[untitled]
1 comments
This is the naive viewpoint.
Ever head about "The Clash Of Civilizations: And The Remaking Of World Order", which is actually a book?
Westerners do not truly understand how degenerate their political leaders can come across to the rest of the world.
A good of example if the policy of denying aid or some trade favours to countries which are hostile to the LGBTQ ideologies of the West.
In effect what Western leaders are saying is that in their view tolerating what to other cultures is an unclean sexual fetish is a more important human rights issue than the ability of children to be well-fed and have clean water. Gay marriage is not even a starter as it is an oxymoron as far as many cultures are concerned.
The west considers it more important for a tiny minority of men who never even asked for the West's support to have penises in their bellies than for children to have food in their bellies. Do you understand how demented that looks to other cultures? How many people have died as a result of lacking penises in their bellies compared to those who have died for lack of food in their bellies?
How do you think it looks to the world when Western leaders gather at global summits to iterate the importance of such an issue over some of the more basic needs facing a large number of the worlds population?
Obama goes to berate African politicians for not allowing gay marriage because it is a human rights issue, while ignoring the human rights dimension of drone strikes he personally authorizes and the immense suffering and death caused by US wars and support in other conflicts such as Yemen?
How many innocent people have been killed as a result of drone strikes authorized by Obama personally as opposed to people prosecuted or executed on account of sodomy in Africa?
You have no conception of the depth of depravity and dementedness it takes for mature adult males to stand on a global stage and moralize over LGBTQ issues when there are for more compelling issues facing billions of people around the world which they are both directly and indirectly responsible for.
This is only a small example of the way the West is perceived that is why the West's stance on Ukraine is not supported by the rest of the world. As far as the rest of the world is concerned the West has no moral leg to stand on, other than the fact that it is the population of an white country that is important to the West who are suffering.
Right now in Ukraine, instead of finding a way to get the parties to negotiate and find a peaceful solution to their difference, the policy of the West now is to support Ukraine with the weaponry and resources to fight to the bitter end, with no concern for the long-term damage and suffering that will inflict on Ukraine's population and their country. In effect is good that Ukrainians consider to suffer heavy losses in the near and long-term because they will eventually be "victorious".
Now how does that come across as concern for human suffering?
In the view of the rest of the world, the West is supporting Ukraine in this war to their own strategic goals, not out of concern for Ukraine's population.
Ever head about "The Clash Of Civilizations: And The Remaking Of World Order", which is actually a book?
Westerners do not truly understand how degenerate their political leaders can come across to the rest of the world.
A good of example if the policy of denying aid or some trade favours to countries which are hostile to the LGBTQ ideologies of the West.
In effect what Western leaders are saying is that in their view tolerating what to other cultures is an unclean sexual fetish is a more important human rights issue than the ability of children to be well-fed and have clean water. Gay marriage is not even a starter as it is an oxymoron as far as many cultures are concerned.
The west considers it more important for a tiny minority of men who never even asked for the West's support to have penises in their bellies than for children to have food in their bellies. Do you understand how demented that looks to other cultures? How many people have died as a result of lacking penises in their bellies compared to those who have died for lack of food in their bellies?
How do you think it looks to the world when Western leaders gather at global summits to iterate the importance of such an issue over some of the more basic needs facing a large number of the worlds population?
Obama goes to berate African politicians for not allowing gay marriage because it is a human rights issue, while ignoring the human rights dimension of drone strikes he personally authorizes and the immense suffering and death caused by US wars and support in other conflicts such as Yemen?
How many innocent people have been killed as a result of drone strikes authorized by Obama personally as opposed to people prosecuted or executed on account of sodomy in Africa?
You have no conception of the depth of depravity and dementedness it takes for mature adult males to stand on a global stage and moralize over LGBTQ issues when there are for more compelling issues facing billions of people around the world which they are both directly and indirectly responsible for.
This is only a small example of the way the West is perceived that is why the West's stance on Ukraine is not supported by the rest of the world. As far as the rest of the world is concerned the West has no moral leg to stand on, other than the fact that it is the population of an white country that is important to the West who are suffering.
Right now in Ukraine, instead of finding a way to get the parties to negotiate and find a peaceful solution to their difference, the policy of the West now is to support Ukraine with the weaponry and resources to fight to the bitter end, with no concern for the long-term damage and suffering that will inflict on Ukraine's population and their country. In effect is good that Ukrainians consider to suffer heavy losses in the near and long-term because they will eventually be "victorious".
Now how does that come across as concern for human suffering?
In the view of the rest of the world, the West is supporting Ukraine in this war to their own strategic goals, not out of concern for Ukraine's population.
The optics of western human rights advocacy are not really an important thing in a geopolitical sense. Hegemonies don't need to justify themselves to relatively inconsequential entities they dwarf. I am puzzled why you feel this is a key issue to highlight.
The west does consider those things you have mentioned as important, as a subset of freedom and human rights. It also advocates for a wide array of other issues, such as the rights of women, journalists, children, etc. The west, broadly, considers relative freedom quite important, and therefore it is appropriate and internally consistent that it seeks to promote its values abroad. An appropriate criticism of western nations, therefore, is that many have been morally inconsistent by trading so freely with countries in the rest of the world like China which have serious issues around curtailing human rights, but even this can be justified as it was in part perceived that the west could export culture through trade and enrichment of other countries. And, arguably, it has, to an extent.
In regards to Ukraine, advocating for a peaceful agreement that is anything less than unequivocal Russian withdrawal and a reparations plan is endorsement of force over democracy and law (rewarding bad behavior), and at odds with common human values.
The west does consider those things you have mentioned as important, as a subset of freedom and human rights. It also advocates for a wide array of other issues, such as the rights of women, journalists, children, etc. The west, broadly, considers relative freedom quite important, and therefore it is appropriate and internally consistent that it seeks to promote its values abroad. An appropriate criticism of western nations, therefore, is that many have been morally inconsistent by trading so freely with countries in the rest of the world like China which have serious issues around curtailing human rights, but even this can be justified as it was in part perceived that the west could export culture through trade and enrichment of other countries. And, arguably, it has, to an extent.
In regards to Ukraine, advocating for a peaceful agreement that is anything less than unequivocal Russian withdrawal and a reparations plan is endorsement of force over democracy and law (rewarding bad behavior), and at odds with common human values.
Nope. This speaks to the moral character and psyche of the Wests leaders. The Covid crisis highlighted the absolute indifference of the West's leaders to human rights and freedoms, and we are supposed to believe that their hearts are bleeding for the Ukrainians in this war.
> In regards to Ukraine, advocating for a peaceful agreement that is anything less than unequivocal Russian withdrawal and a reparations plan is endorsement of force over democracy and law (rewarding bad behavior), and at odds with common human values.
Russia considers Ukraine joining NATO to be an existential threat. As far as their concerned it isn't going to happen. The same principles which underpinned the US invasion of Grenada and Panama which you have probably forgotten about is the same principle underpinning Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Put it this way. The West always likes to crow on about how they defended freedom in Europe by defeating Hitler, forgetting that Hitler's only crime was to believe in the right to subjugate other white people as much as the rest of Europe believed they had the right to subjugate the black, brown and yellow populations of Africa, Asia and Latin/South America.
Sure Ukraine may be a huge white country with a population of 40 million, but Russia considers part of her domain as much as the US considers parts of the world her domain, and Russia sure as hell aren't going to entertain Ukraine falling in the hands of her enemy. Russia considers NATO to be an ENEMY not a RIVAL, and you would do well to keep this in mind.
> In regards to Ukraine, advocating for a peaceful agreement that is anything less than unequivocal Russian withdrawal and a reparations plan is endorsement of force over democracy and law (rewarding bad behavior), and at odds with common human values.
Russia considers Ukraine joining NATO to be an existential threat. As far as their concerned it isn't going to happen. The same principles which underpinned the US invasion of Grenada and Panama which you have probably forgotten about is the same principle underpinning Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Put it this way. The West always likes to crow on about how they defended freedom in Europe by defeating Hitler, forgetting that Hitler's only crime was to believe in the right to subjugate other white people as much as the rest of Europe believed they had the right to subjugate the black, brown and yellow populations of Africa, Asia and Latin/South America.
Sure Ukraine may be a huge white country with a population of 40 million, but Russia considers part of her domain as much as the US considers parts of the world her domain, and Russia sure as hell aren't going to entertain Ukraine falling in the hands of her enemy. Russia considers NATO to be an ENEMY not a RIVAL, and you would do well to keep this in mind.
Eliminating claimed threats is not a right, it is just aggression and cannot be justified. Many countries get on with existence despite sharing borders with enemies. The fact that Russia is unable to do this speaks a lot about the failures of its leaders.
As if people care what leaders in any country say anymore.
Russia having the right to invade Ukraine because of trans rights and gender theory in the US is quite a stretch of the imagination.