undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjmyeet2mo ago0 comments

> This is false, and you know it. But I will challenge you for others to see

Sorry but it's 100% true [1][2][3]. REsisting foreign occupation and colonialism is well-recognized in several UN conventions.

> Interesting. You completely ignored that Saudis back the other side (SAF),

You mean the saudis back the actual government of South Sudan and not the rebels who are looting the country? Are you really trying to equate the two?

But let's, for the sake of argument, also condemn the Saudis in this case. This should convince you that the US only cares about selling arms and doesn't give a rats ass about genocide. That's my point.

> Does the fact that IR's imperialism is regional, and anti-US, and not global makes it good?

No, it makes it lesser. "If not more" was your quote. Definitionally, it's not. It's Middle East vs the entire globe.

> It is imperialism

It's resistance. Iran up until 1953 was a liberal democracy and the only reason it isn't is because of US interference, imperialism and adventurism.

> Can you explain to me how this is a good thing?

Resisting the imperial ambitions of a global hegemonic superpower is definitionally good.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_resist

[2]: https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/about

[3]: https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/docs/A_RES_2625-Eng.pdf

0 comments

reliabilityguy2mo ago

> Sorry but it's 100% true [1][2][3]. REsisting foreign occupation and colonialism is well-recognized in several UN conventions.

Colonization and occupation is not the same as "imperialism". Please show me where "imperialism" is regulated by the international law. Second, resistance still has to comply with international laws. So, blowing up a bus with kids going to school is not resistance, but terrorism.

> You mean the saudis back the actual government of South Sudan

The government of South Sudan committed atrocities of the same scope as the RSF! Are you letting it slide because SAF is official government of Sudan??

> No, it makes it lesser. "If not more" was your quote. Definitionally, it's not. It's Middle East vs the entire globe.

I would argue it is more.

> It's resistance. Iran up until 1953 was a liberal democracy and the only reason it isn't is because of US interference, imperialism and adventurism. > Resisting the imperial ambitions of a global hegemonic superpower is definitionally good.

I see now. As long as it opposes US, it does not matter who are the victims of the opposition because the opposition is against the US.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse