Emilio Valli •On the Falklands War, I agree, there are many questions not yet fully answered. But the fundamental question, from an observer like me, is the following: the issue had been on the table of British governments since 1965: if Britain was wiling to defend the islands by military force, why considering the well known Argentinian claims only 69 soldiers were permanently dislocated to the island when the Argentinians landed on 2 April 1982?
Keith Melton •My honest answer is that I do not know but my supposition is this:
1. British Government assumed the Argentinians were sabre rattling and did not believe they would be foolish enough to actually do anything about it.
2. Argentinian Government also counted the soldiers and assumed the British Government would not actually be bothered to do anything about it. Too far away, too much trouble. I am also guessing the Argentinian Junta, given their military backgrounds were typically chauvinists and thought that with a woman in charge they could just walk in and nothing would happen
The following reference – US Secretary of State Haig being quoted, I believe – is given in the Wikipedia article on the Falklands and seems to support my supposition….(“This was neither about national pride nor anything else. The junta —Galtieri told me— never believed the British would respond. He thought the Western World was corrupt. That the British people had no God, that the US was corrupt … I could never convince him that the British would not only fight back but also win [the war].”) La Nación / Islas Malvinas Online. “Haig: “Malvinas fue mi Waterloo””. Retrieved 25 October 2010. (Spanish)
Rocky Lockwood •I think her legacy can be summed up by pointing out that liberal democracies are still thriving. Arguably she was someone who played a fundamental role in bringing down the Soviet Empire. Too often we forget that when she took office there were no obvious signs that the USSR was going anywhere, if anything, they looked like they might actually reach the type of dominance that Kruschev had earlier predicted.
As far as the climate change issue, is there any consideration of the role she played in starting the global warming discussion in the first place. (and the motivations she had for doing so?)
Keith Melton •With respect to Climate change it has been suggested that Thatcher was using the Climate change debate to support her Government’s determination to move ahead further and faster with the Nuclear Power option. Having crushed the miners she was determined the Government would never again be put in the position of being blackmailed by any group of workers because they held the key to a major strategic need for the country.
In itself there is nothing wrong with this strategy but she was so incredibly confrontational about it and I believe the social structure of the country was badly damaged during these years, Yet another negative aspect of the Thatcher legacy.
I am not entirely convinced by Rocky’s use of the word “thriving” with respect to the liberal democracies, but will let it pass for the moment! And what have we got in place of the Soviet Empire – a few mega-rich so-called “industrialists”. Hmmm – but I didn’t like the soviet Empire either!