www.facebook.com/iransecularii

David

You are not responding to any of my points. I am tired of repeating myself and am about to give up. But I will make one more try.

I am not here to defend USA or Soviets or anyone else. Hwoever there is bad and worse. Soviets were imperialist but ran Afghanistan better than the Taliban. Americans are imperialist but IMHO are better than Gaddafi or Khamenei.

Here are my questions again:

1. What is so bad about removing a dictator? 
2. Did the fact that Stalin was a bad guy make his opposition to Hitler wrong?
3. Is it that America being hypocrite make its opposition to Hitler; now Gaddafi and IR bad?

These are arguments that dictators hide behind to remain in power.

If you want a dialogue then you should respond to the other side. If you want a monologue then go for it. .

World is not pure and pristine like you want it to be. You must deal with reality and almost all nations are hypocrites. Givcn that I say better some good than no good. I see little correlation between "non hypocrite" and good results.

Hypocrisy

Thank you all for the positive remarks about the chart. Unfortunately when I had to fix something in the blog, it fell off the featured section and did not get a chance to be viewed by more readers.

Dear VPK, I am in total disagreement with your view on this subject and in summary here is why:

Let´s first see what the word Hypocrisy means from the dictionary: A pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

As Bavafa  rightfully addressed problem with Hypocrisy by a person or Government is that, it does not prescribe to the WORDS and claimed beliefs and only gives LIP SERVICE to justify what it is doing and applies a DOUBLE STANDARD.

Human Rights as described by the articles of United Nations has no borders and are the borne rights that every human being regardless of their nationality must have and no person or nation or government have the right to deny a person or a nation of its basic rights under any prestext

US or Iran or any government has no rights whatsoever to deny the right of another nation under the false pretext of preserving its own, just as no person has the right to intrude in to freedom and rights of another person.

These are universal laws that we must adhere to and preserve or might as well through them out the window and stop all the BS about standing for freedom, human rights blah blah.

In fact unlike what you say, history has proven again and again and again that US long term interest is in siding with people anywhere in the world instead of with dictators and such short sides views under the pretext of national interest has been the sole cause of the so much hatred against US policies which has fed the extremist on all sides.

The same applies to Islamic Regime in Iran which says one thing and does another when it comes to the rights of its own people and those around the word

People in the Middle East and North Africa are all asking for a voice in determining their own  destiny and against dictatorships and aseeking the same principles and this double standrad of approaching them differently depending on the drawn borders is an absolute joke and disgrace to humanity!

Mehrdad part II

You also brought up two issues:

1) What I mean by voting is this: People of USA get to decide what is "right". If they do not agree they vote the people out. Obviously enough people support the current policies. They keep electing same kind of people from both parties. So

2) If USA does something and Saudi does the same is does NOT mean USA = Saudi. These nations do lots of things. It just happens that over SOME things they do the same . Over many other things they are worlds apart. Please don't tell me that USA is the same as Saudi. If you don't believe me then find me one real election in Saudi. Women do not get to drive a car there! Just to go there you need a special invitation. USA on the other hand is basically a free nation.

Meherdad Jan

You asked how do we know what is right. I am of the opinion that it is hard to tell. There is no formula that tells us. For example this blog implies that if a hypocrite does something then it is wrong. I disagree.

We all know that USA is being hypocritical about freedom. However one less dictator is fine with me. 

After WWII USA removed Hitler and a Japanese militaristic regimes. It ignored crimes of its own allies like Stalin. The result was that West Germans and Japanese got freedom and democracy. Soviet block people did not. USA made a lot of noise about freedom. But WWII was about self interest not freedom. This is similar. 

I reject the notion that hypocrites can not do good.  Johnson was a hypocrite in many ways. Yet he gave us Civil Rights and equality of races. People and nations are complex and do fall under a simple definition. Unfortunately people like to oversimplify things.

I am beginning to repeat myself so I will stop. My points are in my posts. 

VPK jaan:

My question was in the context of this blog and your response to it. 

Unfortunately people who are being affected by the hypocrisy illustrated here, do not have the luxury of voting.

This charts illustrates, surprisingly, that the only government that is NOT hypocritical is Saudi Arabia.

US supports uprising against tyranny only where and when it suits its interest

Iran supports uprising against tyranny only where and when it suits its interest

Saudi Arabia does not support uprising against tyranny yet they never speak of it or brag about either. They happily side with tyranny and dictatorship.

Another thing that it shows is that how US and Saudi Arabia are in line with one another.

If A = B and B = C, then one can conclude A = C

Mehrdad

good job David

.

Mehrdad Jan

We each do that ourselves. Then vote for whomever we thing represents us the best. Picking the "right thing" is difficult to do and error prone. It makes people uncomfortable. Because we don't know for sure. Therefore some people take refuge in simple answers like: 

• My nation is always good and right.
• Whatever my holy text said.
• Never interfere with intrnal matters.
• Always chose peace.
• Peace is weakness

All of these are simple minded answers to a difficult question. I say it is "case by case". In case of Libya I support the interference against Gaddafi. In Iraq I did not support the invasion. I like to have people in leadership be wise enough to pick the "right" thing.

Excellent!

This table was very helpful to me.

VPK jaan: Who is going to decide what the "right thing" is

if is not guided by "principale"

David ET:

Excellent job

Mehrdad

David ET

I am not sure I agree with all the rating but assume it is right. There is nothing strange about these. Regimes and nations look for their own interest. When a regime is working for the  good of its people it also looks for the national interest.

Nevertheless it is still a good idea to remove a dictator. Was Stalin looking for good? No. But he still did a good thing by fighting Hitler. Many times people do the right thing for the wrong reason. If Gaddafi goes a dictator goes. If IRR goes another dictatorship goes. Better to have fewer murdering regimes. Yes USA will back Saudi and Jordan. So what? Isn't it better to be rid of at least Gaddafi? Good people often do plenty bad by inaction and being naive.

Carter may have been a "good" person. But he brought Khomeini. I rather have the dishonest Nixon who backed the Shah than the "honest" Carter who backed Khomeini. In other words: I will take the "hypocrite" who does the right thing over the "principled" person who does the wrong thing.

Just see who is cheering you and think about your position.

It takes ore than an honest fool to make a leader.

VPK

I actually like this

I actually like this ........ good job : )

.........

Your table shows that KSA and IRI are clearly rivals! They are mutually exclusive! Apparently there is no Islamic unity......

they can't even host an Islamic Games together!