Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Fratton Fred wrote: »

She quite possibly was.

Towards the end she had become clearly quite mad, and an acute embarrassment to the Tories.

Megalomanic comment remined me of this.

The Royal "We" ...

Madam wrote: »

For instance?

The way they happily swallowed govt propaganda. The attempt to justify the mass murders of Bloody Sunday for instance.

TheUsual wrote: »

Megalomanic comment remined me of this.

The Royal "We" ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5Gxruh-pLI

Mad as a box of frogs.:eek:

rarnes1 wrote: »

Fratton, you think Thatcher did a good job with regards to foreign policy?

Not intended for me but i think the answer to that is Yes. Can expand if you want.

Zebra3 wrote: »

What exactly was there to clear up?

Thatcher supported Saddam's genocide.



I've no idea what Thatcher's support of genocide has to do with Libyan arms shipments to PIRA.

She didn't "support" genocide. Stop being deliberately misleading.

Zebra3 wrote: »

It was reported on ITN in the 1980s how Saddam's forces were gassing thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq.

Britain (under Thatcher) and the rest of the big western military powers took no action to stop the genocide. Instead weapons, gas, and money continued to flow to Iraq.

I'm not sure what's so difficult for you to understand.

Firstly, that report you cite was in late 1988 on ITN. Almost a decade into Thatchers tenure. Both Iraq and the USA blamed Iranians for the incidents. This was still a war between Iraq-Iran and more deeply part of the Cold War. The west took sides with Iraq and the Soviets with Iran. It was probably viewed as a lesser of 2 evils by Reagan to side with Iraq.

As for Thatcher 'supporting' genocide that is pure absolute drivel. She effected the Howe Principles into law as early as 1985 which stated:

1. We should maintain our consistent refusal to supply any lethal equipment to either side;

2. Subject to that overriding consideration, we should attempt to fulfil existing contracts and obligations;

3. We should not, in future, approve orders for any defence equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict;

4. In the line with this policy, we should continue to scrutinise rigorously all applications for export licences for the supply of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq.


Those measures are far from 'supporting' genocide or supporting anything. Yes, of course, the UK and USA supplied weapons and assistance to Saddam throughout the 1980s by back channels. Not for the purpose of being a genocidal maniac but for the purpose of helping Iraq defeating the Soviet-backed Iran.

It's far too easy to make sweeping statements like you are doing, with the full benefit of retrospect, and get them vastly wrong and taken out of context. Tough choices had to be made during the Cold War, dodgy regimes were supported through back channels worldwide, usually for no other reason that the Soviets picked the other side.

To imply Thatcher was sitting there egging on genocide is an insult to intelligence. The USA, UK, France, Germans and others all have blood on their hands in one form or other from the many shenanigans that took place by propping up dodgy regimes in the 1970s and 1980s but that's far removed from any of them actively encouraging or supporting acts of genocide.

Madam wrote: »

For instance?

When I emigrated to England in the 80's I couldn't believe just how ignorant the average person was about N. Ireland. They knew more about the situation in Zimbabwe than Belfast. And I'm not talking about uneducated/unskilled people, but university educated types.
The BBC did very little to educate them, and the Govts of the day were quite happy for them to remain ignorant.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are people blind? It has already been disproved several times that there was nothing wrong with the sinking of the Belgrano!

There has been a war trial? I must have missed that one.

FoxT wrote: »

There was a lot of murdering going on, by both sides, of civilians & military alike. No side can look back on that period of history with any real pride.

Thatcher's work with Fitzgerald got a process going that ultimately broke the logjam - notwithstanding the attempt on her own life at Brighton.

I think that deserves to be acknowledged.

The biggest problem I have with her is in many instanceces, she made a bad situation worse. She brought out the worst in people.
In fact if she had been a Boardsie, she'ld have gotten a life ban long ago!:D

ABajaninCork wrote: »

I remember the 'Sus' law, the subsequent Brixton (and elsewhere) riots, Cruise Missiles and what she did to the miners. Not to mention her support for apartheid.

So no. I don't mourn her passing.

She did NOT "support" Apartheid. She was a critic of Apartheid throughout. She DID support an alternative solution to Apartheid to international sanctions.

“Thatcher did more to release Nelson Mandela out of prison than any of the other hundreds of anti-apartheid committees, in Europe,” Pik Botha, the last foreign minister of the apartheid regime, said Tuesday on Talk Radio 702 in Johannesburg.

F.W. de Klerk, the last apartheid-era president of South Africa, said in a statement that Thatcher, whom he called a friend, was “a steadfast critic of apartheid.” He said she had a better grasp of the complexities and realities of South Africa than many of her contemporaries.

“She exerted more influence in what happened in South Africa than any other political leader who at that stage was in the international political stage,” de Klerk said. He said Thatcher “correctly believed” that more could be achieved through constructive engagement with his government than international sanctions and isolation of the South African government.

Thatcher argued that sanctions were immoral because they would hurt South African blacks and throw thousands out of work.

Of course, there were elements of self-interest at play here - UK companies continued to trade and benefit with SA ones.

If she made secret contact with the IRA whilst all the while spouting on about murdering criminal terrorists, then she was a total hypocrite who spoke out of both sides of her gob.
I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised tbh.

Also I love the way her supporters like to give her credit for the AngloIrish Agreement being responsible in some way for the Good Friday Agreement, yet fail to acknowledge any connection between her deregulatory, greed is good, bankster policies of the 80's and the mess we are now in.

Can't have it both ways ......:D

I also remember London in the 80's. It was a great place to be, but not so great if you were Irish. Don't forget - the Irish as well as the blacks were disproportionately searched under the 'sus' law.

There were loads of Irish (some of whom are still my friends) who came over that I worked with when I was in the City. The hassle they got from the police was unreal. I remember being stopped by City of London police in Moorgate. Me and my Irish friend had just left the pub. My friend was wearing a 'Claddagh' ring which the Old Bill were VERY interested in. They thought it signified membership of the IRA!

Another Irish girl friend of mine was told to remove hers when visiting customers in case they thought she was a terrorist!

True stories, my friends...