- Jan 31, 2009
- 2,450
- 1,375
What is your position, Gorilla?
Is it about power?
If it is about power, then do you agree that these afrikan nations have the right to exercise whatever power they
have to exercise their right to self-determination? Who cares if they "do not enjoy any support from politicians", of other nations? That is not the issue.
Extreme for who? We, well actually you and those afrikan nations, would have to
agree what is "extreme" and what is not, no? Can you be more specific in this case regarding the topic of discussion?
If I recall, the documentary mentioned such hypocrisy. That is not going to go away and, power-aside, would have
to be reckoned with. Can't really advance the argument without dealing with that.
If the u.s. wanna withhold aid, this is its right.
If nation ain't with the gay thing, that is their right, also.
Should those nations change their policy, then let it be
'in house', agree?
I think the real issue is why do some people believe it's a right to persecute an individual group.
In some countries, internal human rights struggles do not get domestic support so they depend on the strength of their own effort and solidarity abroad. That's why it matters.
Whether someone believes their nation should do something about human rights problems in other countries is completely up to them. However, by the same hand they'll have a hard time making arguments in favor of aid and intervention during a crisis. They'll also have a problem making arguments about regulating trans-national corporations that abuse people in the developing worlds. If that's their world view, they're more than entitled to it but I don't agree that everything should be "in-house" but I don't subscribe to a belief that everything is a battle between good and evil. Sometimes all the state actors involved are bad guys.