(Original post by DorianGrayism)
The USA are criticised because they are hypocritical. Throughout their history they have said they want to promote freedom and they will openly support dictatorships at the same time.
Perhaps so, but it's similarly just as hypocritical to go from opposing dictators to opposing their overthrow just because the United States shifts their position. It's a simple truth that the Left treated Kurdistan and others living under Ba'athist repression as one of their main causes during the 1980s. And then 1991 came: the United States turned course on Iraq, and the so-called Left suddenly comes to treat the Ba'athist oligarchy/criminal mafia as some sort of victim. You will also find these pseudo-intellectual types fervently defending Iran's nuclear programme against legitimate international criticism, while blaming the U.S. for its support of Mubarak and the House of Saud (both of these countries being overwhelmingly supplied by
countries, by the way). I have absolutely no time for such a hypocritical sentiment either. I have no time for people who simply base the credibility of a foreign policy decision on the basis of what the United States chooses to do. I don't care if, when I believe there is a case for war, the warmaking power has a "hypocritical" record. I care about each specific case, judging them by their own merits. I would not, for example, have opposed the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge in 1979/80 because the Vietnamese who invaded may have had close relations with the equally repugnant thugs in Moscow.
Or they will exaggerate/make things up to attack other countries which they did in Iraq and Kosovo.
As I said, I
about any official U.S. governmental claim when I believe that a certain foreign policy decision is worthwhile (although I'd still be willing to argue that the case for WMD/terrorism is still one of the strongest arguments for the war).
China and Russia are also criticised quite often. However, no one expects them to invade Libya because they don't claim to promote freedom and etc around the world. They quite openly don't care.
Oh, brilliant. Of course, support for regimes significantly worse than any U.S.-backed regime (i.e. North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Myanmar etc.), and expansionist ventures in Georgia, can
be worse than "hypocrisy".
The same way that the British were criticised when they ran their empire. On one hand they claimed to be a bastion of civility and etc, whilst their troops were massacring unarmed Indian civilians.
You give away your whole argument with this cheap point. What Iraqi civilians have the U.S. forces taken into slavery (with official government mandate)? What Iraqi civilians have been subjected to routine slaughter? What Iraqi homes have been pillaged by U.S. forces, without punishment? What Iraqi women have been systematically raped and tortured recreationally?
cite isolated cases, which we all know about and all condemn. Iraq is governed by Iraqis, for Iraqis, with a Kurdish President (something almost unthinkable 10 years ago).