e no one wants to live to start with. Decisions to topple dictators, or to keep them in place, are not made on a humanitarian basis. No, humanitarian reasons are only given to disguise the real reasons a dictator has to go. In this case, although a menace for it's own people, Pinochet proved to be a valuable asset to the U.K. So there was no reason to make an effort of ousting him. When countries are making a joint effort to oust a dictator, one can be ensured that the main reason is that the dictator in question no longer holds any economEx Dictator, general Pinochet died age 91 in a Santiago hospital, in Chile, on Sunday 10 December 2006. President Bush thoughts went out to the many victims of General Pinochet's regime, this according to the White House. In the U.K. however, former prime minister Margaret Thatcher was deeply saddened by the news of his dead, and she would send her message of sympathy to his wife.

2 completely opposite reactions to the dead of a man who was the former strongman of Chile. Today I would like to talk to you about ex prime minister Margaret Thatchers reaction to General Pinochet's dead. Lady Thatcher, the Iron Lady, showed something which I can not describe else as being warm and human, to the family of ex dictator Pinochet. And that is something which I had not expected from her. But actually, she has a good reason to consider General Augusto Pinochet as a good friend. Remember when the U.K. was fighting Argentina over the Falklands (some rocks near the South pole). Well, a book has revealed that Chile's military intelligence has helped Britain during this 1980's conflict.

According to this book, Chile provided intelligence to the U.K. in return for half-price military aircraft. This book, "The official history of the Falklands War", details this deal between the governments of margaret Thatcher and General Augusto Pinochet. The Chilean military provided key information on the movement of Argentine forces and other assistance, and in return were offered a cut-price deal on the purchase of military aircraft. At a time when the world condemned General Pinochet, and wanted him out of office as soon as possible, as numerous people were tortured and killed during his regime, the United Kingdom thought it was a good idea to have good and warm relations with his regime. Why, well, you can not be at odds with all countries in a specific region, and the U.K. already had it's problems with Argentina.

Apart from the soldiers who died in the Falklands war, on both sides, the U.K. was indirectly responsible for all those crimes against humanity which went on in Chile during General Pinochet's reign. And all that only to protect some rocks where no one wants to live to start with. Decisions to topple dictators, or to keep them in place, are not made on a humanitarian basis. No, humanitarian reasons are only given to disguise the real reasons a dictator has to go. In this case, although a menace for it's own people, Pinochet proved to be a valuable asset to the U.K. So there was no reason to make an effort of ousting him. When countries are making a joint effort to oust a dictator, one can be ensured that the main reason is that the dictator in question no longer holds any economi

ret Thatchers reaction to General Pinochet's dead. Lady Thatcher, the Iron Lady, showed something which I can not describe else as being warm and human, to the family of ex dictator Pinochet. And that is something which I had not expected from her. But actually, she has a good reason to consider General Augusto Pinochet as a good friend. Remember when the U.K. was fighting Argentina over the Falklands (some rocks near the South pole). Well, a book has revealed that Chile's military intelligence has helped Britain during this 1980's conflict.

According to this book, Chile provided intelligence to the U.K. in return for half-price military aircraft. This book, "The official history of the Falklands War", details this deal between the governments of margaret Thatcher and General Augusto Pinochet. The Chilean military provided key information on the movement of Argentine forces and other assistance, and in return were offered a cut-price deal on the purchase of military aircraft. At a time when the world condemned General Pinochet, and wanted him out of office as soon as possible, as numerous people were tortured and killed during his regime, the United Kingdom thought it was a good idea to have good and warm relations with his regime. Why, well, you can not be at odds with all countries in a specific region, and the U.K. already had it's problems with Argentina.

Apart from the soldiers who died in the Falklands war, on both sides, the U.K. was indirectly responsible for all those crimes against humanity which went on in Chile during General Pinochet's reign. And all that only to protect some rocks where no one wants to live to start with. Decisions to topple dictators, or to keep them in place, are not made on a humanitarian basis. No, humanitarian reasons are only given to disguise the real reasons a dictator has to go. In this case, although a menace for it's own people, Pinochet proved to be a valuable asset to the U.K. So there was no reason to make an effort of ousting him. When countries are making a joint effort to oust a dictator, one can be ensured that the main reason is that the dictator in question no longer holds any econom

.

According to this book, Chile provided intelligence to the U.K. in return for half-price military aircraft. This book, "The official history of the Falklands War", details this deal between the governments of margaret Thatcher and General Augusto Pinochet. The Chilean military provided key information on the movement of Argentine forces and other assistance, and in return were offered a cut-price deal on the purchase of military aircraft. At a time when the world condemned General Pinochet, and wanted him out of office as soon as possible, as numerous people were tortured and killed during his regime, the United Kingdom thought it was a good idea to have good and warm relations with his regime. Why, well, you can not be at odds with all countries in a specific region, and the U.K. already had it's problems with Argentina.

Apart from the soldiers who died in the Falklands war, on both sides, the U.K. was indirectly responsible for all those crimes against humanity which went on in Chile during General Pinochet's reign. And all that only to protect some rocks where no one wants to live to start with. Decisions to topple dictators, or to keep them in place, are not made on a humanitarian basis. No, humanitarian reasons are only given to disguise the real reasons a dictator has to go. In this case, although a menace for it's own people, Pinochet proved to be a valuable asset to the U.K. So there was no reason to make an effort of ousting him. When countries are making a joint effort to oust a dictator, one can be ensured that the main reason is that the dictator in question no longer holds any econom

ssible, as numerous people were tortured and killed during his regime, the United Kingdom thought it was a good idea to have good and warm relations with his regime. Why, well, you can not be at odds with all countries in a specific region, and the U.K. already had it's problems with Argentina.

Apart from the soldiers who died in the Falklands war, on both sides, the U.K. was indirectly responsible for all those crimes against humanity which went on in Chile during General Pinochet's reign. And all that only to protect some rocks where no one wants to live to start with. Decisions to topple dictators, or to keep them in place, are not made on a humanitarian basis. No, humanitarian reasons are only given to disguise the real reasons a dictator has to go. In this case, although a menace for it's own people, Pinochet proved to be a valuable asset to the U.K. So there was no reason to make an effort of ousting him. When countries are making a joint effort to oust a dictator, one can be ensured that the main reason is that the dictator in question no longer holds any econom

e no one wants to live to start with. Decisions to topple dictators, or to keep them in place, are not made on a humanitarian basis. No, humanitarian reasons are only given to disguise the real reasons a dictator has to go. In this case, although a menace for it's own people, Pinochet proved to be a valuable asset to the U.K. So there was no reason to make an effort of ousting him. When countries are making a joint effort to oust a dictator, one can be ensured that the main reason is that the dictator in question no longer holds any economical value for those countries. Humanitarian reasons have nothing to do with it.

This brings me to the current situation in Iraq. Did the situation in that country improve, with Hussein gone, and on his way to the gallows? No. According to resent studies, violence in Iraq is far more worse then it has ever been during Hussein's dictatorship. More people die a violent death on a daily basis in Iraq, then in any other country. Perhaps we should Iraq give back it's former leader, get out of there as fast as we can, and just hope for the best of it.

However, like always, I do not care whatever you do, as long as you do not forget: Love a soldier. Love, Jenifer Bloom.