Moral equivalence of the West and others, split from Corbyn thread

[secret squirrel]

Thread split as the discussion has branched

It's called the rule of law and democracy. You might one day realize that it's a good thing, even when pretty imperfectly implemented, and that unaccountable violent extremists murdering people is a bad thing.

Well, whatever you want to call it, it results in British soldiers going into other people's countries, going into their homes, and murdering them. And for what? Lies in parliament? Access to oil? The share price of American arms manufacturers? Emerging markets for military contractors? It also results in the British state supporting appalling regimes such as the USA as they rampage around the world. Western countries are not noble actors on the world stage, to say the least, and the armed forces are the jackboots they stamp with. This isn't some leftist conspiracy theory. It is in the history books and the newspapers, provided you pay attention. If you are persuaded by the smokescreen of high sentiment the State uses to whitewash these activities for domestic audiences then I can only suggest you read more about it. But I have already done the reading, and so I am not persuaded.

[dyqik]

It's called the rule of law and democracy. You might one day realize that it's a good thing, even when pretty imperfectly implemented, and that unaccountable violent extremists murdering people is a bad thing.

Well, whatever you want to call it, it results in British soldiers going into other people's countries, going into their homes, and murdering them. And for what? Lies in parliament? Access to oil? The share price of American arms manufacturers? Emerging markets for military contractors? It also results in the British state supporting appalling regimes such as the USA as they rampage around the world. Western countries are not noble actors on the world stage, to say the least, and the armed forces are the jackboots they stamp with. This isn't some leftist conspiracy theory. It is in the history books and the newspapers, provided you pay attention. If you are persuaded by the smokescreen of high sentiment the State uses to whitewash these activities for domestic audiences then I can only suggest you read more about it. But I have already done the reading, and so I am not persuaded.

I'm talking about the ideals of Western democracies. I know they are incredibly flawed in practice.

But what do you propose replacing Western democracies with? Presumeably not terrorist run states or states with a bunch of competing armed groups like the IRA that happily and deliberately target civilians as a matter of top level policy.

[secret squirrel]

Do you really think that Western democracies are just as bad as Saudi Arabia, Russia or the ISIS Caliphate? Because that's an outright rejection of human rights, the idea of self-determination, and the possibility of progress.

Well, Western countries are much more liberal socially, which is good, but in terms of foreign policy I don't think it's clear cut at all. Especially when you consider that the regimes you list are either supported by, or products of Western (primarily American as they call the shots) policy.

[dyqik]

Do you really think that Western democracies are just as bad as Saudi Arabia, Russia or the ISIS Caliphate? Because that's an outright rejection of human rights, the idea of self-determination, and the possibility of progress.

Well, Western countries are much more liberal socially, which is good, but in terms of foreign policy I don't think it's clear cut at all. Especially when you consider that the regimes you list are either supported by, or products of Western (primarily American as they call the shots) policy.

Sorry, I don't think we can have any further conversation about this until you recognize that there's some shades of gray, and that attempts at recognizing human rights, the rule of law and at not committing atrocities are valuable, even if they don't always succeed.

[GeenDienst]

Would mr squirrel help us out by outlining Isis's foreign policy?

[dyqik]

Would me squirrel help us out by outlining Isis's foreign policy?

Or Saudi Arabia's. Or Russia's.

[secret squirrel]

Sorry, I don't think we can have any further conversation about this until you recognize that there's some shades of gray, and that attempts at recognizing human rights, the rule of law and at not committing atrocities are valuable, even if they don't always succeed.

How can you look at the Western support for fascist coups in places like Chile, Indonesia, Argentina, and Nicaragua, the extra judicial murders by the likes of the CIA and the SAS, the support for the brutal invasion of East Timor by the fascist regime in Indonesia, everything we know about Vietnam from the Pentagon papers, the fact that annihilating nuclear first-strikes against the USSR were advocated at the highest levels of the American government, the funding of the very worst Islamist groups, the ongoing looting of Africa by Western countries, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the role of the IMF in forcing destructive economic policies on developing or otherwise unstable countries (including Russia in the collapse of the USSR), the massive incarcerated Black population in America, the increasing disconnect between the will of the people and legislation, the increasing domination of big business interests in politics, etc. etc. etc. and think the West (as embodied by the US and its hangers on) pay anything but lip-service to these ideals? At what point do you begin to suspect that it's not a sequence of aberrations? To be blunt, how many non-Westerners have to die before it makes an impression on you? What is missing from your brain? It's nice that you personally feel secure in your life, that you feel well served by the status quo, but you are extremely privileged.

[dyqik]

Sorry, I don't think we can have any further conversation about this until you recognize that there's some shades of gray, and that attempts at recognizing human rights, the rule of law and at not committing atrocities are valuable, even if they don't always succeed.

How can you look at the Western support for fascist coups in places like Chile, Indonesia, Argentina, and Nicaragua, the extra judicial murders by the likes of the CIA and the SAS, the support for the brutal invasion of East Timor by the fascist regime in Indonesia, everything we know about Vietnam from the Pentagon papers, the fact that annihilating nuclear first-strikes against the USSR were advocated at the highest levels of the American government, the funding of the very worst Islamist groups, the ongoing looting of Africa by Western countries, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the role of the IMF in forcing destructive economic policies on developing or otherwise unstable countries (including Russia in the collapse of the USSR), the massive incarcerated Black population in America, the increasing disconnect between the will of the people and legislation, the increasing domination of big business interests in politics, etc. etc. etc. and think the West (as embodied by the US and its hangers on) pay anything but lip-service to these ideals? At what point do you begin to suspect that it's not a sequence of aberrations? To be blunt, how many non-Westerners have to die before it makes an impression on you? What is missing from your brain? It's nice that you personally feel secure in your life, that you feel well served by the status quo, but you are extremely privileged.

You are an apologist for those regimes. You are denying that those regimes can ever be improved on.

[secret squirrel]

You are an apologist for those regimes. You are denying that those regimes can ever be improved on.

I'm sorry but this is just a stupid response. You've got nothing.

[dyqik]

You are an apologist for those regimes. You are denying that those regimes can ever be improved on.

I'm sorry but this is just a stupid response. You've got nothing.

My only point is to ask that you please stop defending fascism and terrorists with false equivalency.

[Grumble]

Do you really think that Western democracies are just as bad as Saudi Arabia, Russia or the ISIS Caliphate? Because that's an outright rejection of human rights, the idea of self-determination, and the possibility of progress.

Well, Western countries are much more liberal socially, which is good, but in terms of foreign policy I don't think it's clear cut at all. Especially when you consider that the regimes you list are either supported by, or products of Western (primarily American as they call the shots) policy.

I thought you were talking about the IRA, not something that happened abroad.

[dyqik]

Do you really think that Western democracies are just as bad as Saudi Arabia, Russia or the ISIS Caliphate? Because that's an outright rejection of human rights, the idea of self-determination, and the possibility of progress.

Well, Western countries are much more liberal socially, which is good, but in terms of foreign policy I don't think it's clear cut at all. Especially when you consider that the regimes you list are either supported by, or products of Western (primarily American as they call the shots) policy.

I thought you were talking about the IRA, not something that happened abroad.

I don't think it's useful to declare a difference between at home and abroad for these purposes.

However, it does make the comparison invalid, as the IRA didn't have a foreign policy worthy of the name that you can compare.

[lpm]

1) We should judge by actions, not by identities. If you identify yourself as a nice kind liberal democracy but murder children, your identity doesn't count for anything

2) The actions of the IRA, ISIS etc etc are utterly terrible and every single one of us here condemn them

3) Bombs from nice kind liberal democracies kill a lot of children in Afghanistan, Syria etc. On one hand, this isn't the aim, and efforts are made to prevent these atrocities. On the other hand, the volume of bombing is far far greater than what the IRA could ever achieve. The very small % of atrocities multiplied by the huge volume of western bombings probably comes out somewhere equal to the very high % of atrocities multiplied by the tiny volume of terrorist bombing?

[bjn]

1) We should judge by actions, not by identities. If you identify yourself as a nice kind liberal democracy but murder children, your identity doesn't count for anything

2) The actions of the IRA, ISIS etc etc are utterly terrible and every single one of us here condemn them

3) Bombs from nice kind liberal democracies kill a lot of children in Afghanistan, Syria etc. On one hand, this isn't the aim, and efforts are made to prevent these atrocities. On the other hand, the volume of bombing is far far greater than what the IRA could ever achieve. The very small % of atrocities multiplied by the huge volume of western bombings probably comes out somewhere equal to the very high % of atrocities multiplied by the tiny volume of terrorist bombing?

The Black and Tans were explicitly supported by the British state, later on it turned a blind eye to the UDF, Red Hand Commandos et al.

[Martin_B]

1) We should judge by actions, not by identities. If you identify yourself as a nice kind liberal democracy but murder children, your identity doesn't count for anything

2) The actions of the IRA, ISIS etc etc are utterly terrible and every single one of us here condemn them

3) Bombs from nice kind liberal democracies kill a lot of children in Afghanistan, Syria etc. On one hand, this isn't the aim, and efforts are made to prevent these atrocities. On the other hand, the volume of bombing is far far greater than what the IRA could ever achieve. The very small % of atrocities multiplied by the huge volume of western bombings probably comes out somewhere equal to the very high % of atrocities multiplied by the tiny volume of terrorist bombing?

The Black and Tans were explicitly supported by the British state, later on it turned a blind eye to the UDF, Red Hand Commandos et al.

Yes. The British state also was not only complicit in, but actively created, slave labour in America. The British state then did more than most around the world at the time to stop slavery.

This doesn't mean that everything Britain does should be judged based on the creation of slavery, nor that everything that Britain does is morally superior because they worked to stop slavery.

I think what lpm means (and certainly what I believe) is that no-one is pure and no-one (well almost no-one) is irretrievably evil, and we should view each case on it's merits. Otherwise we're into the "Corbyn met Hamas terrorists therefore he's 100% anti-Semitic/Thatcher met Pinochet therefore she's complicit in war crimes" style squabbling which never resolves anything.