President Reagan has died aged 93.

He was the 40th US president.

How will you remember him?

As Raphael from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

What are the other Turtles gonna do now!? :o

For his appearance on The Simpsons. No, seriously.

Ronald who?!!!................

Spitting Image.....

I will remember Reagan for being the first President of the USA i can remember knowing was the president in my lifetime.

Wilf

Iran-Contra
Spitting Image
Crap Cigarette Adverts
Bedtime for Bonzo (bad film)

Uh guess what - Ronnie was a moviestar elected to Governor of California - does this remind you of anyone (the knucklehead similarity is just a bonus)

Seriously though, Ronnie had pretty severe alzheimers at the end there, which I wouldn't wish upon anyone.

And of course people have lost a father, husband etc.

But in my black heart I feel no pain, only Time's great scythe equalising us all.

I was listening to an hour-long tribute to him on Radio 5 this morning. Learnt quite a lot about him that I didn't know - in other words, almost everything.

On a mostly unrelated note, I have an ex-girlfriend that is ex-President Woodrow Wilson's great-grandniece.

the cataylist for the start of our modern 'special' anglo/american relationship courtesy of Reagan and Thatcher

Filmstar and Decision maker.

(he did bring the end of the cold war afterall)

Originally posted by Lickszz
President Reagan has died aged 93.

He was the 40th US president.

How will you remember him?

As the man whose name was misspelled in the thread title? :D

Reagan had a good team around him and he seemed to listen to them, unlike some leaders!

He'll be remembered as the preseident who could have led us to WW3 but then had a uturn and ended the cold war and worked with Gorbachev to achieve nuclear disarment at a staggering rate.

I've never really watched any of his movies so I can't comment on those. I laughed at spitting image but it was horribly biased against all politicians.

Originally posted by RPG
Filmstar and Decision maker.

(he did bring the end of the cold war afterall)
That's a great way of describing him. Not always the right decisions, but nobody ever is. Decisions always made with greater good in mind I believe though.

The world is a better place for him.

Filmstar too?... hehe well what a great bonus :)

Dying 2 days before I found out... :rolleyes:

Supporter of International terrorism and Central/South American death squads.

ned...you beat me to it!

I bet there's a few people in El Salvador not sorry to see him gone

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
Supporter of International terrorism and Central/South American death squads.

hear hear. All the tributes to this man have been making me sick. Hopefully Our own Thatcher will soon follow him to the grave

And Nicaragua.
And it was he who armed Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and General Noreiga of Nicaragua, a proper terrorist working to bring down a democratically elected government.
And the Iran Contra affair - selling arms to Iran (starting a war and arming both sides: brilliant business practice)
Massive unemployment, chronic domestic poverty, star wars.

And the Cold war was mainly ended by domestic pressures. Reagan did all he could to demonise the USSR, and accellerate the arms race.

I think he did more than anyone (even Margaret Thatcher) to end the cold war, or put another way win it for the west.

For that alone he desirves to be remembered as one of America's greatest presidents.

Think you're getting him mixed up with Gorbachev, Slim

Originally posted by theflyingfish
hear hear. All the tributes to this man have been making me sick. Hopefully Our own Thatcher will soon follow him to the grave


You should be ashamed of yourself, making comments wishing people were dead.

I wish Margaret Thatcher dead too T020, not ashamed one bit - she caused enough problems and piled on enough taxes to bring the country to it's knees. Some families i knew during the recession had £40 to live on a week!

Was she ashamed? did she give a **** about anyone? - i dont think so. She is a witch who deserves no recognition whatsoever.

What rubbish! Thatcher REDUCED income tax from ridiculously high levels, and in any case, to wish someone dead over political differences is absurd and inhumane.

Originally posted by oxbeast
And Nicaragua.
And it was he who armed Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and General Noreiga of Nicaragua, a proper terrorist working to bring down a democratically elected government.
And the Iran Contra affair - selling arms to Iran (starting a war and arming both sides: brilliant business practice)
Massive unemployment, chronic domestic poverty, star wars.

And the Cold war was mainly ended by domestic pressures. Reagan did all he could to demonise the USSR, and accellerate the arms race.

Not to mention the Star Wars thing, I still think George Lucas should've sued his ass off for using the Star Wars name for his Space program.

Originally posted by t020
What rubbish! Thatcher REDUCED income tax [...]
She only managed that by taking away most peoples income.

Chris.

Originally posted by Rich
Not to mention the Star Wars thing, I still think George Lucas should've sued his ass off for using the Star Wars name for his Space program.

Yes, Star wars and the evil empire which was deemed to be the Russia

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
She only managed that by taking away most peoples income.

Chris.


How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? Less people in employment would mean taxes would have to be higher to compensate. She didn't sack anyone, she was a PM. She closed some mines because they were unprofitable - should she have run a miners charity courtesy of the tax payer?

Originally posted by Rich
Not to mention the Star Wars thing, I still think George Lucas should've sued his ass off for using the Star Wars name for his Space program.

The program was called the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) dubbed "star wars" by the press and his more charitable political opponents.

The thing is, his refusal to budge on SDI at the Reyjavik treaty talks threw away a golden opportunity to make some real progress in reducing everyone's nuclear arsenal.

But Reagan wouldn't budge, even offering it to the soviets - who saw a destablising weapons program (and they were right).

That was very nearly multilateral nuclear disarmament (not total or complete I know) that was achieved - had it not been for the ongoing US program to militarise space.

But in a cruel answer to the thread title:

I will remember Ronald Reagan far, far, better than he ever did

Originally posted by t020
How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? Less people in employment would mean taxes would have to be higher to compensate. She didn't sack anyone, she was a PM. She closed some mines because they were unprofitable - should she have run a miners charity courtesy of the tax payer? What about the sky high interest rates? They were over 10% higher than they are now.

Originally posted by kevah
What about the sky high interest rates? They were over 10% higher than they are now.

They're only what they are now thanks to the Tories leaving the economy in a good state after taking over the wreck Labour had left. High interest rates were necessary to try to get rid of the high inflation legacy left by a tax and spend Labour government.

Originally posted by t020
They're only what they are now thanks to the Tories leaving the economy in a good state after taking over the wreck Labour had left. High interest rates were necessary to try to get rid of the high inflation legacy left by a tax and spend Labour government.

Have you been eating tory election leaflets again? You must know by now they are utterly indigestible (not to mention emetic)

Surely Major's "green shoots of recovery" would have been in flower by 1997 - or was it all just a load of smoke and mirrors?

Reagan will be remembered by the poorest surviving Americans for the miracle of Reaganomics - where the rich people got more money in the hope they'd spend it on the poor. I guess there's some kinda flawed logic in there, but Ronnie never saw it.

He was a man of great influence, certainly, but whose influence? Not his own, that much is pretty certain - a charming actor with a "love of the big picture" but a glove puppet nevertheless.

GOOD RIDDANCE GOOD RIDDANCE & GOOD RIDDANCE

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
She only managed that by taking away most peoples income.

Chris. How on earth do you reduce income tax by removing income? :loopy: I think you've got a rather shaky grip of basic economics there.

Originally posted by kevah
What about the sky high interest rates? They were over 10% higher than they are now. Interest rates are and were used as a mechanism for reducing wage inflation. Again, it produces less tax income.


Reagan and Thatcher were in power at a time when global economics were in a mess through non-governmental demands. What the governments of the day did were the things that needed doing at the time, regardless of how painful it was.

The basic tenet was to remove power from governments back to the people. We now all see the benefit of this, but as always happens, the first people to benefit are those in a position to benefit, i.e. the already wealthy and powerful, but regardless of whether you like it or not, 'trickle down economics' does work and has worked, even if it's a painful intermediate process.

The passage of time gives people the luxury of selective retrospect, which wasn't available at the time, but who cannot honestly say that they are not better off in overall terms than they were 25 years ago?

Only the politically naive, that's who.

Originally posted by Tony
How on earth do you reduce income tax by removing income? :loopy: I think you've got a rather shaky grip of basic economics there.

Interest rates are and were used as a mechanism for reducing wage inflation. Again, it produces less tax income.


Reagan and Thatcher were in power at a time when global economics were in a mess through non-governmental demands. What the governments of the day did were the things that needed doing at the time, regardless of how painful it was.

The basic tenet was to remove power from governments back to the people. We now all see the benefit of this, but as always happens, the first people to benefit are those in a position to benefit, i.e. the already wealthy and powerful, but regardless of whether you like it or not, 'trickle down economics' does work and has worked, even if it's a painful intermediate process.




The passage of time gives people the luxury of selective retrospect, which wasn't available at the time, but who cannot honestly say that they are not better off in overall terms than they were 25 years ago?



Only the politically naive, that's who.

It is equally easy to argue that trickle down economics does not work - take a look at the global economy. It is a powerful discourse that is convincing to a lot of people to justify concentrating wealth in a small group with the consent of the wider population - much easier if they beleive that they will be getting a share of the pie (they won't).

who is worse off after twenty years of libertatrian economics? errr, very many people who used to work in primary and secondary industry? People who don't own their own home? People who work in the public sector - police, nurses, teachers? Anyone who cares about social cohesion and social responsibilty - these have also gone right down the swanny.

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
Think you're getting him mixed up with Gorbachev, Slim

Was about to chip in when you beat me to it :D American's taking credit again where not due!!!!

Originally posted by theflyingfish
It is equally easy to argue that trickle down economics does not work - take a look at the global economy. It is a powerful discourse that is convincing to a lot of people to justify concentrating wealth in a small group with the consent of the wider population - much easier if they beleive that they will be getting a share of the pie (they won't).

who is worse off after twenty years of libertatrian economics? errr, very many people who used to work in primary and secondary industry? People who don't own their own home? People who work in the public sector - police, nurses, teachers? Anyone who cares about social cohesion and social responsibilty - these have also gone right down the swanny.

You're looking at this from a purely western developed nation position, Yours.

I think if you asked people in Korea, China, Cambodia, India, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Mexico, etc, etc if they felt any better off, you would get a very different opinion.

Trickle down economics has enabled the rest of the world to emerge from penury to the early stages of the development that they have eyed westwards so enviously for so many years.

These places now HAVE teacher, police, nurses, public sectors, and the early stages of social cohesion that come from that, etc, that are helping the nations to advance.

The other advantage of the systems is that you can now turn on the light switch in winter in the UK and America, and it works.

Ronald Reagan

Spitting Image
Russia

The other interesting thing about Reagan, apart from the wholeeconomic argument going on here, is the charming way he couldn't tell real events from things he had seen on movies. He told an Israeli delegation in all seriousness that he had liberated Nazi concentration camps with a film crew. In fact he spent the whole war in California. There are several other examples. Can you imagine a premier doing something similar here? He was a serial fantasist in the same mould as Jeffrey Archer. I would lose all confidence in a leader that was so obviously out of touch with reality.

Originally posted by t020
She didn't sack anyone, she was a PM. She closed some mines because they were unprofitable - should she have run a miners charity courtesy of the tax payer?
She paid other people like McGregor to do the sacking. I always remember Prof Lacey who blamed Thatch for BSE saying of the Government's useless Chief Vetenary Officer, "he does what he 's supposed to...sack people. " All you need is officials like that to do the dirty work for you.
Many of the mines closed at the time were actually profitable and others were competing against subsidised production elsewhere.
One final point, why doesn't the market economy apply to farming?

Just another name in the lon line of Republican liars and cretins that have filled the Whitehouse with sleaze, pandered to international corporations and made war without need or mandate.

Oh, and he's survived by a hypocrite wife who despite opposing experimentation on human stem cells on religious grounds for the best part of her life, ditched these views and sent a letter to the current US administration begging them to approve the very same research.

And on what grounds?

Why that there was a chance it might produce a cure for the very disease from which her husband was dying.

Originally posted by Tony
You're looking at this from a purely western developed nation position, Yours.

I think if you asked people in Korea, China, Cambodia, India, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Mexico, etc, etc if they felt any better off, you would get a very different opinion.

Trickle down economics has enabled the rest of the world to emerge from penury to the early stages of the development that they have eyed westwards so enviously for so many years.

These places now HAVE teacher, police, nurses, public sectors, and the early stages of social cohesion that come from that, etc, that are helping the nations to advance.

The other advantage of the systems is that you can now turn on the light switch in winter in the UK and America, and it works.

Modernsiation theory has long been discredited (since the 60's) as a means of spurring economic development in the third world. I don't believe that the conditions exist in the thirdworld where the growth of urban capital will trickle down to a take off scenario lifting the entire economy. Third World Countries have not reached the 'early stages of development'.

Instead, there is a dual economy: the prohibitive costs of agricultural inputs meant many small farmers have been unable to increase output, and in the urban sector, modern methods of industrial production have required only a relatively small workforce. result = rising unemployment, rising poverty, increasing debt. Most of the profits are REPATRIATED abroad - where is the trickle down in that? Where has the trickle down occurred in the Asian tiger econommies? How long will it take before the income generated by Shell, HSBC, Ford trickle down to improve the living standards of the rural poor as the economy shifts (is pushed by organasiations such as the world bank) fundamentally away from addressing the need of the rural poor?

I don't count an overall growth in income as development - not if it is not equitably distributed, not if growth comes at massive social cost.


The first world have imposed blocks on diversification in the third world to protect our own markets and have supplied them with raw materials to process into finished goods to sell back to us - this is a globally imposed division of labour which it is extremely difficult for a under developed country to emerge from. The same applies in model of dependence can be applied in domestic economics as well.

I would be interested to hear of some examples where trickle down economics has been a success.

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
She paid other people like McGregor to do the sacking.
Ah yes... and the Miners paid the sub's to the Union and Scargill who between them ensured the demise of mining. Make no mistake, without the NUM there would be a mining indistry today.

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
One final point, why doesn't the market economy apply to farming? Good question, but not relevant.

Originally posted by Carmine
Oh, and he's survived by a hypocrite wife who despite opposing experimentation on human stem cells on religious grounds for the best part of her life, ditched these views and sent a letter to the current US administration begging them to approve the very same research.

And on what grounds?

Why that there was a chance it might produce a cure for the very disease from which her husband was dying.

Isn't that often the way? Is no-one allowed to see the light at any time just because of past beliefs??

These comments related to the UK:

"who is worse off after twenty years of libertatrian economics? errr, very many people who used to work in primary and secondary industry? People who don't own their own home? People who work in the public sector - police, nurses, teachers? Anyone who cares about social cohesion and social responsibilty - these have also gone right down the swanny."

Originally posted by Tony
Isn't that often the way? Is no-one allowed to see the light at any time just because of past beliefs??

I agree that there are indeed such things as last minute repentance and profound changes of heart, but you have to admit that this was hardly motivated by any humanitarian regard for the potential benefits the research could grant the world.

The fact that Nancy Regan changed her viewpoint on the issue while her husband was on his death-bed is a poinient image of a powerful figure brought low by a terrible affliction taking the life of her husband. But it's cold comfort for those who have already lost loved-ones who could potentially have lived longer or even been cured by the fruits of stem-cell research.

Originally posted by Tony
Ah yes... and the Miners paid the sub's to the Union and Scargill who between them ensured the demise of mining. Make no mistake, without the NUM there would be a mining indistry today.



You don't believe that! Thatcher set out to crush the unions and to close the mines....agreed some of the ways the NUM handled things or dealt with issues made it easier for Thatcher in some cases...but she had an agenda and was gonna stick to it whatever.

and To20...I'll also be happy the sour faced evil witch is 6 foot under

Nancy Reagan was even more bonkers than he was. More than one commentator has said that Ronnie paid more attention to the advice of her astrologer than his official advisors.

And trickledown is a fallacy. In places like India, there has been huge economic growth, but the rural poor are still getting poorer, in income disparities have widened.

Read anything on the realities of US foreign policy and globalization and you'll see the lies and bufoonery that the government of that country has had a hand in for the past few centuries.

Originally posted by oxbeast
Nancy Reagan was even more bonkers than he was.


She was dead good at falling over during public engagments tho!

I can't help but think that the early stages of Reagan's illness went undiagnosed fo quite a long time..........pehaps for the entire period of his Presidency?

Originally posted by boyface
You don't believe that! Thatcher set out to crush the unions I do believe it, and you got it in one! We disagree because I obviously think it needed doing, whereas you would seemingly rather the unions dictate the economy.

Can you please start another thread if you want to continue discussing this?

Originally posted by Carmine
I agree that there are indeed such things as last minute repentance and profound changes of heart, but you have to admit that this was hardly motivated by any humanitarian regard for the potential benefits the research could grant the world.

The fact that Nancy Regan changed her viewpoint on the issue while her husband was on his death-bed is a poinient image of a powerful figure brought low by a terrible affliction taking the life of her husband. But it's cold comfort for those who have already lost loved-ones who could potentially have lived longer or even been cured by the fruits of stem-cell research. I agree with every word you said - I was really just making the point.

Point taken!

I am a very political tortoise.

BTW: Love the postscript Abe Lin quote.

"Nations crumble from within when the citizenry
asks of government those things which
the citizenry might better provide for itself. ...
[I] hope we have once again reminded people that
man is not free unless government is limited.
There's a clear cause and effect here that
is as neat and predictable as a law of physics:
As government expands, liberty contracts."

-- Ronald Reagan
(1911-2004) 40th US President


"The federal government has taken
too much tax money from the people,
too much authority from the states, and
too much liberty with the Constitution."

-- Ronald Reagan
(1911-2004) 40th US President


"Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate!
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

-- Ronald Reagan
(1911-2004) 40th US President
Source: Speech Near The Berlin Wall, 1987

"It's surprising what you can accomplish when no one is concerned about who gets the credit."

Tony, all those quote were written by his scriptwriters. He could read out a script like he was, welll, an actor. Doesn't mean he came up with them. I read recently that when teh Alzheimers began to take hold, he was still doing speaking engagements. He would stare blankly at prople he had known for years, and then get up and give a great speech, with peauses and stresses in all the right emotional places. He was the epitome of style over substance.


Reagan cartoon (http://www.kirktoons.com/cartoons.html)

The Proto-Bush (http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/)

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Seriously though, Ronnie had pretty severe alzheimers at the end there, which I wouldn't wish upon anyone.


That can be harsh on friends and family around the person. My nan had alzheimers and when she passed away as much as we missed her atleast she wasnt suffering and we could morn. Where before that you knew she had already left us in spirt and soul but not her body. Its a hard things to deal with!

God bless to him

It absolutely made my day when I pulled up at a petrol garage and saw that RR was dead. Hurray and a dance - I pulled away with a big grin on my face:D . I have waited years to hear that he was dead and my dissapointment at his longevity can only be tempered with the hope that the last 15 years of his life has been a living hell.

Shame on him. Shame on those who choose to remember him with rose tinted spectacles.

Harsh? Try telling that to the victims of his aggresive foreign policy. Tey telling that to the people of Nicaragua who paid such a high cost in removing the corrupt dictator only to have Reagan's administration do everything to remove the will of the people.

Don't doubt it...the actions of Reagan's administration directly caused misery, tortue, rape and death to many people in Latin America.

The claim that he ended the cold war and made the world a safer is pretty hollow. Reagan set out to bankrupt the Soviet Union be accelarating the arms the race. Was his intention to end the cold war? Not necessarily - the people that bank rolled his adn Bush's election campiagn are the same people that profit from his policies.

Did the end of the cold war make the world a safer place? Not really - the weapons still exist (lets not kid ourselves that they got rid of the good weapons) just in smaller, poorer states where it is far harder to ensure they ciorrectly looked after.

Sometimes when I've been fed up I think to myself - Ronald Rayguns is dead and that helps to cheer me up.:banana:

May he and his kind rot in hell.:cool:

Jim - wishing that on ANYONE is quite frankly repulsive. I can't believe people would actually think such things. And for the record, were it not for RR the planet would probably now resemble a nucleur winter with no sign of human life.

t020 - were it not for RR the planet would probably now resemble a nucleur winter with no sign of human life

I think that's just a little naive. The nuclear threat was exaggerated during the cold war along with Reagan's role in ending it. People should realise that Reagan himself wasn't really in control as President - the guy used to introduce cabinet meetings and then fall asleep till the end ffs.

Repulsive? I don't think so. What's repulsive is when someone can wage an illegal war that results in the removal of human rigths for millions; the deaths of thousands (if not 100's of 1000's) and be allowed to live his live out in luxury (even if he was dribbling into his pillow for the mostr part) rather than being tried for his actions.

I was amused by the picture of Margaret Thatcher laying a hand on rambling Ronnie's coffin, the one splashed across the cover of the London Evening Standard last week. The caption droned on and on about how the two had been allies and friends.

Then I wondered why the press weren't too quick to trumpet the relationships that Thatcher cultivated with other world leaders such as former Argentinian dictator Augusto Pinochet, since they were dwelling on the right-wing crackpots she associated with whilst in office.

Originally posted by Jim
t020 -

I think that's just a little naive. The nuclear threat was exaggerated during the cold war along with Reagan's role in ending it. People should realise that Reagan himself wasn't really in control as President - the guy used to introduce cabinet meetings and then fall asleep till the end ffs.

Repulsive? I don't think so. What's repulsive is when someone can wage an illegal war that results in the removal of human rigths for millions; the deaths of thousands (if not 100's of 1000's) and be allowed to live his live out in luxury (even if he was dribbling into his pillow for the mostr part) rather than being tried for his actions.

Just another puppet leader of the nation that always needs a new enemy every decade or so to keep its people scared and stupid whilst it rapes the developing world and holds the rest of the world's developed nations at gunpoint with its aresenal.

I couldn't agree more.

As a kid I loved John Wayne films whilst thinking they were an accurate (if fictional portrayal) of the American West. Wayne and Reagan obviously believed this c**p to their own ends.
To read the history of the Native Americans many years ago came as a shock to me and filled me with disgust. It also brought an awareness of not only Fiction being presented as Fact but that facts were actually being reversed.
US foreign policy throughout the Americas over the past 100years has displayed the same callous, racist disregard for other forms of human life if it collided with "progress" and "national interest". We can extend these attitudes to Iraq today. At the same time these policies are given a Hollywood gloss that bears no resemblence to the reality but which is "bought into" by most Americans and many of their suporters abroad as fact, in much the same way that Wayne's films were accepted as generall accuate. This fantasy version of history is again being displayed in the uncritical lauding of Reagan as as hero, statesman etc. as if he was greater than Ghandi. History by Hollywood!. The Emporer's new clothes! The Japanese merely omit unpleasant episodes from their history books, the US takes pride in promoting a fantastical opposite in theirs as regards many of their past "triumphs".
I haven't forgotten about D-day and WW11 before someone reminds me of a positive US contribution! but that was 60years ago. We should reflect on the lives destroyed since by US foreign policies, Presidential decree and Reagan's own personal contribution.

Originally posted by Carmine
I was amused by the picture of Margaret Thatcher laying a hand on rambling Ronnie's coffin, the one splashed across the cover of the London Evening Standard last week. The caption droned on and on about how the two had been allies and friends.

Then I wondered why the press weren't too quick to trumpet the relationships that Thatcher cultivated with other world leaders such as former Argentinian dictator Augusto Pinochet, since they were dwelling on the right-wing crackpots she associated with whilst in office.

Hmm, selective and inaccurate words there I think.

Firstly, you don't get to be president of the USA by accident. All democratic nations are run by a cabinet system, including funnily enough the USA! :loopy:

Secondly, you will find that Pinochet was running an entirely different country - Chile.

Third... through the Falklands conflict the UK effectively created the conditions for the removal of the Argentinean Dictator, General Galtieri. The association with Chile and its leader Pinochet was a necessary (in fact vital) part of that conflict. Politics is tough sometimes eh? Maybe you should complain to the French Government for selling the Argentineans the weapons that killed their own people and British servicemen? They are still selling them to Brazil where street children go missing when the police do sweeps at Rio Carnival time.

Finally, political ideology is all well and good, but it’s a crappy world out there and sometimes you have to do things that hurt. That's part of the responsibility of high authority.

Tony...what are you talking about??? Carmine wasn't suggesting that RR became President by accident :loopy: :loopy:

And for the record, Britain's (and the US's) association with, and support for, the Pinochet regime is shocking and shameful. I don't think the fact that they allied themselves with the British during the Falklands conflict justifies that association (what did they do? Provide intelligence on the number of missiles Argentina had? Hardly earth shattering stuff). Pinochet instructed death squads, allowed the use of rape as a method of torture (Was it he also who encouraged the use of German Shepard dogs as an instrument of rape?) and kidnapped and murdered 1000's of middle class Chileans.

If you believe that the former justifies the latter then perhaps you ought to take a long look at your political beliefs.:mad:

I don’t think that one justifies the other at all. I do think that the world is a nasty bad place and difficult decisions have to be made at that level that impact on people lives and nations interests. You simply cannot isolate these seperate things and pontificate on them.

Chile provided far more than info that we would know from simple trade intelligence. They provided vital (for the Falklands War) bases, fuel, supplies, etc, etc. They also bought UK goods that supported UK industry jobs and yes... peoples lifestyles because of it. That is why they were allies to the UK.

I make no comment on the validity of anything, just that when you are in high power, it's a difficult place to be and there is no black and white answer or thought process. To suggest otherwise is naive.

These decisions are made every day and are inevitable...but if this is self-evident, then why must we be lied to and have government's insist that they are motivated only by a desire to do what is right?

I find it ironic that while the common man can understand the fact that there is no "black and white" as Tony rightfuly points out, our elected leaders wallow in soundbites and proclaim that they are fighting against "evil-doers" and bad guys. The comments of George Dubyah sound at times more like a moralistic fable than the words of a modern leader.

As a consequnce of the habit of lying to the populance, the US citizen is on the whole ignorant of the reason the nations and peoples their government has oppressed hates them with a passion. This could cost innocent lives and did when the World Trade Centre was attacked. A US citizen was heard to utter the shocked and terrified words: "Why do they hate us?"

The war on Iraq was supposed to be part of the fight against terrorism, but has only served to fuel extremist zeal against the west. Again we were told the war was justified by links between the Iraqi reigeme and Islamic terrorists, a claim which fell apart under closer scrutiny.

Perhaps the war in Iraq was necessary and long overdue, but I for one objected not on the principle that the war was unjust, but on the principle that our leaders lied about their motivations. You want to invade Iraq to secure your oil interests? Fine, just drop the bull**** about weapons of mass-destruction and get on with it...and the consequences be on your head...

These decisions have to be made, but do we have to be lied to when they are?

There's a lot of truth in that post Carmine.