Tweet
Pardon, but was solidarnosk organizing a state intell HQ? ISTR they were organizing a shipyard and similar heavy industry, the kinds of places that had routinely been unionized in UK, and even in the eevil capitalist US. Also, IIUC, Thatcher fired people. Is that what the Polish govt did? I thought they arrested people.
-
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber -
Well, most of our stands WERE hypocritcal. As we were talking about democracy and freedom (rather than our rhetoric being solely for capitalism) and then backing folks like Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, etc... the rhetoric tended to be contradicted.
Oh, and speaking of which, let me nominate the Shah of Iran... whose dictatorial regime led to a resurgence in Islamic fundamentalism, culminating in the Ayatollah Khomeni's rule of Iran.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
And to me, that merely shows the limitiations of the satirical approach. FDR and Ike supporting Darlan, thats funny. Right? FDR supporting Darlan, cause it might help to stop the gas chambers a little earlier, thats not so funny. But to ignore the latter in discussing FDRs and Ikes approach to Darlan, is to remove the context that is necessary for fairly judging FDR and Ike.Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Because I'm a Westerner and it appeals to my satirical instincts. A similar thread for the Eastern Bloc wouldn't appeal to me so much as there's less potential for irony/satire in showing dictators suppporting other dictators."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Stalin is a "good" candidate, as Saras said, though given the circumstances there was probably no other way....BlahComment
-
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, most of our stands WERE hypocritcal. As we were talking about democracy and freedom (rather than our rhetoric being solely for capitalism) and then backing folks like Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, etc... the rhetoric tended to be contradicted.
Oh, and speaking of which, let me nominate the Shah of Iran... whose dictatorial regime led to a resurgence in Islamic fundamentalism, culminating in the Ayatollah Khomeni's rule of Iran.
Pinochet achieved his coup on his own, though we signaled we would accept the coup. The initial coup was bloody, but the regime was more moderate afterwards, and ultimately left power peacefully, with only a minor push from us.
Iran under the Shah varied over time in its internal functioning, and had elected parliaments at various times. It was no model of western civil liberties, but it was hardly the totalitarian state it is sometimes implied to be. (I agree that not distancing from it earlier was a strategic mistake)"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
A bit like Saddam Hussein really...Originally posted by lord of the mark
Pinochet achieved his coup on his own, though we signaled we would accept the coup. The initial coup was bloody, but the regime was more moderate afterwards, and ultimately left power peacefully, with only a minor push from us.
Interesting that you appear to condone Pinochet's actions.Comment
-
The western leader who first embraced Stalin as an ally was Winston Churchill. Does that imply that WC was insincere in his long opposition to Bolshevism? That he was a neutralist socialist in disguise, who used anti-Bolshevik rhetoric purely to manipulate? Or that he was a pragmatist, who put preserving freedom and capitalism in Britain, which was immediately threatend by Germany far more than by the USSR, ahead of preserving freedom and capitalism in Lithuania?
Now maybe the US was not as threatened during the cold war as UK was during the 1941. There is reasonable debate about that, as well as about the extent of the threat to the UK in 1941. There is also almost certainly a difference between the threat we see, with 20/20 hindsight, and the threat as perceived at the time."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
I am not discussing Pinochets actions in order to judge Pinochet, but in order to judge US actions in "supporting" Pinochet. Clearly saying "Y is not so extremely bad that X can be held culpable for supporting Y" is not the same as saying "Y cannot held culpable for their own actions"Originally posted by MOBIUS
A bit like Saddam Hussein really...
Interesting that you appear to condone Pinochet's actions."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Because I'm a Westerner and it appeals to my satirical instincts. A similar thread for the Eastern Bloc wouldn't appeal to me so much as there's less potential for irony/satire in showing dictators suppporting other dictators.
Still, feel free to start a balancing thread.
Considered him an ally, and for the purposes of this thread that's good enough Here's "Time" from 1960.
https://<br /> <br /> <a href="htt...id=googlep</a>
"An unworthy ally" interesting article, worth reading.
Could we see a cite showing someone using the term "ally" for Trujillo, in a context other than trying to overthrow him?"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
While there was not a direct equivalence, Thatcher arrested a fair few people for trade union activity, and curtailed freedom of movement during the miner's strike. She set out to destroy the trade unions, and destroyed the coal industry and numerous communities as collateral damage. The economic reasons for provoking the strike were a fig-leaf.Originally posted by lord of the mark
Also, IIUC, Thatcher fired people. Is that what the Polish govt did? I thought they arrested people.Comment
-
When did Sadam have a stable period where dozens of thousands of peple at least were not dieing as a direct result of him every year?A bit like Saddam Hussein really..."The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.Comment
-
-
Do you have a year in mind?"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.Comment
-
I was thinking from after he brutally put down that Shi'ite rebellion encouraged by Bush snr who then stood by as Saddam massacred them with gunships etc...
Unless of course you are blaming all those countless sanctions deaths directly on him...?
Comment
-
Originally posted by lord of the mark
And to me, that merely shows the limitiations of the satirical approach. FDR and Ike supporting Darlan, thats funny. Right? FDR supporting Darlan, cause it might help to stop the gas chambers a little earlier, thats not so funny. But to ignore the latter in discussing FDRs and Ikes approach to Darlan, is to remove the context that is necessary for fairly judging FDR and Ike.
It's for precisely that reason that I didn't start with someone like Stalin. Think of the equation for qualification as thus-
Monstrousness of regime x pointlessness of supporting them
It wasn't particularly embarrassing to ally with Stalin. Needs must when the devil drives. But Trujillo?The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil FinlandComment
Comment