Comment by thomassmith65
3 days ago
'Anti US bias' (that's a direct quote, not a jingoistic insult I throw around) is different than a refusal to choose between evils.
3 days ago
'Anti US bias' (that's a direct quote, not a jingoistic insult I throw around) is different than a refusal to choose between evils.
Ok, from what you say, I get the sense that the applicability of the quote is non-obvious. I'll paraphrase the quote: "people who choose the lesser of two evils, forget that they chose evil".
In our conversation, we are essentially choosing between two parties: - The nazis, or the communists, or whatever. Let's call them the baddies. - America. The good guys!
I personally believe (and you do not have to agree with this, I realize that this is subjective) that murdering children and committing genocide is evil. The nazis committed a genocide, and so they are evil. Let's say the holodomor was a genocide, so the communists are evil too. Conclusion: the baddies are evil. It is also a fact that in the past 75 years or so, America has gone around the globe murdering children, and committing genocides. This is not up for debate. This is a fact. I have listed the examples countless times in this thread, I will not do so again. Conclusion: the good guys are also evil (if you believe murdering children is bad, which again, totally up to you).
In saying "but the nazis were worse!" in response to American murdering a million Koreans, you are effectively choosing the lesser evil (the nazis killed 6 million jews, 30 million Russians, in a fairly short timespan, whereas the US has killed about 12 million over the decades, the nazis are worse). And in saying that we did pretty well in the American century, you are dismissing the genocides, the murders, the torture that the US is responsible for. You're forgetting that the US is also evil. When you say we did alright under American hegemony, you are completely dismissing the suffering, overexploitation, destabilization, and violence that the US has meted out on the global South.
Our thread doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in the Chomsky-fied world of the 21st Century. This is a world in which quite a few people really do defend the regimes I mentioned, as though there were no difference between totalitarianism and a liberal democracy.
Note that I made a point of defending America in the 20th Century, not the 21st.
Because, at the moment, America has an authoritarian leader.
And I wonder if people who obsess on America's bad side, even know the difference!
Considering the last HN thread I commented on was full of comments in support of the anti-American yet horrifying Iranian regime, I don't have much hope.
I'm talking about the 20th century as well. The silent holocaust was in the 80s, east Timor extended from the 70s to the 90s, the highway of death and the gulf war was in the 90s, the invasion of Vietnam and the illegal bombing of Cambodia and Laos was in the 60s, the mass killings in Indonesia were in the 60s, arming the Mujahideen (ultimately leading to 9/11) was in the 80s, bombing Korea, killing 20% of its population was in the 50s, the overthrow of the democratically elecred Allende leading to the reign of Pinochet, the terror they've inflicted on Cuba by Poisoning crops and the sanctions, the coup in Iran, the assassination of Lumumba, and so on, and so forth. On the whole, America has absolutely terrorized the world. And yes, that has been quite nice for the beneficiaries of this reign of terror, but to say the world did well in the American century is just wrong.
And regarding the support for Iran, it's possible to be supportive of a party you're otherwise critical of. Sure, the Iranian regime executes gay people, but do you think Israel's bombs and famine somehow make an exception for gay people? One side is worse, and it's the one that's been committing an ethnic cleansing for 77 years.
1 reply →