Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
How is shaking hands with dictators, or even trading with them and supporting them to further *your own cause* somehow equal to "pathetic compliance with ruthless dictators"?
|
This is a nonquestion, as the answer is manifest. If you're going to blast other nations about their dealings with "ruthless dictators", best make sure you're not chummy with any yourself. Oh, sure, we helped Saddam 'cos he fought against the Ayatollah.
Maybe there's something legit there. I doubt it, but my mind is open enough to admit that much.
But giving money to the Taliban? Propping up Pervez Musharraf? Cozying up to Islam Karimov? How on earth are these things justified? How can this not be considered compliance? You're saying that since the United States is the one giving them the things that they want (usually hard currency or weapons) isn't fairly "pathetic compliance" with their demands? Get real.
Quote:
|
Had the US given Saddam support after he had threatened to attack, then you might have been correct. But that was clearly not the case.
|
Ever hear of April Glaspie?
Read this, and then try to make that statement again. I would argue that granting him tacit permission to attack Kuwait was all the support he needed at that moment.
Quote:
|
One might argue that these petty dictators were the ones that were pathetic, because they were so dependent on foreign support...
|
Or was it the United States who was dependent upon
their support? We got really cozy with Pervez Musharraf in a big hurry, didn't we? And what exactly did we have to promise Islam Karimov to get his backing for the "war on terra"?
But, of course, we're the
United States of America!. When we cozy up to foreign lunatics, it's "good statemanship". When France does it, it's "pathetic compliance." Gotcha.
One of these days, someone's gonna have to compile a Republican-to-English translation dictionary. Maybe then these tragic misunderstandings will stop happening.