CSM
Senior Member
José;522059 said:I just try to be fair to all countries.
If, in a parallel universe, the US was invaded by a foreign power I would be here supporting the right of the american people to wage an armed struggle against the invader.
Somehow I doubt that. I have to ask then if the US has the right to defend itself against those who would "invade" and then plan and execute an act of war which resulted in the death of thousands of its citizens? Does the US have the right to prohibit the support of such "invaders"?
Why should I deny the vietnamese or the sunni iraqis the same right I grant to the american people?
While you are busy "granting rights", could you possibly grant the right for a country to defend itself against terrorists and terrorist supporters? Thanks.
Why should I deny their right to fight against an artificial division of their country and unify it just like americans fought against the artificial division of their country more than a century ago?
Just a wee bit simplistic and ignores a whole lot of other facts that have an impact on current events. I suppose if you examined ALL the facts, then you wouldn't be able to hold the views you do. I call that "willful ignorance" but I suspect you don's see it that way.
Why should I deny the right of sunni arabs to fight the invasion of their province located in an equally artificial country that force two different peoples and two religious sects to live under the same roof? A country that should never have been created in the first place?
Because they perpetrate the oppression, torture and murder of others (long before they were "invaded"). Again, just a bit too simple.
I hope sunni arabs will never be able to impose their autocratic rule on shias and kurds again but they have every right to shoot any american, kurd and shiite soldier that invades Anbar Province and tries to force them to accept an artificial country in which they do not wish to live.
You start this paragraph by admitting that the Sunnis were imposing autocratic rule on others and then say those who were oppressed have no right to try to change that; no right to have allies in trying to change it either. A little hypocritical, I think. At the very least it makes one doubt the sincerity of your expression of hope in the first sentence.
This is the most basic of all nationalist principles, CSM.
I am not in disagreement with the concept. However, every nation, society, religion and any other type of institution has to accept responsibility for its actions.
You invade my country (or region) to support an artificial country that never existed before or a country that should never have been created in the first place ruled by a puppet government and you get a bullet in the head.
If you are busy minding your own business and I invade, then by all means, give it your best shot. However, if you run around tossing rockets into another nation, or send suicide bombers to blow up weddings, churches, and anything else that may seem like a lucrative target, then you better have LOTS of ammo and some damned good air defense systems!
You, as an american nationalist, should be the first one to understand this most basic nationalist concept.
Believe me, I understand it very well. I also understand that if you come to my country and blow up buildings, kill my fellow citizens, and do the same to my allies or even support in anyway those who do, then such a concept not only allows for but essentially DEMANDS that I remedy the situation.
Nationalism is not an excuse for terrorism. Nor is it an excuse for genocide, ethnic cleansing or oppression. You cannot have it both ways; either a nation and its citizens has a right to defend itself or it does not. You cannot demand that right for Arabs and deny that right to those not Arab.