but there is no mention of the equally hypocritical US support for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, Morocco and other repressive Arab regimes
You're right, I missed the reference. However, merely putting Saudi Arabia on the list of oppressive Arab regimes doesn't begin to do justice to the strength of the Saudi lobby, nor the real buddy-buddy ties the foreign establishment has with Our Friends the Saudis.
Also, I hardly think being friends with a Israel - a democracy surrounded by Arab enemies and under constant terror pressure from Arab governments who have taken their wars underground, is hardly "equally hypocritical" to turning a blind eye to the thousands or tens of thousands killed by autocratic Arab regimes at various times.
Israel is judged by vastly harsher terms on human rights than the Palestinians are, or any Arab regime.
Did you ever catch the story where a gaggle of foreign correspondents were waiting at Arafat's compound in Ramallah for a press conference, and some PA policemen marched a prisoner around a corner from them, stood him against the wall, and shot him? And nobody even reported it but Khalid Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post? Just imagine for a single second, if such a thing had happened in Jerusalem! The policemen were like, hey, what's the big deal? nobody told us to stop working. Just an ordinary day's work.
Remind me, aren't the Europeans supposed to be very sensitive about the issue of capital punishment? There were about 20 European reporters there. None of them found the story worth mentioning.
>> Ah yes, that Utopia of "international law and human rights", which only the US impedes.
Nobody I know has ever made that argument.
Of course not, that wording would lay the real purpose of the argument bare.
The argument is that the world as whole and USA included would benefit from fair and equitable rule of law. Law and order mean the weak have a recourse against the strong. So the strong naturally have a reflex against giving up their perks and prefer the law of jungle, since more often than not that law works in their favor. US being the strongest beast in the international jungle, is the fiercest opponent of establishment of the international law, but it certainly is not the only one
Ahem. Who first proposed and implemented the idea of a League of Nations or the UN? The US, wasn't it? But that was before the UN became a dictators' club of unaccountable governments, where reflexive anti-Americanism is a favorite pastime.
Every part of the world started out as some lawless whatever the overlord says goes and eventually evolved towards civil society. This evolution was not due to benevolent aristocrats wishing the good of the public, but rather due to the acknowledgement of its collective benefits. And so it was that a House of Lords and eventually a House of Commons were established. Parallels have existed everywhere in the world and the sooner a society established these civil institutions, the sooner it prospered.
You mean like Russia under the Tsars, or England under King and Parliament? In either case, you're obviously talking about a world government.
The United States has a real chance to lead the world forward towards this inevitable destination. As its only hyperpower (for now) we can suggest and almost dictate the terms how such institutions should work. Either we will do this now, while we have the chance and can shape its outcome (and later claim credit for our foresight).
I get it. You want America to conquer the world and impose universal parliamentary democracy. That is what you are saying, right? I beg to be excused from my share of the conquest, thank you very much.
And if that wasn't what you meant, please be more explicit as to what exactly you are wishing for, to be implemented how & by whom. |
