[FuXA8nQM]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Margaret Thatcher and her right wing governments simply decided to take the hypocritical stance of crowing about the lack of human rights (and workers' rights) in the Soviet Bloc, whilst doing their level best to take away human rights in the United Kingdom and to deter workers from striking or being able to join or remain in a trades' union. There's nothing necessarily hypocritical there. "Human rights" aren't some fixed bag of things people either have or they don't; people can have different conceptions of which rights are covered.

[mypharmalife]

BTW, the US has laws on what constitutes proper picketing as well. Its fair, to prevent picketers from interfering with others rights to enter a premises.

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

I would never have voted for Thatcher myself, but that doesnt mean she did what she condemned in Poland.

[gennickhif]

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.

[secondmortgagek]

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).

[priordine]

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?

[dhYTvlAv]

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.

[Pasy]

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.

[opdirorg]

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.

[Automobill]

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.