Jeff, I agree that the unions and Scargill needed sorting out. However it wasn't a governments job to take them on directly and use the police to do it. If she had set the legislation the bosses would have been in a position to sort it out. The reason they hadn't up to then was that the strikes and undemocratic methods used by some of the unions weren't illegal.
In my and many others view the closing of the pits was an act of retribution. She had McGregor close the pits and put thousands out of work directly, devastate whole communities and create more unemployment to the shopkeepers and other local services and then import "cheap" coal from Poland. The coal on it's own may have been cheaper, the cost of resultant benefits added to the "cheap" coal made the whole exercise dearer.
Many have said how resolved and unflinching she was. This, in my view was the reason many loath her. She wouldn't moderate, if she felt a head on clash using her police force was going to sort it out then that was what she did. No attempt to show resolve and negotiate. Just use violence to push her way forward.
Would the UN have voted in favour of Argentina? The US wouldn't, the French wouldn't, Russia and China may have abstained but Argentina was a right wing military dictatorship, not really a friend of Communism. Had she started assembling the task force in a very public manner and gone to the UN I think the war would have had the backing, if not the assistance, of the UN and may have been over without so much bloodshed.
As for selling council housing do you think that's why people have to live in 1 bed flats and pay £300 a week for the privilege, mostly paid out of benefits? Rachmanism is alive and well due to the lack of "social" housing.
Anyway, the population voted for her, even when unemployment was at 3 million so I'm probably a lone voice in the wilderness.