Margaret Thatcher was she really that bad?

Fratton Fred

I've no doubt Maggie loved the whole thing, just as she did the Iranian embassy siege. Apparently she became a bit obsessed with the SAS after that.

I don't think any other leader would have done anything much different though, not if they valued their position.

ejmaztec

Biggins wrote: »

Well if they had, if any country had in a similar situation or in any war, millions alone would have been saved with the non-use of weapons - besides the saving of any further possible lives.
But as there was no even attempted serious talks, that didn't happen either.

There was no way that the Junta was going to have a quiet chat about the situation. They were as intransigent as Maggie. Both Maggie and the Junta wanted to hang on to their respective power, and both sides realised that their power would be gone if their side lost.

I understand that the Argentinians intended to ship thousands of new residents to the islands so that they could vote on the sovereignty issue, but that never happened because they got kicked off.

Given the Junta's record for making people disappear, I wouldn't have been at all surprised had the British residents disappeared, to be later dumped out of planes over the South Atlantic like many Argentinian dissenters had been previously. If anyone considers the British to be bad, the Junta at that time was 100 times worse, their record on human rights was appalling. I think most of the conscripts were expendable illiterate peasants, and the Junta didn't really give a toss about what happened to them.

Biggins

ejmaztec wrote: »

There was no way that the Junta was going to have a quiet chat about the situation. They were as intransigent as Maggie. Both Maggie and the Junta wanted to hang on to their respective power, and both sides realised that their power would be gone if their side lost.

I understand that the Argentinians intended to ship thousands of new residents to the islands so that they could vote on the sovereignty issue, but that never happened because they got kicked off.

Given the Junta's record for making people disappear, I wouldn't have been at all surprised had the British residents disappeared, to be later dumped out of planes over the South Atlantic like many Argentinian dissenters had been previously. If anyone considers the British to be bad, the Junta at that time was 100 times worse, their record on human rights was appalling. I think most of the conscripts were expendable illiterate peasants, and the Junta didn't really give a toss about what happened to them.

O' no argument about the Junta.
Sadly the top people I think got away a great deal with their crimes, while the lower cannon-fodder once again paid the price of their orders.

BarackPyjama

Empathy and understanding are two good qualities for the leader of a powerful country to have. She didn't have them. Regardless of what you think of her specific policies, she was a horrid c**t of an individual.

Then again, we're not known to vote for decent people in this country either so it's hardly surprising that people are championing her on this thread.

ejmaztec

Biggins wrote: »

O' no argument about the Junta.
Sadly the top people I think got away a great deal with their crimes, while the lower cannon-fodder once again paid the price of their orders.

Standard procedure.:(

john reilly

ejmaztec wrote: »

There was no way that the Junta was going to have a quiet chat about the situation. They were as intransigent as Maggie. Both Maggie and the Junta wanted to hang on to their respective power, and both sides realised that their power would be gone if their side lost.

I understand that the Argentinians intended to ship thousands of new residents to the islands so that they could vote on the sovereignty issue, but that never happened because they got kicked off.

Given the Junta's record for making people disappear, I wouldn't have been at all surprised had the British residents disappeared, to be later dumped out of planes over the South Atlantic like many Argentinian dissenters had been previously. If anyone considers the British to be bad, the Junta at that time was 100 times worse, their record on human rights was appalling. I think most of the conscripts were expendable illiterate peasants, and the Junta didn't really give a toss about what happened to them.

sounds a bit like her majestys finest. ppacked off to norn ireland. argentina, afghanistan etc.

ejmaztec

john reilly wrote: »

sounds a bit like her majestys finest. ppacked off to norn ireland. argentina, afghanistan etc.

There's no need to hold back, get it off your chest.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Zaph wrote: »

I think you'll find the miners would disagree with you. And the steelworkers. And those who worked in what was left of the British motor industry

And why should the government have continued to artificially prop-up a loss making, inefficient and outdated industry?

Do you think it would have been better for the UK at that time to continue be held to random by unions that went on strike every 5 minutes if the government money being pumped into them to keep the whole sham together was threatened?

Bollocks. Its unfortunate that miners industry fell apart, but it did, and not due to one politician but because it was out priced and it's time had come.. From then on it was a massive drain on the taxpayer... the plug needed to be pulled and she pulled it.

Wouldn't mind but half the people here harking on about that are probably the same ones that hark on about public sector pay or any number or comparable things going on in the daily-moans here now.

Ireland could most definitely use a leader with her strength and conviction.

Nodin

nm wrote: »

And why should the government have continued to artificially prop-up a loss making, inefficient and outdated industry?

............

There were far more constructive ways to deal with the problem.

Yeah Yeah Yeah

The woman/thing was much worse than bad. Psycho.

K-9

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've no doubt Maggie loved the whole thing, just as she did the Iranian embassy siege. Apparently she became a bit obsessed with the SAS after that.

I don't think any other leader would have done anything much different though, not if they valued their position.

Was watching a BBC piece about the Falklands and the misguided nationalism and jingoism struck me. If it wasn't for the war so many who lapped all that up, would have been unemployed and big opponents of her.

Interesting back story was Blair fought his first election during the war, he was trounced, might even have lost his deposit. Fought it on an anti-war platform.

His lesson was wars can come in very handy and anti war protests, well meaning as they are, don't win elections, as we all know!

In an Irish context, Haughey's strident oppostion to the war didn't help him to build up a special relationship!

BOHtox

forfuxsake wrote: »

Labour repaid more debt than Thatcher.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/05/14/labour-repaid-much-more-debt-than-thatcher/

There would never have been peace under Thatcher and her contribution was nil. She recruited more into the IRA than they ever could have.

The problem with capitalism is that you use other people's money to pay off huge bank debts.

She made hundreds of thousands of people unemployed and then attacked them for being unemployed.

She was a terrible mother and a horrible person and even her own party realised this.

She not only treated the working class people of England with disdain but also her own colleagues and her children.

Ignorance is bliss. A true capitalistic government would have let the toxic banks collapse and leave the good aspects of good banks to be bought by a new company who would observe the errors of the past and not re-make them!

nm

nm wrote: »

Zaph wrote: »

I think you'll find the miners would disagree with you. And the steelworkers. And those who worked in what was left of the British motor industry

And why should the government have continued to artificially prop-up a loss making, inefficient and outdated industry?

Do you think it would have been better for the UK at that time to continue be held to random by unions that went on strike every 5 minutes if the government money being pumped into them to keep the whole sham together was threatened?

Bollocks. Its unfortunate that miners industry fell apart, but it did, and not due to one politician but because it was out priced and it's time had come.. From then on it was a massive drain on the taxpayer... the plug needed to be pulled and she pulled it.

Wouldn't mind but half the people here harking on about that are probably the same ones that hark on about public sector pay or any number or comparable things going on in the daily-moans here now.

Ireland could most definitely use a leader with her strength and conviction.

As a British person i am a firm supporter of what Thatcher did for Britain. She was one of the greatest leaders of our time. She made some mistakes towards the end but her overall contribution to the success of Great Britain was significant. I for one will be saddened when she dies, as I respect and admire her. Maybe you should read her official biography before making derogatory comments about such a great leader.

K-9

BOHtox wrote: »

Ignorance is bliss. A true capitalistic government would have let the toxic banks collapse and leave the good aspects of good banks to be bought by a new company who would observe the errors of the past and not re-make them!

Would you need a Capitalist Government in a truly Capitalist society? Why would we? Sure there'd be no problems for Government to govern?

Jimoslimos

BOHtox wrote: »

Ignorance is bliss. A true capitalistic government would have let the toxic banks collapse and leave the good aspects of good banks to be bought by a new company who would observe the errors of the past and not re-make them!

Ah, the no true Scotsman argument.

BOHtox

K-9 wrote: »

Would you need a Capitalist Government in a truly Capitalist society? Why would we? Sure there'd be no problems for Government to govern?

For services such as the Police, Fire, mountain rescue, infrastructure and a few more things. You'd need a government to stop anarchy but you wouldn't need income tax.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

As a British person i am a firm supporter of what Thatcher did for Britain. She was one of the greatest leaders of our time. She made some mistakes towards the end ...............

"towards the end"?

Lifted arms embargo on Pinochet in 1980...always refused to enact sanctions against apartheid SA and termed the ANC terrorists...the whole mine thing was mishandled from the get-go.....

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

As a British person i am a firm supporter of what Thatcher did for Britain. She was one of the greatest leaders of our time. She made some mistakes towards the end ...............

"towards the end"?

Lifted arms embargo on Pinochet in 1980...always refused to enact sanctions against apartheid SA and termed the ANC terrorists...the whole mine thing was mishandled from the get-go.....

One of the biggest mistakes was the management of the Poll Tax. It was really what marked her downfall.

K-9

BOHtox wrote: »

For services such as the Police, Fire, mountain rescue, infrastructure and a few more things. You'd need a government to stop anarchy but you wouldn't need income tax.

So what taxes are okay to pay for those services?

BOHtox

K-9 wrote: »

So what taxes are okay to pay for those services?

Well I mean there's a lot of taxes currently. Income tax only makes up about a third of taxation income for the government. There's still 2/3 of the income there. I'm sure you know what they are being a mod of the politics forum and all...

K-9

BOHtox wrote: »

Well I mean there's a lot of taxes currently. Income tax only makes up about a third of taxation income for the government. There's still 2/3 of the income there. I'm sure you know what they are being a mod of the politics forum and all...

So tax is okay? Fine.

Wouldn't be VAT, wouldn't be Capital Acquisitions tax, wouldn't be PRSI, definitely not PAYE as you said.

Only thing I can think of is you are in favour of a local services charge.

You would hate to see the poor guy whose house was let to burn down because he had no insurance, whereas the neighbours got the fire brigade, as far as I can tell. A Capitalist that sees failings in the free market, I like it.

BOHtox

K-9 wrote: »

So tax is okay? Fine.

Wouldn't be VAT, wouldn't be Capital Acquisitions tax, wouldn't be PRSI, definitely not PAYE as you said.

Only thing I can think of is you are in favour of a local services charge.

You would hate to see the poor guy whose house was let to burn down because he had no insurance, whereas the neighbours got the fire brigade, as far as I can tell. A Capitalist that sees failings in the free market, I like it.

I never said tax wasn't okay. The government needs money and it gets it by tax. There would be VAT etc.

I would say to the poor guy, when the government stops stealing 41% of his money or 20% as the case may be, to use that to get insurance. If you can't, I'd say prioritise. Give up smoking, drinking etc and pay for it that way. When regulations are cut and jobs can be created more easily, I reckon his wage would increase anyway. Besides, would you expect the government to pay for him? Should they steal my money by PAYE and give it to this guy who chose not to get it?

RichieC

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the biggest mistakes was the management of the Poll Tax. It was really what marked her downfall.

Yea fk the arms embargo. people were taxed!

K-9

BOHtox wrote: »

I never said tax wasn't okay. The government needs money and it gets it by tax. There would be VAT etc.

I would say to the poor guy, when the government stops stealing 41% of his money or 20% as the case may be, to use that to get insurance. If you can't, I'd say prioritise. Give up smoking, drinking etc and pay for it that way. When regulations are cut and jobs can be created more easily, I reckon his wage would increase anyway. Besides, would you expect the government to pay for him? Should they steal my money by PAYE and give it to this guy who chose not to get it?

Yeah, but we aren't talking about the current system, we are talking about this Capitalist Utopian society.

So why is VAT okay, a tax on spending, whereas a tax on income is theft?

BOHtox

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, but we aren't talking about the current system, we are talking about this Capitalist Utopian society.

So why is VAT okay, a tax on spending, whereas a tax on income is theft?

Taxing consumption is completely different to taxing income. People never see the money that's stolen from them but they spend their money on items and pay VAT on the good or service.
PAYE is a disincentive to work. VAT isn't.

K-9

BOHtox wrote: »

Taxing consumption is completely different to taxing income. People never see the money that's stolen from them but they spend their money on items and pay VAT on the good or service.
PAYE is a disincentive to work. VAT isn't.

VAT is a disincentive to spending as PAYE is a disincentive to work.

Interesting, VAT is a lesser evil than PAYE.

CiaranC

BOHtox wrote: »

For services such as the Police, Fire, mountain rescue, infrastructure and a few more things

So socialism for the stuff you want, but not for the things you dont. Brilliant! You better hurry over to Politics and join the other four libertarians in their quest for world domination

wendell borton

Biggins wrote: »

http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/
(Unitedpeople Ireland and 78,718 others like this.)

'Nuff said!

+1. Hated by the daily mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323596/Margaret-Thatcher-death-website-condemned-vulgar.html

jimthemental

Just went on After hours and saw Thatcher referred to in the past tense. Dammit man you can't go getting someones hopes up like that.

NinjaK

What a strange thread title in an Irish forum, imagine 'Albert Reynolds was he really that bad?' in an English forum?

forfuxsake

NinjaK wrote: »

What a strange thread title in an Irish forum, imagine 'Albert Reynolds was he really that bad?' in an English forum?

Yes, because he too was a global leader of historic importance who befriended dictators, became embroiled in a controversial war, stood against sanctions in South Africa, branded the ANC a terrorist organisation,invited the South African president to Ireland, backed and trained the Khmer Rouge.

If you are going to draw comparisons then think before you write.

Good comparisons for an English forum

Was Bush really that bad?
Was Stalin really that bad?
Was Gaddafi really that bad?

Bad comparisons for an English forum?

Was Kaczynski really that bad?
Was Mitterrand really that bad?
Was Helmut Kohl really that bad?

Before people have a discussion on whether somebody was really that bad, two conditions have to be satisfied.

1. The person must have a reputation for being bad.
2. The people discussing whether or not that said person was bad should have heard of the person.

If you think English people would have heard of Albert Reynolds then you are a silly billy.

conorhal

Zaph wrote: »

I think you'll find the miners would disagree with you. And the steelworkers. And those who worked in what was left of the British motor industry. Not to mention those who were caught up in the riots in Brixton. Or Toxteth. She was probably the most divisive political leader Britain ever had, and possibly ever will have, and only managed to stay in power as long as she did because some Argentinians decided to set up camp on a rock in the South Atlantic.

The blackouts, the brown outs, the rubbish strewn streets, the political paralysis (we're seeing a lot of that these days ourselves), the union stranglehold on any kind of change or reform (we're seeing a lot of that too)....

And Newton's third law of physics: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

I've no love for Thatcher, but all the above that you mention created her. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and the unions, the Labor party and the despair of a system slowly grinding to a halt were the crucible that created a monster just as surely as hyper inflation, depression and humiliation in post war Germany created Hitler.
FG and Labor, who are so intent on protecting special interests and screwing the voters to the wall as they pick their pockets should take note, so too should the ECB with it's punative insistance in 'reparations' for German bondholders.
Who knows what kind of monster the Irish will raise up, reach out to in their desperation, who knows what will rise from the ashes of our ruined economy?

Biggins

conorhal wrote: »

The blackouts, the brown outs, the rubbish strewn streets, the political paralysis (we're seeing a lot of that these days ourselves), the union stranglehold on any kind of change or reform (we're seeing a lot of that too)....

...Who knows what kind of monster the Irish will raise up, reach out to in their desperation, who knows what will rise from the ashes of our ruined economy?

Jedward!

Shelga

Nodin wrote: »

There were far more constructive ways to deal with the problem.

...Such as?

conorhal

Biggins wrote: »

Jedward!

*Shudder* So we're finally going to see Labor's 'rotating Taoiseach' idea come to it's awful fruition?

Biggins

conorhal wrote: »

*Shudder* So we're finally going to see Labor's 'rotating Taoiseach' idea come to it's awful fruition?

I'll believe it when I see it.

jimthemental

conorhal wrote: »

The blackouts, the brown outs, the rubbish strewn streets, the political paralysis (we're seeing a lot of that these days ourselves), the union stranglehold on any kind of change or reform (we're seeing a lot of that too)....

And Newton's third law of physics: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

I've no love for Thatcher, but all the above that you mention created her. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and the unions, the Labor party and the despair of a system slowly grinding to a halt were the crucible that created a monster just as surely as hyper inflation, depression and humiliation in post war Germany created Hitler.
FG and Labor, who are so intent on protecting special interests and screwing the voters to the wall as they pick their pockets should take note, so too should the ECB with it's punative insistance in 'reparations' for German bondholders.
Who knows what kind of monster the Irish will raise up, reach out to in their desperation, who knows what will rise from the ashes of our ruined economy?

Joe Duffy for Taoiseach!!!
:eek:

MadYaker

http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/

Dyr

jimthemental wrote: »

Joe Duffy for Taoiseach!!!
:eek:

There's people here who would vote Michael O'Leary in as Taoiseach for life.

"he'd sort us out" "Whip us michael ..oh god yes, we deserve it, whip us hard" etc etc

Gee Bag

NinjaK wrote: »

What a strange thread title in an Irish forum, imagine 'Albert Reynolds was he really that bad?' in an English forum?

Apples and Oranges.

Thatcher was in power for 11 and a half years, Reynolds less than two.

Thatcher's policies re Norn Iron and the EU had a major influence on Ireland.

Reynold's worked with John Major to help get the peace process moving.

BOHtox

K-9 wrote: »

VAT is a disincentive to spending as PAYE is a disincentive to work.

Interesting, VAT is a lesser evil than PAYE.

VAT is not a disencentive to spend. Everybody loves to spend. The more money they have the more they do spend. Even if there is a slight disencentive it's far outweighed by the abolishment of income tax.

CiaranC wrote: »

So socialism for the stuff you want, but not for the things you dont. Brilliant! You better hurry over to Politics and join the other four libertarians in their quest for world domination

That's not socialism. I don't think you understand socialism well actually it's obvious you don't. I don't want the government to be involved in anything that could be done better in the private sector. I don't think a private police force or army would work! Do you?

Fratton Fred

forfuxsake wrote: »

Yes, because he too was a global leader of historic importance who befriended dictators, became embroiled in a controversial war, stood against sanctions in South Africa, branded the ANC a terrorist organisation,invited the South African president to Ireland, backed and trained the Khmer Rouge.

If you are going to draw comparisons then think before you write.

Good comparisons for an English forum

Was Bush really that bad?
Was Stalin really that bad?
Was Gaddafi really that bad?

Bad comparisons for an English forum?

Was Kaczynski really that bad?
Was Mitterrand really that bad?
Was Helmut Kohl really that bad?

Before people have a discussion on whether somebody was really that bad, two conditions have to be satisfied.

1. The person must have a reputation for being bad.
2. The people discussing whether or not that said person was bad should have heard of the person.

If you think English people would have heard of Albert Reynolds then you are a silly billy.

ya gotta love after hours

Nodin

Shelga wrote: »

...Such as?

phased closures over a long period to allow retraining of the work force, bringing in new industries and the like.....

Manic Moran

Yes, that the story thats still coming from the British government now.
IF you can believe them and trust their ONE report!

What does it matter?

There was a war on.
ARA General Belgrano was a warship of one of the combatant sides.
HMS Conqueror was a warship of the other combatant sides.
One warship sinks another warship during a time of war. Even the Argentianian Navy and CPT Bonzo had no moral issues with the sinking.

Whatever Maggie's faults may have been, the Falklands War wasn't one of them. Started by Argentina, finished by the UK. To my knowledge, there was only a single incidence of an unlawful killing by either side in the war (Argentine prisoner shot by Corporal Gary Sturge, who was arrested on the spot), barring a possible case of perfidity by the Argentinians at Goose Green. It was quite possibly the cleanest, most 'civilised' major war (such as a war can be) of the 20th Century.

And frankly, like many, one which could have been avoided had the Junta not decided to distract the population from them by having a short, glorious war.

NTM

girl2

Aye. She was. The fukker.

Biggins

Manic Moran wrote: »

What does it matter?

There was a war on.
ARA General Belgrano was a warship of one of the combatant sides.
HMS Conqueror was a warship of the other combatant sides.
One warship sinks another warship during a time of war. Even the Argentianian Navy and CPT Bonzo had no moral issues with the sinking.

Whatever Maggie's faults may have been, the Falklands War wasn't one of them. Started by Argentina, finished by the UK. To my knowledge, there was only a single incidence of an unlawful killing by either side in the war (Argentine prisoner shot by Corporal Gary Sturge, who was arrested on the spot), barring a possible case of perfidity by the Argentinians at Goose Green. It was quite possibly the cleanest, most 'civilised' major war (such as a war can be) of the 20th Century.

And frankly, like many, one which could have been avoided had the Junta not decided to distract the population from them by having a short, glorious war.

NTM

You make valid points and I can understand where your coming from also giving your background too.
My point was that she could have been a better person and perhaps for the sake of being seen to doing a more decent thing, waited till the ship had re-entered the exclusion zone that by British and some international communities which agreed with England, gave them further justification in sinking it.

Instead, she will be remembered for many bad things - including the sinking of the ship while it supposedly was sailing away, showing its back.
If as B.I (British Intelligence) might claim, the ship was popping in and out of the zone, all they had to do was wait.
Its not as if they hadn't many radar capabilities and overhead tracking satellites to spot this and hopefully lie in wait.

I would never say (nor want to) the Junta were justified in originally doing what they did.
They were wrong plain and simple.
There was at least 300+ lives (many forced conscripts?) though on that boat, that where probably thinking to themselves "Thank heavens, we might be safe now that we are sailing away and are out of the exclusion zone."
Sadly, they were wrong.

If we just say "There was a war on" - well to some, that might read that as "Fair enough, that gives us justification to do just about anything we want."
While technically and perhaps legally correct at times, sometimes its also morally wrong.

Its food for further thought...

Fratton Fred

Biggins wrote: »

You make valid points and I can understand where your coming from also giving your background too.
My point was that she could have been a better person and perhaps for the sake of being seen to doing a more decent thing, waited till the ship had re-entered the exclusion zone that by British and some international communities which agreed with England, gave them further justification in sinking it.

Instead, she will be remembered for many bad things - including the sinking of the ship while it supposedly was sailing away, showing its back.
If as B.I (British Intelligence) might claim, the ship was popping in and out of the zone, all they had to do was wait.
Its not as if they hadn't many radar capabilities and overhead tracking satellites to spot this and hopefully lie in wait.

I would never say (nor want to) the Junta were justified in originally doing what they did.
They were wrong plain and simple.
There was at least 300+ lives (many forced conscripts?) though on that boat, that where probably thinking to themselves "Thank heavens, we might be safe now that we are sailing away and are out of the exclusion zone."
Sadly, they were wrong.

If we just say "There was a war on" - well to some, that might read that as "Fair enough, that gives us justification to do just about anything we want."
While technically and perhaps legally correct at times, sometimes its also morally wrong.

Its food for further thought...

Biggins, the Belgrano was with two other ships and operating as part of a pincer movement. The goal of this was to drive the task force away. That not only made it a Target, it made it a threat.

The war was in 1982 and what satellites there were in those days weren't looking at a bit of barren ocean in the south Atlantic. The only method the Royal Navy had for tracking the Belgrano was by the Conqueror keeping tabs on them, which is risky and unreliable.

I'm not sure if there were conscripts on board or not, but I'd be very surprised if the Argentine navy let their prize capital ship be driven by a bunch of kids. They would have been under no illusion though as to the position they were in. War is not a game of tag, you can't cry tacks and cross your fingers.

Manic Moran

Biggins wrote: »

My point was that she could have been a better person and perhaps for the sake of being seen to doing a more decent thing, waited till the ship had re-entered the exclusion zone that by British and some international communities which agreed with England, gave them further justification in sinking it.

The concept of giving the other guy a chance in a war went away about a century ago. They had all the justification they needed: It was a very dangerous ship, they had a limited opportunity to engage it, for all they knew the next time they saw it might have been when it came over the horizon to the task force, Exocet launchers and 6" guns blazing, which would have been the end of the endeavour. Wars aren't decent to begin with, so why should non-military perceptions of 'decency' come into it?

Instead, she will be remembered for many bad things - including the sinking of the ship while it supposedly was sailing away, showing its back.

It may be what she is remembered for, but that does not mean that the recollection is either accurate or justified. Unless people were worried about the dollar value of a couple of old torpedoes, there was absolutely no rational reason not to sink the ship. Plus, given that the incident pretty much sent the Argentine Navy home for the duration, the action may well have saved substantially more lives than it took.

If as B.I (British Intelligence) might claim, the ship was popping in and out of the zone, all they had to do was wait.

That was part of the problem: The ships were in the vicinity of the Burwood Banks, through which the British submarine could not track them. Hence the rather unorthodox exhange of radio transmissions within the British structure which was a serious "You need to look at this, and quickly" flag to the people in London.

Its not as if they hadn't many radar capabilities and overhead tracking satellites to spot this and hopefully lie in wait.

You would risk a war on 'Hopefully?' (And they did have radar tracking limitations, the Sea King AEW program was set up after the war to redress the fact that they had limited surface search capability with the fleet)

There are two practical problems with your proposal. Firstly, the fact that despite having been tracked earlier by an RN submarine, ARA 25 de Mayo (the aircraft carrier) had been lost by the Task Force. There was no reason to believe that the same could not happen with ARA General Belgrano. The TF couldn't do anything about the North threat now that they had lost contact with it, but they could do something about the threat from the South.

Secondly, only a couple of months before, Woodward had successfully completed a very similar exercise by getting his then-flagship, the destroyer HMS Glamorgan, into striking range of a US Navy aircraft carrier, despite its massively superior air and battlegroup capabilities compared to what the Task Force had to hand. If he was able to achieve it against the Americans despite starting 200 miles from the US carrier, he must assume that the Argentinians would be capable of doing the same thing to him.

The Royal Navy's position on ARA General Belgrano was simple. "If you want us to have the best chance of winning this war, that ship must be sunk while we have the opportunity."

Her way was to just go in as I said "guns blazing" and not even try to hold/seek any serious peaceful resolutions first.
After all, it would have been the sensible thing to do - did she do it or at least try? No.

Didn't really have a choice. With the coming of Winter, there was a very set date by which the landing had to have taken place in order to even leave the military option open. Argentina had a couple of weeks to decide to up and leave, further delay beyond that required for transit and preparatory operations prior to the British landings would have simply resulted in negotiations not having the fallback option of 'if you're going to continue being unreasonable, we'll kick you out'

NTM

Biggins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Biggins, the Belgrano was with two other ships and operating as part of a pincer movement. The goal of this was to drive the task force away. That not only made it a Target, it made it a threat.

But again, supposedly turning its back away, heading that way from the direction of conflict at the time and definitely outside the exclusion zone where all was told, if they then entered, they would be fired upon.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The war was in 1982 and what satellites there were in those days weren't looking at a bit of barren ocean in the south Atlantic. The only method the Royal Navy had for tracking the Belgrano was by the Conqueror keeping tabs on them, which is risky and unreliable.

You could be right but then again, who is to say what they were looking at at the time or if by some madness, lost their skills in being able to re-position anything that might be looking downwards.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure if there were conscripts on board or not, but I'd be very surprised if the Argentine navy let their prize capital ship be driven by a bunch of kids. They would have been under no illusion though as to the position they were in. War is not a game of tag, you can't cry tacks and cross your fingers.

Indeed not (and I never said or alluded that the ships were been driven by kids).
The fact is that on this particular incident, history (for all our debating here) has recorded the matter as yet again, as something that weights heavily against the woman, exposes her character and willingness to get her way at any price and disregard morals and/or decency when it suited her ire and wrath.
Sadly for all those that died on either side of that conflict, the list of dead went up another 300+ for that day, due to her very ire and wrath down (yet again) upon others.

History will continue to be her judge also.

Fratton Fred

The exclusion zone applied to non military ships. Several days beforehand the British had communicated to the Argentines that any ship or aircraft they considered a threat would be attacked. As far as the Argentinians were concerned, there was no exclusion zone.

The only people who hold this against Thatcher do so purely because they are looking for something else to hate her for.

It wasn't her demanding the Belgrano was sunk, it was the RN asking for permission to attack it.