Fred Hiatt cuts to the quick:
Have we? How so? Which nation does not act in its interests? France? Russia? China? Germany? Who?
Witness the excessive politicizing of Amnesty International which you have cited earlier in the other thread. Witness the “prosecutions” worldwide which target Pinochet and right-wing dictators with threats to do so to Nixon, Kissinger, etc. but fail to arrest and even fete Castro, Arafat and other leaders of the international “struggle.” I think that there is a very strong danger that such a court would also become excessively politicized. Are you saying I and others like me are totally out of line to fear this?
No. We insist that other nations such as Iran and North Korea do not develop nuclear weapons. Also, the US having nuclear weapons is not the same as say Saudi Arabia, which would cause Egypt and Iran to go nuclear as well. Had we been able to, I think keeping India and Pakistan from getting nuclear weapons would have made the region more stable and secure. Do you think that we were wrong to keep Argentina, Chile and Brazil from going nuclear? What would they have gained by going nuclear? Do you think that the US is an inappropriate or dangerous “policeman” that requires nuclear protection? Who besides Iran and North Korea is really worried?
That is a bit rich. How many wars have been fought since WWII? How many of them have had UN approval? Only the action in Korea because the Soviets were boycotting and the action in Kuwait in 1991. While the left has been thrilled to see action in Bosnia and Kosovo all without UN approval, it has made a big fuss over Iraq without really understanding or seeing that glaring inconsistency. Is this the type of do what we want when we want to do it behavior that the article and author is not in fact critizing?
Numerous US funded studies have examined our prison system, court system, whether citizens have been disenfranchised, have lost their civil rights, constitutional rights, etc. The author would seem to be willfully ignorant of these numerous studies.
Given the empires throughout history, if in fact we are not a force for good but one of subjugation and exploitation, I would have to say we have done a very pisspoor job of conquering the world and subjugating it to our interests. Which readers is he talking about? What is his problem with this premise? All he does is make statements that do not in fact have any bearing on any specific action that the US has taken. Random questions? Is that what passes for a forcible argument these days?
How many times has France not displayed the proper respect to other nations?
How many times has Germany refused to fund worthy programs?
How many times has Russia not helped Africa?
Ah, such deep and powerful questions and ultimately without further information on the specifics, entirely irrelevant.
I accept that as long as it is done realistically and justly.
I would say yes. Can the author show why not?
Most of the time that would be a resounding yes. Are we perfect? No. Are we very very very good? Yes.
How does that advance world peace, and the goals of bringing human rights and democracy to nations around the world?
I disagree. You are a butt munch of the first order if you think that inappropriate “touching” of the Koran by “infidels” (isn’t that racism?) is worse than the “unspeakable” mass graves at Hilla. I think that you should speak more about them rather than remaining silent or focusing on areas of such trite significance. (I am speaking to the author here).
so my final assessment is that he is a mindless twat. Come out with the evidence or shut up. All these questions without evidence? All these suggested insinuated criticisms do not bear up in the strong light of logical rational intelligent questioning (give myself an A) haha
You’ve completely missed the point.
What is the point then in your words PP? I have read the author’s statements and I completely disagree with this suggested malfeasance. If he has issues, let him come forward. If he has a benchmark, say, France or Germany or Canada that he would like to measure the US against, I say bring it on. In fact, I would welcome very much a chance for the US to compare how it acts with how other nations act. Put those questions to Germany, France or any of our other civilized brother nations and see how they compare. But that is not really the point of this “discussion” is it? The conclusions to this one are that since the US government acts in ways that your author does not like, then the US government which has been duly and freely elected to represent the views of the majority of Americans while protecting the rights of the minority should in fact change course to better represent this one individual’s sensibilities and interests. After all, he is more enlightened than the “folks” who voted for Bush and in support of his policies and therefore his views should be given greater weight and credence? Isn’t that what he is really trying to say? the views of most Americans are offensive to him and we need to look to the interests of other countries first? And those countries despite having their own interests will be allowed to judge when and how world policies will be implemented and when and how US forces will be used to enforce them? Right?
You’re still missing the point. Completely.
You keep explaining that but you do not say how. I am all ears as to how I am missing his point. If you want to keep supplying the “you are missing the point completely” refrain, then just tell me you don’t want to discuss the issue and I will be happy to pretend to be impressed by your cryptic comment and will leave the field to you. Otherwise, you are right. I still have nary a clue as to “how I don’t get it.” Explain it to me.
I hate when threads start going in this direction. PP you posted an article that Fred Smith responded to. You claim that he has missed the point but them refuse to explain what you think the point of the article was.
This is as bad as some of the other threads that go on forever and read like this
Poster A: Prove it
Poster B I did prove it
Poster A: No you didnt
Poster B: Yes I did
If you think someone doesnt understand your point then you need to explain your point so that the conversation can continue not just continue to post “You miss the point”
I think Fred has missed the point entirely.
On the contrary…I think Fred has done a fine job of explaining his position, and furthermore has asked twice for the point. Nothing is gained by repeatedly posting “You have missed the point.”
Some people just don’t have the “conscience” gene so explaining moral hypocrisy to them is a bit like trying to explain the color indigo to a congenitally blind person.
For such people, it’s ridiculously self-evident that the highest value is “the greatest personal gain for the least personal effort and risk” and claiming that there’s any value higher than that is foolishly and dangerously “Jimmy Carteresqe.” Anyone making such claims should be trounced upon with the utmost dudgeon and vigor in the name of the collective self-interest.
They’re forever grinding every fact and event through the dispassionate calculus of maximum self-interest and coming up with such amoral sausages as “neoconservatism” (Ayn) Randism, Baathism etc. and wondering privately what exactly it is that’s stopping them from just killing those noisy moralistic effetes who just won’t shut up and go along and stop effectively rendering aid and comfort to the enemy.
[quote=“spook”]Some people just don’t have the “conscience” gene so explaining moral hypocrisy to them is a bit like trying to explain the color indigo to a congenitally blind person.
For such people, it’s ridiculously self-evident that the highest value is “international consensus” and claiming that there’s any value higher than that is foolishly and dangerously “neo-conservative.” Anyone making such claims should be trounced upon with the utmost dudgeon and vigor in the name of the collective self-interest.[/quote]
here, i fixed your post for you.
Wow, this went from potentially informative to retardedly childish in near record time, didn’t it.