FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[zurich_allan]

Exactly right Lew - I'm not going to directly quote as it would take up too much room, but I will say that, as has been pointed out - I wasn't aware this was a 'compare Thatcher and Tony Blair' thread, or a 'Conservative v Labour' thread. Mainly because it isn't. It's a thread about Margaret Thatcher. I have said nothing about Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, John Major, Harold MacMillan, Winston Churchill, or any other Prime Minister, and I don't intend to - for the simple reason that they are not comparable.

Different eras, different politics, different societies, different international collaborations and climates etc. Except for a very short period before and after an election it is pretty much an impossible task try and accurately compare in this way - it's just not comparing apples with apples.

What I am criticising Margaret Thatcher for are the areas I have mentioned and many more. I'm afraid you're clutching at straws by saying that the things I mentioned are opinion Andrew - they're not. They're established fact. And to those saying re: the Belgrano, 'what if we didn't and they came back', that's just not accepted military protocol - it's cold blooded murder, no more and no less, an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.

I'm not interested in what other prime ministers have done in this context, I'm interested in the evil acts that Margaret Thatcher carried out and oversaw. If you want, I can go on and list another half a dozen for you, and could keep on doing that again and again.

Apologists can go on apologising, but I'm afraid there is no way to cover up the policies and actions that have substantial evidence and are in the open, and as I said are evil and wrong regardless of your political persuasion.

Sadly, some people can never admit that either they are wrong, or that they don't know as much about a subject as they would like to believe.

[Jabberwocky]

The Belgrano was not endangering life whilst sailing away

[racechick]

I think the point Andrew is making is that you can apply those points you made to all political leaders. They all make mistakes and hindsight is a wonderful thing. The fact is she had principals and she stuck by them. She took difficult decisions and she put the country before her own political career. A lot of the lily liveried leaders who followed her would have done well to show some of her strength whichever side of the political divide they came from. Instead we now have indecision, mind changing, backtracking and huge debt.
I'm not particularly keen on Milliband but I thought his comments about her were respectful and very well said.

[zurich_allan]

But that's the problem racechick. For many political issues I completely agree that hindsight is a wonderful thing, as often the true positives or negatives of a policy are not known for years, or even generations to come. I completely understand that point and agree with it.

On the other hand, you don't and didn't need hindsight by the time the late '70's and 80's rolled around to know that racism was wrong, homophobia was wrong and supporting dictatorial regimes was wrong. That was simply common sense and only required ordinary human morals. Likewise, she didn't need hindsight before murdering a third of the crew of the Belgrano, she had expert military and naval advice that she chose to ignore - she knew at the time it was murder but decided to carry on regardless.

Those things were wrong at the time and didn't need the benefit of hindsight.

[1Lemon]

The loss of life on the belgrano was a terrible terrible thing, and I'm sure Thatcher regretted the loss of life under her command, she was a human not a monster. But I don't think that the invasion of a peaceful little Island and holding the islanders as effective prisoners of a military dictatorship was exactly the nicest thing to do.

[Jabberwocky]

However we are looking at the Balgrano with hindsight and not all the fact.who knows what other info they had available to them

[Ichabod]

The Belgrano was not endangering life whilst sailing away

The Belgrano was not sailing into port in Ushuaia, it was tracking north south 18 nautical miles outside the 200 nautical mile maritime exclusion zone
(During conflict a maritime exclusion zone is for other nations not involved to stay clear and safe)

On the 23rd April this was upgraded by the British in a message to Argentina via the Swiss to a Total exclusion zone( where any ship from any nation may be fired upon without further warning)

‘any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of the British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response’.

this means that any craft in the area that poses a threat is fair game and Argentina knew it. (the Belgrano was fully loaded with sea cat Missiles and had two destroyers with her that had Exorcet missiles)

British rules of engagement are that a Commander of any vessel must seek permission to fire from the highest authority in London
so this is where people get confused and think Margaret Thatcher gave a direct order to attack the belgrano she didn't

on the 1st may the Belgrano and the aircraft carrier Veinticinco de Mayo (who was with five other ships including two destroyers to the north east of the islands)
were given orders to to move in a pincer movement and commence a "massive attack" on the British task force
this message was intercepted by the British
the preferred target was the Veinticinco de Mayo, but the only submarine in the area was not close enough to engage
so it had to be the Belgrano claw of the pincer

on the 2nd may Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward gave the commander of the British hunter killer submarine Conqueror a direct order to attack the belgrano (Asking for permission to fire could take hours or days, but knowing his order would be routed through London it meant that he had either gone mad or their was a clear and present threat)
all Margaret Thatcher did was to authorise the direct order to Chris Wreford-Brown commander of the sub Conqueror.

The General Belgrano was a warship filled with over a 1000 soldiers in an active war zone. It was an act of war not murder

‘It was absolutely not a war crime,’ said the Belgrano’s captain, Hector Bonzo, in an interview two years before his death in 2009.
‘It was an act of war, lamentably legal.’

it wasn't a hospital or a school or civilian neighbourhood that was bombed
in a war started on fictitious claims of WMD being launched in 45 mins !

[1Lemon]

^ You Sir win the prize for arguing with facts.

[andrew]

Where Margaret Thatcher is concerned, the truth doesn't seem to matter. The misguided hate is that deep.

[racechick]

. Likewise, she didn't need hindsight before murdering a third of the crew of the Belgrano, she had expert military and naval advice that she chose to ignore - she knew at the time it was murder but decided to carry on regardless.

Those things were wrong at the time and didn't need the benefit of hindsight.

Then there is the literal murder of over 300 members of crew and civilans onboard the Belgrano as it was sailing away from the exclusion zone during the Falklands war - when she ordered it destroyed in spite of expert advice not to do so.

I'm not aware that Thatcher was a racist and homophobic, if thats correct, and I'm not saying it is, then that's something I abhor.
But I want to comment on your two statements above which I disagree with and believe you have the facts wrong.
Thatcher didnt decide against advice to attack the Belgrano, She and her war cabinet endorsed the attack on the advice of Admiral Sir Terence Lewin who had received information from British intelligence about a task force gathering south of the Falklands including an aircraft carrier in preparation for a huge attack. All ships had been ordered to join this task force by the Argentianian admiral...this is the message that was intercepted by British intelligence. the Belgrano was north of the islands and ordered south to join the task force. Though it appeared to be sailing away from the island it was in fact circling round to join the task force. In 2003 the captain of the Belgrano said in an interview that his ship was only temporarily sailing to the west at the time of the attack and his orders were to fire on any British ships in range.
The Belgrano was a warship containing Military people not civilians. There were only two civilians killed on that ship.
Calling Thatcher a murderer for that is a little rich. She was acting to protect British military and on their advice. After that the Argentinian navy withdrew and their airforce had to come from a land base not an aircraft carrier, so the airforce were also severely compromised.

Aggression and war are bad, but Britain were not the aggressors here. It's also a little know fact that Thatcher offered ceasefire terms until the first of June but Argentina refused.

Had Thatcher not agreed to her Admirals request, and agreed quickly and decisively, that ship would have joined the task force just south of the Falklands, and fired at will on any British ships in range and a whole lot more lives would have been lost. You can't dither in war situations.

Ok rant over.

EDIT: High five Ichabad. You beat me to it!

[andrew]

I'm not aware that Thatcher was a racist and homophobic, if thats correct, and I'm not saying it is, then that's something I abhor.

Would a racist and a homopphobe have been voted into power 3 times and stayed there for 12 years? I'm pretty sure there are a few homosexual and coloured voters out there. I'm not convinced they would have voted for her if she was that way inclined, but hey some folk are comparing her to Hitler it figures.

[racechick]

I'm not aware that Thatcher was a racist and homophobic, if thats correct, and I'm not saying it is, then that's something I abhor.

Would a racist and a homopphobe have been voted into power 3 times and stayed there for 12 years? I'm pretty sure there are a few homosexual and coloured voters out there. I'm not convinced they would have voted for her if she was that way inclined, but hey some folk are comparing her to Hitler it figures.

I imagine things have been taken out of context or twisted or just made up, as with the Belgrano example. But since I know the facts of the Belgrano but not anything about the supposed racism and homophobia, I decided to stick to the argument where I had the facts.

[LRW]

I'm not aware that Thatcher was a racist and homophobic, if thats correct, and I'm not saying it is, then that's something I abhor.

Would a racist and a homopphobe have been voted into power 3 times and stayed there for 12 years? I'm pretty sure there are a few homosexual and coloured voters out there. I'm not convinced they would have voted for her if she was that way inclined, but hey some folk are comparing her to Hitler it figures.

I imagine things have been taken out of context or twisted or just made up, as with the Belgrano example. But since I know the facts of the Belgrano but not anything about the supposed racism and homophobia, I decided to stick to the argument where I had the facts.

Problem is, a few people in here won't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

[andrew]

I'm not aware that Thatcher was a racist and homophobic, if thats correct, and I'm not saying it is, then that's something I abhor.

Would a racist and a homopphobe have been voted into power 3 times and stayed there for 12 years? I'm pretty sure there are a few homosexual and coloured voters out there. I'm not convinced they would have voted for her if she was that way inclined, but hey some folk are comparing her to Hitler it figures.

I imagine things have been taken out of context or twisted or just made up, as with the Belgrano example. But since I know the facts of the Belgrano but not anything about the supposed racism and homophobia, I decided to stick to the argument where I had the facts.

On the homosexuality thing she was actually an early backer of decriminalisation of male homosexuality.

And on South Africa: In October 1988 Thatcher said she would be unlikely to visit South Africa unless black nationalist leader Nelson Mandela was released from prison, and in March 1989 she stressed the need to release him in order for multi-party talks to take place, urging that the African National Congress's promise to suspend violence should be enough to permit his release, and that the 'renunciation of violence' should not be an absolute condition for negotiations for a settlement. At the end of March 1989, Thatcher's six-day, 10,000-mile tour through southern Africa—a follow-up to her 'look and learn' exercise in Kenya and Nigeria in 1988—did not include South Africa because Mandela had not yet been released.

These are the facts.

[zurich_allan]

. Likewise, she didn't need hindsight before murdering a third of the crew of the Belgrano, she had expert military and naval advice that she chose to ignore - she knew at the time it was murder but decided to carry on regardless.

Those things were wrong at the time and didn't need the benefit of hindsight.

Then there is the literal murder of over 300 members of crew and civilans onboard the Belgrano as it was sailing away from the exclusion zone during the Falklands war - when she ordered it destroyed in spite of expert advice not to do so.

I'm not aware that Thatcher was a racist and homophobic, if thats correct, and I'm not saying it is, then that's something I abhor.
But I want to comment on your two statements above which I disagree with and believe you have the facts wrong.
Thatcher didnt decide against advice to attack the Belgrano, She and her war cabinet endorsed the attack on the advice of Admiral Sir Terence Lewin who had received information from British intelligence about a task force gathering south of the Falklands including an aircraft carrier in preparation for a huge attack. All ships had been ordered to join this task force by the Argentianian admiral...this is the message that was intercepted by British intelligence. the Belgrano was north of the islands and ordered south to join the task force. Though it appeared to be sailing away from the island it was in fact circling round to join the task force. In 2003 the captain of the Belgrano said in an interview that his ship was only temporarily sailing to the west at the time of the attack and his orders were to fire on any British ships in range.
The Belgrano was a warship containing Military people not civilians. There were only two civilians killed on that ship.
Calling Thatcher a murderer for that is a little rich. She was acting to protect British military and on their advice. After that the Argentinian navy withdrew and their airforce had to come from a land base not an aircraft carrier, so the airforce were also severely compromised.

Aggression and war are bad, but Britain were not the aggressors here. It's also a little know fact that Thatcher offered ceasefire terms until the first of June but Argentina refused.

Had Thatcher not agreed to her Admirals request, and agreed quickly and decisively, that ship would have joined the task force just south of the Falklands, and fired at will on any British ships in range and a whole lot more lives would have been lost. You can't dither in war situations.

Ok rant over.

EDIT: High five Ichabad. You beat me to it!

Yet I'm afraid you're both wrong.

There was no provision under international law for the UK to implement a total exclusion zone. Thatcher and her advisers made up a fictitious law to suit their own ends. And it's there that every other piece of information you have both provided becomes completely irelevant from that point on.

In short - the UK had no legal right to create or declare a total exclusion zone, and the Belgrano was literally breaking no law by being where it was.

As such I'm afraid - again - you're both wrong - it was unquesionably not an act of war, but murder.

As a government of a soverign nation you can make certain laws to suit your ends, but you cannot unilaterally make up international law, which was what they effectively tried to do.

Don't forget - this is part of my job - I lecture international law for a living...