Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-18-2013, 09:49 AM
 
4,684 posts, read 4,563,896 times
Reputation: 1588

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinebar View Post
I just wanted to see if that poster would have the balls to answer the question honestly.
Umm...you have to ask?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2013, 09:51 AM
 
Location: The Cascade Foothills
10,942 posts, read 10,233,135 times
Reputation: 6476
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian View Post
Umm...you have to ask?
LOL

You're right. Whatever was I thinking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 11:38 AM
 
4,684 posts, read 4,563,896 times
Reputation: 1588
In regard to Thatcher's opposition to Commonwealth and EU sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s, I've just now read something rather interesting.

The memoirs of the British career diplomat Lord Gladwyn, published in 1972, contains this interesting passage, in connection with the League of Nations sanctions imposed on Italy after its attack on Abyssinia (Ethiopia):

Quote:
"My belief that the League could not by itself maintain the peace...was further strengthened by the evident failure of the 'sanctions' policy against Italy [in the 1930s]...I remember that when asked at the end of 1963 to associate myself with the International Conference on Economic Sanctions against South Africa (to consider measures in retaliation to 'apartheid'), I refused on the grounds stated. I had on that occasion a friendly letter from Harold Wilson who said that I was perfectly right" (Memoirs of Lord Gladwyn (Weybright and Talley: New York, 1972), p. 54)
This does not in my view necessarily excuse Lady Thatcher from a policy which, in hindsight, was clearly morally dubious if not incorrect on its merits. But it is interesting to note that apparently, within the British political establishment, including both a senior Foreign Office veteran and a future Labour Prime Minister (then Leader of the Opposition), the recollection of the futility of economic sanctions against the Fascist regime before the Second World War was shaping their views on sanctions after it.

In other words, placed into the context of the era during which Thatcher was forming her own views, her opposition to sanctions against South Africa looks much more like orthodoxy - on both sides of the political spectrum - than the blatant defiance of Western accepted moral standards it seemed in the 1980s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:08 PM
 
479 posts, read 1,430,127 times
Reputation: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinebar View Post


Are you always such a drama queen?

Were you this outraged when Bush didn't attend Lord Callaghan's funeral in 2005?

Was Bush "nothing less than treasonous" for not attending?

Or are there a different set of rules for this president?
This. Bush alienated and demonized anyone who didn't agree with him on everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 02:31 PM
 
46,889 posts, read 25,860,181 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian View Post
Wrong, wrong, utterly wrong. The reason no accredited ambassador attended is that there is no accredited ambassador to the Court of St. James. Mr. Louis Susman, the former ambassador, has recently taken leave of the Court. When there is no ambassador en poste, the chargé d'affaires (or in this case chargée, since our man in London is a woman, Barbara Stephenson), acts in the ambassador's place as head of mission.
Oh, you with your facts and knowledge and stuff. Bideshi needs to be outraged, and you're not letting him!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,475,124 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by butkus51 View Post
And people stupidly say Obama 'sent them'. He 'sent' no one. Obama has no authority over Schultz and Baker. Like I said. Obama can claim to have 'sent them' but it's a lie. What if they said they did not want to go? Please.
Like GHW Bush and Nancy Reagan???? They were invited, but did not attend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 07:07 PM
 
26,549 posts, read 14,396,403 times
Reputation: 7408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Oh, you with your facts and knowledge and stuff. Bideshi needs to be outraged, and you're not letting him!
i'd still love to know exactly who was sent to represent the US at callaghan's funeral in 2005. the few articles i can find have no mention of any US attendees.

with all the problems that the GOP is having "re-branding the message" i have to wonder if reince priebus screams "ST*U!!!" every time he sees a thread like this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2013, 03:05 AM
 
977 posts, read 762,243 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Of course he sent them. I've heard that he also asked President Bush Sr to go on the administration's behalf, but that request was refused because he is helping his son with W's Presidential library. So he requested Schultz and Baker to represent the United States at the funeral. If they hadn't wanted to go, he would have requested someone else. If the President requests that someone go there on his behalf, and they accept, then the President can be said to have sent them. Your quibble is ridiculous.
Really? How did he 'send them'? There is no quibble here. Obama wanted no part of the services in any way, shape or form. Otherwise he would have sent someone he had the authority to send.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2013, 03:06 AM
 
977 posts, read 762,243 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
it was a direct reply to your post.

( and i'm an indie ).
Riiiiiight. 'Indie' means you post as a lefty and claim 'indie' when called out as the lefty you are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2013, 03:08 AM
 
977 posts, read 762,243 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
i love that my belief that sending schultz and baker to represent the US at thatcher's funeral is a more appropriate selection than biden and michelle ( or others in the current administration ) makes me an "obamite" in your opinion.

You and others can claim he 'sent' Baker and Schultz all you want. It doesn't make it true. You can't 'send' what you can't control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:05 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top