Twenty century US foreign policy was about supporting capitalism, not democracy. I assume you're referring to the CIA lead coups in the 20th century that upended socialist countries. I would like to think we've learned from these mistakes in the 21st century.
As for drone strikes in Yemen in the 21st century, which is what I think you are referring to, killing civilians is obviously wrong. I think not fighting terrorist organizations would also be wrong. It's in the interest of democracies to fight back against terrorists.
edit: Oh and I am ethnically Jewish, so I do have a lot of opinions about Palestine and Israel. Israel is an apartheid state, but I still believe in a two-state solution.
The coup in Bolivia and the more recent attempts on Venezuela were just a few years ago.
I assume with Libya and Syria you'd just accept the flimsy pretext the US offered like with Yemen despite the barbarous butchering of civilians in all cases. Do you think the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were also for democracy? Are you that far gone?
From what I've read about Bolivia quickly sounds like that was a conspiracy theory from the dictator. I haven't heard of any coup attempt by the CIA in Venezuela recently. At a glance there seems to be Silver Corp that did Operation Gideon. It's not a state sponsored group. I don't support the concept of just toppling one dictator in exchange for a US friendly dictator. The incentives a dictator has will inevitably lead them to side with other dictatorships over democracies regardless of who put them in power.
I disagree with drone strikes that killed civilians. However, letting terrorists like ISIS run around in Syria and Iraq and now Africa more recently, is a bad idea when they make it their business to butcher civilians for not being extreme as them.
I'm honestly not super familiar NATO's intervention of Libya. I've read a bit. Sounds like it was bungled quite badly.
I mean Bush wanted to kill Saddam, because of the assassination attempt on his dad, Bush senior, by Saddam. The political reality is that we did bring democracy to those countries. I think what we've learned from Afghanistan and Iraq is that democracy cannot be forced. People have to want to live, die, and fight for it. And in the case of Iraq, democratic intuitions have to be maintained, or else the country will backslide to authoritarianism.
Quickly skimming and finding that the US is faultless is the definition of being a mark.
Regarding VZ, I didn't mean the 2020 attempt with a few guerillas, I meant mainly the ~2019 attempt that actually caused a national crisis, the one connected to Guaido that was based on lies from the NED and friends.
I disagree with drone strikes that killed civilians.
Most of them do when you don't consider every boy over 14 a potential terrorist. Anyway:
However, letting terrorists like ISIS run around in Syria and Iraq and now Africa more recently, is a bad idea when they make it their business to butcher civilians for not being extreme as them.
Syria was opposing terrorists. This shit only makes sense if you think every Muslim with a gun (or within a block of a Muslim with a gun) is a terrorist.
Apologetics for OIF are just disgusting.
What is the possible standard for saying that the US is making excuses rather than believing whatever flimsy pretext they throw out? Because if you support OIF, it seems like you'll believe anything they say.
The political reality is that we did bring democracy to those countries
You are smoking crack. Libya lies in ruins with open-air slave markets and Syria remains somewhat together despite US attacks on Assad.
I think what we've learned from Afghanistan and Iraq is that democracy cannot be forced. People have to want to live, die, and fight for it. And in the case of Iraq, democratic intuitions have to be maintained, or else the country will backslide to authoritarianism.
What is this shit? What possible basis do you have for claiming the US has any interest in democracy when you understand that "democratic" interventions to "liberate" countries in the 20th century were imperialist warmongering? Sometimes it's even the same country being invaded or otherwise sabotaged both then and now!
It's pure fucking doublethink. It's not like the US has come out and said "hey, toppling Allende was bad, we're prosecuting the people responsible".
The actual coup sounds like it was a conspiracy theory? Or US involvement?
I really have no idea what you're talking about. That was the most relevant thing I could find at a glance and I can't even find that now. I haven't found anything referring to US involvement in Bolvia.
I skimmed the guardian article. I didn't hear about any of this at the time. This is the first I've heard about the OAS. I don't support the Trump administration and it sounds like they supported what OAS did, so I probably don't support what OAS did. If that makes you feel better. I'm certainly not an expert on every US foreign policy action or every foreign policy action by every international organization. It's hard to have informed opinions about things I literally just learned about. I can offer first impressions, but I'm guessing those will change as I get to learn more about it. edit: typo
Quickly skimming and finding that the US is faultless is the definition of being a mark.
Great. It's hard to keep with endless of dump of accusations that aren't tied together in any coherent way, but I try. edit: spacing
Apologetics for OIF are just disgusting.
First I've heard about this too.
You are smoking crack. Libya lies in ruins with open-air slave markets and Syria remains somewhat together despite US attacks on Assad.
I was talking about Afghanistan and Iraq.
It’s pure fucking doublethink.
I can read the history books thanks.
We've really diverged from whatever we were talking about in this comment chain. I don't need to defend ever single thing the US has done wrong or what you think the US has done wrong to enjoy and understand the benefits of democracy. US is certainly not perfect but it beats living in a dictatorship that's for sure. I want the US to support and defend democracies. I don't feel the moral need to disown my country because it has screwed up, but I'm not above criticizing it either.
What each of us sees as cohesive is naturally going to diverge, but it's good to offer thesis statements and I did not, so let me do that here:
The US is a despot in how it treats other countries. It was a despot in the 20th century and it is a despot in the 21st century. Its crimes are innumerable and frankly still overwhelming if you just focus on the big ones. Nonetheless, if someone says the US is interested in promoting "democracy," it is necessary to bring some of the obvious counterexamples to bear.
Lastly, if you aren't familiar with this history, it's perfectly fine to just be quiet and either research or do something else, but to make declarations means inviting those declarations to be attacked, and making poorly-informed declarations and then being incredulous about being given information is silly.
This is the first I've heard about the OAS. I don't support the Trump administration and it sounds like they supported what OAS did, so I probably don't support what OAS did. If that makes you feel better.
Hey, that's something, but it's worth mentioning that the Biden administration didn't exactly offer reparations. Thankfully, the coup regime (under Jeanine Áñez if you want a term to look up) had already crumbled before Biden took office, but based on his other actions he would have supported it just as Trump did if it lasted a few months longer so it could see his Presidency.
If you oppose Trump for reasons other than him being crass, saying bad things, and personally engaging in sex crime (the latter two being real reasons to dislike him, mind you), then it's consistent to oppose Biden as well.
I'm certainly not an expert on every US foreign policy action or every foreign policy action by every international organization. It's hard to have informed opinions about things I literally just learned about. I can offer first impressions, but I'm guessing those will change as I get to learn more about it.
As I said before, ignorance is not a sin, but if you aren't aware of things, don't make declarations about them. If you don't have any idea what someone has been up to in the past 20 years, declaring that they have never committed a crime in their life is not a safe practice.
First I've heard about this too.
OIF, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, is the official name of the Iraq invasion. It's easy to remember because it was supposedly first called "Operation Iraqi Liberty" before someone noticed that that spells "OIL," which is a much better characterization of what the US was after rather than "spreading democracy".
I was talking about Afghanistan and Iraq.
The US fled Afghanistan and the Taliban won. Mind you, while I don't like the Taliban, it's better for them to be in charge than the colonial occupier the US had been trying to act as for 20 fucking years. If there is to be hope for Afghanistan in the dilemma between the Taliban and US, we must agree that the local force that actually has some stake in the country doing well is the better option.
You can see why I didn't think you meant Iraq and Afghanistan given this. As an aside, it should be noted that the US government broadly does not view the case of Libya as a failure. Hillary Clinton (then Secretary of State, who oversaw the "intervention") famously said with a cackle "We came, we saw, he died!" referring to Libya's former head-of-state, Gaddafi, who she watched on video being sodomized to death with a bayonet while begging for mercy.
I can read the history books thanks.
Written by who? And for what institution?* We cannot be uncritical of something speaking well of the US merely because it got published somewhere and happened to be served to you.
*These are rhetorical questions, you might benefit from looking them up, but you don't need to tell me (and if you mean school textbooks, you probably shouldn't)
I don't need to defend ever single thing the US has done wrong or what you think the US has done wrong to enjoy and understand the benefits of democracy.
Essentially, I am trying to draw your attention to what the US overwhelmingly is, despite your attempts to dismiss as mere trivia events that each killed tens or hundreds of thousands and impoverished millions.
You get scraps from this looting, I would never deny that, but for most of the world the US is a cancer and those two facts are connected. It would not have this loot if it was not pillaging it, and you have no say in whether or not it does if you are only following the "democracy" you applaud because both parties are the pro-war party.
US is certainly not perfect but it beats living in a dictatorship that's for sure. I want the US to support and defend democracies. I don't feel the moral need to disown my country because it has screwed up, but I'm not above criticizing it either.
These atrocities, committed without interruption or even a valid military engagement since the end of WW2, are not mistakes, they are not "screw ups," they are the standard functioning of the US and inextricable from what it is. I don't know what sort of conservative high school history courses you are operating on, but they have not served you well. That makes sense, because they aren't made to serve you, they are made so that you will serve this machine that we've been discussing.
As I said before, ignorance is not a sin, but if you aren’t aware of things, don’t make declarations about them.
I'll report on what I see when I google. If that's a declaration so be it. I don't see a problem with trying to get another person to pin down what they believe. Although trying to guess hasn't been particularly effective.
OIF, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, is the official name of the Iraq invasion. It’s easy to remember because it was supposedly first called “Operation Iraqi Liberty” before someone noticed that that spells “OIL,” which is a much better characterization of what the US was after rather than “spreading democracy”.
I didn't recognize the acronym, but I know about the Iraq invasion.
These atrocities, committed without interruption or even a valid military engagement since the end of WW2, are not mistakes, they are not “screw ups,” they are the standard functioning of the US and inextricable from what it is.
After WWII, the US government made deliberate foreign policy decisions they thought would benefit Americans and people abroad and then in some cases they didn't. In some they did. The goal was to not harm as many civilians as possible. Civilian causalities are definitely a screw up. If you're going to subscribe to a view that sees the US as inherently evil then you're not going to have a realist view of the world or history.
The US fled Afghanistan and the Taliban won. Mind you, while I don’t like the Taliban, it’s better for them to be in charge than the colonial occupier the US had been trying to act as for 20 fucking years. If there is to be hope for Afghanistan in the dilemma between the Taliban and US, we must agree that the local force that actually has some stake in the country doing well is the better option.
The Taliban regime doesn't care about the people living under their rule. They care about imposing their version of Islam on everyone. This is my issue with the world view I'm seeing in the comments. If what the US government has been doing bothers you on a moral level, then what a theocratic dictatorship does to its own people should bother you greatly. The hope I have for the people of Afghanistan is that they overthrow their oppressors. edit: typos
I'll report on what I see when I google. If that's a declaration so be it.
You know you can do things other than make nebulous assertions, right? You can say "I don't know" or "It seems to me that" or any number of other things that aren't just "X is the case". If you're ignorant about US FP, and you are, you can just not declare what its overall purpose is. No one is forcing you to do something like that!
After WWII, the US government made deliberate foreign policy decisions they thought would benefit Americans and people abroad and then in some cases they didn't. In some they did. The goal was to not harm as many civilians as possible. Civilian causalities are definitely a screw up. If you're going to subscribe to a view that sees the US as inherently evil then you're not going to have a realist view of the world or history.
You did a flip-flop from your earlier (correct) claim that the US was seeking power and destroying its enemies in the 20th century, unless you think WW2 happened in 2000. They used people to their own advantage consistently, and civilian casualties were not "screw ups" because they didn't give a shit.
I'm a Marxist, I don't think "good" and "evil" are useful terms for analyzing the world beyond analyzing ideologies containing the ideas of "good and evil". I don't think the US has some sort of evil magic curse that makes it only do bad, I think that it has constructed a model of warmongering and exploitation around the world that didn't evaporate at the stroke of Y2K. It's an imperialist state, its basic functioning is centered on looting the third world through various means, and this is informed by its legal system and class structure.
The Taliban regime doesn't care about the people living under their rule. They care about imposing their version of Islam on everyone. This is my issue with the world view I'm seeing in the comments. If what the US government has been doing bothers you on a moral level, then what a theocratic dictatorship does to its own people should bother you greatly. The hope I have for the people of Afghanistan is that they overthrow their oppressors.
The Taliban isn't controlled by an idea, it is controlled by people operating on motives that are usually material. Public will and diplomatic external pressure can change things based on affecting those motives, but to the US Afghanistan is a weapon or a source of income that can be clung to or discarded (as it ultimately did). No amount of domestic unrest would persuade the US to help people, because Afghanistan just isn't important to the US, it can't really hurt the US.
And the Taliban's support isn't an idea or magic "authoritarianism" either. Most of its support was from decent people who saw it as the only viable path towards opposing US colonialism, which it ultimately successfully did. Having succeeded, the Taliban will need to find new projects that the people will support or else it will lose standing (and it had been taking up such projects of development since long before the US left).
You know that there are death camps in North Korea to this day right? Where as South Korea does not have any death camps.
US went out of its way to stop the spread of the communism and destabilize socialist countries in the 20th century. I think these foreign policy decisions were a mistake. Our focus should be on a country's political structure and not its economic structure.
Afghanistan HAD democracy under the DRA
One party systems are not democracy. edit: spacing
And Iraq, this MUST be the single democratic war fought by the U.S. right?
This is a straw man. I don't agree with the war in Iraq. Read my comments if you don't believe me. Iraq gained democracy which is the only silver lining I can think of but their government has since backslid to the detriment of the Iraqi people. Hopefully they will make a course correction.
Say that bs “oh I guess they weren’t ready for democracy” nonsense again I dare you. You don’t deserve to prance around these topics and “learn” by defending horrific atrocities and seeing what responses you get.
Democracy cannot be forced. If people don't fight to defend it, it will be taken away. edit: grammar
I've spent a lot of time learning about these topics because they interest me. But I'm certainly not an expert.
I'll get around to the comment you addressed to me but:
You know that there are death camps in North Korea to this day right?
Death camps are camps used for killing people, usually in a semi-industrialized fashion. The DPRK has never had these. It has prison labor, but that's not the same. South Korea also has prison labor.
I honestly not sure what is being referred to. Bolivia was named dropped. I couldn't find anything about US involvement other than what sounded like a dictator making that claim. I can't even find that now. It's not my job to guess what your position is on this country. Make a claim and provide evidence. My attempts at trying to guess are clearly not getting me anywhere.
Are you saying Evo Morales was a dictator? Because a lot of US media might imply that, but few major papers ever said it outright because they usually try to at least pretend not to be full of shit. In reality he was a very popular democratically elected leader, and organizations established and funded by the US (and its business interests) played a critical role in the coup d'etat against him. It is not a conspiracy, there is a straight line from US influence to the coup, even if it was ultimately carried by local Bolivian business interests. In fact understand the relationship between American foreign policy objectives, multinational corporations, and local business interests is key to understanding modern neocolonialism as a whole.
I took a stab at trying to figure out what someone else was talking about when all they said was US involvement in Bolvia. It was not a lot to go on.
Yeah on closer examination it looks like Evo Morales is not a dictator. I might have misread whatever it was I found or what I found might have been about something else entirely. I am brand new to this topic. There seems to be a clear line OAS involvement from the skimming I did of the guardian article. Also, Trump seemed to give his approval to the OAS, but it seems like the OAS acts independently from the US. I could be wrong though.
On paper it acts independently, but it's headquartered in Washington DC, and according to Wikipedia "In 2018 the [OAS]General Secretariat's budget was $85 million of which the US contributed $50 million." And of course, the US has always considered South America to be its "backyard" and has a long history of doing this kind of thing
Forgive me for my shorthand. There was a period when the Anez regime was the biggest news story and that is one of the only times Bolivia had been in the headlines over the last ~5 years (aside from papers attacking him right before the coup, wonder why?), so I assumed that the reference would be clearer than it was.
I am idly curious about the "what sounded like a dictator" part.
Just so we can move on and not talk in circles, is that you tacitly admitting that the US FP is not about "supporting democracy"?
Twenty century US foreign policy was about supporting capitalism, not democracy. I assume you're referring to the CIA lead coups in the 20th century that upended socialist countries. I would like to think we've learned from these mistakes in the 21st century.
As for drone strikes in Yemen in the 21st century, which is what I think you are referring to, killing civilians is obviously wrong. I think not fighting terrorist organizations would also be wrong. It's in the interest of democracies to fight back against terrorists.
edit: Oh and I am ethnically Jewish, so I do have a lot of opinions about Palestine and Israel. Israel is an apartheid state, but I still believe in a two-state solution.
The coup in Bolivia and the more recent attempts on Venezuela were just a few years ago.
I assume with Libya and Syria you'd just accept the flimsy pretext the US offered like with Yemen despite the barbarous butchering of civilians in all cases. Do you think the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were also for democracy? Are you that far gone?
From what I've read about Bolivia quickly sounds like that was a conspiracy theory from the dictator. I haven't heard of any coup attempt by the CIA in Venezuela recently. At a glance there seems to be Silver Corp that did Operation Gideon. It's not a state sponsored group. I don't support the concept of just toppling one dictator in exchange for a US friendly dictator. The incentives a dictator has will inevitably lead them to side with other dictatorships over democracies regardless of who put them in power.
I disagree with drone strikes that killed civilians. However, letting terrorists like ISIS run around in Syria and Iraq and now Africa more recently, is a bad idea when they make it their business to butcher civilians for not being extreme as them.
I'm honestly not super familiar NATO's intervention of Libya. I've read a bit. Sounds like it was bungled quite badly.
I mean Bush wanted to kill Saddam, because of the assassination attempt on his dad, Bush senior, by Saddam. The political reality is that we did bring democracy to those countries. I think what we've learned from Afghanistan and Iraq is that democracy cannot be forced. People have to want to live, die, and fight for it. And in the case of Iraq, democratic intuitions have to be maintained, or else the country will backslide to authoritarianism.
The actual coup sounds like it was a conspiracy theory? Or US involvement?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/18/silence-us-backed-coup-evo-morales-bolivia-american-states
Quickly skimming and finding that the US is faultless is the definition of being a mark.
Regarding VZ, I didn't mean the 2020 attempt with a few guerillas, I meant mainly the ~2019 attempt that actually caused a national crisis, the one connected to Guaido
that was based on lies from the NED and friends.
Most of them do when you don't consider every boy over 14 a potential terrorist. Anyway:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
Syria was opposing terrorists. This shit only makes sense if you think every Muslim with a gun (or within a block of a Muslim with a gun) is a terrorist.
Apologetics for OIF are just disgusting.
What is the possible standard for saying that the US is making excuses rather than believing whatever flimsy pretext they throw out? Because if you support OIF, it seems like you'll believe anything they say.
You are smoking crack. Libya lies in ruins with open-air slave markets and Syria remains somewhat together despite US attacks on Assad.
What is this shit? What possible basis do you have for claiming the US has any interest in democracy when you understand that "democratic" interventions to "liberate" countries in the 20th century were imperialist warmongering? Sometimes it's even the same country being invaded or otherwise sabotaged both then and now!
It's pure fucking doublethink. It's not like the US has come out and said "hey, toppling Allende was bad, we're prosecuting the people responsible".
I really have no idea what you're talking about. That was the most relevant thing I could find at a glance and I can't even find that now. I haven't found anything referring to US involvement in Bolvia.
I skimmed the guardian article. I didn't hear about any of this at the time. This is the first I've heard about the OAS. I don't support the Trump administration and it sounds like they supported what OAS did, so I probably don't support what OAS did. If that makes you feel better. I'm certainly not an expert on every US foreign policy action or every foreign policy action by every international organization. It's hard to have informed opinions about things I literally just learned about. I can offer first impressions, but I'm guessing those will change as I get to learn more about it. edit: typo
Great. It's hard to keep with endless of dump of accusations that aren't tied together in any coherent way, but I try. edit: spacing
First I've heard about this too.
I was talking about Afghanistan and Iraq.
I can read the history books thanks.
We've really diverged from whatever we were talking about in this comment chain. I don't need to defend ever single thing the US has done wrong or what you think the US has done wrong to enjoy and understand the benefits of democracy. US is certainly not perfect but it beats living in a dictatorship that's for sure. I want the US to support and defend democracies. I don't feel the moral need to disown my country because it has screwed up, but I'm not above criticizing it either.
What each of us sees as cohesive is naturally going to diverge, but it's good to offer thesis statements and I did not, so let me do that here:
The US is a despot in how it treats other countries. It was a despot in the 20th century and it is a despot in the 21st century. Its crimes are innumerable and frankly still overwhelming if you just focus on the big ones. Nonetheless, if someone says the US is interested in promoting "democracy," it is necessary to bring some of the obvious counterexamples to bear.
Lastly, if you aren't familiar with this history, it's perfectly fine to just be quiet and either research or do something else, but to make declarations means inviting those declarations to be attacked, and making poorly-informed declarations and then being incredulous about being given information is silly.
Hey, that's something, but it's worth mentioning that the Biden administration didn't exactly offer reparations. Thankfully, the coup regime (under Jeanine Áñez if you want a term to look up) had already crumbled before Biden took office, but based on his other actions he would have supported it just as Trump did if it lasted a few months longer so it could see his Presidency.
If you oppose Trump for reasons other than him being crass, saying bad things, and personally engaging in sex crime (the latter two being real reasons to dislike him, mind you), then it's consistent to oppose Biden as well.
As I said before, ignorance is not a sin, but if you aren't aware of things, don't make declarations about them. If you don't have any idea what someone has been up to in the past 20 years, declaring that they have never committed a crime in their life is not a safe practice.
OIF, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, is the official name of the Iraq invasion. It's easy to remember because it was supposedly first called "Operation Iraqi Liberty" before someone noticed that that spells "OIL," which is a much better characterization of what the US was after rather than "spreading democracy".
The US fled Afghanistan and the Taliban won. Mind you, while I don't like the Taliban, it's better for them to be in charge than the colonial occupier the US had been trying to act as for 20 fucking years. If there is to be hope for Afghanistan in the dilemma between the Taliban and US, we must agree that the local force that actually has some stake in the country doing well is the better option.
You can see why I didn't think you meant Iraq and Afghanistan given this. As an aside, it should be noted that the US government broadly does not view the case of Libya as a failure. Hillary Clinton (then Secretary of State, who oversaw the "intervention") famously said with a cackle "We came, we saw, he died!" referring to Libya's former head-of-state, Gaddafi, who she watched on video being sodomized to death with a bayonet while begging for mercy.
Written by who? And for what institution?* We cannot be uncritical of something speaking well of the US merely because it got published somewhere and happened to be served to you.
*These are rhetorical questions, you might benefit from looking them up, but you don't need to tell me (and if you mean school textbooks, you probably shouldn't)
Essentially, I am trying to draw your attention to what the US overwhelmingly is, despite your attempts to dismiss as mere trivia events that each killed tens or hundreds of thousands and impoverished millions.
You get scraps from this looting, I would never deny that, but for most of the world the US is a cancer and those two facts are connected. It would not have this loot if it was not pillaging it, and you have no say in whether or not it does if you are only following the "democracy" you applaud because both parties are the pro-war party.
These atrocities, committed without interruption or even a valid military engagement since the end of WW2, are not mistakes, they are not "screw ups," they are the standard functioning of the US and inextricable from what it is. I don't know what sort of conservative high school history courses you are operating on, but they have not served you well. That makes sense, because they aren't made to serve you, they are made so that you will serve this machine that we've been discussing.
I'll report on what I see when I google. If that's a declaration so be it. I don't see a problem with trying to get another person to pin down what they believe. Although trying to guess hasn't been particularly effective.
I didn't recognize the acronym, but I know about the Iraq invasion.
After WWII, the US government made deliberate foreign policy decisions they thought would benefit Americans and people abroad and then in some cases they didn't. In some they did. The goal was to not harm as many civilians as possible. Civilian causalities are definitely a screw up. If you're going to subscribe to a view that sees the US as inherently evil then you're not going to have a realist view of the world or history.
The Taliban regime doesn't care about the people living under their rule. They care about imposing their version of Islam on everyone. This is my issue with the world view I'm seeing in the comments. If what the US government has been doing bothers you on a moral level, then what a theocratic dictatorship does to its own people should bother you greatly. The hope I have for the people of Afghanistan is that they overthrow their oppressors. edit: typos
You know you can do things other than make nebulous assertions, right? You can say "I don't know" or "It seems to me that" or any number of other things that aren't just "X is the case". If you're ignorant about US FP, and you are, you can just not declare what its overall purpose is. No one is forcing you to do something like that!
You did a flip-flop from your earlier (correct) claim that the US was seeking power and destroying its enemies in the 20th century, unless you think WW2 happened in 2000. They used people to their own advantage consistently, and civilian casualties were not "screw ups" because they didn't give a shit.
I'm a Marxist, I don't think "good" and "evil" are useful terms for analyzing the world beyond analyzing ideologies containing the ideas of "good and evil". I don't think the US has some sort of evil magic curse that makes it only do bad, I think that it has constructed a model of warmongering and exploitation around the world that didn't evaporate at the stroke of Y2K. It's an imperialist state, its basic functioning is centered on looting the third world through various means, and this is informed by its legal system and class structure.
The Taliban isn't controlled by an idea, it is controlled by people operating on motives that are usually material. Public will and diplomatic external pressure can change things based on affecting those motives, but to the US Afghanistan is a weapon or a source of income that can be clung to or discarded (as it ultimately did). No amount of domestic unrest would persuade the US to help people, because Afghanistan just isn't important to the US, it can't really hurt the US.
And the Taliban's support isn't an idea or magic "authoritarianism" either. Most of its support was from decent people who saw it as the only viable path towards opposing US colonialism, which it ultimately successfully did. Having succeeded, the Taliban will need to find new projects that the people will support or else it will lose standing (and it had been taking up such projects of development since long before the US left).
deleted by creator
You know that there are death camps in North Korea to this day right? Where as South Korea does not have any death camps.
US went out of its way to stop the spread of the communism and destabilize socialist countries in the 20th century. I think these foreign policy decisions were a mistake. Our focus should be on a country's political structure and not its economic structure.
One party systems are not democracy. edit: spacing
This is a straw man. I don't agree with the war in Iraq. Read my comments if you don't believe me. Iraq gained democracy which is the only silver lining I can think of but their government has since backslid to the detriment of the Iraqi people. Hopefully they will make a course correction.
Democracy cannot be forced. If people don't fight to defend it, it will be taken away. edit: grammar
I've spent a lot of time learning about these topics because they interest me. But I'm certainly not an expert.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I'll get around to the comment you addressed to me but:
Death camps are camps used for killing people, usually in a semi-industrialized fashion. The DPRK has never had these. It has prison labor, but that's not the same. South Korea also has prison labor.
Edit: Regarding your article, aside from HRW being literally purpose-built for laundering those sorts of stories and the "evidence" being an office in the UN submitting something for discussion, South Korea also has accusations against it of torturing political prisoners.
Still no death camps in "north kora"
Wut
Please, would you explain yourself
I honestly not sure what is being referred to. Bolivia was named dropped. I couldn't find anything about US involvement other than what sounded like a dictator making that claim. I can't even find that now. It's not my job to guess what your position is on this country. Make a claim and provide evidence. My attempts at trying to guess are clearly not getting me anywhere.
Are you saying Evo Morales was a dictator? Because a lot of US media might imply that, but few major papers ever said it outright because they usually try to at least pretend not to be full of shit. In reality he was a very popular democratically elected leader, and organizations established and funded by the US (and its business interests) played a critical role in the coup d'etat against him. It is not a conspiracy, there is a straight line from US influence to the coup, even if it was ultimately carried by local Bolivian business interests. In fact understand the relationship between American foreign policy objectives, multinational corporations, and local business interests is key to understanding modern neocolonialism as a whole.
I took a stab at trying to figure out what someone else was talking about when all they said was US involvement in Bolvia. It was not a lot to go on.
Yeah on closer examination it looks like Evo Morales is not a dictator. I might have misread whatever it was I found or what I found might have been about something else entirely. I am brand new to this topic. There seems to be a clear line OAS involvement from the skimming I did of the guardian article. Also, Trump seemed to give his approval to the OAS, but it seems like the OAS acts independently from the US. I could be wrong though.
On paper it acts independently, but it's headquartered in Washington DC, and according to Wikipedia "In 2018 the [OAS]General Secretariat's budget was $85 million of which the US contributed $50 million." And of course, the US has always considered South America to be its "backyard" and has a long history of doing this kind of thing
Forgive me for my shorthand. There was a period when the Anez regime was the biggest news story and that is one of the only times Bolivia had been in the headlines over the last ~5 years (aside from papers attacking him right before the coup, wonder why?), so I assumed that the reference would be clearer than it was.
I am idly curious about the "what sounded like a dictator" part.