It is not unique. It’s called respecting other countries’ self-determination, sovereignty, and the principle of non-intervention. These are very simple and basic concepts in international law all Russians I know are acquainted with.

Besides this, you know full-well that Iran sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah and doesn’t care sh*t about non-intervention. You know, Hamas and Hezbollah, those freedom-fighters fighting the interests of corporations that make large contributions to US political candidates through PACs. Why should this principle of non-intervention be applied to the country that itself never cares for it?
“Not to loose high moral grounds?” Very clever, indeed.

It is not unique. It’s called respecting other countries’ self-determination, sovereignty, and the principle of non-intervention. These are very simple and basic concepts in international law all Russians I know are acquainted with.

Sure they are. With our enlightened leader in charge, we now have a lot of action against Non-Govermental Organizations, since it’s supposed that all they do is plot revolutions, like the “Yellow” one in Ukraine, and support “extremism”. Besides this, we also have politicians arguing that the whole concept of “human rights” was invented by the West in order to meddle in other countries’ affairs. And a lot of MSMs were closed — they were owned by the evil meddlesome outsiders.

However, we have also done some good things covertly. Such as supporting pro-democracy groups in the old Soviet Bloc. We did this for self-interest to be sure, but the result was a win-win for the most part. Hopefully we could do the same thing for Iran.

If we were handing guns to dissidents in Iran, I’d be against it. If we were trying to create a dissident group in Iran were no dissidents existed in the first place I’d also be against it. but if we go in and help out protesting students and bus-drivers financially, then I think this is a good idea.

You are officially not Russian, and not living in Russia. It is astounding that an American citizen at this point should not know that corporations do make large contributions to political candidates through PACs -you know, the little problem that got DeLay in hot waters.

this idea that US “shouldn’t meddle in internal affairs of other countries” is unique.

It is not unique. It’s called respecting other countries’ self-determination, sovereignty, and the principle of non-intervention. These are very simple and basic concepts in international law all Russians I know are acquainted with. It’s only the wingnuts in the US who are not.

I’ve never heard of any big country that didn’t meddle in internal affairs of other countries.

That doesn’t make it right. See my response above.

This is like not having a military.

No. Not at all. How old are you?

This article you refer to talks about “arming oppressive regimes”. I was not talking about arming oppressive regimes,

I don’t care. I said very clearly: “I post this for the benefit of others”.

I am done with you, phony Russian. Arguing with you is a supreme waste of my time.

large corporations donate with largesse during electoral campaigns.
You’re, officially, unhinged left. Probably the first one I’ve ever met on-line. Do you heart Chavez? Do you miss Pol Pot?

Your argument, is: it was wrong for US to fight in WWII and to support dissidents in Europe and USSR because of “large corporations”. You just said that anything that US does in its foreign policy is dictated by corporate interests and should be opposed.

If this is not what you say, then please make it clear: why supporting opposition to this particular Holocaust-denying nut is wrong?

BTW, this idea that US “shouldn’t meddle in internal affairs of other countries” is unique. I’ve never heard of any big country that didn’t meddle in internal affairs of other countries. This is like not having a military.

This article you refer to talks about “arming oppressive regimes”. I was not talking about arming oppressive regimes, I was talking about supporting peaceful opposition.

A Sewer Workers strike!

I still think we can salvage a Honeymooners episode out of all this.

Here it is: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html

No. That is a false dychotomy, and a wrong conclusion.

I am against the US meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, because -and I repeat- if history is any guide the US will prop up whoever allows better access to natural resources, as in the past in Iran, and nowadays in Saudi Arabia, human rights and democracy be damned. It is unlikely that the current (or any future) administration will behave any differently, given that large corporations donate with largesse during electoral campaigns.

I don’t know how I can make it any clearer than that.

Your talk about WWI, WWII, evil, etc. is more non sequiturs, strawman, and false dychotomies. See, I never mentioned the word “evil”. I wrote “strategic interests”. Don’t be so simple-minded. Do you get FauxNews in Russia?

I’m afraid what you say make me hate you more.
Comment by Nikolay — December 11, 2006 @ 7:42 pm

Your feelings towards me leave me unfazed. If I were you, I would be more worried about learning how many dictatorial regimes the US has supported and continues to support, such as Perves Musharraf (Bush’s favorite dictator), the House of Saud, and others. Although I know you will simply ignore my point and go on another rant about “evil”. Yawn.

I post this link for the benefit of others:

Arming repressive regimes in all corners of the globe while simultaneously proclaiming a campaign for democracy and against tyranny undermines the credibility of the United States in international forums and makes it harder to hold other nations to high standards of conduct on human rights and other key issues. Arming undemocratic governments all too often helps to enhance their power, frequently fueling conflict or enabling human rights abuses in the process.
ARMS TRADE RESOURCE CENTER – U.S. WEAPONS AT WAR 2005: PROMOTING FREEDOM OR FUELING CONFLICT?

I’m talking about particular question — about support for people protesting against the guy who just hosted a conference for Holocaust-deniers. And you are saying — no, this should not be attempted, because America never does anything good, let all those students be disappeared by their glorious legitimate leader. And this is not ‘putting words in your mouth’. If you are against helping people fighting evil, this means that you support evil.

You know, as much as I hate Bush, neo-cons, anti-Muslim crazies, mega-patriots etc., I’m afraid what you say make me hate you more.

This bizarre thought is shades of the Nixon crime family overthrowing the elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende, in an illegal coup in 1973 and replacing him with the vile dictator Pinochet. That overthrow started with a small truckers’ strike that was greatly strengthened by CIA funding…

Cheers.

Did I say it was tantamount to blowing cover? Why do you have to put words in my mouth to “win” this argument? This is not the first time you resort to strawman arguments even though everyone can read what I wrote.

You know, Nikolay, I work with recent immigrants from Russia, and from other former Soviet Republics. They’re all educated, bright, very articulate, and capable plenty of making cogent, coherent arguments.

Are you sure you are Russian?

I don’t see what arguments can you imagine against it. I think that any honest man should do what he can to engage in such efforts.

I will tell you why not: The US is not the world’s police, and if history is any guide, the US will side with, support whichever strongman or puppet government allows better access to natural resources and/or can be used in other ways. It has always been like that, and it is still like that. There is Pakistan, the stalwart “ally” in the war on terror. Or Saudi Arabia. Or… you get the idea. I hope.

This is really a sad story. “Axis of Evil” speech was a major blow to Reformist movement in Iran, Iraq’s invasion was so far the best strategic gift to the regime (most of the Iraq’s government is Iranian puppets), and that crazy guy really looks like he’s going to nuke Israel and, probably, the rest of the world.

That’s just the point. What we do and what we say can affect how internal dissent is viewed and handled in Iran. You can argue whether or not the U.S. should be the world’s policeman, now or at any point in our history. But, there was a time when we would have been viewed as good cops, even if it wasn’t true. Much of the world still thought we were good cops right through the 50s and 60s, in spite of our frequent attempts to overthrow democratically elected governments and to install or support despots. But, under six years of Bush’s foreign policy, this country is a dirty cop and everyone knows it. Nobody should be foolish enough to trust the motives, the planning, or the follow-through of the Bush White House. It may be a long time before the rest of the world trusts us again.

I never realized Rick Santorum was pro-labor union. I guess if the unions are in another country and can be made into useful stooges for the U.S., they’re not so bad.

-chimpeach

You took the words out of my mouth. Forget about how idiotic the plan is, someone just try and explain this support for unions. This demonstrates that people like Santorum will say anything to sound like they have an international policy.

This is so hypocritical and contradicting of what he stood for and voted for in the Senate that this is just obviously hot air.

I bet these Republicans in office would support a progressive environmental policy too if they thought it could help them start another war.

And you know, somebody on HotAir said this thing about incredibly courageous Iranian students protesting against Ahmadinejad:

I guess this means that college kids are liberal douchebags throughout the world. Just because we have the same enemy, does that make us friends?

Still, the Iranians are also very embarresed by their own leader. so…who knows? I certainly don’t.
They say that they had 780 protests against Ahmadinejad in November. That’s something.

however I think that a lot of those amicable feelings have eroded following our Iraq war, and international arrogance.

We should have been much open with the Iranians after 9/11, and did what we could to try to deal with them in the last couple of years. However Bush largely ignored the problem.

Still, the Iranians are also very embarresed by their own leader. so…who knows? I certainly don’t.

Shah, Marcos and Pinochet are now acknowledged to be mistakes, supporting them is seen as ineffective policies. Say what you want about Iraq, but there’s no puppet dictator there now, lesson learned.

Supporting dissidents to help the change from inside worked well in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, USSR etc. This strategy, unlike military intervention, continues to work in many other countries, and I don’t see what arguments can you imagine against it. I think that any honest man should do what he can to engage in such efforts.

It should not be done in a stupid way, which is probably the case with Santorum, but it should be done in general.