Thatcher kicked the bucket.

[Something completely different]

Where I live, the Democrats are the ones who destroyed education by stealing from our schools. They corrected this later on by retroactively raising taxes, but still continue to steal. And the Teachers Unions lobbied to keep the status quo so they could maintain power while education was ruined...fitting that the state with the strongest Teachers Union has one of the worst education rates.

What would a Zonie know about being a liberal? Not a thing.

And which state may that be in which you live?!

[Mister Agenda]

I am a liberal, but I have to admit she was needed in 1980s Great Britain....that was liberalism at one of its worst and one of the reasons I oppose strong unions.

Strong unions are the only thing that can stand up to corporate criminals.

No wonder the world is in the shape it is in.

At the time Thatcher took office, businesses in other countries had become reluctant to do business with British companies because of the frequency with which strikes shut down entire sectors of the British economy. England was known as 'the sick man of Europe' for its dysfunctional economy.

Unions are necessary but they are like any other bureacracy: their nature is to grow and consume until they run out of resources or an outside force stops them. Strength is good, but it shouldn't be limitless.

Thatcher was far from perfect, economically speaking, but the strengthening of the British economy while she was in office wasn't coincidental.

[Autumnlicious]

She supported Pinochet's regime and did nothing to stop his reign of death squads.

FUCK HER.

[A Theist]

She was a free-market leader who believed in deregulation and privatizing government programs...she brought Britain from near financial collapse that the leftwing created...because she was conservative, she was smeared by Britain's leftwing press...that's the only way that the left knows how to deal with those with whom they disagree...besides, most of you are still a bunch of naive know-nothing kids who weren't even thought of when she was the Prime Minister...She was a great leader of the free world...

---

Education is in the shitter in the US because republican politicians are slashing budgets left and right.

You are merely a pawn of the upper classes....typical of the religious.

But you are no liberal.

Education is in the crapper because the teachers unions are sucking school districts dry of needed funds...They care less about education and more about their salaries and benefits packages that only the taxpayers they leech from can dream about!...The more money that teachers' unions suck out of a school district, the less money that actually goes to equipment and learning material for the kids...if a teacher is crappy before getting an increase in pay and benefits packages, the teacher will still be crappy afterward...Education definitely pays off, especially for anyone who's in the teachers' unions...

[Tiberius]

Why didnt you care to learn anything about it?

I never said I didn't care to learn anything about it. In fact, didn't I just ask you for links so that I might educate myself?

Since when is Irish - not an ethnicity?

Read your sources again. This wasn't about the Irish. This was about Catholics. The fact that they were Irish is irrelevant.

Oh sweet. Just like Achmedinijad suggested that the jews move to america or how Milosovice suggested the kosovo muslims "move" to Albania. Or how Milosovice forced Bosnics to move into central Bosnia.

No, not like them at all. She never suggested forcibly moving anyone; she queried why they didn't just move to the South, since that is where they would fit in more. We can't really argue whether such a query had some other motive, because (a) it's from a private conversation that we can't prove ever happened, and (b) she never said anything in public that suggested this sort of action.

In the end he had to stand trial for crimes against humanity in the Hague and the term ethnic cleansing was correctly applied.

...and Thatcher never did, because she never tried to ethnically cleanse anyone...

So yes. what you call "moving" is ethnic cleansing, and in every case a infringement of a peoples right to self determination!!!

Sorry, but querying why people don't move themselves does not equate the suggestion that the government forcibly move people. You seem to have a problem with equating things; something I've noticed recently.

You just seem to twist something arround for lack of exuses to find.

There is no twisting going on. It's all in the article. She never suggests anything; she makes a query as to why certain groups of people don't move to the South.

Did you just contradict yourself?! Anyway. If you reject everything I post which is based on "hearsay" even when it is from a criticaly acclaimed source, then I will reject your hearsay stuff aswell.

No I didn't. I don't think I've pointed to anything which is hearsay.

This is not just simply a rebel group. They represented a people who were supressed by their goverment. And her actions further escalated the situation and therefor certainly caused avoidable loss of life. She could have simply listened to their grievances and negotiated, which she refused. Blair did it - and there is peace in Ulster now, not stable - but peace.

No, they represented the IRA and the PIRA, who wanted to form a socialist republic in Northern Ireland, and tried to do it by acts of terrorism (they are still classified as a terrorist group in the UK). Their demands included "the right not to wear prison uniform" and "the right not to do prison work". That isn't fair on other prisoners.

And if one has a cause to commit a crime!? Like being supressed by a goverment?!

They were being treated unfairly by the government, but the correct course of action in that instance is political protest...not taking up arms and using acts of terror. The UK was a democracy at the time.

I guess taxevasion wouldnt be a crime to someone like you if the accused was a liberterian?!

Erm...yes it would be.

special favors should also be given to those who represent a political organisation or minority, through doing such one opens a window for possible negotiations and therefor for the option of stableising the entire situation. Which she didnt do - thereby further destableising the entire situation.[quote]
Fuck that. You should not get special favours for simply belonging to a group, or being a minority. There is nothing special about either. If an ethnic African commits a crime in the UK, he/she should receive the same sentence and treatment as if a British citizen had committed the crime. That's fair.

[quote]They did it for a reason, resulting because something was forced on them by the Thatcher goverment.

Prison was forced on them because they were criminals.

Clearly, you are just grabbing at straws for finding some excuse. There is no exuse for denying someone equal rights! Clearly all before her had failed to realise that aswell, but she had a chance to calm the situation and she decided to escalate it because of some nostalgic empire fantasy of hers.

I agree, there is no excuse for denying someone equal rights. That isn't what they were demanding though. They wanted special rights over other prisoners (such as the right to not wear a uniform or do work).

Yes she did! Being officialy "against appartheit" in public statements is worth fuck all, if her goverment also keeps up trade agreements with that very regime and denounces the opponents of that racist regime as terrorists!

Do you think it is alright to trade with such a regime!?

Trade is trade. It's a purely economic thing, and shouldn't be restricted because of political disagreements. Often, having close trading partners is better, since you can try to influence them by being friendly, rather than by trying to force their hand. Tell me, how have our trade embargoes against Cuba and North Korea gone? Not very well I'd say. Cuba is still a communist country which people try to escape from on a daily basis, and North Korea is about to get itself destroyed.

Which it does! Because trade means wealth and wealth means stability! And trade agreements mean (as the words say) that a diplomatic agreement is in existance. Trade is a support of a regime because trade simply masses the wealth of that regime whilest not doing anything against the regime itself. Why do you think is trading with Cuba, Korea and Iran seen as a support of that nation and therefor condemed?

Yet the fact that we were trading partners allowed Thatcher to meet with government officials and tell them that their regime was "unacceptable". No other country had that kind of relationship. China is still a trading partner of North Korea, and has a lot of power because of that. We will see in the coming weeks if they can use that power to calm them down.

YES! Most countries have an interest in the Saudi regime staying in existance because it ensures stability, keeping Iran in check and a steady flow of oil.

I'm so glad that you support the discrimination of women. As long as we get all that oil, we can just turn our heads the other way. Politics is wonderful. </sarcasm>

And there is one importent thing you are forgetting about both cases - the west has an economic dependency from those countries to receive oil and plastic shit.

Which of course is much more important than civil rights, etc.

Again! Droping dribble in speeches in the house of commons on how bad racism is isnt worth a steaming pile of shit if you actualy trade with racists and criminalise those who fight it!

She didn't just "dribble" in speeches. She told the ambassador, right to his face, that his country's policies were unacceptable.

What kind of weird logic is that?! "Of course we trade! They once were our colony!"?????????
Japan and North Korea should have great trade releations if that logic was even mildly accurate!!!

I never said it was logic. I'm saying that often countries which were once sharing a government remain close allies. Look at the UK and the USA for an example. I'm not saying it's the rule; I'm saying more often than not, it happens.

Again! Pritty words are worth even less than nothing if actions dont follow!!

I'm pretty sure telling the ambassador to his face that she found his policies unacceptable was a clear action.

By calling him a terrorist????

No...by trying to secure his release. Mandela changed in prison. He realised violence was not a solution to problems. Releasing him would bring the change to South Africa that she wanted (the end of apartheid).

Or because it became clear, that she had supported one of the most vicious regimes in the world, and there would be no excuse if she would continue doing so.

In the end of the 1980s almoust every single country on the globe was calling for his release - Thatcher was late!

Better late than never. She'd already helped to ensure that he didn't get the death penalty, which was a possibility at his trial. Some might say she was early to that race. Without her at the beginning, he wouldn't be alive. Without her at the end, he may have died in prison.

It is not for him - to reform himself!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was for the appartheit goverment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...and for him. He had headed an organization that caused terror you know.

You are changing the subject of what I was talking about!!!

To do something stupid or wrong only to later say "I didnt know better then" is a childs understanding of responsibility!

One is required to take responsibility and to appologise! She didnt!!!

She did know what she was talking about. I've shown you how Nelson Mandela was clearly a terrorist at the point when he was arrested. He was head of a terrorist organization that bombed buildings. It doesn't matter if he reformed; at one point he was a terrorist, and Thatcher called him that accurately.

Trading with them is giving them support - no matter what she may say in the house of commons to get votes!!!

No it isn't. Trading with them is trade. Purely economic. Supporting their political ideology is precisely what she didn't do, and history shows us that. She never supported apartheid. She condemned the regime both publicly and to their faces. She called for the release of Mandela.

When is racism acceptable for you? Or when is it alright to deal with a racist?

Racism is never acceptable to me. Dealing with a racist depends on the situation. If that racist happens to be a friend, whose racist views I don't agree with, but who is otherwise a nice person to spend time with, then I don't see any problems "dealing" with him.

Again. words are useless if not followed by actions. and trading is supporting because it ensures the economic groath, wealth and stability of a regime.

which is the reason why unwanted regimes are boycotted.

Boycotts have done fuck all for other country's regimes. Trade is economic support, and that is all. It doesn't mean political support; it is one country supporting another economically. The UK trades with the USA. Does that mean the UK supports the US's death penalty verdicts? No. It means we give them financial support, and they do the same to us. The issue of the death penalty is not part of that trade agreement. Neither was the issue of apartheid with the UK-South Africa trade agreements. It was something that was fought politically by Thatcher in her encounters with politicians from South Africa.

"Bending to her will"???????????

Almoust the entire world condems and boycotts a regime and you think they will bend over to the primeminister of a collapsed empire?!?!

That was your point I thought. That if the UK pulled trade support, South Africa would have no choice but to end apartheid? Hence, in your view, Thatcher had all the power. She could, at any instance, end apartheid by ending trade agreements. I think that is a rather silly view to take.

And you think that keeping up trade with them gives some kind of pressure on them?!!!!

Yes, because if you have trade agreements with a country, you have more leverage to discuss other things with them. You are seen as a friend; and more likely to be able to change their views.

No! If she had boycotted, their economy would have gained a blow, they would have reduced wealth and social stability would no longer be ensured - hence people would question the regime.

So you do think she had all the power. Why did you find my question so absurd if you agree with it?

what one says in the house of commons and does is a big difference here. Britain had the biggest share in South African trade, yet Thatcher put money over moral principle.

As I've said time and time again now, she didn't just say this stuff in the House of Commons. She said it directly to the ambassador and other leaders of South Africa.

nope, yours is. not oly was she not primeminister, but everyone knows that opinions change from being in opposition to being in goverment.

Pity there is no evidence to suggest her opinions changed.

You simply cant swallow and accept the fact that your idol literaly sold out democratic values, for a disgusting regime.

She wasn't my idol. I never said that. I don't think she sold out her values either; how she handled the process was very democratic...y'know, talks, political persuasion, etc. I don't think trade embargoes are very democratic.

the life sentence was given due to international pressure and not because of a unknown conservative mp.

Not according to the article.

because trade is support! why do you think that thing called boycott exists!?

Trade is, at most, a form of economic support. It says nothing about whether you support a political regime. We trade with Saudi Arabia. We also protest their treatment of women (though I note that you don't, which is fine; you love oil so much more).

I would actualy give you money to go into the blackest south african district of Johanesburg and scream that term into the streets, and I think some people would pay money to see what would then happen to you.

What on earth are you talking about? I never said racism in South Africa was invented. I said you were inventing Margaret Thatcher's racism.

[Minimalist]

Education is in the crapper because the teachers unions are sucking school districts dry of needed funds...

When you understand - which you will never do because you are just a fascist shitball - that Bush and his cronies were doing nothing but trying to privatize education so rich cocksuckers could suck dry the public tit you would understand what is going on in this country.

But you don't because you are an idealogue who thinks that everything should make a profit for some bastard.

Go fuck yourself. Fuckers like you are what is ruining the US.

[Something completely different]

She was a free-market leader who believed in deregulation and privatizing government programs...she brought Britain from near financial collapse that the leftwing created...because she was conservative, she was smeared by Britain's leftwing press...that's the only way that the left knows how to deal with those with whom they disagree...besides, most of you are still a bunch of naive know-nothing kids who weren't even thought of when she was the Prime Minister...She was a great leader of the free world...

big words! now will you finaly tell us your opinion on Pinochet, the African national congress and the IRA. Or are you a naiv know-nothing old bag who ignores the ugly stuff so his lovely picture of the world isnt destroyed?

[Autumnlicious]

I notice the Thatcher cultists won't bother confronting her support of Pinochet.

Nice to ignore the Thatcher hypocrisy.

Just like AT pretends Iran-Contra never existed.

But hey, we can always vent about those low wage teachers and their evil unions...

[Mister Agenda]

I notice the Thatcher cultists won't bother confronting her support of Pinochet.

Nice to ignore the Thatcher hypocrisy.

Just like AT pretends Iran-Contra never existed.

But hey, we can always vent about those low wage teachers and their evil unions...

Um, a lack of an attempt to refute her support of Pinochet is also consistent with your opposition not being cultists, and therefore seeing no reason to try to defend her where she was wrong.

[Something completely different]

Since when is Irish - not an ethnicity?

Read your sources again. This wasn't about the Irish. This was about Catholics. The fact that they were Irish is irrelevant.[/quote]

?!!!

Does it not completly embarrassing for you, that you dont even know the history of your own country?!?!
The people living in Norther Ireland who see themselves as havin a british identety where moved there by James the first 400 years ago in a colonialisation project which he thought would stop the problem of the ever troublesome and rebelious Irish under british rule.
That is why they are called "Ulster Scots"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Scots_people

So yes! This is not a religious conflict - even although religion plays an undenyable role - this is mainly a conflict between two ethnicities and two national identeties!!!!

By the way does the "simply another religious conflict" excuse not apply in this situation in any way because of Thatchers own religious beliefs. The main explaination for her idiotic behavior is simply that she kept klinging on to a deluded ida of empire.

No, not like them at all. She never suggested forcibly moving anyone; she queried why they didn't just move to the South, since that is where they would fit in more. We can't really argue whether such a query had some other motive, because (a) it's from a private conversation that we can't prove ever happened, and (b) she never said anything in public that suggested this sort of action.

"Voluntarily moving because they fit in there better" - do you eben know how utterly inhumane and disgusting that sound? Do you at this point actualy really care what you are defending as long as it means defending Thatchers views and actions towards the irish?

"Cromwell solution" does not sound in any kind of way like something peacefull and voluntarily!!!

But then again - you dont even know your own countries history and therefor probably dont even know what Cromwell did to the Irish after the english civil war. The wording itself is enought to force a primeminister out of office!

...and Thatcher never did, because she never tried to ethnically cleanse anyone...

Yet the mind which comes up with such ideas isnt one which is worth praising in any kind of way!

Sorry, but querying why people don't move themselves does not equate the suggestion that the government forcibly move people.

Asking question into why people dont move means that someone is looking for an answere to that question! it also means that she had the motivation to find a solution which meant the removal of the ethnic irish from ulster. So in that regard she isnt any better than the argentinians who think they can overlook and move the etnic british from the falklands!

You seem to have a problem with equating things; something I've noticed recently.

I dont give flying fuck about anything you may diagnose about my conclusions on a person from your ivory tower of unquestionable loyalty to your leader.
The very fact that you are not even capable to look into potential negatives of your great leader shows pritty well that you are the one who deluded and simply looking for one pathetic excuse after another for her horrible foreign policie record.
No politician has in any kind of way been perfect on all political levels. And only the undemocratic believe that there is.

There is no twisting going on. It's all in the article. She never suggests anything; she makes a query as to why certain groups of people don't move to the South.

The very fact that she made such a query clearly pints out that she was looking for an answere to that very question and that it was the solution which she wanted!!!!!!!

No, they represented the IRA and the PIRA, who wanted to form a socialist republic in Northern Ireland, and tried to do it by acts of terrorism (they are still classified as a terrorist group in the UK). Their demands included "the right not to wear prison uniform" and "the right not to do prison work". That isn't fair on other prisoners.

You completly ignore the fact that the IRA was a very diverse group which was certainly not socialist and had its primary goal to reunite with the republic - which was and is a very conservative country. Other than that you also ignored Sin Fein and used the word "terrorist" again - completly ignoring how the irish were treated by the ulster british and organisations such als the UVF (which was not classified as terrorist by Thatcher!!!!!!!) - which maroded through Ulster hunting irish!!! The irish in Ulster were forced into armed resistance - not because of their ideas but because of their treatment by the british.

They were being treated unfairly by the government, but the correct course of action in that instance is political protest...not taking up arms and using acts of terror. The UK was a democracy at the time.

A democracy which allowed an armed paramilitary group to hunt for irish in Ulster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Volunteer_Force

and shot at protesters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

Maybe it was a democracy for those on the british mainland and those who saw themselves as british, but not for the irish.

[quote]Fuck that. You should not get special favours for simply belonging to a group, or being a minority.There is nothing special about either. If an ethnic African commits a crime in the UK, he/she should receive the same sentence and treatment as if a British citizen had committed the crime. That's fair.

The african is not a ethnic minority which has been living on british controled terretory for more than 2 thousand years and has since then been bullied and repressed and denied legal and political representation.

You dont understand the concept of ethnic minority!

Prison was forced on them because they were criminals.

Because they were forced into criminality by the british goverment.

I agree, there is no excuse for denying someone equal rights. That isn't what they were demanding though. They wanted special rights over other prisoners (such as the right to not wear a uniform or do work).

What kind of a "Dachau prison system" does the UK have in which imates are forced to work!?!?!?!

And they were not ordenary thugs nore were they any kinf of ordenary terror group like the RAF, the red brigades or Al Quaida.
They represented a ethnic group which had lived on that land ever since it existed - were suppresed and brutalised and therefor went into violent resistance as they had no other choice.

Trade is trade. It's a purely economic thing,

The bullshit just exploded over fucking fucking everything! This is one of the most outright dumbest statements I have ever read!!!!!

Do you really think that in a world in which trade, politics and international exchange is so exchanged as it is - that trade - "is simply trade"??????????

What does this even mean in any kind of way??? "trade is simply trade"????????

Since it is an untrue statement and has never applied for any situation throughout history, I will simply ask - Do you think that moral principle shouldnt stand in the way of comerce??????

and shouldn't be restricted because of political disagreements. Often, having close trading partners is better, since you can try to influence them by being friendly, rather than by trying to force their hand.

Bullshit!!!!

Show me that "Oftern" !!

Tell me, how have our trade embargoes against Cuba and North Korea gone?

They have weakend their military capacities and lowerd their capabilities to create havok!
And if you point out that North Korea has nukes, then you are being dishonest because North Korea only has nukes because Pakestani scientists illegaly helped the North Koreans build nukes, something for which those responsible were trialed in Pakistan.

Not very well I'd say

wrong

Cuba is still a communist country which people try to escape from on a daily basis, and North Korea is about to get itself destroyed.

Because both countries pose infront of the public mayority as being the victims of an international plot against them - which ralleys the masses in their support. This would have not been possible in South Africa which isnt capable to be compared with North Korea and Cuba in any way because it was ruled by a minority without the support of the mayority - which North Korea and Cuba still are.
Guess why South Africas Appartheit regime collapsed??? Because of economic sanctions!!!

Yet the fact that we were trading partners allowed Thatcher to meet with government officials and tell them that their regime was "unacceptable".

Oh how sweet of her. Telling the racist that he is bad. All whilest still making money with him whilest she watches him beating up a black guy.

would you finaly lay off that idiotic exuse of "but she said something really really really nice one day about how racism is baaaaaad!"
Words arent worth shit if they are not followed by actions or if they are not capable to raleey support for a cause! She failed to do that. And the main credit for european opposition to appartheit goes to the swedish primeminister Olaf Plame - who actualy managed to ralley against appartheit with his words!

No other country had that kind of relationship. China is still a trading partner of North Korea, and has a lot of power because of that.

No it doesnt! China`s main interest in the Pacific is stability - North Korea does not obey.

We will see in the coming weeks if they can use that power to calm them down.

This just shows that you dont understand that conflict. North Korea is simply repeating the game of "I threaten until you give me food aid" game which it has been playing since 1994, and they are trying to create a nationalistic image of the Kim Il Whatever so he is more popular amongst his people.

I'm so glad that you support the discrimination of women. As long as we get all that oil, we can just turn our heads the other way. Politics is wonderful. </sarcasm>

Saudi Arabias people are even more conservative as their goverment - Saudi Arabia ruled by it`s people would be a even worser place. That is simply reality - even if it isnt nice.

Which of course is much more important than civil rights, etc.

Was the trade with racists so importent to Thatcher that she could sell her moral principles?

She didn't just "dribble" in speeches. She told the ambassador, right to his face, that his country's policies were unacceptable.

lol and you think that is special?!?! Merkel did that to Putins face last year! Clinton to China and on and on and on
words are worthless if not followed by actions, which as in all these cases simply reduces the defence of civil rights to a formality - just like in the case of Thatcher.

I never said it was logic. I'm saying that often countries which were once sharing a government remain close allies.

not true. diplomatic releations between countries are individual phenomenons which are not influenced by some weird non existant theme

Look at the UK and the USA for an example. I'm not saying it's the rule; I'm saying more often than not, it happens.

The US - British alliance came to be through the second world war and not through its colonial history, anti british sentiment was actual very strong within the US for a very long time.

I'm pretty sure telling the ambassador to his face that she found his policies unacceptable was a clear action.

nope, because alot of politician do that in what can be called "defence of human rights turing into a formality"

No...by trying to secure his release. Mandela changed in prison. He realised violence was not a solution to problems. Releasing him would bring the change to South Africa that she wanted (the end of apartheid).

And when did she do that?! In 1980 or in 1989 - when it was obvious that the regime was falling.

Better late than never.

Wrong! If late then appolige for being late and give credit to those who did something!

Everything else is disgusting oppertunism!

She'd already helped to ensure that he didn't get the death penalty,

Wrong!

The outcry was global! she is nothing but a sandcorn on a beach! to say that "she insured" is disgracefully ignoring thos who actualy moved their asses to do something and who didnt sell moral principles for money.

which was a possibility at his trial. Some might say she was early to that race. Without her at the beginning, he wouldn't be alive. Without her at the end, he may have died in prison.

I simply find it weird how you gloryfy your great leader in this sacrosanct way by ignoring the very fact that it was a global outcry and that other did much more and didnt stop doing much more after they came into goverment!!! The most credit to any european leader in this matter goes to Olaf Palme and not the someone who took money from racists!

...and for him. He had headed an organization that caused terror you know.

yeah, after being terrorised into comiting acts of terror!

She did know what she was talking about. I've shown you how Nelson Mandela was clearly a terrorist at the point when he was arrested. He was head of a terrorist organization that bombed buildings. It doesn't matter if he reformed; at one point he was a terrorist, and Thatcher called him that accurately.

And thereby giving credit to the appartheit regime. If she wanted or not. by calling the ANC a terrorist organisation she gave the appartheit regime munition to discredit that organisation.


No it isn't. Trading with them is trade.

The same bullshit again?

Purely economic. Supporting their political ideology is precisely what she didn't do, and history shows us that. She never supported apartheid. She condemned the regime both publicly and to their faces. She called for the release of Mandela.

whilest happyly receiving money from those racists and giving them munition against the ANC by calling them terrorist.

Racism is never acceptable to me. Dealing with a racist depends on the situation. If that racist happens to be a friend, whose racist views I don't agree with, but who is otherwise a nice person to spend time with, then I don't see any problems "dealing" with him.

then you are nothing but a enabler and oppertunist and I find you to be a disgusting person.

Boycotts have done fuck all for other country's regimes.

Not true. Appartheit South Africa itself was brought down by a international boycott. The Oil boycott of imperealist japan ginded a halt to their warmachine and stopped their rapid advance towards India. The boycott of fascist italy made their warmachine useless all throughout world war 2. the boycott of Cuba disabled it as a military threat, the boycott of Chile made it`s facist regime collapse, .......

Trade is economic support, and that is all. It doesn't mean political support; it is one country supporting another economically.

wrong!!! because trade ensures wealth and by ensuring a regimes wealth one ensures it`s existance through stability. Dont use that weird argument again unless you can prove that trade does not create wealth and that wealth does not create stability for a regime and that ensuring that regimes wealth through trade and therefor its stability is not political support.

The UK trades with the USA. Does that mean the UK supports the US's death penalty verdicts? No.

completly outlandish comparison. It means that the UK has an interest in the US`s wealth and that the US has an interst in the UK`s wealth and therefor in each others stability.

It means we give them financial support, and they do the same to us.

Which ensures stability.

The issue of the death penalty is not part of that trade agreement.

Because it is to small of an issue to wreck an alliance and profitable trade agreements.

Neither was the issue of apartheid with the UK-South Africa trade agreements.

Because Thatcher did not want it to be an issue because she preferd a free market over standing up for moral principles.

It was something that was fought politically by Thatcher in her encounters with politicians from South Africa.

By exchanging sweet chit chat over how bad racism is whilest the appartheit regime enjoyed social stability and wealth through trade with Britain.

Others actualy cut trade, like Sweden, Norway and Germany.

That was your point I thought. That if the UK pulled trade support, South Africa would have no choice but to end apartheid? Hence, in your view, Thatcher had all the power. She could, at any instance, end apartheid by ending trade agreements. I think that is a rather silly view to take.

No it is not, because it is what happened. In the end the appartheit regime collapsed because no one traded with them, which to be fair was mainly because they had built a nuclear arsenal illegaly.

Yes, because if you have trade agreements with a country, you have more leverage to discuss other things with them. You are seen as a friend; and more likely to be able to change their views.

leverage in a diplomatic exchange is useless if it is not used. She didnt use it.

So you do think she had all the power. Why did you find my question so absurd if you agree with it?

Because she didnt use that power because she preferd the money coming in through trade.

As I've said time and time again now, she didn't just say this stuff in the House of Commons. She said it directly to the ambassador and other leaders of South Africa.

by turning human rights into a formality - because her words were followed by jackshit actions.

Pity there is no evidence to suggest her opinions changed.

And a pitty that she didnt follow her neat words with actions in such a cowardly oppertunistic way of selling moral values.

She wasn't my idol. I never said that.

Yet you defend the undefendable and look for excuses to make a lack of courage look alright, whilest discrediting those who actualy did something. yeah - that is the unquestionable worship of a political idol which you dont want to have scratched in any way.

I don't think she sold out her values either

If there were any moral values to begin with.
Her case, is a clear case of "percunia non olet". And it is disgracefull that you think it is in anyway defendable, when considering that that others did more than her, that she did "alot".
She kept the trade agreement going, whilest talking on how bad those people were who were making a profit and guaranteeing her goverment a profit, all whilest making that profit.

how she handled the process was very democratic...y'know, talks, political persuasion,

Even the most senile idiot would have realised that after ten years of talking whilest keeping a trade agreement as leverage without getting any results means that the regime is not going to make any kind of concession.
eighter she was conned, or she sold out!!!

etc. I don't think trade embargoes are very democratic.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

embargos are democraticaly decided on by nations.

derp much?

Not according to the article.

not acording to the wiki entry and every single documentary on the subject which I have seen. the article is probably nothing but an expression of british self centerdness.

and your addition of theysayhesay

Trade is, at most, a form of economic support.

What naiv person thinks that there is no politics in trade?!?!?!!!!

It says nothing about whether you support a political regime. We trade with Saudi Arabia. We also protest their treatment of women (though I note that you don't, which is fine; you love oil so much more).

strawman

I do not support womens discrimination just as much as you wouldnt accept a racist frind.......... oh wait - you do. Saudi Arabia`s goverment is even more conservative than it`S people and has rejected every critizism and will probably do so even when the oil is gone or no one trades with them.

What on earth are you talking about? I never said racism in South Africa was invented. I said you were inventing Margaret Thatcher's racism.

I never said she was racist. she supported racists. just like you arent racist - but are ok with racists.