Syria and UN Security Council Decision

[trustbutverify]

Probably foreign mercenaries are spiking the instant coffee of Syria's youth with hallucinogenic drugs, turning them into traitors. Might be the work of Zionist agents posing as Sanka salesman.

 

[Arcade22]

Once again, what was acceptable 50 or 100 years ago no longer is.

50 years? And i thought America wined and dined with Saddam while he was slicing and dicing the Kurds no more than 30 years ago. One only has to ask: when will Americans support another terrible tyrannical government because it's geopolitically and economically advantageous? 10 years? Or are they not doing that right now?

Would you likewise excuse China if they sent some ships to Africa, rounded up a bunch of people, and sent them back to China for sale as slaves?

I'm not excusing anyone. I'm just pointing out the pathetic hypocrisy. Then again at least there is some form of consistency: Russia bad, 'Murrica good.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm not excusing anyone.

Then to get back on topic, who do you think is shelling Syrian civilians at this very moment, and what do you think the international community should do to stop it?

 

[Virus]

If its all down to interests as you claim it is then there's no hypocracy. Offing Assad is in America's and their allies interest. He's an enemy state.

 

[angrysoba]

It's not a pretense. I really don't see how supporting the communist invasion of South Korea, then invading South Korea, then supporting the communist invasion of South Vietnam, then supporting an utterly brutal communist insurgency in Cambodia, then invading North Vietnam, can reasonably be construed as anything other than a particularly odious form of inverventionism.

As far as South Korea is concerned, it was North Korea that invaded, not China. As far as I know, the Chinese took no part in the invasion. The intervention came once it was no longer an internal matter and involved the UN forces driving the North back over the 38th parallel. It seems this is when the Chinese decided to commit troops. Up until then it was considered to be an internal matter of a Civil War.

I'm reading Max Hastings' The Korean War right now, as it happens. Admittedly it is a bit old now and may have been surpassed by a lot of recent scholarship, but he cites Khruschev's memoirs, admittedly another dubious source, saying that Mao Tse-tung were happy enough for North Korea to invade South Korea as they considered the case of the two Koreas to be an internal matter. Thinking of the two Koreas as one country, with an arbitrary dividing line, was quite normal back then and not just among the Chinese.

A civil war is usually considered an internal matter. A revolution is an internal matter. Demonstrations and coups are internal matters. etc... Revolutions are internal matters.

You may have a point with the Khmer Rouge. I don't know how much China was instrumental in intervening on behalf of the Khmer Rouge to help them take power. If the Khmer Rouge were directed or funded by the Chinese for the purpose of overthrowing the government then I would agree that it amounts to interference in the internal affairs of the country. On the other hand, if it was simply recognizing a de facto government then no.

As for Vietnam, we have already discussed this. It is not interference in an internal matter if it is intervention in a war between countries. Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia was not seen as an internal matter.

This is simpler than you acknowledge.

 

[WildCat]

50 years? And i thought America wined and dined with Saddam while he was slicing and dicing the Kurds no more than 30 years ago.

Is what what it was all about?

One only has to ask: when will Americans support another terrible tyrannical government because it's geopolitically and economically advantageous? 10 years? Or are they not doing that right now?

Define "support", so it's clear we're talking about the same thing. And who was it that took out Saddam?

I'm not excusing anyone. I'm just pointing out the pathetic hypocrisy. Then again at least there is some form of consistency: Russia bad, 'Murrica good.

So Russia and China's interest in preventing actions against Syria are similar to western interests in Iraq 30 years ago? You may not have noticed, but the Warsaw Pact was still very much alive and the Cold War was raging. The world has changed drastically in the last 30 years.

And it's not like Russia and China took their cues from the US. Russia's meddling is legion and China has their issues with Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, even India.

If it ever was OK to prop up tyrannical dictators, it isn't any longer. The civilized world is getting tired of tin pot dictators and the problems they cause.

 

[WildCat]

As for Vietnam, we have already discussed this. It is not interference in an internal matter if it is intervention in a war between countries. Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia was not seen as an internal matter.

Explain why China was meddling in Cambodia again, helping install and propping up Pol Pot if they had no interests in the internal matters of other countries?

And just to be clear, is it OK for anyone to prop up a brutal dictatorship these days?

 

[MG1962]

Explain why China was meddling in Cambodia again, helping install and propping up Pol Pot if they had no interests in the internal matters of other countries?

And just to be clear, is it OK for anyone to prop up a brutal dictatorship these days?

You really need to pick your fights better

 

[angrysoba]

Explain why China was meddling in Cambodia again, helping install and propping up Pol Pot if they had no interests in the internal matters of other countries?

You may have a point with the Khmer Rouge. I don't know how much China was instrumental in intervening on behalf of the Khmer Rouge to help them take power. If the Khmer Rouge were directed or funded by the Chinese for the purpose of overthrowing the government then I would agree that it amounts to interference in the internal affairs of the country. On the other hand, if it was simply recognizing a de facto government then no.

And just to be clear, is it OK for anyone to prop up a brutal dictatorship these days?

I've never said it is okay. Why do you ask?

 

[WildCat]

You really need to pick your fights better

So is it OK to prop up or protect brutal dictators? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

 

[MG1962]

So is it OK to prop up or protect brutal dictators? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

LOL ask the American government. They propped up Pol Pot for 15 years

 

[WildCat]

LOL ask the American government. They propped up Pol Pot for 15 years

I'm sorry, the People's Republic of China is not a US state or territory.

 

[MG1962]

I'm sorry, the People's Republic of China is not a US state or territory.

Like I said you need to pick your fights.

It seems to have slipped your mind the US backed Pol Pot, and if reports are true also tried to aid the Khmer Rouge to regain power after the Vietnamese invasion in 1978.

But thats okay because the US were cozying up to the Chinese at the time cause both of them hated a Soviet influenced Vietnam. But who am I to argue, if the greatest freedom loving democracy chose to support a homicidal maniac, then I guess it should be okay for me to do it too.

 

[Weird Science]

The far left, experience shows, will support anybody and everybody who will poke the "western capitalists" in the eye, under the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" rule.

 

[WildCat]

Like I said you need to pick your fights.

It seems to have slipped your mind the US backed Pol Pot, and if reports are true also tried to aid the Khmer Rouge to regain power after the Vietnamese invasion in 1978.

I can't wait to see the cite for this! I bet it somehow twists refusing to recognize the Vietnam-installed government for a UN seat into "tried to aid the Khmer Rouge to regain power".

 

[MG1962]

I can't wait to see the cite for this! I bet it somehow twists refusing to recognize the Vietnam-installed government for a UN seat into "tried to aid the Khmer Rouge to regain power".

You are hilarious - the Vietnamese remove a a government who was killing people at a rate that even Stalin would be proud off, and they are the bad guys

You then bag China for supporting the same guy. Your world must be such a cozy place

But then you corner yourself with the realization China invaded Vietnam over the invasion of Cambodia.

 

[WildCat]

You are hilarious - the Vietnamese remove a a government who was killing people at a rate that even Stalin would be proud off, and they are the bad guys

You then bag China for supporting the same guy. Your world must be such a cozy place

But then you corner yourself with the realization China invaded Vietnam over the invasion of Cambodia.

So you are actually claiming that refusing to recognize the Vietnamese-installed government is supporting Pol Pot?

 

[MG1962]

So you are actually claiming that refusing to recognize the Vietnamese-installed government is supporting Pol Pot?

Are you suggesting supporting a homicidal maniac is a better choice?

 

[Virus]

America supported Stalin during WW2 then went to war with him. Hypocrisy? Outraged

I guess history is a bitch.

 

[MG1962]

America supported Stalin during WW2 then went to war with him. Hypocrisy? Outraged

I guess history is a bitch.

Not really. There are a lot of Americans alive today because of that choice