Margaret Thatcher was Britains greatest leader since Churchill. Discuss.

[Hauldren Collider]

In practice, they've given up on Taiwan. They haven't stopped *****ing about it, but they are not actually ever going to try to retake it. NOTE, this is evidence in favor of Britain being able to keep HK, as we've largely managed to evade the fallout of propping up Taiwan.

[molly bloom]

No, I get the picture. I think Hong Kong is different from all those places, and I already explained why. You, on the other hand, are a vitriolic idiot who selectively states facts learned on Wikipedia to support hypotheses that are only slightly more intelligent--but equally self righteous and filosofical as Boris'.

Dull and inaccurate, if slightly splenetic.

1/10, must try harder. 'Vitriolic'- did you learn that in special ed., recently, perchance ? Try using it in other contexts too.

[Hauldren Collider]

I guess you could call TJHSST "special ed", but that's not the meaning I think you are intending. I see you are making good use of the thesaurus--but really, I don't give a **** how many words you know. The statements you make with them are still stupid.

[MikeH]

In practice, they've given up on Taiwan. They haven't stopped *****ing about it, but they are not actually ever going to try to retake it. NOTE, this is evidence in favor of Britain being able to keep HK, as we've largely managed to evade the fallout of propping up Taiwan.

1. Taiwan's army has significantly shorter supply lines to defend Taiwan than the UK does to defend Hong Kong.
2. Taiwan is 120km from China, and would require significant naval support for an invasion, which they don't have. Hong Kong is attached to China. You can walk to it. A large portion of China's 2 million soldiers can walk to it, whilst the UK's 70k soldiers have to travel 10,000 kilometers.
3. The most powerful navy in the world has made clear that it will intervene to defend Taiwan from attack. Would the US back a UK defence of a colony they had promised to return? I doubt it. They didn't officially support us in the Falklands. Not to mention, the Chinese wouldn't need to use their relatively weak Navy to take Hong Kong.

It's a completely different situation. Comparing them is retarded.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Seriously, is HC really being this moronic? From reputation and treaties (like no one tries to enter into treaties anymore) don't matter to China wouldn't have done much to retake Hong Kong? Really?!

[Barnabas]

Thatcher tried to renegotiate the deal about Hong Kong with China a few years after the Falklands War, the Chinese literally said "We are not Argentina" and it stopped there.
England just wouldn't have been able to keep Hong Kong.

By the way, the military dictatorship who decided to invade the Falklands thought that the English would not bother to fight back. they thought it would be like the annexation of Goa (the Portuguese colony) by India, whichb had happened less than 10 years before the Falklands War if I recall correctly.
But then, Portugal is not England, and Argentina is not India.

[MikeH]

Seriously, is HC really being this moronic? From reputation and treaties (like no one tries to enter into treaties anymore) don't matter to China wouldn't have done much to retake Hong Kong? Really?!

Are you surprised? He's normally this retarded.

[MikeH]

Thatcher tried to renegotiate the deal about Hong Kong with China a few years after the Falklands War, the Chinese literally said "We are not Argentina" and it stopped there.
England just wouldn't have been able to keep Hong Kong.

By the way, the military dictatorship who decided to invade the Falklands thought that the English would not bother to fight back. they thought it would be like the annexation of Goa (the Portuguese colony) by India, whichb had happened less than 10 years before the Falklands War if I recall correctly.
But then, Portugal is not England, and Argentina is not India.

And we very, very nearly didn't win. Only a couple of minor things would have needed to change to swing things the other way. Then I suspect people would see Thatcher as one of our worst ever Prime Ministers.

[Dauphin]

1. Taiwan's army has significantly shorter supply lines to defend Taiwan than the UK does to defend Hong Kong.
2. Taiwan is 120km from China, and would require significant naval support for an invasion, which they don't have. Hong Kong is attached to China. You can walk to it. A large portion of China's 2 million soldiers can walk to it, whilst the UK's 70k soldiers have to travel 10,000 kilometers.
3. The most powerful navy in the world has made clear that it will intervene to defend Taiwan from attack. Would the US back a UK defence of a colony they had promised to return? I doubt it. They didn't officially support us in the Falklands. Not to mention, the Chinese wouldn't need to use their relatively weak Navy to take Hong Kong.

It's a completely different situation. Comparing them is retarded.

+Suez.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

And we very, very nearly didn't win. Only a couple of minor things would have needed to change to swing things the other way. Then I suspect people would see Thatcher as one of our worst ever Prime Ministers.

Yep. We only had two operational carriers, which is the absolute bare minimum for long-range operations- and one of them was half crippled with engine trouble.
On top of that, we ended up fighting a foot-slogging land campaign without clear air superiority. We were lucky.

[kentonio]

In practice, they've given up on Taiwan. They haven't stopped *****ing about it, but they are not actually ever going to try to retake it. NOTE, this is evidence in favor of Britain being able to keep HK, as we've largely managed to evade the fallout of propping up Taiwan.

If it wouldn't mean a war with the US (and the US hadn't been helping build up Taiwans military capabilities), Taiwan would have been part of the PRC years ago. There may very well come a time when America's naval strength ceases to be so totally dominant when it ends up being anyway.

[kentonio]

Yep. We only had two operational carriers, which is the absolute bare minimum for long-range operations- and one of them was half crippled with engine trouble.
On top of that, we ended up fighting a foot-slogging land campaign without clear air superiority. We were lucky.

Indeed. Peoples memories have started to fade of the British ships getting hit by Exocets and it all starting to look scary as hell. I was only a very small child at the time, but I still remember how nervous that time was.

[Hauldren Collider]

If it wouldn't mean a war with the US (and the US hadn't been helping build up Taiwans military capabilities), Taiwan would have been part of the PRC years ago. There may very well come a time when America's naval strength ceases to be so totally dominant when it ends up being anyway.

I doubt that highly. Top Chinese brass have admitted to the Pentagon that they are generations behind in military tech. A top general visiting the United States a few months back when Gates was still SecDef commented that China couldn't hope to compete with US seapower. I still don't totally understand why Americans are so worried about Chinese militarism. I'm not.

[Dauphin]

Top Chinese brass have admitted to the Pentagon that they are generations behind in military tech. A top general visiting the United States a few months back when Gates was still SecDef commented that China couldn't hope to compete with US seapower.

Well if they say it, it must be true.

[giblets]

No, I get the picture. I think Hong Kong is different from all those places, and I already explained why..

None of your "explanations" were valid. China was willing to fight the US right after a civil war (a conflict in which a US general wanted to use atomic bombs on China) but it would never challenge the UK? You are an idiot.