Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Azeris fire tear gas and beat democracy protestors

Story.

I wonder where the Chimp Army are when it comes to this brutal and violent dictator.

Oh wait, he gives Chimp access to his oil, so he isn't evil at all.

Funny that.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Different countries, same story. It's either oil or logistical/military interest.

    Uzbekistan comes to mind. Though now that they're kicking the US out of the country you can expect the tables to turn and the country to be quickly denounced for its human rights and duly invaded in the not too distant future.

    Nobody does hypocrisy like the good old US of A.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh yeah cos the US is the only country in the world to turn a blind eye to abuses abroad when they have interests in the country concerned isn’t it? Get real. It’s not right but the America like France, like Britain and most countries are guilty of it. The EU is happy to lambaste Israel for human rights abuses yet remains silent on China’s horrific human rights abuses/Tibet. And if that’s not bad enough the French among others are itching to sell arms to the Chinese. You’re naïve if you haven’t yet figured out that just about every nation’s foreign policy is dictated by their own interests. While Robin Cook created his fantastical ‘ethical foreign policy’ it didn’t change anything and for the foreseeable future I don't see how anything will really change.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The EU is happy to lambaste Israel for human rights abuses yet remains silent on China’s horrific human rights abuses/Tibet. And if that’s not bad enough the French among others are itching to sell arms to the Chinese. .

    Oh and George Bush didn't travel to China last week to talk about trade with them :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    Oh and George Bush didn't travel to China last week to talk about trade with them :lol:

    Can you not read or something? :rolleyes:

    I didn't defend the US, I simply said that the EU like the US and most countries have similar self-serving motives in the make-up of their foreign policy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can you not read or something? :rolleyes:

    I didn't defend the US, I simply said that the EU like the US and most countries have similar self-serving motives in the make-up of their foreign policy.

    Of course, politics has aleways been like that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    Of course, politics has aleways been like that.

    Indeed, my point exactly. :) Hence why I think it's unfair to highlight the US and ignore dozens of other countries that have always done and do exactly the same thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hence why I think it's unfair to highlight the US and ignore dozens of other countries that have always done and do exactly the same thing.

    Hard to do here in lefty corner ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    Hard to do here in lefty corner ;)

    :p Unless you're part of the pro Iraq war left, see here. Think that's the guy, never really knew much about them till read a thing in G2 last week about 'liberal hawks'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Since the EU has largely bowed down and given in to the designs of Washington rather than stand united in decrying and opposing them, its little surprise that its leadeing member countries' governments should emulate such double standards, dis.

    Oh and in case noone has informed you yet, Democrats are no more or less "liberals" than their Republican counterparts. Both are nothing more than two sides of the same corporate owned coin and both, for the most part, support Washington's longrunning reliance upon militant interventionism to extend and perpetuate US globalist hegemony.

    Nothing new there either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am with pretty much all of you on this issue.
    What the US does with all there allies who ignore human rights for the sake of oil or strategic positioning is bad.
    What the EU does is equally as bad.
    Frankly all governments of the Earth are the same, they all have one form of politics and it is called Realism. It is an ideology of political belief that all governments follow and ironically in the 20th century have not only followed but been openly hypocritical with. Joining the UN or having an involvement with an international/multinational organisation is in direct conflict with the Realist theory yet they all do it.

    Governments are made up of Hypocrits because to be a true politician, an international stateman or stateswoman you have to be truly sociopathic. To be able to convince yourself that the hypocracy is not hypocracy at all but the "truth" of all things.

    Fuck it, no form of government is ever perfect because it is dependent on people and all people are fallible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    Joining the UN or having an involvement with an international/multinational organisation is in direct conflict with the Realist theory yet they all do it.

    Well no, because Realists would argue that states join international organisations as another way to extend their self interests. They can use the likes of the UN when the relative gains to be made are in their favour, but will do their best to get out of any situations that would mean the gains will be in favour of other states.

    Guess what I'm revising at the minute ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Multilateral institutions such as the UN serve as smokescreens for the retention of colonialist aspirations under the new banner of "globalism", corporate colonialism as it is realised today but no less militant and brutal than its nationalistic counterpart of the 19th century.

    By relegating unilateralist intentions and decisions to the multilateralist arena, states provide themselves with ample excuses and plausible deniability for their actions, especially when those actions backfire. At that point, they merely point to the institution in question and level their charges of deception, intransigence, etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I studied Politics at University too Tim the Enchanter. Not all fun and games as i remember so well.

    Realism is a tricky little theory is it not? They join the UN to benifit and attempt to avoid hinderances. This is true for the perminant members with VETO voting power on the security council. But for every other nation, it is a conflict with the Realist theory which most nations operate by. However for the perminant security council members, there is only a Realist benefit to the UN provided all other nations join the UN and accept their VETO power. If the the rest of the world left the UN, there would no longer be a benefit to the VETO nations, just as they would have no reason to be part of the UN with out VETO power.

    The UN is insignificant anyway. It has no army of its own, it has no power in the world really as it has no means to enforce its rules and international law with out help from nations powerful enough to do so. No nation on earth is willing to police the world except America, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and the last three of those only do it if the first two do it first usually. The first two only do it if it has a benefit to them in some way to do so. Doing away with the UN altogether as well as ridiculous smaller organisations such as the EU is what i would liek to see, but then i am sure there is the argument with out them the world would fall into wars and anarchy or some such thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm no defender of the EU, who are as bent as the rest of them, but in fairness to them they didn't create an "axis of evil" based on their human rights record, and then proceed to bomb them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That is true Kermit. However, in the aftermath of US unilateralist actions, prminent EU leaders have indeed caved in to a Washington led status quo on the matter rather than standing untied in leading the international denouncement of those actions for the war crimes they are.

    Instead, they have been tripping over themselves to coddle emulate the criminal US cabal in its PR-driven War on terror by instituting many of the same corporate serving (and dare say Fascist) policies throughout the EU.

    Obviously the current EU leadership has forgotten the lessons of history by resorting again to appeasement of aggressivistic expansionist warfare based on lies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You know Japan wants to expand it 250000 defence force into a full blown Japanese armed forces. I read it in the paper this morning.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes you are right Disillusioned that most nations act in their own interests first and their foreign policies can by hypocritical. But there is good reason to single out the US, or three to be precise:

    1. They do it on a scale far grander than probably all other nations on earth put together

    2. They actually attack some nations on the excuse that they have a poor human rights record while happily entertaining others.

    3. And yet they have actively removed democratic regimes and installed brutal murdering dictators in their place, simply because it served its right wing agenda. All while lecturing others about the value of democracy and freedom.


    No other country in the world has got that proud record. That's why the US stands on a league on its own. That's why it is fair to single it out for criticism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But isn't it a bit cold to go and march in support of a brutal dictator to stop the US invading?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Yes you are right Disillusioned that most nations act in their own interests first and their foreign policies can by hypocritical. But there is good reason to single out the US, or three to be precise:

    1. They do it on a scale far grander than probably all other nations on earth put together

    2. They actually attack some nations on the excuse that they have a poor human rights record while happily entertaining others.

    3. And yet they have actively removed democratic regimes and installed brutal murdering dictators in their place, simply because it served its right wing agenda. All while lecturing others about the value of democracy and freedom.


    No other country in the world has got that proud record. That's why the US stands on a league on its own. That's why it is fair to single it out for criticism.
    I agree with you aladdin on your 2nd and 3rd points when you talk about the US, You are right, although Russia, China, UK, France, etc have all done them too just as the US has.

    As for your first point, well, yes that is true, they do it on much larger scale then anyone else, but only since the end of the Cold War. Before the end of the Cold War the USSR did it equally so, now however only America has th emoney to do it on such a large scale.

    Really, apart from the scale to which they do things, the US is no worse then any other nation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    But isn't it a bit cold to go and march in support of a brutal dictator to stop the US invading?
    I went to the 1.5m+ people march on Feb. 03, and I didn't see a single person expressing their support for Saddam Hussein.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Aladdin wrote:
    Nobody does hypocrisy like the good old US of A.

    And us British are fine cunts to talk about it, are we?

    Politics in general has been repeatadley hypocritic. It seems a required skill... and notice when this stuff happens there is harldy ever a media outcry about it? Should be. Should be all over TV, pointing out what is going on.

    Then again, the dear old US funds oppresive regiemes that favour it. Hell, it even instates them itself on occasion!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    War and warmongering draws huge media revenues, Gerbil. The handful of corporations that control the airwaves are not going to bite the hand that feeds unless they are utterly incapable of putting a lid on any particular revelation.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    War and warmongering draws huge media revenues, Gerbil. The handful of corporations that control the airwaves are not going to bite the hand that feeds unless they are utterly incapable of putting a lid on any particular revelation.

    Well, on the odd occasion they have... helped in the overthrow and enlightenment of people. Then they became puppets of the new state. Then, slowly, disillusionment spreads into the Media and it starts to turn on the state, and it happens again.

    One. Big. Circle. Only changed by technology.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No of course Britain is not free of fault, Gerbil. Like Disillusioned pointed out earlier, few nations are. But that doesn't mean we should not or cannot speak against excesses, especially when they are on such grander scale.

    Because most nations have claimed to care for human rights while maintaining an unpleasant cosiness with some undesirable regimes. But few nations can boast to directly overthrowing democracies and installing brutal madmen in their place, while at the same time portraying themselves as champions of freedom and democracy. Or arming a madman with WMDs and encouraging him to use them, only to pretend to be outraged by its use just a few years later and justify an illegal invasion on it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That disposition is long gone with the consolidation of media control into a precious few MNC hands. Now any change or "overthrow" as you put it would be little more than window dressing, changing the puppets but leaving the same system and intents untouched to be resumed by the next batch.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I went to the 1.5m+ people march on Feb. 03, and I didn't see a single person expressing their support for Saddam Hussein.

    But that's the end result isn't it? You either accept him being overthrown by force or you allow him to continue. Its not the moral high ground to take the second option.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In your opinion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    But that's the end result isn't it? You either accept him being overthrown by force or you allow him to continue. Its not the moral high ground to take the second option.

    And has the invasion helped your average Iraqi?

    No, it hasn't.

    Saddam Hussein was brutal, but under his leadership before the Gulf War (there is more than suggestion that Kuwait was actually stealing Iraq's oil, it's worth noting) the Iraqi people were, collectively, better off than they are now. Iraq is in ruins and faces civil war...how is that any better?

    The colonial legacy caused the problems in the first place, we've only served to stir it up even more with out latest escapades.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    But that's the end result isn't it? You either accept him being overthrown by force or you allow him to continue. Its not the moral high ground to take the second option.

    A rather lazy point.

    To be expected when discussing Iraq. If you are against blowing up Iraqis then you are for dictatorship!

    Maybe not, eh.

    Our intervention has made things worse not better. Because of our intervention we're having to be brutal dictators- Camp X-Ray and the other camps in Iraq- but without the stability. And for all Saddam's faults, he wasn't a religious crackpot either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    A rather lazy point.

    To be expected when discussing Iraq. If you are against blowing up Iraqis then you are for dictatorship!

    Maybe not, eh.

    Our intervention has made things worse not better. Because of our intervention we're having to be brutal dictators- Camp X-Ray and the other camps in Iraq- but without the stability. And for all Saddam's faults, he wasn't a religious crackpot either.

    If there is a lazy point it is in those who marched and hadn't thought through the consequences if they succeeded. All they could think is that 'Bush is bad' and 'War is evil' without realising that no matter how bad he is to compare him to Saddam is moral laziness and that whilst war is evil it is often a lesser evil than not fighting it.

    Actions have consequences. Saddam would still be in power if the marchers had succeeded. He would still be brutalising his people, with no hope of respite. Things may not be perfect now, but many (the majority) of Iraqis are better off and can see hope for the future.
Sign In or Register to comment.