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. 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.