call the whole thing off and withdraw from the islands.
axel you dumbass. You haven't responded to my question at 11 or to the other one in this blog asking you to conduct a REAL survey by answering:
Jul 04th, 2010 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(1) Who funds the UBA?
(2) How many faculty members are there? (That's academic staff)
(3) How many publicly disagree with policies and actions of the Argentine government?
See, unlike you, I don't have to refer someone back to another article. I can restate things. This proves that I have at least enough intelligence to remember what I've said before. I doubt you can do the same, but TRY!!!
Tatcher is a oportunist warrior who went to war to save her ass, everyone knows that, it is just hilarous some people try to hide it. She should be in prison here in Argentina in the worst jail of the country!
Jul 05th, 2010 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here is jorge! identifying himself as pre-Neanderthal. Ape? But apes are quite intelligent, aren't they?
Jul 05th, 2010 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you really believe that Jorge? I don't. War began the moment Argentine troops occupied South Georgia & the Falklands by force, attacking the tiny British garrisons. That was the start of hostilities
Jul 05th, 2010 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know she is a hate-figure in Argentina; but that hate is irrational, as she simply responded as a leader of country under military attack; there was no malice to Argentina, only a determination to return the status quo
I see no reason for her to be imprisoned in Argentina; she committed no crime
The British response to the Argentine aggression was proportionate & limited itself to the restoration of the status quo; I think a big reason for this proportionate response was Thatcher ensuring that it was not excessive
I don't think the Brits can empathise with this Argentine view, as to do nothing or to just negotiate would have been capitulation
What other choice than Article 51 & self-defence did the Brits have when faced by invasion and refusal to withdraw of their territory by an ally contrary to the UN Charter & resolution 1514(XV) and 2065(XX) and UN SCR 502?
To accept the Argentine strategy to negotiate & compromise to a lessor position than before the aggression, simply lets the aggression succeed & benefits the aggressor. Thus, the only valid political option was to restore the status quo.
I know the Argentine position did not consider the British would fight for the Islanders, but I'd put it to you they had little choice to fight back, because all other options open to them would simply appeased the aggression, which is wrong
I think its unfair to place the blame for the war on Thatcher, when in reality Galtieri, Videla & the rest of the neo-fascist Last Junta
The Junta gambled the British would not fight when militarily attacked and their territory occupied, but rather would negotiate. The Junta misjudged
Sadly 911 good people died, who should be with us today enjoying their lives with their family & friends
Never again, I say Peace & Friendship
HARRIER61:
Jul 05th, 2010 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I confirm one more time that you are just a fundamentalist moron who understand only what he wants, i allready answered you that question, anyway i will do it again, because i can remember what i said.
Firstly i dont know how many faculty members are there in the uba, or how many of them desagrees with the policys of the government, the fact that they work in a public university, does not mean that they can't be independent in their opinions, i only had a conversation with a retired professor from the uba, and i will search others experts, but from private unversitys, because i need to hear diferent opinions, i allready told you this before.
Beside, why dont you wait to read my survey, instead of prejudging as usuall, i told you too that the line of my survey is not anti british, i only want to stablish the rights of both nations on the malvinas, i can have something that you, and many of your countrymen dont have, that's objetivity, do you what it means?.
On the other hand, i was a baby in 1982, i'm 29 years old, anyway it does not mean that i can't debate about what happened in that time, i have allways studyed so much about our history, and about the war, i could know about the perspectives of both sides, and i got my conclutions, wich are as respectable as yours.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
@Axel: I agree. You are entitled to hold your own views and conclusions and these are to be respected as much as any other view or conclusion.
Jul 06th, 2010 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0I look forward to them.
I think the academics you speak to are free to be independent; and to do independent research. All research on the topic of the Islands, whether originating for the UK or AR is worthy; provided it has good historical sources to substantiate views and conclusions, which can be verified and also has been rigourously peer reviewed and published in recognised learned journals . Then these views can be reasonably considered as balanced and objective.
I am firmly of the view that this disagreement between Argentina, the Islanders and the UK belongs to the Colonial 19th Century.
However, I take the view that most national states were in actual fact in the business of 'Empire' (as most of the recorded history of 'civilisastion' shows).
Obviously in the 15th/16th & 17th the Spanish & Portuguese Empires were the most successful European Empires. Followed by the French, Dutch & British Empires in them 18th & 19th Centuries.
However, I think it is only fair to recognise that the newly independent states in North & South America also expanded their 'empires' in no less an aggressive manner than their older European parent empires.
I think the current Argentine position is to set aside the UN 1514(XV) & 2065(XX) requirements for the Islands to right a perceived wrong from 1833 whilst the UK position is they now have no choice but to implement 1514(XV) according to the Islanders wishes to be a credible member of the UN.
The sticking point for Argentina is that the Islanders will is not to be annexed into the Argentine state If it was, then obviously ther would be no issue.
What to do about it? There's a vexed question. All may send their constructive answers to their govt. on a postcard or here please!
18 axel. Hello dimwit.
Jul 06th, 2010 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you don't know, go out and find out.
But I'll give you some answers:
(1) The UBA is funded by the Argentine government.
(2) It doesn't matter, because you don't have an answer to (3)
(3) The answer is: None of them. Because the Argentine government pays their wages and they wouldn't dare publicly oppose their paymaster.
I don't have to wait for your pitiful survey, axel my boy, because it will say exactly what the Argentine government says. Because disinformation is at the root of the Argentine government. As is greed and corruption.
Thank you for telling us that you were a baby in 1982 and that you are 29 years old. I am not 29 years old. I was already an adult when the news came that Argentina had dared invade British territory. I was there to watch the Task Force depart the British Isles. I was there to watch every single TV news report as the Task Force sailed south, as our forces landed, as our aircraft destroyed one-third of the Argentine air forces, as your lot surrendered and as the our victorious Task Force returned. Regrettably, I was already too old to go myself.
So don't prate at me, you sanctimoneous little pup! By my standards, you are barely old enough to have learned not to use grass to wipe your backside. I have read, considered, researched, considered and judged more than your tiny little mind will ever encompass.
And in future, use some respect.
HARRIER. HOYTRED.
Jul 06th, 2010 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I must say that i was wrong about you, you are not only a moron, you are just a fundamentalist ignorant haughty,
Anyway you make me laugh, if you think that at our public universitys , professors can't say a word against the policys of the government, i have to say that only an arrogant idiot like you would believe that, my dear harrier, i have allways studyed at public schools, in fact i am doing my academic level now at a public institution, and i confirm that i have allways heart planty of opinions against the governments, i hear them now too, so, your assertion, is just simple crap.
On the other hand, the fact that i was a baby in 1982, is not relevant, i have allways studyed about the history of the islands, i could know about the british perspective, including the events of the war, i can have perfectly a solid opinion about it, if you dont like it, that's your problem, beside, i respect the posture that you have about the conflict, i only dont agree with many of your countrymen, but like it or not, everyopinion are respectable, no one is the owner of the truth, if you understimate my survey, with out having rode not even one line of it, that's one more show of your pathetic haughtyness, keep on watching your navel.
HOYTRED:
I respect the opinion that you have about your baroness, i only dont agree in absolut with you, you are wrong, my knowleadge is not little, i understand that you admire her, that's respectable, i have a diferent opinion, the fact that we think diferent does not mean that i know so little about you, you have no idea about how deep i know about it, on the other hand, i admire your national dignity, you know that most us think that we wont never recover the malvinas, but like it or not, if you refuse to discuss with us about the sovereignty, you wont never get red of our claim, you wont be able neather to force our hand.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
21 And this is the level of education in Argentina!! Trot off, sonny.
Jul 07th, 2010 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are just a prime example of Argentine propaganda. But not brain-washing! Before your brain can be washed, you have to have one!
“you know that most us think that we wont never recover the malvinas”
Jul 08th, 2010 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0You wont.
“but like it or not, if you refuse to discuss with us about the sovereignty,”
We wont.
“you wont never get red of our claim”
And finally, i doubt anyone cares.
Claim or not, the islanders go about their daily business, Argentina is not much of an issue.
Any chance some internationally-recognised actress will play Cristina Kirchner?
Jul 08th, 2010 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yep. Miss Piggy!!!
ZETHE AND HARRIER.
Jul 09th, 2010 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ZETHE: If you want to know about the progress of the business of my country, why dont you inform your self correctly about it, instead of parroting crap as usuall, in fact, private stadistics said that our national production increased 6% during the first three monthes of 2010, and it's forecatsed to grow more than 5% for this year.
HARRIER: This is so obvious that an ignorant like you who does not have not even one line of objetivity only can say that crap about cristina kirchner, i am not fan of her, i only recognized that her and her husband made important mistakes, but i must recognize too that there is a great progress in my country since 2003, anyway idiots like you will allways know just one side of the history, because you have no idea about what objetivity is, search that word in the dictionary, and after we can debate seriously.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!