Weren't you opposed to the invasion? Why is it OK for Saddam to have treated his people this way, but when the US does it (and actually lets people survive questioning), it's baaaaaaaad?
I'm trying to figure out where I said it is OK for Saddam to have treated his people this way.
I'm concluding you're failing miserably to understand the concept that "I am not in favour of what the US and the "Coalition of the Willing" did in Iraq" does not necessarily mean "I am in favour of whatever things Saddam Hussein and his regime did while in power".
I guess this would be that wacky "if you're not for us, you're against us" routine all over again.
For a long, long time, it was argued by people on the left that our support of evil dictators is implicit sanction of their regimes. Because we gave stingers to mujahedeen to use against the Soviets, we supported the regimes in Afghanistan. Because we gave some guns to Hussein to fight the Iranians, we supported him. For years, it has been put forth that because the US has the power to upend dictatorships, it ought to do so, and its inaction is tactit approval of these regimes. But, since you're not buying "that wacky 'if you're not for us, you're against us' routine", you never thought for a moment that military or financial aid to dictatorships abroad constituted our support for their regimes, did you? Then you would agree that our monetary and military aid to Israel says nothing of our approval of their regime?
Yes, yes, but surely you don't actually approve of sodomizing goats, do you? And even if you do, throwing kittens in a blender seems a bit harsh. What kind of an inhuman monster are you?
(Well, I mean, that's what my impression of what someone who writes what I've skimmed of your writing would be in favor of, even though you haven't said anything about either topic, so it's fair of me to call you to task for it, isn't it?)
Yes, "skimming" is certainly what I'd call what you did. That might get you through your junior high book reports, but I'd prefer a bit more attention to detail. Go back and READ, this time. Oh fuck it, I'll just show you:
For a long, long time, it was argued by people on the left that our support of evil dictators is implicit sanction of their regimes.
Argued. Meaning someone explicitly said something that meant the US's lack of attempts to dislodge governments like, say, that of China, means it supports child labor, no human rights and wage-slavery. I could say the same things about you, judging by what I've "skimmed" of your writings, but it would be a red herring.
I read what you said, I just don't understand what it has to do with Waider or why you are taking him to task for views which he has not, in fact, espoused, as far as I can tell. Your reactions to his messages have made about as much sense as my response to yours.
How are you reading all this into a single-line comment on a paragraph of text? Let me give you a little help:
I'm not on the left. I'm apolitical; some of my views may be considered left, some may be considered right, some may be considered whatever's in between. That does not, however, prevent me from expressing distaste at the way in which various political entities conduct their business.
The US has done far more than merely supplying weapons to the mujahedeen, Hussein, Bin Laden (whoops, anyone remember him?), assorted Central American groups, and so on: there's also the small matter of training these groups in guerilla and psychological warfare, passing them strategic information, and turning a blind eye when they perpetrate heinous acts like, say, gassing ethnic groups in their own countries.
I don't support the view that becauses the US has the power to upend dictatorships, it ought to do so. In fact, I support quite the opposite view: by upending dictatorships, the US has historically caused potentially more problems than if they'd let things be. Not because things were fine as they stood, but because US intervention has been with a view to potential benefits to the US, not in order to improve the lot of the country being invaded, and the end result has been indigenous resentment (hello, guerilla attacks in Iraq) or a country left in ruins (hello, El Salvador and Honduras, to name but two). Given that it seems that no one nation can be trusted to do the job fairly, it still appears that the only fair way to intervene is with a coalition of countries. Which, funnily enough, is exactly what the UN is supposed to be for.
I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make about Israel. I don't see how not believing the for-or-against line means I'd fail to make the very obvious connection that providing financial and military aid to a dictatorship constitutes support for that regime. And the huge monetary and military aid given to Israel, who I might remind you are STILL in violation of more UNSC resolutions than, if I recall correctly, anyone else certainly does constitute massive approval of their regime - although calling it a regime is wrong, since the government is democratically elected - but I still have no idea what you're getting it. Perhaps you could break it down for me.
1. I never suggested you were on the left. What I read into was the notion that it's OK for dictators to abuse their citizens, but it's not OK if they are the US or "controlled" by the US. I inferred this from the fact that of all the times someone with a machine gun has busted down a door in Iraq, you bring attention to the incidences where it was a US soldier and not a Republican Guard. I'd think you were a right-winger if you did precisely the opposite. No matter what you might say about your beliefs, your action dictates your preference, and you most decidedly prefer to bash the US. Hey, there's shit this country does that sucks, I agree. But if you're truly looking to be apolitical, you'd be an equal opportunity basher of all nations. So show me the last time you brought up the human rights violations that Hussein committed.
2. The US is not alone in training and supplying rebel forces throughout the world, so let's climb down off the multilateral high horse. The EU did nothing when the Kosovo massacre started happening; France did nothing when Algerian rebels they funded starting slaughtering people in that country.
3. I don't understand how moral imperative factors in here. If we go into a country run by a despot, oust him and his cronies, and set up internationally monitored free elections, it makes no difference if we get oil revenues or not. I don't remember much "indigenous resentment" in Germany or Japan, post WW2, and these were two countries that were essentially leveled. Given their population sizes, industrial capacities and status as first world nations, I'd argue they suffered even greater losses than in Honduras.
4. I don't know why you hold the UN in such high esteem when it fails to enforce its mandates. Further, I don't understand how you can argue that it occupies some position of moral and/or legal authority when you have these very dictatorships occupying an equal share of power with those democratically elected governments. How do we expect them to take UN mandates seriously when they are being told their regimes are just as good as the democracies?
1. Ah, so because I don't report incidences of atrocities commited by dictators, I am in favour of them. Okay, gotcha. You really are in the "not for == against" mindset, at least by your arguments if nothing else. I'm afraid I've had a slight shortage of reported Republican Guard atrocities to link to, but the next one I see I'll be sure to comment on it just so you know I'm not in favour of those, either. On top of this, you're basing your opinion of me on what you see posted here. I'll point out that you're not seeing any private posts I make, and you've also got no way of knowing what I'm like in real life. Maybe I'm just trolling and you've gone for it hook, line and sinker.
2. Now, see, again with the "you flamed the US but no one else therefore you're in favour of the people you didn't flame". I'm perfectly aware that the EU is equally guilty of either doing nothing or doing the wrong thing or both, as the case may be. I'm not defending them. Nor am I speaking for them when I make adverse comments about US activities. I'm speaking for myself.
3. Um. If the US just happens to get oil revenues as a result of bringing all these good things to Iraq, it doesn't matter why they went in there in the first place? Oh yes, they went in to overthrow the despot. Right, sorry, I'm not keeping up. You do actually believe that this so-called war was about bringing democracy and all that to the Iraqis, then?
4. The UN is a legal organisation whose mandate is to do the sort of things the US is busy running around taking on the mantle of doing, and the UN has been severely weakened by this. The US has been hugely instrumental in that weakening in other ways; it has vetoed many resolutions made by the UNSC against Israel, for example. The UN occupies a position of moral and legal authority because it was set up expressly for that purpose. The fact that, for example, the US is allowed retain its position even after a presidential election of dubious legality, numerous violations of human rights, violations of the Geneva Convention, breaches of international law, and so on obviously doesn't help its credibility in many eyes, either. The UN is, in essence, weak, faulty, and apparently incapable of supporting its own declarations or censuring its own members. But it's the best that we've got right now, because its very make-up makes it a multilateral structure with at least a nod towards worldwide consensus. Replacing it with a single country with its own notions of where and why it should overthrow governments is not an improvement.
I'm not sure. If what's-its-name had responded, "Why do you hate America so?", well, then, that would have been "if you're not for us, you're against us", so I think we've got a side order of "if you're against us, you're for our enemy" here.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
I'm concluding you're failing miserably to understand the concept that "I am not in favour of what the US and the "Coalition of the Willing" did in Iraq" does not necessarily mean "I am in favour of whatever things Saddam Hussein and his regime did while in power".
I guess this would be that wacky "if you're not for us, you're against us" routine all over again.
no subject
no subject
(Well, I mean, that's what my impression of what someone who writes what I've skimmed of your writing would be in favor of, even though you haven't said anything about either topic, so it's fair of me to call you to task for it, isn't it?)
no subject
Argued. Meaning someone explicitly said something that meant the US's lack of attempts to dislodge governments like, say, that of China, means it supports child labor, no human rights and wage-slavery. I could say the same things about you, judging by what I've "skimmed" of your writings, but it would be a red herring.
no subject
I read what you said, I just don't understand what it has to do with Waider or why you are taking him to task for views which he has not, in fact, espoused, as far as I can tell. Your reactions to his messages have made about as much sense as my response to yours.
no subject
no subject
2. The US is not alone in training and supplying rebel forces throughout the world, so let's climb down off the multilateral high horse. The EU did nothing when the Kosovo massacre started happening; France did nothing when Algerian rebels they funded starting slaughtering people in that country.
3. I don't understand how moral imperative factors in here. If we go into a country run by a despot, oust him and his cronies, and set up internationally monitored free elections, it makes no difference if we get oil revenues or not. I don't remember much "indigenous resentment" in Germany or Japan, post WW2, and these were two countries that were essentially leveled. Given their population sizes, industrial capacities and status as first world nations, I'd argue they suffered even greater losses than in Honduras.
4. I don't know why you hold the UN in such high esteem when it fails to enforce its mandates. Further, I don't understand how you can argue that it occupies some position of moral and/or legal authority when you have these very dictatorships occupying an equal share of power with those democratically elected governments. How do we expect them to take UN mandates seriously when they are being told their regimes are just as good as the democracies?
no subject
2. Now, see, again with the "you flamed the US but no one else therefore you're in favour of the people you didn't flame". I'm perfectly aware that the EU is equally guilty of either doing nothing or doing the wrong thing or both, as the case may be. I'm not defending them. Nor am I speaking for them when I make adverse comments about US activities. I'm speaking for myself.
3. Um. If the US just happens to get oil revenues as a result of bringing all these good things to Iraq, it doesn't matter why they went in there in the first place? Oh yes, they went in to overthrow the despot. Right, sorry, I'm not keeping up. You do actually believe that this so-called war was about bringing democracy and all that to the Iraqis, then?
4. The UN is a legal organisation whose mandate is to do the sort of things the US is busy running around taking on the mantle of doing, and the UN has been severely weakened by this. The US has been hugely instrumental in that weakening in other ways; it has vetoed many resolutions made by the UNSC against Israel, for example. The UN occupies a position of moral and legal authority because it was set up expressly for that purpose. The fact that, for example, the US is allowed retain its position even after a presidential election of dubious legality, numerous violations of human rights, violations of the Geneva Convention, breaches of international law, and so on obviously doesn't help its credibility in many eyes, either. The UN is, in essence, weak, faulty, and apparently incapable of supporting its own declarations or censuring its own members. But it's the best that we've got right now, because its very make-up makes it a multilateral structure with at least a nod towards worldwide consensus. Replacing it with a single country with its own notions of where and why it should overthrow governments is not an improvement.
no subject
no subject