A blog by Luke Akehurst about politics, elections, and the Labour Party - With subtitles for the Hard of Left.
Just for the record: all the views expressed here are entirely personal and do not necessarily represent the positions of any organisations I am a member of.
Pages
▼
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Pinochet dead ...
part of me wants to celebrate, part of me to regret that he did not live long enough to be brought to justice by the courts in Chile.
Why am I the hypocrite? I am on record as opposing both the crimes of Saddam Hussein and Western imperialism. You, on the other hand, will only kick up a fuss when civilians are murdered by enemies of Western power. When they are slaughtered in their hundreds of thousands by Bush and his allies, you say nothing. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.
Furthermore, Saddam and Pinochet were both US-created monsters. Both were installed with US support; and both were funded and armed by US power. Saddam's most heinous crimes were committed when he enjoyed Western patronage.
To be quite frank, until you start denouncing the fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered by the US and its allies, your crocodile tears for those butchered by Saddam Hussein will be taken seriously by no-one.
Rubbish! Not one Iraqi has been "slaughtered by the US and its allies", it's the terrorists, or "the resistance fighters we must support" according to your mate Galloway who are responsible for the butchery, and unless you get that through your skull no-one will believe a word you say.
Need I remind you of what your pal Galloway said to Saddam ...
Not one Iraqi has been "slaughtered by the US and its allies"
Sham,
The above comment demonstrates how utterly insane you actually are. Given your complete lack of any grasp on reality, I will no longer indulge any further comment. I will ignore your comments (given their only intention is wind people up) and urge others to do likewise.
That's a bit rich coming from someone who's so in the real world that he has to post under the pseuodonym "Harry Perkins".
Surely imagining yourself to be a fictional character demonstrates how utterly insane you actually are???
Get back to me when you're ready to re-join the real World, when you decide to engage your brain and criticise lover-boy Galloway and when you've got the guts to comment under your own name, you coward.
Regardless of what they've done in their own country? Be it Pinochet overthrowing the democratically elected government of Allende and torturing, raping and murdering his opponents ... or how about Hitler???
No. I believe in a prudent, conservative foreign policy. This means that I'd seek to destrpy only the most pressing foreign threats. THIS means I'd look to Pakistan to help me with Afghanistan, the USSR to help me in the fight against Nazi Germany, and Chile against Argentina. This isn't new to Britain.
Your comment about Hitler is rather delirious. I would have viewed him as the main threat to British interests therefore I would never have alligned with him. I would however have embraced the idea of working with Stalin's USSR.
Regardless of their treatment of their civilians? In some cases - when my key interests are at stake. Re. Pinochet - we've worked with a lot worse dictators in the past! I love this 'moral' standpoint of how we shouldn't allign with states that 'torture, rape etc...' but we SHOULD invaded this countries and cause even greater civil strife and insecurity than what was there before.
In terms of working with "the least worst option" that's a fair point, certainly regarding Stalin in WW2.
But I don't see how it works with Pinochet. Surely Britain could have taken back the Falklands without his help? (This is only partly rhetorical, I genuinely don't know the answer).
And in any case, I simply cannot understand the support accorded him by Lamont and Thatcher when he was arrested, years after both he and they were deposed. I can't see any strategic interest there!
"The Chileans allowed disassembled aircraft to be shipped in for British use. But by far the most important assistance was intelligence. A long-range military radar was installed opposite Argentina's Comodoro Rivadavia air base. With this equipment, the Chileans provided the Task Force with minute-to-minute information on Argentine aircraft movements, so the Task Force commander could prepare his ships' defences and scramble fighters to intercept. On June 8, however, the long-range radar had to be switched off for overdue maintenance. Argentine aircraft were thus able to launch a surprise attack, sinking the troopships Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram, with terrible casualties. Whether Britain could have won the Falklands War without Chile's help is debatable. Whether it could have done so without far greater loss of lives is simply not. Pinochet, who took every key decision, fully deserved Mrs Thatcher's gratitude."
We find ourselves agreeing with you, comrade Akehurst.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we hope that you will draw the conclusions we have about the crimes of American power.
How about the crimes of the Left - standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Saddam in his hour of need ...
ReplyDeleteHarry, your hypocrisy is nothing short of scandalous!
Why am I the hypocrite? I am on record as opposing both the crimes of Saddam Hussein and Western imperialism. You, on the other hand, will only kick up a fuss when civilians are murdered by enemies of Western power. When they are slaughtered in their hundreds of thousands by Bush and his allies, you say nothing. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Saddam and Pinochet were both US-created monsters. Both were installed with US support; and both were funded and armed by US power. Saddam's most heinous crimes were committed when he enjoyed Western patronage.
To be quite frank, until you start denouncing the fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered by the US and its allies, your crocodile tears for those butchered by Saddam Hussein will be taken seriously by no-one.
Rubbish! Not one Iraqi has been "slaughtered by the US and its allies", it's the terrorists, or "the resistance fighters we must support" according to your mate Galloway who are responsible for the butchery, and unless you get that through your skull no-one will believe a word you say.
ReplyDeleteNeed I remind you of what your pal Galloway said to Saddam ...
Not one Iraqi has been "slaughtered by the US and its allies"
ReplyDeleteSham,
The above comment demonstrates how utterly insane you actually are. Given your complete lack of any grasp on reality, I will no longer indulge any further comment. I will ignore your comments (given their only intention is wind people up) and urge others to do likewise.
Given your complete lack of any grasp on reality
ReplyDeleteThat's a bit rich coming from someone who's so in the real world that he has to post under the pseuodonym "Harry Perkins".
Surely imagining yourself to be a fictional character demonstrates how utterly insane you actually are???
Get back to me when you're ready to re-join the real World, when you decide to engage your brain and criticise lover-boy Galloway and when you've got the guts to comment under your own name, you coward.
Never got this British objection to siding with Pinochet. I'll take my allies when I can get them.
ReplyDeleteI'll take my allies when I can get them.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what they've done in their own country? Be it Pinochet overthrowing the democratically elected government of Allende and torturing, raping and murdering his opponents ... or how about Hitler???
No. I believe in a prudent, conservative foreign policy. This means that I'd seek to destrpy only the most pressing foreign threats. THIS means I'd look to Pakistan to help me with Afghanistan, the USSR to help me in the fight against Nazi Germany, and Chile against Argentina. This isn't new to Britain.
ReplyDeleteYour comment about Hitler is rather delirious. I would have viewed him as the main threat to British interests therefore I would never have alligned with him. I would however have embraced the idea of working with Stalin's USSR.
Regardless of their treatment of their civilians? In some cases - when my key interests are at stake. Re. Pinochet - we've worked with a lot worse dictators in the past! I love this 'moral' standpoint of how we shouldn't allign with states that 'torture, rape etc...' but we SHOULD invaded this countries and cause even greater civil strife and insecurity than what was there before.
In terms of working with "the least worst option" that's a fair point, certainly regarding Stalin in WW2.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't see how it works with Pinochet. Surely Britain could have taken back the Falklands without his help? (This is only partly rhetorical, I genuinely don't know the answer).
And in any case, I simply cannot understand the support accorded him by Lamont and Thatcher when he was arrested, years after both he and they were deposed. I can't see any strategic interest there!
Sham, from Robin Harris' article last week:
ReplyDelete"The Chileans allowed disassembled aircraft to be shipped in for British use. But by far the most important assistance was intelligence. A long-range military radar was installed opposite Argentina's Comodoro Rivadavia air base. With this equipment, the Chileans provided the Task Force with minute-to-minute information on Argentine aircraft movements, so the Task Force commander could prepare his ships' defences and scramble fighters to intercept. On June 8, however, the long-range radar had to be switched off for overdue maintenance. Argentine aircraft were thus able to launch a surprise attack, sinking the troopships Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram, with terrible casualties. Whether Britain could have won the Falklands War without Chile's help is debatable. Whether it could have done so without far greater loss of lives is simply not. Pinochet, who took every key decision, fully deserved Mrs Thatcher's gratitude."
That answer your question?