The West's most embarrassing allies?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


So you think it was reprehensible to ally with Stalin in WWII?

morally , yes.

As I said to Siro, many things in this world aren't even about morality. The West allied itself with Stalin out of expediency or a common want of survival. It was certainly a necessary evil. It remains evil though.

What I find reprehensible is not necessary evil. Its an attempt to call it good.

Making allies with tin pots dictators because we were afraid that people might democratically chose socialism was in no convieable way a necessary evil. It was just plain, banal evil.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
5. Again, from what I understand, Pinochet and the military had their own motives, and were eager and able to move on their own.

DUH! Wow, right wingers in Chile had their own agendas..shocking.

Hello! The fact that people in Chile had their own motives for overthrowing the legitimately elected government is absolutely no way excuses the help given to those people by the US to carry out their crime. Being an accessory to a crime is still a crime.

6. According to wiki, 3000 political opponents were killed by the regime, not 30,000, and almost 1000 in the first 6 months. By the 80's they were relaxing many restrictions on civil liberties.

Great, great. So how many political prisoners were killed by the Allende regime?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
morally , yes.

Okay, I'm going to ignore you then, since your morality is obviously incompatible with any reasonable person's. That, or you're completely ignorant of the historical circumstances (which I think is unlikely).

[Kuciwalker]

btw:

reprehensible, ajd. deserving of reproof, rebuke, or censure; blameworthy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Okay, I'm going to ignore you then, since your morality is obviously incompatible with any reasonable person's. That, or you're completely ignorant of the historical circumstances (which I think is unlikely).

Um... did you fail to read the rest of his post?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Um... did you fail to read the rest of his post?

he tends to do that, then claims to have full knowledge of my positions.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... did you fail to read the rest of his post?

I did, it was all a distinction without a difference. To try to establish a class of actions that are "necessary evil" as opposed to "evil" or "good" is, at best, a silly exercise.

[fed1943]

The word to classify the support democracies gave to dictatorial
regimes is: mistake.

Actions like the support to the Chilian coup, just helped the communist
dictatorial side, not the opposite.

As I (and others) said: I do not fear commie propaganda set by
Russians or Chinese, but I fear the one set by you.

Best regards,

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by fed1943
The word to classify the support democracies gave to dictatorial
regimes is: mistake.

I'm inclined to agree, though not in the case of wartime alliance with Stalin.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I did, it was all a distinction without a difference. To try to establish a class of actions that are "necessary evil" as opposed to "evil" or "good" is, at best, a silly exercise.

No it isn't. A necessary evil is something that is required to be a part of the discussion when discussing the moral principles of good and evil (whatever you think they are). You can do morally evil things because they are required, but that doesn't make it good (or completely evil).

Another term needs to be created to describe such acts.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I did, it was all a distinction without a difference. To try to establish a class of actions that are "necessary evil" as opposed to "evil" or "good" is, at best, a silly exercise.

No kidding you always were Asher's poodle when it came to attacks on philosophy. You use words like morality but appear to have no clue as to their meaning or purpose.

Stealing a loaf of bread when you are starving is an immoral act. It is immoral because the owner of that loaf was not responsible for your sorry state, so why should they be robbed of their property to satisfy your needs? Yet If I were starving, I would have no qualms about stealing bread, or any other food. At that point my desire for survival would trump everything and anything else, including morality. But my act could in no way be labelled moral. It was expedient, necessary, useful, but never moral.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

There's nothing necessarily hypocritical there.

English comprehension 101:

she (Margaret Thatcher) proclaimed her support for

"freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to form free and independent trade unions..."

Margaret Thatcher's policy on G.C.H.Q. and the 'freedom of association' and 'independent trade unions' :

Workers sacked from the GCHQ spy centre for refusing to give up their union membership 16 years ago are to share a £500,000 compensation payout, the government has announced.

The 14 lost their jobs from the Cheltenham base after a decision by Margaret Thatcher's government to ban union membership.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/627574.stm

also:

....had Thatcher not destroyed his base by banning the 7,000 civil servants working at GCHQ, in Cheltenham, from belonging to a union. She did that, encouraged by Washington, against the advice of her own cabinet secretary and in defiance of the International Labour Organisation.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicsobituaries/comment/0,,1223993,00.html

just in case it's not getting through:

This move finally brings to an end a major cause célèbre in British industrial relations which began in January 1984 when the then Conservative government, under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, announced that GCHQ staff must either resign from their union or apply for a transfer, on the grounds that trade union activity jeopardised the continuity and security of GCHQ services. GCHQ staff who did not comply were dismissed. Those who remained were allowed only to join a staff association approved by the government. The government's action sparked angry trade union protest, and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) upheld a complaint by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) that the UK had violated ILO Convention No. 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise.

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/1999/01/inbrief/uk9901178n.html

Definitions of hypocrisy:

i) an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction

ii) insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have

Either you genuinely believe in the freedom of association and the right to organise when you say so, or you don't.

Why would a British Prime Minister grant Polish workers (citizens of a foreign nation) MORE human rights (internationally agreed rights, more to the point) than citizens of her own country ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. thats a book review about condor, I dont trust it as reliable on the history of the coup.

Why ? Do you have any reliable information that contradicts it ?

'Diary Of A Chilean Concentration Camp' by Hernan Valdes:

Last year the number of these camps almost reached the two hundred mark; in recent months the number has been considerably reduced- and some of the locations changed- but merely in the interest of greater discreetness and efficiency. Some of these camps have a stable intake of prisoners, those most directly involved in a political or administrative capacity with the Popular Unity Government, some of whom the Junta, under international pressure, has slowly been deporting to countries offering them asylum; the rest cater for short-term prisoners, who are subjected to 'treatment' lasting anything from weeks to months.

publ. Victor Gollancz Press, 1975

so the repression continued, well after the death of Allende and the military coup.

2. the info on condor lumps Chile in with Argentina and its dirty war.

I'm aware of that. Even historical enemies such as Argentina and Chile could cooperate on the elimination of political dissidents.

3. the US funded opposition to the Chilean govt, including opposition parties, media etc. Are you including all that in the amount for "funding the coup"

It also included funding truckers' unions and subsidizing the destabilisation of a democratically elected state.

Why does where the U.S. money went actually make any difference when it comes to the replacement of a democracy with a military crypto-fascist regime ?

Isn't the main issue the destabilisation of a country and the unlawful imprisonement, torture and death of its citizens, and American citizens too ?

4. As your own source states there was growing opposition from both right and left.

Which neatly scotches the idea of Allende being some hard-line Marxist dupe of the Soviets... this 'growing opposition' (at least on the Right) was funded and encouraged by the United States' government.

5. Again, from what I understand, Pinochet and the military had their own motives, and were eager and able to move on their own.

Err, even if that were the case, so what ? This military coup took place in a country which just happened to have mineral and ore supplies (and phosphates) that were worked or controlled by American companies.

6. According to wiki, 3000 political opponents were killed by the regime, not 30,000, and almost 1000 in the first 6 months. By the 80's they were relaxing many restrictions on civil liberties.

As I've said to others on this board, you'll have to find a more reliable source than Wiki. As for 'relaxing many restrictions on civil liberties by the 80s'- well whoop de doo!

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the elimination of any real local opposition, either through torture and breaking people down physically and mentally or by killing them or by sending them into exile, could it ?

After all, what would a cowed and leaderless population do with their 'less restricted' civil liberties, one wonders ?

Go hungry less quietly, I suppose.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Enforcing such law is hardly comparable to what happened in Poland.

Why was the law used in such a way ?

To genuinely preserve public order, or as part of a comprehensive government campaign against the trade unions ?

This really is disingenuity taken too far.