[thesteamboat]

You are substituting "the West" for rgbrenner's "those on the side of human rights", and in doing so are missing the point of his argument.

"The West" as a term is very broad and sufficiently undefined[0] that it makes a great rhetorical cudgel (both for people who support it and those against it). Unfortunately that same slipperiness makes it challenging for people trying to speak clearly. While "the West" has often been loosely aligned with human rights (some defending/embracing them, some merely claiming them as magic words) they certainly have their problems.

Your argument seems to be do the following: substitute an inferior term into rgbrenner's argument, and then complaining that your chosen term is inferior.

rgbrenner:> The sides aren't US and China, they're X and anti-X

you:> You say the sides are Y and anti-X, but Y isn't X

[0]: Do we mean America? America + Western Europe? Are we including Canada? How about Mexico? All colonial powers? Does Eastern Europe count? How about Australia? Or even Japan? You might have a particular definition in mind, but it's likely other people have different understandings.