Western Hypocrisy & Hubris

I am regularly disgusted by the hypocrisy and hubris of my fellow westerners. Sometimes, I think they must be completely oblivious to their own contradictions and phoniness.

For example, how can a country like the USA, which was the first country to pursue, obtain, and use nuclear weapons, forbid other countries, like North Korea or Iran, from doing the exact same thing? If the USA has the right to keep a giant stockpile of nuclear weapons, then on what principled basis do they deny that right to other countries?

As another example, how can a country like the USA, which is unarguably the most prolific violator of the national sovereignty of other countries, loudly and aggressively condemn Russia for its so-called "invasion" of Crimea? Why is it okay for the USA to violate the sovereignty of country after country after country but it's not okay for Russia to bloodlessly annex a tiny piece of land that they have deep historical, cultural, and military ties to?

Yet another example, how can a country like the USA, which openly and infamously helps to prop up some of the world's worst dictatorships, criticize countries like Syria, Russia, Iran, and North Korea for their records on human rights and democracy? Is this not the most hypocritical and phony nonsense you've ever heard?

I could go on and on and on. The hubris and hypocrisy is so extensive as to be staggering.

 

Because nuclear proliferation is not in the interests of the planet? just guessin'

It was an annexation and that is not kosher. America may invade other countries but they don't annex the territories they conquer, they try to leave a democracy behind (although they haven't much of a track record over the past few decades). You may also have noticed that most of America's foreign military adventures have been supported by UNSC resolutions and many of her allies.

Perhaps "purpose" is immaterial to your argument, but to the rest of the world it is
,

Yes, its called realpolitik.

Its also why DIPLOMACY is one of the TRIAD of American POWER PROJECTION.

 

The USA is more responsible for the proliferation of nuclear weapons than any other country in the world. The USA invented them, built them, tested them, used them on civilians, and invests huge sums of money into maintaining a stockpile of nuclear weapons. If the USA were sincere about nuclear non-proliferation, they'd take steps towards the gradual elimination of their own nuclear weaponry. Instead, they have done the exact opposite.

So you think bloodlessly annexing a tiny piece of land is worse than destroying an entire country?

LOL

It's called HYPOCRISY.

 

You don't get it. America is very sincere about nuclear proliferation. The fact that they invented it and are still the only nation to use it, plus the decades of living under the threat of MAD drive that sincere desire.

But to suggest the US should unilaterally eliminate own is unrealistic in the extreme given realpolitik.

Yes I agree you statement is laughabe. I think annexation of another nation's sovereign territory by force is worth fighting against. Vladdie has done it two and half times so far.

Apparently you don't think much of the concept of sovereignty unless its a question of border control.

Why am I not surprised you'd respond with such a stupid comment. Apparently you are as unaware as your Dear Leader.

 

I do get it.

The USA is more responsible for the proliferation of nuclear weapons than any other country in the world, yet it presumes to tell other countries that they're not allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Honest people call that "hypocrisy".

Right, you think bloodlessly annexing a tiny piece of territory is worse than invading and occupying an entire country and then destroying it.

I say again: LOL

Saying one thing and doing another is called hypocrisy.

The USA criticizes countries like Syria, Iran, Russia, and North Korea for their records on human right and democracy while helping to prop up some of the worst dictatorships on the planet.

That is a textbook example of epic hypocrisy, which you are pathetically attempting to justify by calling it "realpolitik".

 

You do know we've done just that,and have less weapons then we did during the Cold War right? We've also helped eliminate them across the board... did you miss the 90s? As far as why we developed them, do you really not know the history of the Manhattan Project? Or Einstein writing FDR and warning him about how the Nazis were developing he same technology and if we wanted to stand a chance in the war we'd need to match them? Secondly we are never going to be completely nuclear free, because it is impossible to eliminate them across the board. The dream of a complete nuclear free planet is as unrealistic as the idea of a planet without any guns. The knowledge of how to create them exist, and the technology is now 70 years old. Therefor you are always going to have them, for the same reason people carry guns. For self defense on a grand scale, in this case it's the ultimate deterrent. It's the ultimate stick.

Russia lives under the foot of a dictator, and a group of oligarchs. Russia has no claim to Crimea. Also the US is not simply annexing countries, we haven't annexed anything since the Spanish American War. We could of done considerable damage multiple times if we wanted to, such as the period between the end of the Second World War and before the Soviets stole the technology to duplicate our nuclear weapons. When we were the sole owners of the most powerful weapon the world has ever known we used it once to end the war, and then didn't use it again. And the country we did conquer with the help of that bomb eventually gained complete control over it's own nation.

In other words the US is supreme to the Russian Federation in almost every way philosophically, and through the judgement of history has done more good. In fact what little good does exist in Russia exist because we helped them on their feet after there love affair with the stupid economic philosophies of Marx drove them to ruin.

We propped up authoritarians during the Cold War because they were supreme to the communist who were the alternatives. The countries you've listed off are terrible, NK in particular being the same evil we thought against during the Cold War. Those nations have no philosophical basis for existence, and the world will be better off once they are destroyed and their people are living under a system close to the natural rights that all mankind has.

In other words, the foundation of the republic is supreme to every nation you have listed.

 

WOW - that's telling it like it is!! It stinks to high heaven of hubris and hypocrisy, and nobody can deny it.

 

Two 'wrongs' don't make a 'right'??

 

I'll bet there aren't many takers for this thread?? lol

 

No honest people call it "power projection" and strategic defense of the American hegemony.

WTF?! Its the same damn thing. They invaded sovereign territory. They STOLE crimea.

Murdering one person is just as criminal as murdering a thousand. Same crime different degree.

No its not hypocrisy. It is called expedience and a mature realization of "realpolitik". Just because you don't grasp the term doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, ignorance of this reality sprouts opinions like yours.

 

Without situational ethics we'd all go crazy.

 

None of this speaks to the outrageous hypocrisy of the USA telling countries like Iran and North Korea that they're not allowed to pursue nuclear weaponry.

Once again, you completely fail to address the unbelievable hypocrisy of a country like the USA condemning Russia for bloodlessly annexing Crimea while the USA invades and destroys entire countries based on false pretexts. Whether or not Russia's internal political situation is virtuous or not has no relevance to the utter hypocrisy of the USA saying one thing and doing another. You cannot legitimately criticize Russia for supposedly violating Ukrainian sovereignty while the USA is guilty of violating the sovereignty of several countries.

And a third time, you completely fail to address the raging hypocrisy of a country that props up dictatorships like Saudi Arabia while condemning countries like Syria, North Korea, Iran, Russia, etc for their records on democracy and human rights.

 

It's hypocrisy. Calling it by different names won't change that.

The USA invades, occupies, and destroys sovereign territory more than any other country in the world. The USA has zero credibility when it comes to condemning such practices.

Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another.

The USA says it supports democracy and human rights while propping up a ruthless dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.

That's hypocrisy.

Your attempt to obfuscate this truth with shoddy semantics is frankly embarrassing.

 

Situational ethics ARE crazy.

 

Considering we don’t murder and torture our citizenry like NK or Iran does, I think we have the moral high ground. Nor do we have murderous thug dictators as leaders.

 

And...? This justifies US hypocrisy somehow?

 

No they aren't. They are an important tool to mitigate conflict in the face of realities beyond one's control, in order to achieve a larger goal.

 

"Rights" or "fairness" have nothing to do with what you are talking about. It boils down to national security and nipping threats in the bud. .

 

Yes it does. Just because you can't see the rational, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Well since ww2, never in the interests of colonization or annexation. Always in what America believed was a righteous cause (even if they are easily lied to).

Condemning what russia is doing is not hypocrisy. Its necessary and steps must be taken to ensure he can't keep getting away with it.

No its not hypocrisy. It is dealing with realpolitik. Sorry if that is too friggin deep for you, but propping up a ruthless dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is in America's national security interests, knowing that the Saudi regime ain't going anywhere soon and improving human rights in that environment is a generational proposition.

What is truly and frankly embarrassing is your cracker jack U analysis of global politics. Looks like you only went for the prize.

 

Interesting post and responses. Another sticky wicket is the world's well meaning environmentalist's seeking to deny places like India and China the right to destroy their environment. Why not? We and our Western allies did during our industrialization. A real mess.

In c.1955, our intelligence agency forerunner to the CIA projected it would take 350 thermonuclear bombs to reduce Russia to ashes. General Curtis Lemay doubled the estimate to 700. "Why," someone asked. "Because I want to see the ashes dance," Lemay replied. Evidently the ashes weren't dancing high enough because we ended up with well over 10,000 nukes! And we won't allow poor little North Korea have any. I think that falls into hubris and hypocrisy.

What's really a belly laugh is our obsession with China and Russia "huge military expenditures." Well gee can't the other little boys have toys too? It's only a fraction of what we spend and own.

 

Not hypocrisy. It’s called keeping weapons that can destroy the world out of the hands of lunatics who have shown proven INSANE behaviors and actions.

 

Because they are evil, should not exist as nations, and we will not stand to allow such nations that should not exist to have power not only over their own oppressed people, but over the free people of the United States.

Sure I can. Russia is evil, it's government has no right to exist, and it's actions are therefor wrong and immoral. It represents nothing but the dictatorial will of it's oligarchs and it's actions are not true or just by any measure. The United States on the other hand is represented by it's Constitutional order, and the laws and will of it's people, it's actions therefor are true to the nature of the citizenry, and therefor correct. No nation is in anyway sovereign when it refuses to recognizes the rights of the individual, therefor Russia is an abomination that must be reformed or it's government destroyed and refounded on the true nature of natural rights and law.

There is no hypocrisy. Syria, NK, Iran, Russia, and those like them are governmental abominations, spreading tyranny by their actions and oppressing their people. They're governments have no right to exist, and must be destroyed in the long term, as all tyrants must be.

 

SMH at this stupidity. Are you going too seek out all people you consider "evil" and kill them all?? Perhaps they view the US as an evil country that should not exist. Are you advocating another useless war to satiate your hungry appetite to rid all that is "evil"?? Who died and made you King??

 

No of course not, it's not always practical. And we are talking about nation states, not people. Keep up on the topic.

I'm sure they do, because those governments do not believe in individual rights and liberty, and instead desire to strengthen their political will over all they see. That is the way of tyrants, but who cares what a tyrant desires? All tyrants should be destroyed in the grandness of time.

I'm against monarchy. So no one little red ridding hood. Why do you think tyrants have a right to control the people they oppress, or that they have any moral ground for their rule? Do you reject the ideals of the Declaration of Independence? Individual rights? Do you secretly desire to live under a tyrant's rule in the name of order? If not why are you pretending any tyrant has a right to exist?

 

Red herring and strawman arguments. I want us to stay out of other people's business and stop with the stupid useless wars that wasted so many young lives to satiate people with dumb fantasies. Since you are so keen on this "mission", will you yourself pick up arms and join the "revolution"??