True, although if the West is attempting to advance a "holier than thou" position, then they're making a comparison which should be thoroughly examined.
Can you discern the difference in the following statements?
"We don't like what country X is doing because it could negatively impact upon our national interests."
"We don't like what country X is doing because we judge it as immoral."
The first statement expresses an amoral point of view similar to capitalism, where decisions are made based solely on making money and profit, without regard for moral principles.
The second statement implies that one has the qualifications and moral standing to judge what is moral or immoral.
Sure, but I don't think you can really split the two, it's not one or the other. One might be more dominating in certain cases than others.
However, I do think we can at least draw some conclusions and based on what we see in the world there is a clear stream of refugees going from these "moral" countries to the immoral EU and US and not the other way.
Sure, we have a part to play in the world and what is going on, but largely it is up to each country and how they are governed and why things go as they do. It is too easy to just point fingers at us and keep in mind that by far the most countries we don't interfere with at all and still they are not doing particularly well, given the system they are ruled under. Which in many cases are oppression and lack of freedom mixed with a lot of corruption.
Seeing how Russia and China treat their own people, do you think that is something that would make for a more moral world if their national interests were the dominating ones?
That said, I don't think that countries are necessarily "up for grabs," as that can be complicated too. But such things can and do happen, as they have throughout history. There is some historical truth to the notion that "the big fish eat the little fish," but the larger, more severe wars happen when the big fish choose to fight each other. NATO might be seen as a "big fish," and countries which align with NATO can be protected by being part of a "big fish."
I agree with you in the sense that it shouldn't be like this. Humanity should strive for higher ideals and higher principles. We can do better than this, but we have chosen the wrong path. People who advocate for capitalism constantly say that "Socialism doesn't work because human nature." Maybe they're right. Maybe it's just in our nature to prey on each other, and there's no way of ever changing that. More is the pity.
I agree, nothing has probably changed about this ever
But it makes sense to at least bet on the least of the worst big fish out there rather than the worst of the worst.
It's not that people don't care or that they're not humanitarians (well, some may not be), but my goodness, it sure does get tiresome over the years. Americans who serve in the military have friends and family who care about them and wouldn't want to see them placed in harm's way unnecessarily or without any reasonable cause. Moreover, when it seems that we're pushing closer to the brink of nuclear destruction, that raises the stakes even higher.
I can fully understand that, but also a lot of it is caused by the US themselves, the Iraq war was basically a lie, yet had no consequences for your politicians who were behind it. The US people didn't care apparently.
Then you/we had the whole terrorist period, which wasn't war against countries really, but against fanatics and again a lot of these were supported and protected by countries that didn't want to deal with them.
The US was already in a conflict with what they saw as "international communism," which goes back to 1917 (or even earlier). We decided that we didn't like them right off the bat, before they even did anything and without even giving them the slightest benefit of the doubt. Obviously, our relationship changed because of our alliance in WW2, and some might have thought that it could lead to a more cooperative and friendly post-war relationship.
The US still suffer from this whole thing, just as Russia does when it comes to Nazis, which is obviously why Putin uses that excuse. The same with the US, you mention socialism and 99% of the US is ready to execute the person who said it.
And it probably could have, but Stalin had other plans, again Russia isn't exactly famous for its good caring politicians. Stalin killed millions of Russians
Putin's competitors seemingly have a huge difficulty standing near windows without falling out of them. So again, the Western allies and the US might not be perfect, but at least it is a hell of a lot better than these other countries.
