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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.