. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.
PC said...[Pinochet ... was just another murderous dictator.]The Iron Lady Thatcher wouldn't describe her friend 'Pinochet' in those terms. She regarded him as a friend who helped out the British military during the Falkland war.
Thatcher's praise for Pinochet. Not her finest hour.
Yes, it looks like Thatcher didn't choose her friend too wisely in that case. It's good that he's dead, Thatcher deserves all the uppercuts she gets for defending him, and can't wait till Castro goes.
Woo hoo! Party time! Shame the courts accepted the defence of his lawyers that he was too ill to face trial.
Well, if you need to have friends in a certain neighbourhood you have to pick the best there, not the ideal friend. Think how many lives he saved by reventing leftie scum commies from taking over. You really would have seen the blood flow then, and have the added joy of economic misery for millions. And Kane, I think you might fine he WAS too ill to face trial. Or should we dig him up for it?
See, this is the danger of not treating authoritarians equally -- you end up defending murder for what it "achieves."Sure, we've got the luxury of debating this in the comfort of our homes years after the event, but there are more ways to deal with "leftie scum commies" than murdering them.
A parallel is Korea. Kim Il Sung needs little debate, but his opponents in the south until the 1990s were almost to a T brutal and dictatorial. Kim Il Sung was clearly worse, but it doesn't excuse the Kwangju massacre in 1980, when students were gunned down in the street by South Korean police. Pinochet's greatest mitigating point is NOT his economics, but the fact he relinquished power with little fight and allowed a liberal government to be established. Nevertheless, it never excuses the murder - it's like excusing the mafia if they donate a lot to the local orphanage.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say.(Off-topic grandstanding, trolling and spam is moderated. If it's not entertaining.)