Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008
Who are you referring to?
|
Comments on online news stories and forums, YouTube, and such are always condemning us for it. I know taking words from random anonymous Internet people (no offense, IMFDB) seriously is probably telling of my less-than-groundbreaking level of intelligence, but those represent a person's opinion just like marching outside a building with a sign in your hand does.
Quote:
|
Playing devil's advocate for a second, most of the commentators who point out stuff like this are remarking on the irony that the U.S. has provided weapons to dictators while claiming to pursue a foreign policy based on the promotion of democracy and freedom (at least, during the more neo-conservative Bush era). Belgium and Russia do not have such foreign policies, so they're not such easy targets for accusations of hypocrisy.
|
The US' foreign policy is irrelevant, IMO. One day everything in a random country we decide to provide a FAS package to could be all kosher, then the next day it could go to complete shit. We get heat for giving Saddam Hussein weapons and training Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan in the 80s, but how were we supposed to know we'd be fighting them in 20 years? We aren't a nation of psychics who can look into a crystal ball to see who our next enemy will be. As far as Libya goes, weren't they on the UN human rights council just prior to Gaddafi turning his army on civilians?
You do make a valid point about Belgium's and Russia's foreign policies in contrast to the US', though.
Quote:
|
But I do agree that their criticism goes too far if they are blaming the U.S. for Gaddafi's actions.
|
Yeah, that's a point I always try to get across to critics. Who the person using the weapon got it from is irrelevant, it's the person using it that's at fault. Would I be responsible if I sold a baseball bat to some dude at a yard sale that he used 10 years later to crack some other dude's skull in? No.