[ Parent ]

I think these claims ARE true. Out of masochism? No. She was told that interest rates would go up if she persued monetraism. Tough. She was told of 60% unemployment in areas of Liverpool. Her answer was pretty much, mow your garden.

Of course it is true, whether you like her or not. She was right, you were wrong. She would not back down. Her way or the high way. That was her whole approach, and if there were disasterous consequences to her policies? Tough.

[ Parent ]

[ Parent ]

[ Parent ]

“I find the idea that she played a significant role in defeating communism hyperbolic-likewise for Reagan.”

Unfortunately it’s how history has been written, Regan and Thatcher launched aggressive Free Market economics and military build-up that brought the ailing Soviet union to it’s knees.

The last time the USSR would have won was in 1985 and it was only because Thatcher and Regan stopped having a row over everything every 20 minutes that things began to go well for the West.

From 1948-85 the USSR could have invaded and won by conventional forces alone, it’s why NATO always had the nuclear release as the first option, rather than the final one.

“First of all, anyone who opposed the US was somehow a Soviet flunky. This is why they armed fascist contras in Nicaragua, and installed tyranny in Chile.”

This was because they largely were. Most terror groups against “The West” got funding from the USSR at one time or another including in Chilie and, oddly enough, the IRA.

It was all part of the “great game” that the Cold War simply was. While Pinochet was indeed a tyrant, he set into motion free market reforms that saw Chilie’s economy get turned from a Marxist basket case into a vibrant and competetitive market.

“South Africa and Iraq were considered on the side of freedom. If Reagen played a small part in overthrowing communism, then his cronies played a big part in installing tyrannies everywhere. IMF Thatcherism destroyed Russia, and it has lead to a big rise in fascism there.”

During that time there was the anti-apartheid movement here in the UK and in the USA that changed South Africa, we also embargoed Iraq at a later date, the fact was the Middle East became a key Cold War Battleground, and for a long time we were on the backfoot before we wooed Iraq over.

The problem with Russia was that it likes autocracy of some description, they’ve never had a proper free market before and the ability to choose parties, so they blithely picked one and have stuck with it because it barks out rhetoric that had become ingrained into the psyche of older and younger Russians from the Soviet era.

“No serious historian says that the two were the major factor in defeating the Soviets.”

Partial truth, they contributed by nudging the free market and building up the economy, but Communism and its over-centralization was inherently flawed to begin with, had not the arms race began it‘s entirely likely the USSR would still be with us, but as a basket-case economic bloc.

While perhaps not pivotal, they will be associated with it because they led the country at the time. Much in the way Churchill is associated with winning WW2 without physically grabbing a rifle and running off to bayonet Hitler’s backside while giving Mussolini a good biffing while he was at it.

“We cannot win this new war of tyranny against us if we....er....establish tyranny when we don't like a democratic government. After WW2, we said to the Saudis, we don't care who controls your oil, we just need it now. So we suppressed a generation of Middle Eastern democrats.”

John Westwood from The History of War in the Middle East. [ISBN 1-57215-371-7] also laments this point, and blames both the USSR and the USA at the time as well as general post-imperial collapse with no proper provision for a change from “good government“ to “Democratic Government“.

The winds of change were beginning to sweep through the Middle East, but the USSR stepped in first, bolstering places such as Syria and Egypt with arms sales and ‘technicians’ this resulted in the USA responding in kind with other regimes in the Middle East at the time out of sheer desperation because of both sides dependency on the Middle Eastern Oilfields.

With the USSR also arming and encouraging the arab states into attacking the only free-state success story of the Middle-East [Israel] also prompted the USA taking on unsavoury regimes and keeping them sweet.

The present US-influence method is to slowly encourage various states into democratic elements to ensure there is no chaos or culture shock after 60 years of largely autocratic regimes.

Most states in the Middle East bar Iran and Syria now hold elections of some form that are ‘fair’. However, for the time being the electorate is limited [as in Saudia Arabia], or is largely an advisory body [As in Qatar].

“It is not a legitemate philosophy to say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is how we overthrew Mossadeq, Allende, the Sandinistas etc. America has got caught up in needless wars, to serve their own business and anti-Communist interests. They all admitted that with a fair election, Ho Chi Mingh would win in Vietnam.”

As part of the Truman doctrine, while unfortunate, at the time it was necessary to oppose the ‘next great threat’ of the era, which Communism was.

It was an oppressive and meddling way of life with economy ruin lying largely at the end of it in it’s purest form.

Not to mention the masses of deaths of intellectuals [Pol Pot], farmers being forced into collectivisation or shot [Russia], students towing the party line or getting shot [China], crushing democratic uprisings [Hungary] etc etc etc…

“But what can you do when Pepsi tells you to invade Chile, or the United Fruit Company tells you to march into Latin American countries, or Car companies tell you to storm Cuba, or BP says you should crush a democratic government in Iran? You can refuse. But if you believe the free market is right, no matter what, the idea of refusing businesses gets thrown out of the window.”

Half truths again. While companies have influence over governments at times it’s a bit much to say that they have the control over government in the same was as the corporations do in Max Barry’s novel “Jennifer Government.” [ISBN 0-385-50759-3]

Also, lets go through each in turn.

The UFC didn’t order the invasion of Panama and Noregia was there undemocratically.

Chile was on the verge of collapse from the weak Marxist governments and Pinochet [Perhaps with the blessing, if not encouragement by the West] went and took his chance.

Cuba was a country run by the mob, but Castro, it turned out was no better. Turning Cuba from corrupt, but at least prosperous to corrupt and a basket case [He’s admitted his greed got the better of him in a candid interview in around 2003]

Iran was a highly difficult issue, BP largely decried over the issue, but with the US at the time very jumpy with the “Reds under the beds” issues and the height of the Cold War enacted Operation Ajax to remove the nationalising Dr Mosaddeq.

[Do remember, at this time Nationalizing things was considered communistic by some and actual led to the USA refusing to hand over the secrets of the Atomic Bomb for a short Period of time during the Atlee Government]

For us to keep going over history with our own morality and moral world view is pointless, to blame one side or the other continuously is pointless.

They were the leaders of the nation at the time and will thus always be attributed to defeating communism simply because they were in the right place at the right time.

[ Parent ]