Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

nolkyz

(55 posts)
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:17 PM Mar 2014

WaPo's Gene Robinson: Who are we to judge Russia?

Let’s be real. It’s one thing to say that Russia’s takeover of the Crimean Peninsula “cannot be allowed to stand,” as many foreign policy sages have proclaimed. It’s quite another to do something about it.

Is it just me, or does the rhetoric about the crisis in Ukraine sound as if all of Washington is suffering from amnesia? We’re supposed to be shocked — shocked! — that a great military power would cook up a pretext to invade a smaller, weaker nation? I’m sorry, but has everyone forgotten the unfortunate events in Iraq a few years ago?

My sentiments, to be clear, are with the legitimate Ukrainian government, not with the neo-imperialist regime in Russia. But the United States, frankly, has limited standing to insist on absolute respect for the territorial integrity of sovereign states.

Before Iraq there was Afghanistan, there was the Persian Gulf War, there was Panama, there was Grenada. And even as we condemn Moscow for its outrageous aggression, we reserve the right to fire deadly missiles into Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and who knows where else.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-with-ukraine-crisis-the-us-has-a-credibility-problem/2014/03/03/f8f6a58a-a311-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html?hpid=z1


Panama is the best comparison. Remember when Bush I talked about the wife of a U.S. military officer being "sexually threatened"? Well, Putin claims Russians in Crimea are under threat. Hell, even if Vlad decides to invade all of Ukraine, he can claim that Russia is merely backing up the results of an election. Just like we did in Panama.
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WaPo's Gene Robinson: Who are we to judge Russia? (Original Post) nolkyz Mar 2014 OP
Thanks. elleng Mar 2014 #1
kick 840high Mar 2014 #2
Would that this made 'Bomb Iran' McCain shut up. Not likely, he's paid to promote wars. n/t freshwest Mar 2014 #3
The amnesia is convenient. jsr Mar 2014 #4
Yeah, the fucking republicons have a permanent case of amnesia. Cha Mar 2014 #5
*Cough* Scootaloo Mar 2014 #7
Thanks for posting this. russspeakeasy Mar 2014 #6
You're most welcome! nolkyz Mar 2014 #10
I need more forgiveness; russspeakeasy Mar 2014 #12
The invasion of Panama worked out pretty well for them. geek tragedy Mar 2014 #8
If you ask the Panamanians, you'd be correct. COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #9
There should be an election or referendum in Crimea. geek tragedy Mar 2014 #11
The hypocrisy burns. Igel Mar 2014 #13
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
8. The invasion of Panama worked out pretty well for them.
Tue Mar 4, 2014, 12:07 AM
Mar 2014

If you don't believe me, go there and try to find someone who wishes we had left Noriega in power.

I somehow don't see a Russian occupation of Crimea being comparable whatsoever.

COLGATE4

(14,886 posts)
9. If you ask the Panamanians, you'd be correct.
Tue Mar 4, 2014, 01:06 AM
Mar 2014

Probably would also be correct (assuming that this were to happen) by asking the residents of Crimea who are overwhelmingly Russian.

Igel

(37,427 posts)
13. The hypocrisy burns.
Tue Mar 4, 2014, 07:01 PM
Mar 2014

Who were we to judge South Africa? We had a centuries-long history of racism, and as we condemned apartheid we still had discrimination and racism in the US.

It's simple. If something's wrong, it really doesn't take much moral authority to condemn it. it's wrong. Sentencing the other person, that's a different matter.

A lot of this goes back to the "beam in another's eye" or adulterous woman caught in the act narratives. In the first, it was a matter of degree--you're in a worse state, you really have no help to offer. No word on what he'd see about somebody with a "beam" in his eye helping somebody with a sequoia in *his*. The second didn't conclude with Jesus saying, "Who condemns you? Nobody? Neither do I. Fuck whatever you want, God likes adultery and gets off seeing infidelity. Hey, how about this goat?" No, he concluded with, "I don't condemn you--but don't do it again."

It also has the more subtle problem that Obama isn't Reagan or Bush (I or II) and the people that were in charge then, 30-40 years ago, are mostly dead or long retired. We assume that if X happened 50 years ago it's still happening. It's a convenient narrative that allows us to get by without revoking our former judgment and thinking about how not-as-bad some enemy we have a psychological need to be as bad as possible actually is.It's quick, easy, emotionally satisfying thinking. But unless we're careful, we'll wind up concluding that many a KKK Grand Wizard was better than Obama.

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»WaPo's Gene Robinson: Who...