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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Well screaming and shouting doesn't get them to do it. What would you have preferred a military overthrow?

    incidentally, you're trying to argue a point that's on very shaky ground. In the end apartheid ended so whatever was done worked.
    What I would have preferred and what was done that worked was to isolate and put pressure on the Apartheid government.

    They were hated at home and abroad. The world ensured they hardly got any respect or legitimacy (contrary to the approach of Thatcher). And all the respect went to the man they were locking up. In the end, they had to release the man (that Thatcher called a Terrorist) and accord him a lot of respect, and then negotiate their way out. And the "Terrorist" was magnanimous enough to forgive them, protect them, love them and support them to win the Rugby WC and African Nations cup.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's more like Pinochet and the army were cornered by overwhelming opposition, huge international pressure and the prospect of zero trade with the newly emerging democracies of S America, so he bowed to the inevitable and gave up power, very, very grudgingly and whilst clinging to as much of it as he possibly could all the way.

    I realise you can think no wrong of Mrs T, but as time goes on and you learn more over the years, especially when more secret documents come out, try not to feel too disappointed in her. Nobody's perfect and nobody could fully match the propaganda image manufactured by her and her supporters in reality, which they are still, even now, perpetuating.
    Are you trying to suggest closing LOSS-making industries was a bad thing to do?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    If I was retarded I would agree sabotage means terrorism and trying to frighten or intimidate, even while I have access to a dictionary.
    So if a group of people started attacking British infrastructure, like gas/electricity/water facilities you would not call this terrorism?

    If the London bombings had happened on empty trains (therefore sabotage) and nobody was hurt- are you saying it wouldn't have been terrorism?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Are you trying to suggest closing LOSS-making industries was a bad thing to do?
    The entire government is a loss-making industry - that's why we pay taxes - but we still have a government.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    So if a group of people started attacking British infrastructure, like gas/electricity/water facilities you would not call this terrorism?

    If the London bombings had happened on empty trains (therefore sabotage) and nobody was hurt- are you saying it wouldn't have been terrorism?
    Check a dictionary for the meaning of sabotage. It really is not rocket science.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    So if a group of people started attacking British infrastructure, like gas/electricity/water facilities you would not call this terrorism?

    If the London bombings had happened on empty trains (therefore sabotage) and nobody was hurt- are you saying it wouldn't have been terrorism?
    Sabotage and terrorism are indeed quite different. Saboteurs don't care what people's reaction to what they're doing is, they just want to wreck stuff and stop it from working. Terrorists are the other way round - they want people to be scared by their actions, but they don't care whether that involves destroying stuff or not.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Are you trying to suggest closing LOSS-making industries was a bad thing to do?
    You again!

    BillyDisco, I don't think people would have minded so much about the pits closing if Thatcher had offered them a way out, or an industry that they could go into.

    For example, there was a technology boom in the 1980s as computers began to dominate our lives. If, and this is purely hypothetical, they were retrained to be computer engineers, then people wouldn't slam Thatcher as much as what people did. People would have had jobs.

    But Thatcher is hated (where is the silver bullet for Callahan and Wilson, who too shut down mines as well?) because she closed the pits down and made, at the height of her unpopularity, an estimated 3m people (in 1981, I think?) were unemployed.

    And because their skills were in the low paid manual labour, they found employment difficult to get for a long time. Thatcher closed down the mines for economic reasons, of course she did - but miners, whose parents were perhaps miners too, were made unemployed and had no idea where to go.

    That's all they did. You can't just abandon workers in such a heartless way - whether they were making a profit or not. It's first unethical, and second grossly unfair.

    Jobs should have been created.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    Check a dictionary for the meaning of sabotage. It really is not rocket science.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sabotage?s=t

    any undermining of a cause.
    to injure or attack by sabotage
    not too good at this, are you?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Sabotage and terrorism are indeed quite different. Saboteurs don't care what people's reaction to what they're doing is, they just want to wreck stuff and stop it from working. Terrorists are the other way round - they want people to be scared by their actions, but they don't care whether that involves destroying stuff or not.
    Oh now we really are clutching at straws- see my above post....
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sabotage?s=t


    not too good at this, are you?
    And how are those definitions terrorism?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Hello again

    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    BillyDisco, I don't think people would have minded so much about the pits closing if Thatcher had offered them a way out, or an industry that they could go into.
    Why does Thatcher have to go and find them a new job? That is their responsibility (take note of that word- lefties hate it).


    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    For example, there was a technology boom in the 1980s as computers began to dominate our lives. If, and this is purely hypothetical, they were retrained to be computer engineers, then people wouldn't slam Thatcher as much as what people did. People would have had jobs.
    So why didn't the ex-miners do something about it, instead of sit in their arses?


    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    But Thatcher is hated (where is the silver bullet for Callahan and Wilson, who too shut down mines as well?) because she closed the pits down and made, at the height of her unpopularity, an estimated 3m people (in 1981, I think?) were unemployed.
    She closed loss-making industries- anyone with 2 brain cells would have done the same.

    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    And because their skills were in the low paid manual labour, they found employment difficult to get for a long time. Thatcher closed down the mines for economic reasons, of course she did - but miners, whose parents were perhaps miners too, were made unemployed and had no idea where to go.
    No- they found it difficult because none of them had school qualifications. They all couldnt wait to run out of school as soon as possible- typical short-termists and then it came back to bite them in the backside.


    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    That's all they did. You can't just abandon workers in such a heartless way - whether they were making a profit or not. It's first unethical, and second grossly unfair.
    When Lehman Brothers went down the Government didn't run around trying to find them jobs.

    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    Jobs should have been created.
    No they should not. Jobs should only be created if the private sector deems it profitable to create jobs. What the hell is the purpose of closing loss-making mines to only spend the taxpayer's money on doubling the number of dustbin men?

    At the end of the day these people all didn't take school seriously- they were short-term thinkers, didn't think about the consequences of their actions (and its fair to say this northern culture still exists) and they got screwed for it. It is not the Government's job to create jobs- it's their role to encourage job creation through economic management.

    For how long have the Northern and Southern-Welsh people been dependent on state money (coal mining and now benefits)? Its about time they created private sector jobs for themselves!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    And how are those definitions terrorism?
    Injuring people isn't terrorism?

    God this is hilarious- seeing someone trying to say that sabotage of a country's infrastructure isn't also terrorism!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Injuring people isn't terrorism?

    God this is hilarious- seeing someone trying to say that sabotage of a country's infrastructure isn't also terrorism!
    You are really not the sharpest tool in the box, are you?

    So if someone is beating my sister and I sabotage him by attacking him to stop him, I am a terrorist?:

    You sure are a blunt tool, like a mallet, in the box.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Hello

    Just a few things I want to address;

    (Original post by billydisco)
    Why does Thatcher have to go and find them a new job? That is their responsibility (take note of that word- lefties hate it).
    Ah, but you see that is partly the governments responsibility. If we held that attitude, many more people would struggle to get back into work. Because the government is a socialist agenda, especially under Labour, there has been an increasing push to get people back into work. Are you saying this is a bad idea?

    (Original post by billydisco)
    So why didn't the ex-miners do something about it, instead of sit in their arses?
    Not quite sure how you could sit in your arse, so I'll presume that's a typo

    There's the problem - that's all they could do. It's fair to say miners tended not to be bright - but that's okay, we're all friends here - but I think they did do something about it, but because that's all they could do, they were essentially trying to go into a workforce that was shutting down around them.

    (Original post by billydisco)
    She closed loss-making industries- anyone with 2 brain cells would have done the same.
    Agreed. No argument there. If it wasn't under Thatcher, it would have been under Major / Blair / Brown / Cameron.

    (Original post by billydisco)
    No they should not. Jobs should only be created if the private sector deems it profitable to create jobs. What the hell is the purpose of closing loss-making mines to only spend the taxpayer's money on doubling the number of dustbin men?

    At the end of the day these people all didn't take school seriously- they were short-term thinkers, didn't think about the consequences of their actions (and its fair to say this northern culture still exists) and they got screwed for it. It is not the Government's job to create jobs- it's their role to encourage job creation through economic management.
    You are right of course about this point; but the problem with your comment is that it is fundamentally flawed. We ultimately pay our taxes to get things done, and there are some things you can't for various reasons privatise. Privatisation is good if it gives us the same performance as being state controlled; but because their profit driven, the short answer is 'no'.

    Various of the parts of the NHS have failed by private companies because their profit driven, and not consumer driven. You can't cut corners on something like the NHS - it's too big, too powerful, and you endanger lives in the process. Privatising segments of it is a vile idea, because it puts profits before patients

    (Original post by billydisco)
    For how long have the Northern and Southern-Welsh people been dependent on state money (coal mining and now benefits)? Its about time they created private sector jobs for themselves!
    It's interesting that you raise that comment actually, because I want to become a television producer / director. The reason why I want to start an independent company is out of frustration at finding employment quite difficult to do; and I don't ultimately want to be caught on the same shouting at the government theme of this country - which the left-wing and unemployed have a nasty knack of doing.

    Shouting at the government is, IMO, a waste of time, when I can control and create jobs in a sector I want to work in. For me, being a producer means I can control the projects I would like to take on, and hire people to do so. More people hired = More money into my future company, and more people working.

    A barmy idea, perhaps - but I've also liked the idea of becoming an entrapeneur too. I'm willing to take that step because not many will. Like you said people just shout at the government and complain when it gets them nowhere.

    We've disagreed with things in the past - but there is one thing we do agree on. We absolutely hate people who aren't willing to go out of their way to diversify and find work, or are not willing to create work of themselves.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.