Is Saving £21000 Per Year Good
Family & Relationships1 min ago
Nelson Mandela Dies.
RIP.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ferlew. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If I'm not mistaken, Gorbachev also made visits to Canada and Germany... are the leaders of these countries also to be credited for destroying communism? Or changing the way that the Kremlin thought?
I'd like to reiterate I'm really not particularly "anti-Thatcher", I just find the idea that she was responsible for the Soviet Union collapsing a bit silly.
I'd like to reiterate I'm really not particularly "anti-Thatcher", I just find the idea that she was responsible for the Soviet Union collapsing a bit silly.
i don;t think she was responsible for it, however she was part and parcel of a movement to get the cold war ended, to get the sides talking, to get the wall down and for communism to be taking a back side in global politics. That is not to say that it worked fully, but the wall came down, and peoples, times have moved on.
"I can tell that hurt Kromo!"
All I've ever tried to say is that she didn't cause the SU to collapse. You don't seem to understand the difference between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying.
Do you seriously think the Soviet Union would still exist if Thatcher had not been elected? You don't think that Gorbachev would have become GS anyway due to his sponsorship by Andropov and the rapidly dying leadership? You don't think that the decades-long imbalance towards military spending which had ruined the Soviet economy had anything to do with it? You don't think it had anything to do with deep-rooted dissatisfaction across the Union because of poor standards of living juxtaposed with decades of promises?
Nope? Thatcher did it.
All I've ever tried to say is that she didn't cause the SU to collapse. You don't seem to understand the difference between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying.
Do you seriously think the Soviet Union would still exist if Thatcher had not been elected? You don't think that Gorbachev would have become GS anyway due to his sponsorship by Andropov and the rapidly dying leadership? You don't think that the decades-long imbalance towards military spending which had ruined the Soviet economy had anything to do with it? You don't think it had anything to do with deep-rooted dissatisfaction across the Union because of poor standards of living juxtaposed with decades of promises?
Nope? Thatcher did it.
@emmie "will the left going on defending the indefensible, and i am not necessarily talking of Mr Mandela"
Que? What have "the left" said/done to merit this charge? What "indefensible" are they "defending"? Do you mean in this thread, or just generally? Are you attempting to get win the "last comment in the thread" award, perchance? :)
Que? What have "the left" said/done to merit this charge? What "indefensible" are they "defending"? Do you mean in this thread, or just generally? Are you attempting to get win the "last comment in the thread" award, perchance? :)
-- answer removed --
that many on the left like the idiot Ken Livingstone have met and indeed condoned actions taken by so called freedom fighters, or some of the worlds despots, his meetings with various nefarious characters leave me in little doubt that it's ok to kill your enemy even if it is British citizens. having listened, watched him over time i wonder at the man's allegiance. George Galloway is another always ready to suck up to any ethnic group in Britain, for his own gains. There are many more, can't stand them nor indeed can i see that some on here who openly praise those who they considered freedom fighters people like Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, who murdered innocents in Ireland as well as here. who defend the Mau Mau no matter their actions.
Go on about Britain's involvement in the slave trade, and the empire, as if that was an evil beyond words.
The slave trade was i grant you wrong on every level, that is not in dispute.
Some are also quite happy to slam the police, and armed services of this country, who by and large i am sure are good people who do a decent, good job. There may be a few rotten apples, but that applies to all people
no matter where they reside and what job they do.
South Africa now has a man in charge who seems as bad as the likes of
Gadaffi, his record sheet is one long charge after the other, got out of a rape charge, and sundry other serious matters. I think that SA will go the way of Zimbabwe, Mugabe isn't the only megalomaniac in charge of a country.
This deification of Mandela isn't needed, he wasn't a global influence, he was a man who led his people for a time, did he leave a lasting legacy for his people, his country, no he didn't, because if he had it wouldn't still have so many problems. Shanty towns still prevalent, poor people still prevalent, and those in charge getting richer by the minute.
Kick the white out by all means, if that is what they want, can't see it will make much difference at the end of a long road, day.
Go on about Britain's involvement in the slave trade, and the empire, as if that was an evil beyond words.
The slave trade was i grant you wrong on every level, that is not in dispute.
Some are also quite happy to slam the police, and armed services of this country, who by and large i am sure are good people who do a decent, good job. There may be a few rotten apples, but that applies to all people
no matter where they reside and what job they do.
South Africa now has a man in charge who seems as bad as the likes of
Gadaffi, his record sheet is one long charge after the other, got out of a rape charge, and sundry other serious matters. I think that SA will go the way of Zimbabwe, Mugabe isn't the only megalomaniac in charge of a country.
This deification of Mandela isn't needed, he wasn't a global influence, he was a man who led his people for a time, did he leave a lasting legacy for his people, his country, no he didn't, because if he had it wouldn't still have so many problems. Shanty towns still prevalent, poor people still prevalent, and those in charge getting richer by the minute.
Kick the white out by all means, if that is what they want, can't see it will make much difference at the end of a long road, day.
emmie
"no he didn't, because if he had it wouldn't still have so many problems."
Forgive me, but I really struggle to understand large swathes of your post. This part however is rather spurious logic. Mandela did leave behind an aspiration that the process of developing South Africa could be done in unity between whites and blacks. South Africa could very, very easily have descended into violence and civil war. That they did not do so has a lot to do with Nelson Mandela.
Did he undo the legacy of Apartheid - the massive living standards disparity which resulted from decades of forced segregation - in six years? No. Of course he didn't. The reason he did not do it is because that is impossible. It will take decades for South Africa to overcome that, if it ever does.
As for the "terrorist" thing, I think there's some ambiguity you're failing to account for. If you are experiencing oppression and the legitimate means of protest are unavailable to you, what should you do? Just continue to put up with oppression, or aim to use sabotage? This isn't a question with an easy answer. Both decisions involve accepting casualties among people who are innocent.
For example, if there are any Zimbabweans left plotting to use violence against the Mugabe regime, I would be very reluctant to condemn them for it. The country is a wreck, it has not experienced growth for decades, and there is no institutional means of protest whatsoever. Is it really so easy to condemn someone in such a situation for picking up a gun? I'm not sure it is.
"no he didn't, because if he had it wouldn't still have so many problems."
Forgive me, but I really struggle to understand large swathes of your post. This part however is rather spurious logic. Mandela did leave behind an aspiration that the process of developing South Africa could be done in unity between whites and blacks. South Africa could very, very easily have descended into violence and civil war. That they did not do so has a lot to do with Nelson Mandela.
Did he undo the legacy of Apartheid - the massive living standards disparity which resulted from decades of forced segregation - in six years? No. Of course he didn't. The reason he did not do it is because that is impossible. It will take decades for South Africa to overcome that, if it ever does.
As for the "terrorist" thing, I think there's some ambiguity you're failing to account for. If you are experiencing oppression and the legitimate means of protest are unavailable to you, what should you do? Just continue to put up with oppression, or aim to use sabotage? This isn't a question with an easy answer. Both decisions involve accepting casualties among people who are innocent.
For example, if there are any Zimbabweans left plotting to use violence against the Mugabe regime, I would be very reluctant to condemn them for it. The country is a wreck, it has not experienced growth for decades, and there is no institutional means of protest whatsoever. Is it really so easy to condemn someone in such a situation for picking up a gun? I'm not sure it is.
-- answer removed --
