Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The USA
Options
Comments
-
Deleted User wrote: »Genghis Khan still holds that lofty title, and we could easily point to half a dozen other regimes/empires who killed more than the US.
Err... how? And... when did humans have such protection?
As have other nations. I don't particularly like the US but I wouldn't be supporting of a rant. They're a superpower. Different rules apply.. because they can get away with it. Power makes right.
You really don't get out much. The US is actually quite admired throughout the world. It's just their politics and foreign policy since Bush Jnr that the majority dislike.
America does not play by the rules that it so solemnly holds dear and sacrosanct.
The Magna Carta means nothing to them
Habeaus Corpus mean nothing to them
Treaties mean nothing to them
International Law and boundaries mean nothing to them.
They flout these at the drop of a hat and lecture others on their respect for international order and institutions.
Oh, I get out very much, for your information. And their politics hasn't changed since Theodore Roosevelt. He softened his cough when his son was killed at war but the scab remained on his outlook.
The US has NEVER been a force for good. It is a place where the mentality of exploitation and one-upmanshimp is promoted. Empathy is for the weak. Gaining is the badge of the superior.
And why exactly would different rules apply? I always thought that everyone should get the same.
Why would you espouse such values and then topple governments in order to enrich yourself?
On a side note...you mention Genghis Khan. Are you saying that he laid to waste over 20 million lives?0 -
The whatabouterry is strong in this one. How about the US stay the hell out of the ME, all those drone strikes don't need to be replaced by ground troops. Stay the hell out of Africa too. Theres not a single good reason for them to be there bar modern day colonialism and a pillaging of resources. Of course it also helps create a boogeyman which increases the ability of their arms manufacturers to make a profit.
September 11th was brought on themselves by their policies in the ME over the preceeding decades. They then doubled down going after countries who had zero to do with it whilst ignoring their "allie" where most of the perpertrators and their leaders came from.
'Whataboutery' 'stay out of the ME', perhaps you could add in 'No blood for oil' too?
More seriously, when it comes to this idea of 'staying out of' I'm really not opposed to that in principle, but the problem we have is who exactly do we listen to. ISIS is a good example, following their advance through northern Iraq was the right decision to 'stay out of it' or provide the Iraqi government the assistance the requested in retaking their country? How about Kuwait, was the right thing to do 'staying out of it' when Iraq tried to annex the country? It goes back to what I said earlier, you have limited options and if you are serious you make the best choice you can.
Still, wouldn't want to give the slightest impression that I would for an instant regard the Saudi regime as anything short of despicable. But then lets be fair, if the US turned on the Saudis the usual suspects would be damning them for creating another source of terrorism and destruction in the Middle East.0 -
Here's a secret the guidebooks won't tell you: all major American cities are the same. Starbucks, Subway, Macys, Barnes & Noble...globalisation and amalgamation of chains has rendered US cities carbon copies of each other. Cleveland is no different to Columbus, Indianapolis is no different to Minneapolis.
With respect, that indicates a superficiality of knowledge. And we're not just talking architecture either. I mean, Edinburgh and Glasgow are near each other, both will have Argos, M&S and Wagamama, but they are anything but similar.
Then come to the Texas Triangle, my neck of the woods. Houson, Auston, San Antonio, three absolutely entirely different cities within a few hours of each other with differences in architecture, vibe and culture. Yes, there's Starbucks and Home Depot and whatever else in all three. But even at the first, most superficial glance, 6th Street or The Domain in Austin has nothing in common with the San Antonio Riverwalk, which equally has absolutely nothing in common with...well, I actually don't know anything good and iconic about Houston, but I'm sure they have something. Then you start noticing the differences in cultural influence, S.A. is the most "Mexican" big city in the US, for example. And then there's the matter of what it's like to actually live in the city.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »It probably helped that they joined NATO 16 years ago.
Ukraine did not. Georgia did not. Both have been losing territory to Russia.
It may be interesting to inquire with the Baltic nations (and Poland) why they have been quite happy to host US Army units in recent years. One may also observe the reintroduction of conscription in countries like Lithuania and Sweden or the expansion in Norway. They are looking East.
For all the issues the US military has, it's still quite good at conventional warfare, what NATO was set up for.
What territory have either Ukraine OR Georgia lost to Russia?
Now if you want to go down the Crimea route again and start yammering about an illegal annexation you're well within your rights to p1ss into the wind. The Crimeans have wanted to rejoin Russia since 1992. So don't blag people out that the Crimea was taken over and now they're all under the Moscow jackboot. That dog doesn't hunt.
As for Georgia....what land have they lost? They tried to incite a ruck over a nominally independent South Ossetia, the citizens of which had no desire to be subsumed and rules by Tblisi. What territory did they lose to Russia.
Facts are stubborn things, are they not?0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »America does not play by the rules that it so solemnly holds dear and sacrosanct.
The Magna Carta means nothing to them
Habeaus Corpus mean nothing to them
Treaties mean nothing to them
International Law and boundaries mean nothing to them.
They flout these at the drop of a hat and lecture others on their respect for international order and institutions.
Oh, I get out very much, for your information. And their politics hasn't changed since Theodore Roosevelt. He softened his cough when his son was killed at war but the scab remained on his outlook.
The US has NEVER been a force for good. It is a place where the mentality of exploitation and one-upmanshimp is promoted. Empathy is for the weak. Gaining is the badge of the superior.
And why exactly would different rules apply? I always thought that everyone should get the same.
Why would you espouse such values and then topple governments in order to enrich yourself?
On a side note...you mention Genghis Khan. Are you saying that he laid to waste over 20 million lives?
Taking all of these things as true for a moment, which naturally I wouldn't (although I really wouldn't be far off it when it comes to a lot of the economic mentality etc), is there some kind of better alternative around that you can see? What world power holds these standards to a level that satisfies you? Which powers even come close?
Oh also on the last point, estimates for the death toll arising from the campaigns of Genghis Khan reach up to 40 million.0 -
Advertisement
-
Someone tell me: when there is chaos and minorities being killed in other countries, why is it ok for the USA to go bomb them to put in order, but if Putin or someone said 'well time to save the black people in America, let's bomb New York and Washington DC' it will be considered pure evil? USA is first in line to send war planes to "fix" other countries, but no one in a million years will dare suggest the same when the US is killing its own people.
It's like collectively the world decided the US are our masters and can do whatever they want while we can never question them.0 -
My first visit to the US was waaaay back in the day before mobile phones or internet.
I will just say that even back then every city looked the same to me. Car was king and strip malls all along the highway. So flipping boring really.
New Orleans and Phoenix stand out for being a bit different, but that's all. Well maybe Charleston and Savannah also. But still...0 -
Effectively Europe did just that after having more or less destroyed itself in WWII and with the Bretton Woods agreement, which effectively linked all western currencies to the Dollar (and the Dollar to gold until 1971) giving the US an enormous financial advantage as the controller of the global currency of exchange issuing the currency that was and still is the reference unit of value means they can print money without causing much of an impact on USD value.
You can see the US being quite rattled by the growth of the Euro and any alternative global level currency eg suggestions oil might be priced in it causing outrage.
NATO was also very much a creature of US foreign policy, far more than it has ever been a European one.0 -
Irish Praetorian wrote: »'Whataboutery' 'stay out of the ME', perhaps you could add in 'No blood for oil' too?
More seriously, when it comes to this idea of 'staying out of' I'm really not opposed to that in principle, but the problem we have is who exactly do we listen to. ISIS is a good example, following their advance through northern Iraq was the right decision to 'stay out of it' or provide the Iraqi government the assistance the requested in retaking their country? How about Kuwait, was the right thing to do 'staying out of it' when Iraq tried to annex the country? It goes back to what I said earlier, you have limited options and if you are serious you make the best choice you can.
Still, wouldn't want to give the slightest impression that I would for an instant regard the Saudi regime as anything short of despicable. But then lets be fair, if the US turned on the Saudis the usual suspects would be damning them for creating another source of terrorism and destruction in the Middle East.
Another silly post disregarding history. Isis was created by the US involvement in the ME. Iraqi radicals stuck in american internment camps after their war waged on the back of lies was the genesis for Isis. If they stayed out of it on day one isis wouldnt even exist.
To compound your foolish notions, the americans had very little hand in turning back isis, rather they throw their supposed allies to the wolves denying them arms. Luckily the Iranians filled the void and gave them the arms they needed preventing the genocide of at least two tribes in northern Iraq that the yanks abandoned. But carry on believing your fantasy of the americans coming to the rescue.
I also love the way they fcuked off and left the kurds at the mercy of the Turks after the dirty work was done but did protect their precious oil field's0 -
Irish Praetorian wrote: »'Whataboutery' 'stay out of the ME', perhaps you could add in 'No blood for oil' too?
More seriously, when it comes to this idea of 'staying out of' I'm really not opposed to that in principle, but the problem we have is who exactly do we listen to. ISIS is a good example, following their advance through northern Iraq was the right decision to 'stay out of it' or provide the Iraqi government the assistance the requested in retaking their country? How about Kuwait, was the right thing to do 'staying out of it' when Iraq tried to annex the country? It goes back to what I said earlier, you have limited options and if you are serious you make the best choice you can.
Still, wouldn't want to give the slightest impression that I would for an instant regard the Saudi regime as anything short of despicable. But then lets be fair, if the US turned on the Saudis the usual suspects would be damning them for creating another source of terrorism and destruction in the Middle East.
Oh btw on the kuwait thing, who installed Saddam in the first place? You know, the guy who decided to attack Kuwait.0 -
Advertisement
-
America is so large and varied that it is hard to generalize. A lot of greatness, from art to science to culture, has come out of america, and will continue to so do. I also believe that a vast majority of Americans are decent people.
But there is a lot of negatives too: the institutional racism, the gun obsession, the OTT patriotism, the commercialization of its healthcare, abandoning some of its must vulnerable people.
It is certainly in turmoil at the moment, and its woefully inadequate leadership is making things worse, but it is so complex and diverse that to describe it as a "kip" is unfair.
I've visited it many times and will look forward to visiting it again many more times.0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »On a side note...you mention Genghis Khan. Are you saying that he laid to waste over 20 million lives?
Nobody knows how many were killed by Genghis Khan and the empire he created. However, he committed mass genocide destroying many civilisations, and sweeping across some of my most populated areas of the world.
I do notice that while you're quick to make dramatic statements, you shy away from defending them when opposed.
Where/when has the US killed over 20 million people?0 -
Another silly post disregarding history. Isis was created by the US involvement in the ME. Iraqi radicals stuck in american internment camps after their war waged on the back of lies was the genesis for Isis. If they stayed out of it on day one isis wouldnt even exist.
To compound your foolish notions, the americans had very little hand in turning back isis, rather they throw their supposed allies to the wolves denying them arms. Luckily the Iranians filled the void and gave them the arms they needed preventing the genocide of at least two tribes in northern Iraq that the yanks abandoned. But carry on believing your fantasy of the americans coming to the rescue.
I also love the way they fcuked off and left the kurds at the mercy of the Turks after the dirty work was done but did protect their precious oil field's
I'm sorry, ISIS was created by the US? I think what you mean to say is the circumstances that led to the rise of ISIS involved the US, but it seems an like article of faith for a lot of people that if a US dollar somehow finds its way into the pocket of a vile person, then they were 'sponsored' by the US. Now you want to claim the invasion of Iraq eventually led to ISIS, that's fine, but I'm not going to view ISIS militants as drones without agency - these were still men and women who adopted a fundamentalist view and chose to act on it.
Now as to your point about American assistance to the Iraqis in dealing with ISIS, it may have escaped your notice that I did not ascribe the decisive role to US assistance, or even a major role. My point there which I will reiterate here, is that it is far better for decisions about where US troops go to be made by the Iraqi government rather than fundamentalists and terrorists, which seems to be the abiding philosophy here.
As to the fate of the Kurds, you'll excuse me for noting that the logical conclusion of the line of argument you have been setting out is that they should be left at the mercy of the Turks? So having spent all this time condemning US intervention, to now castigate them for failing to intervene strikes me as damned odd.0 -
Kermit.de.frog wrote: »So much that you can do in your life is dominated by American culture and technology and you don't even realise it because you're ignorant.
Let's take one example...
Do you know that thing you are using called the internet?
Do you know where that came from?
Perhaps you might be the ignorant one?
The popular belief is that the Internet was developed from DARPA fashioning the TCP/IP protocol (I'm a systems engineer so I know what the fcuk I'm talking about).
And Xerox developed Ethernet...which they did.
Don't tell me that the "internet" was "invented" in America because that's just plain false. The French had a data transmission protocol long before the ARPA-net was even conceived of.0 -
-
Trump has declared "ANTIFA" a terrorist organisation. ANTIFA isn't even an organisation, it is just short form for 'anti-fascist'. This means that anybody who has anti-fascist views in the United States could be arrested for terrorism.
The US is a full blown authoritarian police state like the former Soviet Union or Communist China at this point.0 -
Irish Praetorian wrote: »I'm sorry, ISIS was created by the US? I think what you mean to say is the circumstances that led to the rise of ISIS involved the US, but it seems an like article of faith for a lot of people that if a US dollar somehow finds its way into the pocket of a vile person, then they were 'sponsored' by the US. Now you want to claim the invasion of Iraq eventually led to ISIS, that's fine, but I'm not going to view ISIS militants as drones without agency - these were still men and women who adopted a fundamentalist view and chose to act on it.
Now as to your point about American assistance to the Iraqis in dealing with ISIS, it may have escaped your notice that I did not ascribe the decisive role to US assistance, or even a major role. My point there which I will reiterate here, is that it is far better for decisions about where US troops go to be made by the Iraqi government rather than fundamentalists and terrorists, which seems to be the abiding philosophy here.
As to the fate of the Kurds, you'll excuse me for noting that the logical conclusion of the line of argument you have been setting out is that they should be left at the mercy of the Turks? So having spent all this time condemning US intervention, to now castigate them for failing to intervene strikes me as damned odd.
You type alot of words with very little substance.
The US created the conditions for the ideology of isis to flourish, it then provided the environment where many of the top leaders met. That is a matter of record.
As for the Kurds, the americans abandoned them, took interest again when the iranians came to their aid and abandoned them again. Just like they've done to all "allies" throughout their history. If the americans are to involve themselves in deciding the fate of others perhaps they should then ensure those people are not abused afterwards. Otherwise don't show up on day one. At the end of the day it all just proves you're argument of american intervention being necessary is just pure propoganda fluff that you've swallowed hook, line and sinker.0 -
Irish Praetorian wrote: »That would be the Ba'ath party in 1968, and later in 1979 Saddam himself when it came to purging said party and becoming dictator.
So you agree, I'm glad you recognise that these actions have consequences.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »You need to check your facts. The SS were present in one form or another for every genocidal act throughout the military campaigns (including many of the military occupations)... and the SS had various secondary arms which had other duties than being primarily soldiers. Do some reading.. its obvious your knowledge is hazy.
We've seen that some American police act that way. It's still a far cry from your original statement.
I'll give you that.
Did the SS just go around kneeling on people's necks until they died. Did the SS just punch the crap out of people for no reason? Or drag people out of cars and cuff them and kick them to death like the cops do in america? Maybe they did. I don't know.
But camera existed in the 1930s too. Just not the little ones that you and I hold in our pockets.
Police, in America, are sadists. Nothing more. They get off on fcuking with people. I've experienced it myself through no act of criminality.0 -
If anybody is familiar with the American journalist and blogger Rod Dreher, he has been calling the United States "Weimar America" for the past decade or so due to the underlying socioeconomic issues in America being very similar to Weimar Germany. It seems that with recent events in the past few days the United States is now transitioning from "Weimar America" to "Nazi America" if Dreher is correct.0
-
Advertisement
-
You type alot of words with very little substance.
The US created the conditions for the ideology of isis to flourish, it then provided the environment where many of the top leaders met. That is a matter of record.
As for the Kurds, the americans abandoned them, took interest again when the iranians came to their aid and abandoned them again. Just like they've done to all "allies" throughout their history. If the americans are to involve themselves in deciding the fate of others perhaps they should then ensure those people are not abused afterwards. Otherwise don't show up on day one. At the end of the day it all just proves you're argument of american intervention being necessary is just pure propoganda fluff that you've swallowed hook, line and sinker.
If you think these are a lot of words I shudder to imagine your reading habits.
As to ISIS, now we're getting closer to the truth I think, creating the conditions that permitted ISIS to flourish is one thing, but I can't agree with the point in regards the underlying ideology of Islamist fundamentalism. Such extreme views have sadly had some credence in the region for quite some time and I suspect will continue to do so for quite some time.
Now as for your point in regards US allies, well we shall have to go through the lot and see how they stand. At present the US is essential in guaranteeing the safety of many Eastern European states (the Baltics in particular) as well as South Korea and Japan. Now you want to raise the Kurds and I might be tempted to raise the South Vietnamese as well, but there is a problem, because a lot of these 'abandonments' you talk about arise from situations where people were happy to adopt the outlook you appear to be espousing, which is one of US troops as 'occupiers' and 'conquerors'. To this I can only suggest we compare the state of countries aligned with the Western bloc during the Cold War versus those in the Eastern bloc.So you agree, I'm glad you recognise that these actions have consequences.
You wanted to make the point of actions having consequences? Was actions having consequences ever a serious point of debate? Shall we perhaps debate over the sky being blue or water being wet?0 -
Irish Praetorian wrote: »Taking all of these things as true for a moment, which naturally I wouldn't (although I really wouldn't be far off it when it comes to a lot of the economic mentality etc), is there some kind of better alternative around that you can see? What world power holds these standards to a level that satisfies you? Which powers even come close?
Oh also on the last point, estimates for the death toll arising from the campaigns of Genghis Khan reach up to 40 million.
Why is it a binary argument?
You have a system in place and no matter its faults and failings and even inherent flaws your defaukt position is to not change or improve it. The mantra is always "well this way isn't perfect but it's better than that way...so we should stick with it!"0 -
Irish Praetorian wrote: »If you think these are a lot of words I shudder to imagine your reading habits.
As to ISIS, now we're getting closer to the truth I think, creating the conditions that permitted ISIS to flourish is one thing, but I can't agree with the point in regards the underlying ideology of Islamist fundamentalism. Such extreme views have sadly had some credence in the region for quite some time and I suspect will continue to do so for quite some time.
Now as for your point in regards US allies, well we shall have to go through the lot and see how they stand. At present the US is essential in guaranteeing the safety of many Eastern European states (the Baltics in particular) as well as South Korea and Japan. Now you want to raise the Kurds and I might be tempted to raise the South Vietnamese as well, but there is a problem, because a lot of these 'abandonments' you talk about arise from situations where people were happy to adopt the outlook you appear to be espousing, which is one of US troops as 'occupiers' and 'conquerors'. To this I can only suggest we compare the state of countries aligned with the Western bloc during the Cold War versus those in the Eastern bloc.
You wanted to make the point of actions having consequences? Was actions having consequences ever a serious point of debate? Shall we perhaps debate over the sky being blue or water being wet?
More waffle. I'll leave you to it0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »Why is it a binary argument?
You have a system in place and no matter its faults and failings and even inherent flaws your defaukt position is to not change or improve it. The mantra is always "well this way isn't perfect but it's better than that way...so we should stick with it!"
I'm not sure that it is a binary argument. Actually I think the problem is that we are too wedded to the present system and not willing to change it. Having said that, this really is an off topic discussion and we shouldn't clutter up this thread with it.0 -
-
The main problem with Chump's presidency and continued success past 2020, is his unabashed destruction of diplomatic relations internationally. Both the diplomatic corps, and participation in multi-lateral organizations have dwindled. He has been very able from the start at attacking the media, since he knew most of them were Left of center and anti-himself. He is not statesmanlike but I think Americans have gotten used to his antics and he is almost the new normal. I am hoping for his defeat but I think he has a better chance than Biden, Obama's sloppy sidekick. I can't abide either one. I also think some on the left who can't stand him secretly or openly come around to some of his opinions on illegal immigration and other policies.0
-
Very high food prices in the US
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/us-food-prices-historic-jump-stay-high-70969164
High food prices was one of the reasons for the Syrian Civil War.
Now combine that with the protests and riots in the US, the militarisation of the police, a Great Depression economy, and the coronavirus, and the US is poised to collapse.0 -
Irish Praetorian wrote: »This has got to be one of the most historically illiterate, incoherent and ill-conceived arguments about the US that I've seen on this forum, and considering I've been in more than a few of those Israel-Palestine threads, that is saying something,
I'm going to say to you what I say to most people with what I regard as a fairly unhinged antipathy of the US - ask yourself, compared to what? There are, as you well know, no shortage of US policies which are worthy of criticism, I do so myself occasionally. The bigger question you have to ask is how the course of action which was taken, compared to what alternatives available at the time. A simple example might be the Korean War - I occasionally hear criticism of the US for getting involved in fighting that war and my response has to be, would consigning the population of South Korea to live under the kind of rule we see in North Korea today have been a better outcome? It's easy to stand back and say how much you decry things like civilian casualties or the gratuitous destruction of property - but unless you're an absolute pacifist, then you have to start questioning things a little more deeply and try to come up with a reasonable argument when such circumstances come about.
Or you can just forget about it and continue lobbing ill-informed cliches, to be fair that's a reasonably popular past-time in certain parts.
I'll address you forthwith.
This thread is about the USA and, yes, you are correct, I dragged it out of position, but while we are now, you and and I, on the topic of Korea...North and South, are you aware of the autocratic fascist government that the US installed in Seoul?
Do you honestly think that the rats from above the 39th parallel were just itching to march on Pusan and enslave everyone?
Is that what you think. America murdered a QUARTER of the population of Korea.
The US installed a brutally autocratic dictator in South Korea. No vote, no demonstration over local issues, nothing. And then proceeded to attempt to turn the entire peninsula into an American base.
China and the majority of Koreans didn't want that nor did they want American armour on their land, and in their face.
The US bombed North Korea night and day and night and day until there was nothing left to destroy. They even bombed farm barns because they looked higher.
American bomber pilots dropped their bombs into the sea because their was nothing left to hit.
And you wonder why a country clams up.0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »I'll address you forthwith.
This thread is about the USA and, yes, you are correct, I dragged it out of position, but while we are now, you and and I, on the topic of Korea...North and South, are you aware of the autocratic fascist government that the US installed in Seoul?
Do you honestly think that the rats from above the 39th parallel were just itching to march on Pusan and enslave everyone?
Is that what you think. America murdered a QUARTER of the population of Korea.
The US installed a brutally autocratic dictator in South Korea. No vote, no demonstration over local issues, nothing. And then proceeded to attempt to turn the entire peninsula into an American base.
China and the majority of Koreans didn't want that nor did they want American armour on their land, and in their face.
The US bombed North Korea night and day and night and day until there was nothing left to destroy. They even bombed farm barns because they looked higher.
American bomber pilots dropped their bombs into the sea because their was nothing left to hit.
And you wonder why a country clams up.
Keeping our tangent vaguely on topic, yes I am indeed aware of the autocratic dictatorship which emerged in the south, although I have little evidence to suggest that it was either particularly fascist (which is a term with meaning and should not be thrown around to any dictatorial regime) or just how much a role the US played in the election of Syngman Rhee. However, I am obliged to note that in South Korea as in Taiwan, the regimes of the mid-20th century eventually gave way to functioning multi-party democracies whilst their counterparts in North Korea and China still have not.
Now as to the intentions of the North Koreans, yes I think they wanted to invade and conquer all of Korea, as was the case in Vietnam, as was/is the case with China and Taiwan, and as was the case with Indonesia and Western Papua. There seems to be something of a pattern there. Now I've heard the 'murder a quarter' claim before, I believe it originates from USAAF General Curtis LeMay, but I have not been able to substantiate it, can you?
Also, just to correct a few more of your assertions, there was a vote (several actually) regarding the election of Syngman Rhee and his Liberal party - I can't attest to how fair it was, but I understand the franchise was limited. I am also unable to see how exactly you would measure how much Korea (South or North or both) 'wanted' US intervention. I mean the rest of your post seems to be nothing more than an incredibly stilted and poorly informed reading of Korea's history in the second half of the 20th century. Can I ask where you are getting this from? I ask because it looks highly suspect and frankly beneath both of us.0 -
Advertisement
-
Irish Praetorian wrote: »I see, in which case I think you've been slightly missing the thrust of my argument - it's not that I cannot believe in ideas of international law or a more robust attitude in defence of human rights, but rather I cannot take these ideas seriously when they are wielded by despotic and terrible regimes as a stick with which to attack less problematic countries like the US.
I believe there is something called the Moynihan Principle in international politics, which contends that you hear most about human rights abuses in places where human rights tend to be going in the right direction. I've found that to be disturbingly prescient in many cases.
And yet you champion those who espouse such norms, all the while ignoring and abusing them, yet demanding others should adhere.
Would you say that you, sir, are crashing into your contradictions? From afar, that's how it appears.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement