Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 66

The ignorance is strong with this one. I'm done :D

Last hint: polls, polls, polls

On June 28 2017 13:32 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On June 27 2017 23:30 Stroggoz wrote:   On June 27 2017 12:27 VanDerMeyde wrote:   On June 27 2017 02:57 Baalim wrote: VanDerMeyde you are being absolutely naive when you talk about foreign policy and invasion of sovereign countries, in fact I dont even think you actually believe that bullshit. You know perfectly well they are geopolitical moves, from stopping the growth of communism in Vietnam and Korea to stopping Russian influence and controlling crude in the middle east, these actions left countries in ruins and ignorance, poverty and hatred are breeding grounds for terrorism, obviously all the countries the US have attacked in the past decades are much more likely to attack the west than they were before. Come on... this is stupid, leave those pathetic gullible arguments that the US is killing baddies to ignorant rednecks, you know better than that. Bombing women and children in Vietnam with napalm is totally different than NATO/USA wanting to stop religious lunatics from gassing their own population.. I dont really get the point "yeah but they bought weapons from USA". Like, everyone buy weapons from almost everyone all the time.. I don't get why USA should be responsible for maniacs being crazy and killing their own population with those weapons unless it was somehow predictable they would do that. Its their own bad choice (again). The real problem for me is intervention when there is no good side to support in the conflict... As often is the case in the middle east / islamic countries. The US/NATO and formerly Britain have always supported dictators who gassed their own population. Really. Well, nobody should accept a claim like that without extraordinary evidence. This sounds a lot like crazy conspiracy theory to me haha. Doesnt really make sense, going from partnering up with childmolesters and giving them weapons to gas their own population to extremly naive in 2015 not knowing what to do about the migrant crisis... If NATO/EU were this cynical they would of course immediately close their borders and ship everyone back to Libya/Africa... That is one hell of a shift you are trying to sell there mate.

Actually, the West has done much worse than what i said. The CIA wrote a book about how they supported Suharto's rise to power, and helped him massacre half a million or possibly a lot more when he came to power. Mostly landless peasants and communists. They described the massacres as bad as hitler and stalin.(page 71 of 'The Coup that Backfired') The people engaged in the massacres drank the blood of their victims apparently. This was all praised by westerners in the media when it happened, and by the prime minister of australia. The evidence is overwhelming, you can simply read about it in news articles in the new york times and time magazine in 1966, who described it as http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836000,00.html 'Vengeance with a smile', and a 'gleaming light in asia', and 'the best news in asia for years'.

All of these crimes have a lot of evidence for them, that isn't the problem. The problem is getting people to recognize they are crimes.

I looked up a reference of this from the Journalist Robert Fisk, who wrote America's presence in the middle east in his book 'Great War for Civliziation, the Conquest of the Middle East'. I'll copy paste the relevant part:

"This permanent state of mass killing across Iraq was no secret in the 1970s and 1980s. Yet the West was either silent or half-hearted in its condemnation. Saddam’s visit to France in 1975 and his public welcome by the then mayor of Paris, Jacques Chirac, who bestowed upon the Iraqi “my esteem, my consideration, and my affection,” was merely the most flagrant example of our shameful relationship with the Iraqi regime. Within three years, agents at the Iraqi embassy in Paris would be fighting a gun battle with French police after their diplomats had been taken hostage by two Arab gunmen. A French police inspector was killed and another policeman wounded; the three Iraqi agents claimed diplomatic immunity and were allowed to fly to Baghdad on 2 August 1978, just two days after the killing. U.S. export credits and chemicals and helicopters, French jets and German gas and British military hardware poured into Iraq for fifteen years. Iraq was already using gas to kill thousands of Iranian soldiers when Donald Rumsfeld made his notorious 1983 visit to Baghdad to shake Saddam’s hand and ask him for permission to reopen the U.S. embassy. The first—and last—time I called on the consulate there, not long after Rumsfeld’s visit, one of its young CIA spooks brightly assured me that he wasn’t worried about car bombs because “we have complete faith in Iraqi security.”

If you are willing to look at the evidence, you can simply download that book off the internet, copy paste the quotes in to find them.

The best historical reference for America's foreign policy is probably 'killing hope', by william blum. It documents all US interventions, from 1945-2014.

On June 28 2017 13:31 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On June 28 2017 01:23 Baalim wrote: Also the justification for selling weapon is pathetic... we do it because everyone else does, what in the fuck is that kind of moral stance? Saudi Arabia is a supporter of the muslim brotherhood and the US sells billions in weapons every year, do you seriously believe this make sense, to arm extremists to later intervene because you are "good"? This is such a childish worldview Not only is it common to trade, USA should have very good reasons to do so (to get rid of some of their insane debt f.e). So I can understand Trump (and all their previous administrations) on this instance. I dont see any specific reason to critize USA for doing that, other than that they are doing it a lot more than everyone else. And I suspect for some tactical reasons. The regime of Saudi-Arabia is acctually very different from what it was early 2000's. Now the problem is the people of SA is still brainwashed and indoctrined from islam and rebel if government change their sharia laws slightly towards a softer direction.

lol of course they have very good reasons... the same reason anybody selling arms have: PROFIT.

duh.

Are you really from Norway? I thought only people from red states had this childish view that the US invades half the world because they want happiness and freedom for everyone.

On June 29 2017 02:07 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 28 2017 13:31 VanDerMeyde wrote:   On June 28 2017 01:23 Baalim wrote: Also the justification for selling weapon is pathetic... we do it because everyone else does, what in the fuck is that kind of moral stance? Saudi Arabia is a supporter of the muslim brotherhood and the US sells billions in weapons every year, do you seriously believe this make sense, to arm extremists to later intervene because you are "good"? This is such a childish worldview Not only is it common to trade, USA should have very good reasons to do so (to get rid of some of their insane debt f.e). So I can understand Trump (and all their previous administrations) on this instance. I dont see any specific reason to critize USA for doing that, other than that they are doing it a lot more than everyone else. And I suspect for some tactical reasons. The regime of Saudi-Arabia is acctually very different from what it was early 2000's. Now the problem is the people of SA is still brainwashed and indoctrined from islam and rebel if government change their sharia laws slightly towards a softer direction. lol of course they have very good reasons... the same reason anybody selling arms have: PROFIT. duh. Are you really from Norway? I thought only people from red states had this childish view that the US invades half the world because they want happiness and freedom for everyone.

Acctually most norwegians dislike Islam just as much ås me and prefer the West over this barbaric cult. Islamapologetics and people hating the West are voting SV/MDG and makes up about 5-8% of the population

On June 29 2017 03:29 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On June 28 2017 20:27 Stroggoz wrote:   On June 28 2017 13:32 VanDerMeyde wrote:   On June 27 2017 23:30 Stroggoz wrote:   On June 27 2017 12:27 VanDerMeyde wrote:   On June 27 2017 02:57 Baalim wrote: VanDerMeyde you are being absolutely naive when you talk about foreign policy and invasion of sovereign countries, in fact I dont even think you actually believe that bullshit. You know perfectly well they are geopolitical moves, from stopping the growth of communism in Vietnam and Korea to stopping Russian influence and controlling crude in the middle east, these actions left countries in ruins and ignorance, poverty and hatred are breeding grounds for terrorism, obviously all the countries the US have attacked in the past decades are much more likely to attack the west than they were before. Come on... this is stupid, leave those pathetic gullible arguments that the US is killing baddies to ignorant rednecks, you know better than that. Bombing women and children in Vietnam with napalm is totally different than NATO/USA wanting to stop religious lunatics from gassing their own population.. I dont really get the point "yeah but they bought weapons from USA". Like, everyone buy weapons from almost everyone all the time.. I don't get why USA should be responsible for maniacs being crazy and killing their own population with those weapons unless it was somehow predictable they would do that. Its their own bad choice (again). The real problem for me is intervention when there is no good side to support in the conflict... As often is the case in the middle east / islamic countries. The US/NATO and formerly Britain have always supported dictators who gassed their own population. Really. Well, nobody should accept a claim like that without extraordinary evidence. This sounds a lot like crazy conspiracy theory to me haha. Doesnt really make sense, going from partnering up with childmolesters and giving them weapons to gas their own population to extremly naive in 2015 not knowing what to do about the migrant crisis... If NATO/EU were this cynical they would of course immediately close their borders and ship everyone back to Libya/Africa... That is one hell of a shift you are trying to sell there mate. Actually, the West has done much worse than what i said. The CIA wrote a book about how they supported Suharto's rise to power, and helped him massacre half a million or possibly a lot more when he came to power. Mostly landless peasants and communists. They described the massacres as bad as hitler and stalin.(page 71 of 'The Coup that Backfired') The people engaged in the massacres drank the blood of their victims apparently. This was all praised by westerners in the media when it happened, and by the prime minister of australia. The evidence is overwhelming, you can simply read about it in news articles in the new york times and time magazine in 1966, who described it as http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836000,00.html 'Vengeance with a smile', and a 'gleaming light in asia', and 'the best news in asia for years'. All of these crimes have a lot of evidence for them, that isn't the problem. The problem is getting people to recognize they are crimes. I looked up a reference of this from the Journalist Robert Fisk, who wrote America's presence in the middle east in his book 'Great War for Civliziation, the Conquest of the Middle East'. I'll copy paste the relevant part: "This permanent state of mass killing across Iraq was no secret in the 1970s and 1980s. Yet the West was either silent or half-hearted in its condemnation. Saddam’s visit to France in 1975 and his public welcome by the then mayor of Paris, Jacques Chirac, who bestowed upon the Iraqi “my esteem, my consideration, and my affection,” was merely the most flagrant example of our shameful relationship with the Iraqi regime. Within three years, agents at the Iraqi embassy in Paris would be fighting a gun battle with French police after their diplomats had been taken hostage by two Arab gunmen. A French police inspector was killed and another policeman wounded; the three Iraqi agents claimed diplomatic immunity and were allowed to fly to Baghdad on 2 August 1978, just two days after the killing. U.S. export credits and chemicals and helicopters, French jets and German gas and British military hardware poured into Iraq for fifteen years. Iraq was already using gas to kill thousands of Iranian soldiers when Donald Rumsfeld made his notorious 1983 visit to Baghdad to shake Saddam’s hand and ask him for permission to reopen the U.S. embassy. The first—and last—time I called on the consulate there, not long after Rumsfeld’s visit, one of its young CIA spooks brightly assured me that he wasn’t worried about car bombs because “we have complete faith in Iraqi security.” If you are willing to look at the evidence, you can simply download that book off the internet, copy paste the quotes in to find them. The best historical reference for America's foreign policy is probably 'killing hope', by william blum. It documents all US interventions, from 1945-2014. This is supposed to be the proof for your claim "USA and EU/Nato have always supported dictators gassing their own population" ? Wow you guys are really crazy lunatics. The link you gave, something about something in 1966 im obviously not going to pay money to read lol

It's very good evidence, actually. Your just ignoring the obvious and there is no further point towards arguing with you if arn't interesting in being a rational person.

Nah you are just a dumbass VanDerMeyde

You dont understand a thing, you believe that just because we are now living in the mass information age, it was like that 50 years ago and that governments didn't abuse information which was not easily accessible to the public. Yeah, Western governments supported mass murderers if that was beneficial to them. The CIA is probably the biggest terrorist organization in the world and all of the facts are basically hitting you on the face, its your own fault for ignoring facts. Have you heard of Operation Northwoods? Do you think its the only instance? Have you heard of the propaganda campaigns regarding the Rockefellers?

Suharto is a an extremely bright example. Not to mention the support they grant to a number of authoritarian regimes to this very day.

the cold war was atrocity after atrocity. the US has actually become significantly more morally conscious since the end of the soviet union - but that's not an accomplishment, at all, because they supported guys that were literally hitleresque before that. (While Iraq was obviously a stupid decision and one that has turned out to be a massive disaster, it doesn't compare to vietnam in terms of how brutalized the civilian population was. drones are bad, of course, but it's nothing compared to supporting factions in mozambique and angola engaged in village mutilation. Continued support of Saudi Arabia is bad - Suharto was worse. And then there's overthrowing Allende to instate Pinochet and all kinds of horrible shit like that.)

Or hell, stuff like shooting down an Iranian civilian plane and awarding the guy responsible for it with a fucking medal afterwards. That actually ranks pretty low in terms of casualties inflicted, but the audacity of it is unparalleled.

I'm sure it's possible to have some discussions and thoughts about to what degree some of the horrible cold war policies of the US were justified from a 'we can't really let communism spread' perspective, but I don't see how one can argue against the opinion that american 'interventionism' has overall been a complete disaster post WW2. There ARE a couple american presidents that deserve credit, FDR was a principled opponent to european colonialism for example, and I think he genuinely tried to do, and succeeded in, making the world a better place. Jimmy Carter doesn't seem that highly regarded by americans, but I don't think he can be blamed for any particularly terrible or immoral foreign policy decisions.

I think intervention in korean war was justified, and good. Probably the only american intervention during the cold war that I am supportive of, at least that I am aware of.

Post cold war, intervention in Rwanda was definitely justified, and good, but while I'm no expert on the conflict, it seems it was also too late, and not really for the right reasons. Intervention in Yugoslavia is kinda tough to evaluate, but it wasn't obviously immoral or disastrous either. There's some legitimacy towards Afghanistan, although I don't really know if you can say it worked out for the better.

That is a very short list over positive military interventions when compared to the total list of interventions.

@VanDer
You are literally calling stone cold facts conspiracy theories because you re ignorant as fuck. How pathetic. You should probably pay Stroggoz a good chunk of money, cause im sure he ll take the time to actually do proper research and educate you, hopefully he won't though - insolent dumb people deserve their faith.

On June 29 2017 14:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: Continued support of Saudi Arabia is bad - Suharto was worse. And then there's overthrowing Allende to instate Pinochet and all kinds of horrible shit like that.) Or hell, stuff like shooting down an Iranian civilian plane and awarding the guy responsible for it with a fucking medal afterwards. That actually ranks pretty low in terms of casualties inflicted, but the audacity of it is unparalleled.

Jesus stop with the conspiracy theories already. How dare you bash on western civilizations, you should blame the muslims for you sorry little life instead. They re savages and we should prbably put them in camps, thats how they will learn to change their ways !


Nvm, on a more serious note the intervention of Yugoslavia was just a prevention of Russia's possible influence, as far as I know Yugoslavia was not serving anyone, and was growing fast, plus it actually posed a geopolitical threat to NATO.. and you know what happens to geopolitical threats to NATO. I'm guessing the USA just decided to prevent possible danger rather than wait for the country to take a side between the two blocks. Now I'm not saying that this is the reason the war happened, I'm saying that this is the reason the USA took part in it, they had no other benefit out of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen...he-us-war-on-yugoslavia_b_211172.html

This is actually quite a good analisys on the whole situation

The Balkans will always be destabilized and kept under control, the geopolitical position is way too important, it's why Russia decided to free us from slavery after all, in the late 19th century and force Ottomans back.

On June 29 2017 14:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: the cold war was atrocity after atrocity. the US has actually become significantly more morally conscious since the end of the soviet union - but that's not an accomplishment, at all, because they supported guys that were literally hitleresque before that. (While Iraq was obviously a stupid decision and one that has turned out to be a massive disaster, it doesn't compare to vietnam in terms of how brutalized the civilian population was. drones are bad, of course, but it's nothing compared to supporting factions in mozambique and angola engaged in village mutilation. Continued support of Saudi Arabia is bad - Suharto was worse. And then there's overthrowing Allende to instate Pinochet and all kinds of horrible shit like that.) Or hell, stuff like shooting down an Iranian civilian plane and awarding the guy responsible for it with a fucking medal afterwards. That actually ranks pretty low in terms of casualties inflicted, but the audacity of it is unparalleled. I'm sure it's possible to have some discussions and thoughts about to what degree some of the horrible cold war policies of the US were justified from a 'we can't really let communism spread' perspective, but I don't see how one can argue against the opinion that american 'interventionism' has overall been a complete disaster post WW2. There ARE a couple american presidents that deserve credit, FDR was a principled opponent to european colonialism for example, and I think he genuinely tried to do, and succeeded in, making the world a better place. Jimmy Carter doesn't seem that highly regarded by americans, but I don't think he can be blamed for any particularly terrible or immoral foreign policy decisions. I think intervention in korean war was justified, and good. Probably the only american intervention during the cold war that I am supportive of, at least that I am aware of. Post cold war, intervention in Rwanda was definitely justified, and good, but while I'm no expert on the conflict, it seems it was also too late, and not really for the right reasons. Intervention in Yugoslavia is kinda tough to evaluate, but it wasn't obviously immoral or disastrous either. There's some legitimacy towards Afghanistan, although I don't really know if you can say it worked out for the better. That is a very short list over positive military interventions when compared to the total list of interventions.

I agree that America has gotten better over time, certainly Vietnam was complete savagry compared to what the US can do today, I'm not sure it's more morally conscious, I think the public has gotten far more civilized. Vietnam protestors like Chomsky were treated very poorly in the early 1960's, by ordinary people and the government, in ways that would never, or rarely happen today to people who protested the Iraq war. I think the institutions/intellectuals have stayed about the same, but the public has gotten more civilized.

The whole communism spreading argument needs to be clarified and understood. The reality was that whenever a third world country tries to develop independently from what America wanted it to be, which was a place that was profitable for foreign investors, it would get shut down with whatever means necessary. Sometimes it was indeed communism, or sometimes it was the non-aligned movement, or economic nationalism (independence of industries, resources, ect). People have to be clear on what communism is, because it has become a propaganda word. It is associated with lenin, trotsky, and stalin, who imo, were very anti-communist, because neither of them wanted workers control over the means of production. Then there are countries that democratically elected their communist leaders, like the one you cite: salvador allende and chile. This goes against what the propaganda term is associated with, which is a stalinist-like dictatorship. The whole anti-communist (or domino) argument made by the western elites reads to me like gangster politics. Basically if someone starts behaving independently, then others will. and soon everyone will start trying to be independent and you won't be able to control the slaves anymore!

I think you can find some good things about FDR, but people tend to ignore the bad views he had, like supporting mussolini's fascism in the 1930's, he called mussolini 'that admirable Italian gentleman'. I always thought that America planned their policy during ww2 in accordance to how much power they were going to have post ww2. That's how I've read the documents from the council of foreign relations, the worlds most powerful think tank. I saw that America wanted to 'take over' the colonies, I'd be interested for you to cite what roosevelts position on european colonalism was and what reasons he had behind it because I havn't seen it before.

Jimmy Carter was probably the least bad of any president, but that doesn't stop him from being a war criminal, and he oversaw seriously immoral things, like the massacres of east timor , violent repression in Zaire, and luring Russia into a war while arming the Mujahideen, a decision that lead to Afghanistan being torn to peices, and the rise of people like osama bin laden. It's true that Russia is mostly to blame for the afghan war, but that doesn't stop Jimmy carters decision which had foreseeable consequences. He was also involved in implementing neoliberal economics. (raeganomics, basically)-sharpening wealth inequality.

What intervention in Rwanda might that be? There is a mixed historical record on that particular conflict, but the US still largely supports Rwanda's dictator, Paul Kagame was trained on US soil in military strategy, and he invaded Rwanda in the early 1990's from Uganda, which is a considerable war crime-actually the worst war crime you can possibly commit according to the nuremberg trials. Then he went on to invade east congo, killing roughly 5million people. It is possibly the bloodiest conflict since ww2, or maybe indochina. Yet Paul Kagame visits american universities and is praised by graduate students, as witnessed by historian Paul Street. (https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/22/kagame-goes-to-harvard/) It is seriously disturbing how apparently left leaning liberals can praise one of the worlds biggest mass murderers.

Paul Kagame receives considerable ideological support from the educated people in universities and the media: there is an interesting comparative study by ed herman who looks at which crimes are called 'genocidal', and which arn't. Well it turns out that east congo is called genocidal 17 times the western media, while rwanda is called genocidal over 3000 times. There is a lot of other comparative study, you should read the whole book, it's quite short.

I havn't studied yugoslavia much so i have no opinion, but the stance on rwanda and afghanistan is morally appalling. There is some very critical scholarship on humanitarian intervention by the physicist Jean Bricmont. The doctrine of humanitarian intervention has no supporting evidence for it imo, the US has always reacted violently towards other countries who are involved in what may be called humanitarian intervention, like vietnams intervention in cambodia that got rid of the pol pot regime. The west turned around and supported pol pot from 1978-1990 so I dont think a case for humanitarian intervention can be made, it's just new rhetoric that is a replacement for the no longer viable anti communist rhetoric of the cold war.

@vander: Ah yes the article is paid to read unfortunately. You can find other sources for it in work by John Pilger and others through a quick google search or a visit to the libary though. I have access to a database that allows me free access to a lot of recorded media(journal articles, news, books). (It's called factiva) The rest of your comments are silly.

References:

Ed Herman, and David Peterson. The Politics of Genocide
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/22/kagame-goes-to-harvard/
William Blum. Killing Hope.
Vijay Prashad. The Poorer Nations

On June 29 2017 03:26 VanDerMeyde wrote: USA invaded half the world? And everyone not agreeing with you on this is "childish" ? rofl

Anybody who does not understand figurative speech is a child (also figuratively, not a literal child in case you didn't get that one too).



So everyone besides VanDer agrees that US foreign policy has been brutal and while slowly getting better along with a more civilized world it is a big factor on the current state of the middle east, I think the part where we will differ is in how bad Islam is as an ideology and if pragmatic solutions should triumph over ideals because im pretty sure Drone proposes we shoot rays out of our carebear tummies and transform the middle east in a peaceful garden

lol such a cheap bait to discuss with Drone but we've run out of ppl to argue with, VanDer isn't giving much to work with

don't have time for other aspects of your post now stroggoz (I'm inclined to think that I agree with your caveats to my post anyway, although there are things I'd have to look up before fully internalizing), but here's a transcript of a conversation between Churchill and FDR during WW2, relayed by elliot roosevelt.



"Of course," he remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, "of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade."

He paused. The P.M.'s [Churchill's] head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.

"No artificial barriers," Father pursued. "As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition." His eye wandered innocently around the room.

Churchill shifted in his armchair. "The British Empire trade agreements," he began heavily, "are--"

Father broke in. "Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It's because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are."

Churchill's neck reddened and he crouched forward. "Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Do-minions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England's ministers."

"You see," said Father slowly, "it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.

"I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can't be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now-"

"Who's talking eighteenth-century methods?"

"Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation-by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community."

Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. [Harry] Hopkins [a major FDR adviser] was grinning. Commander [C. R.] Thompson, Churchill's aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.

"You mentioned India," he growled.

"Yes. I can't believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy"

"What about the Philippines?"

"I'm glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they've gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down

"There can be no tampering with the Empire's economic agreements."

"They're artificial ..."

"They're the foundation of our greatness."

"The peace," said Father firmly, "cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. . ."

It was after two in the morning when finally the British party said their good nights. I helped Father into his cabin, and sat down to smoke a last cigarette with him.

Father grunted. "A real old Tory, isn't he? A real old Tory, of the old school."

"I thought for a minute he was going to bust, Pop."

"Oh," he smiled, "I'll be able to work with him. Don't worry about that. We'll get along famously."

"So long as you keep off the subject of India."

"Mmm, I don't know. I think we'll even talk some more about India, before we're through. And Burma. And Java. And Indo-China. And Indonesia. And all the African colonies. And Egypt and Palestine. We'll talk about 'em all."


I really think he genuinely wanted to make the world a better place. I think he also wanted to make america an even better place than the rest of the world, but I'm sure someone as idealistic as you will agree that societal improvement is not a zero sum game.

well, actually I don't fully know where you're going with rwanda. I'm arguing that it was a good thing that the tutsi genocide by hutus ended. I think it sucks that it didn't end until somewhere between 500k and 1 million tutsis died. I don't think pol pot being allowed/enabled to kill a quarter of the population of cambodia is an argument against intervening in other conflicts, even if it ends up looking hypocritical. There are very few situations where I think humanitarian interventions have ever been justified, but if there's an ongoing genocide, then I actually think it might be the lesser of two evils. I honestly don't know much about the aftermath of the conflict, about paul kagame's involvement or us support of him, but I'll take your word for it. However it doesn't really change my pov that in the face of an ongoing genocide, a military intervention can be justified because there are few aftermaths worse than a successful genocide. If Rwanda's aftermath actually was worse, then it doesn't change my pov that intervening was justified - although maybe not the way they did?

I'm also negative towards afghanistan, but that invasion was not as illegitimate as the invasion of Iraq was, and I think it might be in the top 5 'least immoral american interventions since ww2'. Again, not a high bar to pass. I can see how my original phrasing was more supportive than I intended to be, though.