Thatcher kicked the bucket.

[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.