I have never been to South America but do realise that those banging on about civil rights there are the same people who advocate the civil rights of the ten hunger strikers
If you are a player on the world stage sometimes you make wrong decisions, or decisions which seemed to be for the greater good at the time.
karma_ wrote: » Wasn't he one of the Yalta 3? Perhaps my history is a little hazy?
true wrote: » I have never been to South America but do realise that those banging on about civil rights there are the same people who advocate the civil rights of the ten hunger strikers, and who would give a very one sided explanation of the troubles in N.I. to a south American audience, which would be very far from the truth. If you are a player on the world stage sometimes you make wrong decisions, or decisions which seemed to be for the greater good at the time. Mrs T was know as a very hard worker ( 4 hours sleep a night - she was still working at 2 or 3 am when the PIRA tried to bomb her in Brighton ). If she had not the distraction of the PIRA trying to kill her and her employees, I am sure she could have diverted time and resources elsewhere. As JF Kennedy said, ask not what your country can do for you, but what u can do for your country. Mrs T was of the same mindset.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Which would indicate power rather than respect.
FTA69 wrote: » Like supporting murdering tyrants. Sure tis grand like we're only human. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs/disappearing a few thousand people etc.
FTA69 wrote: » I think Stalin was a great man. He took on the Kulaks in Russia who were holding back modernisation of the country and while it wasn't pleasant, and he may have been a bit overzealous, the Kulak class needed to be faced down. While it was a hard period for everyone, it was clear that it worked. Russia went from being backward and agricultural to a nuclear power. He provided jobs, electricity and medical care to millions of Russians who never had that before. He was also fearless and cut through the bullsh*t, we could do with a politician like him today. He took Russia back on to the international stage again and the unfortunate reality is that when you're a major player you sometimes make mistakes. That's the cold hard reality of international relations folks. He also took on Hitler and won the Second World War because he refused to acquiesce to Nazi demands. It was the Red Army that broke the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad and rolled back the German invasion. It was the biggest turning point of the war and it is fair to say it was the Soviets who did the most to defeat Hitler. Fair play to them. He was also a tireless grafter with his light in the Kremlin being the last to be switched off. That's why he remains one of Russia's most popular leaders ever.
Fratton Fred wrote: » And yet many of those pontificating about Thatcher were quite happy to get in to bed with the bastion of civil liberty that was Colonel Gaddaffi.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Trolling really doesn't suit you.
FTA69 wrote: » And what relevance has that regarding the issue Thatcher sold arms to Suharto and supported Pinochet? Are you unable to judge that for what it is without whataboutery?
karma_ wrote: » Accepting for a second this is true, it's a self defeating argument when you defend a woman who did the same, would you not agree?
FTA69 wrote: » Consider it an example of how language can be manipulated to suit a person's agenda despite many uncomfortable realities staring them in the face. "Champion of Liberty" supports brutal regime gets dressed up as "she made a few mistakes and hard decisions on the international stage." Dining with the same dictator years after the Cold War and his actions are well known is phrased as "she had to make a few unsavoury allies in the struggle against Soviet domination." It's weasal words and it's crap. The reason people are doing it is because her support for Suharto etc shatters the notion she stood for justice and freedom because she clearly didn't. What harm sure, only a few thousand Chileans. Sure aren't they always killing each other out that direction?
Fratton Fred wrote: » Oh no, I was appalled by her closeness to Pinochet, it was one of those nasty cold war relationships that most country's had. I just like to point out hypocrisy when I see it.
FTA69 wrote: » So if her relationship with Pinochet was simply real-politik, why did she invite Pinochet over for tea years after the Cold War?
true wrote: » Mrs T. was elected by the people of the UK to act in the interests of the people of the UK. She had more than tea with other leaders on the world stage, e.g. USA, Russia and China. I doubt if you know the whole story in all developing / S. American countries ( both sides of the story etc ) , but one thing for sure. While Mrs T was not perfect and I'm sure occassionally made mistakes, I think she was a hell of a lot better than those she took on e.g. Gadaffi, the PIRA, Galteri etc.
old hippy wrote: » She was chums with Pinochet and described Mandela as a terrorist. I think we all know what her priorities were.
true wrote: » Mrs T. was elected by the people of the UK to act in the interests of the people of the UK. How were those interests threatened to the point a democratically elected government in Chile had to be overthrown by one of the most brutal dictators ever in Latin America? The people of Chile had an election as well, Thatcher chose to support the man who took that away. Likewise I don't think anyone in Indonesia voted for her to sell arms to the man who was oppressing them. She had more than tea with other leaders on the world stage, e.g. USA, Russia and China. Pinochet was a deposed autocrat whose record was know by everyone. She still invited him to tea in a personal capacity. Not out of political duty, but out of friendship. She was friends with a man who disappeared thousands of his own people. I doubt if you know the whole story in all developing / S. American countries ( both sides of the story etc ) , More sh*t. Look up Pinochet yourself and stop being a gobsh*te while you're at it.
Mrs T. was elected by the people of the UK to act in the interests of the people of the UK.
She had more than tea with other leaders on the world stage, e.g. USA, Russia and China.
I doubt if you know the whole story in all developing / S. American countries ( both sides of the story etc ) ,
steddyeddy wrote: » Actually when Mandela got out of prison and travelled to Britain he refused to meet her.
Hoop66 wrote: » Well, it was her or the Spice Girls...he's a very busy man.
karma_ wrote: » There you have it folks, thread winner. To paraphrase - making the odd mistake over Apartheid, mass murder and supporting dictatorships all down to wrong decision for the greater good, as long as you're a hard worker this can be forgiven.
tigger123 wrote: » How was it in the interest of the UKs electorate for Thatcher to support Pinochet?
FTA69 wrote: » I haven't read the last few pages of this thread but will make a few points on some of the more spurious statements of praise about Thatcher. 1) The Right to Buy This is constantly held up as a positive aspect of her legacy but a cursory look at the housing situation in Britain will tell you it was a disaster for working class people today. Up to a third of the houses which were sold are now being rented out, far from creating a situation of home-ownership all it did was create a new class of landlords. The son of the housing minister at the time, Ian Gow, himself owns ninety former council properties in London alone which are rented out for premium rents. Many of these council properties are owned by rental firms who are registered in places like the Caymans etc and as such pay little or no tax. Meanwhile there are five million people on the housing waiting list and rents are through the roof. Thatcher's housing scheme transfered a valuable public asset in the form of housing into private hands which has now been concentrated in the hands of the rich. The fact that key Tories have benefited financially is even more nauseating. 2) "Trailblazer for women" This has to be the most ridiculous reason for praising Thatcher, more often than not made by people who seem to think woman = good without actually having a clue what she stood for. While she may have attained the position of Prime Minister she most certainly pulled the ladder up after her so to speak. She was economically liberal but when it came to social matters she was still an old school conservative Tory. Thatcher cut child benefit, she made absolutely no investment into childcare and those women who managed to pursue a career, she criticised for raising a "creche generation". She promoted ZERO women to cabinet and did nothing to address the issue of wider female representation in politics. She described feminism as "a poison." Worked wonders for women indeed. 3) "Defender of Democracy"When the democratic government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by a right wing coup led by Augusto Pinochet, Thatcher was one of his main international backers. So many people were seized by Pinochet's forces in the aftermath they had to contain them to a stadium where activists, politicians, journalists and musicians were systematically tortured and executed. We've had some eejits try and justify her standpoint as real-politik in the face of the Cold War, but that doesn't explain how she'd invite him for afternoon tea in London up until a few years ago. Her support for the Chilean dictatorship is arguably one of the bigger issues of her toxic legacy, and one that her supporters have yet to address bar a few platitudes along the lines of "errah sure she made a few mistakes like."
ANTI-Thatcher sentiment has seen Ding Dong the Witch is Dead soar to No.27 in the UK iTunes chart this morning. The sales are part of a Facebook campaign to make the Judy Garland song hit No.1 after the death of Margaret Thatcher.
Chuck Stone wrote: » She was a duplicitous authoritarian hypocrite that stoked the conflict in the north by energising physical force Republicanism with her short-sighted policies. As for neo-liberalism - look at 'us' now in the west. US infrastructure is crumbling and they're up to their necks in debt, war, and blood and this is the burden of the ordinary man and woman not war profiteers and military-industrial corporations. The UK is heavily in debt too and and the north of the country is replete with inter-generational welfare ghettos. You need two people working to have a good standard of living for a young family these days. Extremes of wealth and poverty haven't been so pronounced since victorian times. As someone else commented earlier it's too soon to say if Thatcherism and Reaganomics has wrecked the west or benefitted it (it's not looking too good atm) and that's completely ignoring any moral and ethical appraisal.
