4 ms·
How another country chooses to conduct itself within its borders is none of our business.
by wGeF7H8Z59y985y 6y ago
How another country chooses to conduct itself within its borders is none of our business.
- breitling 6y agoLol... Really? We have delivered "democracy" to many countries, whether they want it or not. Evidently, it seems it absolutely is our business how countries conduct themselves within their borders.
- wGeF7H8Z59y985y 6y agoEither you’re missing an /s somewhere, or you’re arguing that a past pattern of behavior itself serves as justification of continued behavior in the same vein.
- breitling 6y agoI don't think we should get involved at all, but was just arguing that we do care what other countries do within their borders. That's all
- latch 6y agoDid any of those countries have a nuclear arsenal?
- sofixa 6y ago> We have delivered "democracy" to many countries, whether they want it or not And that hasn't worked out well anywhere for the past what, 60 years?
- Hnrobert42 6y agoSaid the French and British about the Germans.
- whomst 6y agoDo you think WWII was justified?
- wGeF7H8Z59y985y 6y agoGermany’s conduct extended far beyond its borders by way of direct military action.
- jhardy54 6y agoAnd if they had only killed minorities within their borders...?
- wGeF7H8Z59y985y 6y agoGet our own house in order first, then write a book about it and ship it out for free. If they don’t listen, it’s their loss. You won’t right every wrong nor mend every fence. It’s impossible, and the price you pay for constantly trying the same old failed thing is felt at home by some other minority group that could have used the resources which were squandered on faraway struggles of the cold or hot variety.
- sofixa 6y agoConsidering the British had a huge colonial empire, the US had brutal segregation, rampant anti-Semitism ( so much so they refused ships with Jewish refugees and sent them back to their death in German occupied Europe) and eugenics experiments, and the USSR( the third main country in the Allies, mostly by necessity, but nonetheless) was pretty much as violent to their minorities as the Nazis were... What could any of them say without being blatantly hypocritical?
- GekkePrutser 6y agoIt is if it's a matter of universal human rights transgressions.
- latch 6y agoI know people cry "whataboutism" when these counter arguments come up, but I'm genuinely curious how all this squares up. Most of the countries we'd hope would "stand up to China" have a poor human rights record. I don't want to say one is better or worse than the other - I don't know how you measure one group of injustices against another - but in the scale of things, generously, both have room for improvement. If the argument is that just because country A does B+C+D, doesn't mean they can't stand up to country W for doing X+Y+Z, doesn't it just become an issue of who can yield the bigger stick or carrot? If protecting human rights is selectively applied based on might AND that same might is also used to oppress human rights, isn't that setting an dangerous precedent?
- Guest42 6y agoIt seems as though this notion gets very subjective and gets leveraged to influence policy decisions. Libya and Iraq are the first examples that come to mind.