Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Moral Superiority

gatchev.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: On Moral Superiority

#21

Post by gyardley »

A nonsensical screed, since the nations of Western Europe have also been the targets of radical Islamic terrorist groups. For example, what should the Danes have done to prevent the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan in 2008? What heinous action did they commit to lose their 'moral superiority' like the Americans? Since there's no Danish Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib to point to, might I respectfully suggest the reasons for these attacks aren't quite as simple as the author would suggest?

As for whether the actions of Bradley Manning will result in the deaths of American soldiers or Afghan informants - I suspect none of us here has the ability to properly evaluate this, and neither does the author of the article.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#22

Post by locopati »

rdtsc wrote: post #10
locopati wrote: post #2

America's supposed moral superiority depended quite a bit on believing the rhetoric and ignoring both our foreign policy (support for anti-democratic forces in Iran, Iraq, Central & South America, Africa) and our internal problems (civil rights, income inequality).

> America's supposed moral superiority depended quite a bit on believing the rhetoric... That is one thing that America excels at -- propaganda. Along with some other so called "democracies", it can at the same time install brutal regimes, kill and start wars all over the world _and_ somehow mentain its relatively stable propaganda image as a "peacemaker", "example of democracy", "human rights advocate" and so on. An…

I suspect some of the political upheaval in America is growing from the disjunction between American ideals with American reality (taking many forms of expression - Tea Party, nativism, corporatism, escapism, back-to-the-land movements, localism).

Re: On Moral Superiority

#23

Post by jargon »

forinti wrote: post #5

As a Latin-American, I laugh at the notion that the US have any sort of moral authority. In fact, many communist movements in LA actually came to be in response to oppression administered from Washington; if you had a nasty dictator propped up by the US and the only people who would help were in Moscow, then your best bet would be to become a communist, just as the Croats cozied up to the Nazis in order to get rid of…

I was reading a book about Roads that talks about roads from brazil to the pacific. The author mentions a story about seeing a teen in South America, Venezuela iirc, wearing a t-shirt with bin laden's picture on it and the author asked the kid why he is wearing the shirt.

The teen says, "Because he is a defender of the world's poor."

Is this how people in South America see the war? Rich people killing poor people? Is Bin Laden really revered down there like this? I'm not trying to take sides, just curious about it because I can't even imagine someone wearing a bin laden t-shirt here.

Is bin Laden the new Che in South America?

Re: On Moral Superiority

#24

Post by te_platt »

loxs wrote: post #14
te_platt wrote: post #12

So the Soviets under Stalin murdered 10's of millions before 1950 but maintained moral equivalence with the United States until JFK was elected? I guess I have a different sense of morality.

You know, things like nuking whole cities do count when measuring moral. Not that USSR was highly moral, just the opposite. USA was not too moral that days.

You know, things like making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?) is terrible thing to have to do. Making a calculated political decision to murder millions just isn't in the same category. I don't want to justify any of the wrongdoings of anyone based on "the other guy is worse". I also don't accept that the United States was morally equivalent to the Soviet Union until JFK was elected.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#26

Post by patrickk »

"Republicans don't actually stand for anything, they're just really good at winning elections".

This is a quote from the movie Boogieman: The Lee Atwater Story. (Lee Atwater was a Republican spin-doctor who influenced Karl Rove, the man who helped Bush get elected.)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1262863/

It seems to me when people vote the Republicans into power that America slides backwards for those years.

ps. I'm not American, so I don't really care one way or the other who America elects as president, as long as he (or she) leaves my country alone.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#27

Post by loxs »

te_platt wrote: post #24
loxs wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, things like nuking whole cities do count when measuring moral. Not that USSR was highly moral, just the opposite. USA was not too moral that days.

You know, things like making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?) is terrible thing to have to do. Making a calculated political decision to murder millions just isn't in the same category. I don't want to justify any of the wrongdoings of anyone based on "the other guy is worse". I also don't accept that the United States was mora…

As I said (in the neighboring comment): I am not trying to measure who is (was) worse. The thing is that the USSR had their arguments to carry their propaganda on for several decades. And their people believed them more or less.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#28

Post by forinti »

jargon wrote: post #23
forinti wrote: post #5

As a Latin-American, I laugh at the notion that the US have any sort of moral authority. In fact, many communist movements in LA actually came to be in response to oppression administered from Washington; if you had a nasty dictator propped up by the US and the only people who would help were in Moscow, then your best bet would be to become a communist, just as the Croats cozied up to the Nazis in order to get rid of…

I was reading a book about Roads that talks about roads from brazil to the pacific. The author mentions a story about seeing a teen in South America, Venezuela iirc, wearing a t-shirt with bin laden's picture on it and the author asked the kid why he is wearing the shirt. The teen says, "Because he is a defender of the world's poor." Is this how people in South America see the war? Rich people killing poor people? Is…

Not at all. That was someone being silly.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#29

Post by patrickk »

rdtsc wrote: post #10
locopati wrote: post #2

America's supposed moral superiority depended quite a bit on believing the rhetoric and ignoring both our foreign policy (support for anti-democratic forces in Iran, Iraq, Central & South America, Africa) and our internal problems (civil rights, income inequality).

> America's supposed moral superiority depended quite a bit on believing the rhetoric... That is one thing that America excels at -- propaganda. Along with some other so called "democracies", it can at the same time install brutal regimes, kill and start wars all over the world _and_ somehow mentain its relatively stable propaganda image as a "peacemaker", "example of democracy", "human rights advocate" and so on. An…

A video about the CIA's covert wars in the 3rd world (six million dead):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R8gKQGmoao

Re: On Moral Superiority

#30

Post by forinti »

loxs wrote: post #13
forinti wrote: post #5

As a Latin-American, I laugh at the notion that the US have any sort of moral authority. In fact, many communist movements in LA actually came to be in response to oppression administered from Washington; if you had a nasty dictator propped up by the US and the only people who would help were in Moscow, then your best bet would be to become a communist, just as the Croats cozied up to the Nazis in order to get rid of…

Of course, this might be the case with Latin America, I have no knowledge of the situation down there. But for us, Easter-Europeans, USA was really the better alternative to USSR

You don't always have the best alternatives available to you, even if you were clairvoyant enough to distinguish them.

Would you say the russians were fools to embrace communism when they lived in a feudal system? The communist resistance in Europe started even before the US entered the war. Maybe if the US hadn't taken so long, things might have turned out different for the eastern bloc. Then again they might have taken a bashing for not being prepared and you would be under nazi rule still today.

Post reply on HN