Falklands War II? Britain says it is prepared to protect the islands
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Is this the same Thatcher who resigned in disgrace, who was thrown out of the office by her own Party? The only PM in British history to be thrown out by her own party (when she didn’t want to leave)?
Well, did she resign or was she thrown out of office by her own party? Make up your mind.
Margaret Thatcher resigned for the good of the Conservative Party, and it certainly was NOT in disgrace. She was the longest serving and only female Prime Minister.
But it is a known fact that the British are the World Champion back-stabbers. Why would they have not done the same to Lady Thatcher what they did to the one who saved their sorry hides, Winston Churchill?
And besmirch her any dirty, lowdown, typical liberal way you like, she DID succeed in beating Argentina and retain the Falkland Island for Britain.
Margaret Thatcher resigned for the good of the Conservative Party, and it certainly was NOT in disgrace. She was the longest serving and only female Prime Minister.
But it is a known fact that the British are the World Champion back-stabbers. Why would they have not done the same to Lady Thatcher what they did to the one who saved their sorry hides, Winston Churchill?
And besmirch her any dirty, lowdown, typical liberal way you like, she DID succeed in beating Argentina and retain the Falkland Island for Britain.
Last edited:
She did resign in disgrace, YJ. She did not resign for the good of the party; she resigned because she was going to be booted out of the office by her own party. I suggest you read the history of that period.
Her party engineered the coup when she was out of the country. They held a leadership review, and in that, she got less than half the votes. She had an opponent, Michael Heseltine, her long time enemy.
Then she put forth her name for the second round, she herself said so (she was still out of the country when she made that announcement). Apparently what happened (these things are not made public, of course, but there were strong rumours to that effect) was that more than half the Tory MPs visited her and told her of their intention to vote against her. That would have meant Heseltine becoming the PM, Thatcher simply could not stand the fellow. So the two of them came up with a compromise candidate, John Major and they both withdrew in his favour.
So yes, she was thrown out by her own party. But she resigned in disgrace so that she may have some say in choosing the successor. Major was by no means a Thatcherite (he was a moderate), but he was not Heseltine, and Thatcher had to settle for that.
So yes, your heroine was thrown out very much in disgrace, the only British PM to be subject to the ignominy.
Her party engineered the coup when she was out of the country. They held a leadership review, and in that, she got less than half the votes. She had an opponent, Michael Heseltine, her long time enemy.
Then she put forth her name for the second round, she herself said so (she was still out of the country when she made that announcement). Apparently what happened (these things are not made public, of course, but there were strong rumours to that effect) was that more than half the Tory MPs visited her and told her of their intention to vote against her. That would have meant Heseltine becoming the PM, Thatcher simply could not stand the fellow. So the two of them came up with a compromise candidate, John Major and they both withdrew in his favour.
So yes, she was thrown out by her own party. But she resigned in disgrace so that she may have some say in choosing the successor. Major was by no means a Thatcherite (he was a moderate), but he was not Heseltine, and Thatcher had to settle for that.
So yes, your heroine was thrown out very much in disgrace, the only British PM to be subject to the ignominy.
Last edited:
It wasn't because she defeated Argentina that she had to resign. She did what had to be done back then. Hope for the sake of British citizens living in the Falkland Islands that they don't have a President Obama or H. Clinton to rely on for a quick on time reaction from.
She won an election because she defeated Argentina in the war; it worked out very well for her.
But face it; she was too extreme for Britain. Her party tolerated her for so long because she kept winning elections (she won three in a row). But in the end even the Tory party had enough of her extremism, her autocratic, dictatorial ways.
The final blow came when she introduced a poll tax, a highly regressive, extremely nasty tax (where everybody paid the same amount of tax, the same amount of money regardless of their income or lack of income). Then one of her very loyal supporter, who had been with her since the very beginning (Sir Jeffrey Howe) resigned from the cabinet.
The very next day he made a speech in the House of Commons, in effect saying ‘throw the bum out’. And the Tory MPs took his advice.
But no, she did not resign because of Falklands war, the war worked out very well for her.
As to that, Clinton was the one who started the war against Serbia. At that time Republicans opposed him tooth and nail (the only time Republicans have opposed a war), for no other reason than that Clinton had started it, not a Republican (the visceral hatred by Republicans of Clinton is well known). They opposed Serbian action purely for political reason. Indeed, the Republican hatred for Clinton overcame their love for war, it was stronger than their love for war.
Indeed, when the Serbian action was going on Republicans were busy impeaching Clinton for partisan, political reasons.
If the PM, whoever he is, decides to sent a fleet to Falklands, he can at least rely on the support of the whole Parliament. In Britain foreign policy is not a political football, not something that politicians manipulate for political advantage, like they do in USA.
If Obama starts any war abroad, he can count on uncompromising, total hostility form the Republicans, for no other reason than that a Republican did not start the war, a Democrat did. Republicans hate Obama even more than they hated Clinton, if such a thing is possible.
Republicans have not yet come across a war they did not like, unless one is started by a democrat (like the Serbian war).
Most wars the U.S. were involved in during the 20th century a Democrat was President. I was only referring to those I mentioned.
Quite so. At that time Argentina was a military dictatorship. The military was trained for oppression inside the country; it was trained for putting down the riots or the rebellion by the common rabble. It was not trained for war with a military power like Britain.
Indeed, Argentina lost each and every skirmish. The only success they had was torpedoing of HMS Sheffield, which resulted in large loss of life on the part of Britain. Other than that, they lost each and every battle. Britain’s plan to take back South Georgia and Falklands proceeded almost unhindered.
Later on it turned out that they made a serious miscalculation, they did not expect to fight a war. The foreign Minister told the military generals that if capture of Falklands was achieved without any loss of British life, without spilling any British blood, then Britain will not retaliate. As it turned out, the advice was horribly wrong. It was not only Thatcher and the Tories, but the entire country supported the military action by Britain. The opposition Labour Party, if anything was even more hawkish than Tories.
But as it turned out, Argentinean military was totally unprepared for war.
Surely you jest. The military action against Granada, invasion of Panama (where USA arrested the Panama dictator Noriega), the guerrilla war in Nicaragua, war to liberate Kuwait, Afghanistan war, Iraq war, all were started by Republicans, and Republicans enthusiastically supported all of them. The only war they had a problem with was the Serbian war, and there the visceral hatred of Clinton overcame their love for war.
Last edited:
You call Panama, Nicaragua wars, they were police actions. Granada was a rescue mission (American students caught up in a Communist take over). Yes, Americans supported all of them when they started, except Iraq.
She was dumped for the same reasons daddy Bush was thrown out. ("Read my lips, no more taxes") You don't say that and go back on your word.
The puppy, in this case, has a few good points: Maggie was chucked because of the poll tax, amongst other things. Both she and Ronnie Raygun had run their course, and had not much else to offer but more poverty.
ergo
:canada:whatever
Really? When is a police action not a war? You are simply quibbling.
And Granada a rescue mission? What are you talking about? It was purely invasion of Granada by USA to oust the Granada government. USA simply invaded a tiny country of 100,000 population and got rid of the government.
The invasion was criticized by Canada, Britain and UN General Assembly. It was regarded as flagrant violation of international law.
And I was not talking of Americans supporting any of these wars; they may well have, that is not the point. The point is, Republicans enthusiastically supported all these wars, the only war they were against was the Serbian war, purely because Clinton started it. Their hatred for Clinton was much stronger than their love for war.
That was only the tip of the iceberg, ironsides. You don't get rid of a PM with a big majority simply over one tax. Things were slowly building up, the poll tax was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.
There was no other real reason. She was and is the Iron Lady. There has been no PM of her caliber till Tony Blair came along. Now that he is gone, we shall see who really is in power there..
I don't want to go through the entire Thatcher history, you can read that for yourself. But there were plenty of other reasons, the resentment against Thatcher was building up for a long time. She had made many enemies (within her own party) and she had very few friends (she was not the type to make friends, to form alliances etc.). So when the knives came out, there was nobody to support her.