Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    Not to mention branding Mandela a terrorist...
    He planted a bomb in Johannesburg railway station, that's an act of terrorism by any definition.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Nope. She refused to negotiate. Saying 'my way or war' is not negotiating or very diplomatic at all.
    There was nothing to negotiate beyond that. Have you conveniently forgotten that Argentina had just bloody invaded?
    Are you seriously trying to compare not conceding ground to a foreign hostile invasion of British territory and the subjugation of British subjects to her handling of South African apartheid? Seriously? Why is it so hard for people to actually look at things on a case by case basis without trying to make sweeping and irrelevant anologies and comparisons?

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    So what about her relationship with the Chilean dictator? Did he not target civilians too? Why was she so friendly with some dictators? Does not seem like someone I would praise.
    Yes, the friendly relations with Pinochet was dodgy, but that was in the context of help he provided during the Falklands war. It's not really some sort of cosmic mystery.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Iran is close to falling apart. They are weak. It's getting there. Not that I agree with the goal in principle.
    Falling apart? Sounds a bit like hyperbole to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Nope. She refused to negotiate. Saying 'my way or war' is not negotiating or very diplomatic at all.
    ....has any detractor of Thatcher in this thread actually bothered to do even the slightest bit of research on her?

    There was a series of protracted negotiations right up until the British taskforce entered the vicinity of the Falklands. It was mediated by the US Secretary of State who was run ragged around the world after Argentine diplomats. They would say they had agreed to dilute their demands, Haig would arrive to do the deal, and they would U-turn.

    Argentina required joint sovereignty, unlimited immigration for Argentine citizens, and that the current residents of the Falklands be barred from taking up positions on what would be the island's ruling body.

    Plainly this was unacceptable. But Thatcher persisted until the last moment. The Argentines did not budge from what is to anyone unacceptable demands. How that is called 'not negiotiating' is beyond me.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Because she knew they wouldn't acheive anything. The government would have simply passed on the costs to the poor blacks and become more isolated and radical with a seige mentality. Instead she engaged in constructive dialogue with the South African regime which FW de Klerk himself credited with doing more to end Apartheid than any other country.
    People really need to stop jumping to surface conclusions and actually dig a little deeper.
    Of course it would it have. SA would have been economically isolated. The US,EU and the commonwealth would have stopped all trade. The SU was a zombie by the 80's. The SA depended on exports to the West.

    The resistance against sanctions had to do with the fear of a communist ANC. The concept that Thatcher was concerned about poor blacks is garbage.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    You seem not to understand what happened to the Belgrano. There was no need to sink it as it was not a threat, nor did it aid British victory. It was just a pointless waste of some 300 lives.
    Except the Argentine navy has admitted the Belgrano was engaged in a pincer movement, something the British had foreworned knowledge of thanks to intelligence intercepts, and the sinking forced the Argentine navy to cower at port for the rest of the war, thus preventing any further attacks on the taskforce. So not only are you wrong, you're doubly wrong.
    Why is it that when even the Argentine navy themselves accept that the attack was legitimate, pretentious Brits who don't have a clue insist on saying otherwise?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Of course it would it have. SA would have been economically isolated. The US,EU and the commonwealth would have stopped all trade. The SU was a zombie by the 80's. The SA depended on exports to the West.

    The resistance against sanctions had to do with the fear of a communist ANC. The concept that Thatcher was concerned about poor blacks is garbage.
    That's the entire bloody point. South Africa would have been economically crippled, but not the ruling elite. The only people that would have suffered were the blacks. Go ask Kim Jong-Un and his inner circle how much he is feeling the effects of sanctions.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    Another thatcher fact you won't read in the daily mail is that (as education sec) shut more grammar schools than anyone else.
    But then didn't she go the opposite way as PM and promote the two tier system she had previously opposed?

    Not that there's anything wrong with changing your mind if you discover new evidence.

    xxx
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    That's the entire bloody point. South Africa would have been economically crippled, but not the ruling elite. The only people that would have suffered were the blacks. Go ask Kim Jong-Un and his inner circle how much he is feeling the effects of sanctions.
    Well, North Korean elite still has the support of China. The leader still has the support of the vast majority of the people.

    Neither of things exist for South Africa.

    Now, if the UK and USA were serious about sanctions then South Africa would have to end the apartheid regime. The ruling elite couldn't keep their power without any economic activity in the country.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, North Korean elite still has the support of China. The leader still has the support of the vast majority of the people.
    Both claims are nothing more than conjecture. We don't know to what extent China 'supports' North Korea, nor do we know the true feelings of the North Korean population beyond state propaganda.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Now, if the UK and USA were serious about sanctions then South Africa would have to end the apartheid regime. The ruling elite couldn't keep their power without any economic activity in the country.
    I'm pretty sure the apartheid regime did end...
    Oh and look at that, FW de Klerk credited Thatcher's policy of open and frank dialogue with doing more to end it than economic sanctions.
    But don't let facts get in your way.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
    He planted a bomb in Johannesburg railway station, that's an act of terrorism by any definition.
    So what exactly was the government who wanted to oppress the majority of its people due to their skin colour? You know, the government she was effectively supporting by not supporting the sanctions?

    Desperate times called for desperate measures. The non-violence protests often does not work and this was the case with South Africa. It also happened to be the case in Northern Ireland when the group that would eventually come within inches of her assassination was born out of a failed civil rights movement.

    It is always amusing hearing such people throw around the term terrorist as if they are immune to it because they are part of a recognised state.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kbw)
    ....has any detractor of Thatcher in this thread actually bothered to do even the slightest bit of research on her?

    There was a series of protracted negotiations right up until the British taskforce entered the vicinity of the Falklands. It was mediated by the US Secretary of State who was run ragged around the world after Argentine diplomats. They would say they had agreed to dilute their demands, Haig would arrive to do the deal, and they would U-turn.

    Argentina required joint sovereignty, unlimited immigration for Argentine citizens, and that the current residents of the Falklands be barred from taking up positions on what would be the island's ruling body.

    Plainly this was unacceptable. But Thatcher persisted until the last moment. The Argentines did not budge from what is to anyone unacceptable demands. How that is called 'not negiotiating' is beyond me.
    It's not unacceptable per se. And she opposed Ridley's plans, and was reluctant to negotiate before the taskforce was sent.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Harold Wilson stopped free milk for secondary school pupils in 1968, but Thatcher in 1971, who was education secretary, ended free school milk for children over the age of seven. So it's not a myth.

    You forgot the high inflation, high unemployment, declining North, widening class gaps, the Belgrano, and support for dictators.

    May her soul rest in peace. I admire her determination, but not much more.
    ???? You.......... !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "Lady Thatcher" sounds like a piece of equipment females might use.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Except the Argentine navy has admitted the Belgrano was engaged in a pincer movement, something the British had foreworned knowledge of thanks to intelligence intercepts, and the sinking forced the Argentine navy to cower at port for the rest of the war, thus preventing any further attacks on the taskforce. So not only are you wrong, you're doubly wrong.
    Why is it that when even the Argentine navy themselves accept that the attack was legitimate, pretentious Brits who don't have a clue insist on saying otherwise?
    British intelligence claim the ship was heading away. And now you are just speculating. The war would have been won without it. That's me speculating, I can do it too.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    ???? You.......... !
    You what?!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Both claims are nothing more than conjecture. We don't know to what extent China 'supports' North Korea, nor do we know the true feelings of the North Korean population beyond state propaganda.
    O.K.

    Let's hope you keep to that.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I'm pretty sure the apartheid regime did end...
    Oh and look at that, FW de Klerk credited Thatcher's policy of open and frank dialogue with doing more to end it than economic sanctions.
    But don't let facts get in your way.
    Other facts would be that the limited economics sanctions caused an effective decline in the average white wage and a rise in white unemployment in the 80's due to the international and domestic private money leaving the country.

    Bayoumi, Tamim, “Output, Employment and Financial Sanctions in South Africa” (December 1990). IMF Working Paper No. 90/113

    Let's also ignore the fact that Black leaders continued to support sanctions.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    There was nothing to negotiate beyond that. Have you conveniently forgotten that Argentina had just bloody invaded?
    Are you seriously trying to compare not conceding ground to a foreign hostile invasion of British territory and the subjugation of British subjects to her handling of South African apartheid? Seriously? Why is it so hard for people to actually look at things on a case by case basis without trying to make sweeping and irrelevant anologies and comparisons?



    Yes, the friendly relations with Pinochet was dodgy, but that was in the context of help he provided during the Falklands war. It's not really some sort of cosmic mystery.



    Falling apart? Sounds a bit like hyperbole to me.
    Dodgy?! Her relationship with a rutheless dictator was merely dodgy? Who is the apologist now? USSR helped out her allies in WW2, yet you wouldn't praise someone defending a Soviet dictator, would you?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    Thatcher was a case of the rich getting richer while the poor not only did not see a penny of this wealth, they actually became worse off. She was a radical tory and that is what happens when radicals get to power.

    So you're saying living standard went down even though they went up?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    A myth of the era of Margaret Thatcher is that she led the most popular Tory government ever. John Major's 1992 election victory saw more people vote Tory than in any of the three elections Margaret Thatcher won.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)

    Enemy naval vessel gets sunk in war. Shock. Horror. Help. Police.

    Its worth reading the book by the task force commander sandy Woodward, 100 days, about the belgrano incident. He was the one who actually requested its sinking, thatcher just backed up the commander on the ground.

    interestingly enough though there were done declassified GCHQ reports that came out last year absolving thatcher of blame proving the belgrano was in fact poised to attack the task force. Thatcher could've used those to protect her public image, but she chose to take the flack in the interest of national security.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 18, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.