08-02-2011, 09:59 AM
You know on forums when other countries are criticized. Someone always defends them by saying "Well the USA and Europe are just as bad" "I suppose you think the USA and Europe are perfect then". Those arguments never work for me. For example in a debate on Iraq someone English said, well they needed to get rid of Hussein because he had people abused in jail etc. And someone said "what you think the USA never abused people in jail? You think the USA has good rights" etc. Why would an English not criticize him just because America did bad things as well. I understand that they're thinking of hypocritical conservatives who use vulnerable countries flaws as an excuse to attack them/wage war. But the argument just never works for me. Like I was reading one on a UK socialist forum about some South American government the socialists wanted to support, and some guy was saying, I won't support that government because they arrested gay people. And they all said, I suppose you think gays never get treated badly in England, sort out your own country before you criticize others. But h was just saying he felt bad supporting a country with a bad record. And IMO that kind of argument doesn't face up to the issue, it just distracts it, so theres bad in other places. I think it makes more sense to say, yes whatever human rights flaw there is bad, but for us the priority is stopping our own country's war/imperialism. I have known clever left wing people/human rights activists who have more detailed arguments like that (like the people who write in amnesty international magazine). But that other type of argument seems to be the most common one. What do you think.