4 ms·

1. Significance of your statement? Surely you're not saying that brutal dictatorships are fine so long as they're not ignoring earlier "charter documents"... We

1. Significance of your statement? Surely you're not saying that brutal dictatorships are fine so long as they're not ignoring earlier "charter documents"... We don't grade on a curve here. 2. The OP point was that on a 'relative badness' scale the US is better than other governments (see N Korea), so what other governments are doing is very relevant to their point. 3. Uh-huh. It's certainly enlightened of you not to believe patriotically that the US is perfect, but let's be realistic here--anything that US has done other countries have done too. It's fine (in fact it's necessary) to point out how the US is more dirty that commonly assumed, but the proper extension of that realization isn't that every other country/government must be cleaner than we presume them to be. All countries and governments are dirty to some degree or other. The relative rule of law and openness of US society means that our dirtiness eventually becomes public; the same in not true elsewhere.

Terretta 15y ago
> anything that US has done other countries have done too So that's okay, then.
- Legion 15y ago
  Obviously not, but while no state is completely innocent of bad behavior, there are wildly varying degrees to which they are guilty of it. Comparing specific and often short-lived times in the US's history to the permanent, ongoing status quo of other nations is hardly an equitable comparison. That said, I agree that the US, by its founding principles as well as its international status (both earned and self-appointed) make it more than deserving of being held to a higher standard than a rogue state. The price of freedom being eternal vigilance and all.
  - jackpirate 15y ago
    The US's transgressions were much longer lived (e.g. butality against Indians for 100s of years) than the DPRK's, which has only existed for ~60 years. Furthermore, the US's have had much more influence on many more people. Notwithstanding, I'll bet the real reason is that the DPRK hasn't been actively trying to stop Anonymous and the US gov has.
mcantelon 15y ago
>All countries and governments are dirty to some degree or other. Other countries haven't positioned themselves as the world's policeman and moral authority (complete with a large network of military bases), AFAIK. If you set yourself up as a standard of freedom, then it's unsurprising that others will hold you to that standard.
- admiralpumpkin 15y ago
  Of course no other nation has positioned themselves as policeman–they can't logistically or financially do it (though perhaps the US can't financially do it either...). It's certainly not from any internalized Prime Directive. If they could, they would; see CCCP 1950-1991. As for moral authority, I completely disagree. Every nation positions themselves as a moral authority. The other nations are just so small and/or weak that nobody really cares what they say. You really perceive a world of quiet and humble non-US nations, keeping their moral views to themselves?
  - mcantelon 15y ago
    >As for moral authority, I completely disagree. Every nation positions themselves as a moral authority. The other nations are just so small and/or weak that nobody really cares what they say. True... other countries would do the same thing if they could (but they can't and the US can hence the need to try to keep the US in check).

Terretta 15y ago

> anything that US has done other countries have done too So that's okay, then.

Legion 15y ago
Obviously not, but while no state is completely innocent of bad behavior, there are wildly varying degrees to which they are guilty of it. Comparing specific and often short-lived times in the US's history to the permanent, ongoing status quo of other nations is hardly an equitable comparison. That said, I agree that the US, by its founding principles as well as its international status (both earned and self-appointed) make it more than deserving of being held to a higher standard than a rogue state. The price of freedom being eternal vigilance and all.
- jackpirate 15y ago
  The US's transgressions were much longer lived (e.g. butality against Indians for 100s of years) than the DPRK's, which has only existed for ~60 years. Furthermore, the US's have had much more influence on many more people. Notwithstanding, I'll bet the real reason is that the DPRK hasn't been actively trying to stop Anonymous and the US gov has.

mcantelon 15y ago

>All countries and governments are dirty to some degree or other. Other countries haven't positioned themselves as the world's policeman and moral authority (complete with a large network of military bases), AFAIK. If you set yourself up as a standard of freedom, then it's unsurprising that others will hold you to that standard.

admiralpumpkin 15y ago
Of course no other nation has positioned themselves as policeman–they can't logistically or financially do it (though perhaps the US can't financially do it either...). It's certainly not from any internalized Prime Directive. If they could, they would; see CCCP 1950-1991. As for moral authority, I completely disagree. Every nation positions themselves as a moral authority. The other nations are just so small and/or weak that nobody really cares what they say. You really perceive a world of quiet and humble non-US nations, keeping their moral views to themselves?
- mcantelon 15y ago
  >As for moral authority, I completely disagree. Every nation positions themselves as a moral authority. The other nations are just so small and/or weak that nobody really cares what they say. True... other countries would do the same thing if they could (but they can't and the US can hence the need to try to keep the US in check).