3 ms·

It can extremely easily be more "evil" than it has been. If the USA instated a policy to wipe out all people of a certain race, that would be much more evil tha

It can extremely easily be more "evil" than it has been. If the USA instated a policy to wipe out all people of a certain race, that would be much more evil than anything it has done post-WWII right?

wz1000 10y ago
The US will tolerate and lend its support to almost any group, no matter how "evil", provided it benefits American aims and objectives. Take your example. While the US has not directly committed genocide, it has supported and aided many such groups responsible for genocide. Open declaration of genocidal policies by the US will face widespread international opposition and impact American business interests, and hence the US would never do so as long as this holds A few examples of the US being supportive of genocide: Anti-communist Indonesia was considered a valuable ally to the US in SE Asia, especially because Indonesia controlled deep water straits of vital strategic importance. Ford and Kissinger explicitly granted Indonesia approval to invade East Timor and supplied Indonesia with arms to those ends. Kissinger urged Suharto, the Indonesian premier at the time, to quickly take care of his "business", so that international scrutiny on the American-made arms involved could be avoided. The US sent millions of dollars as military aid to Indonesia at the height of the East Timor genocide, which claimed almost 200,000 lives. There are even many credible reports of American mercenaries and American pilots being involved at the height of the violence. A former US Ambassador to the UN has admitted to being charged with making sure whatever resolution the UN passed condemning Indonesian actions be completely ineffectual in whatever measures it took. During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, when it was clear to Pakistan that it was going to lose, Pakistan pursued a scorched earth policy of destruction and genocide. In the words of a US official under Nixon, "It is the most incredible, calculated thing since the days of the Nazis in Poland". However, Pakistan was a valuable American ally and was backed by the US in this war, so Nixon and Kissinger actively worked to suppress evidence of genocide, even though it was made clear to them by US officials on the scene that this was exactly what was happening. After widespread outcry in the US about Pakistani actions, Nixon continued to secretly shuttle funds and arms to Pakistan. After the war, the US initially refused to recognize Bangladesh as a country and establish trade relations with it because Bangladesh wanted to prosecute Pakistani generals responsible for genocide, which claimed an estimated 2.5-3 million lives. Clinton himself admitted fault for the '94 Rwandan genocide, responsible for an estimated 800,000 deaths. Clintons adminstration was aware of the plans to "eliminate all Tutsis", but didn't want to take action as it was not beneficial to US interests at the time, and so actively worked to suppress evidence of genocide presented to international forums in order to justify US inaction. The US continued to back Guatemalan forces after evidence of genocide and massacres committed by them had become amply clear. These were committed under a US backed government installed after the US had staged a coup at the behest of the United Fruit Company to get rid of the previous, democratically elected, socialist President.
- arethuza 10y ago
  "The US will tolerate and lend its support to almost any group, no matter how "evil", provided it benefits American aims and objectives." I read a biography of Allen Dulles recently and was pretty shocked to the extent the CIA recruited committed Nazi's after WW2 - they knew they could be relied on to help fight the Soviets.
- haydenlee 10y ago
  I don't have time to go through point by point, but lets take your example of Clinton admitting fault for Rwanda. While he may personally feel guilt for suppressing information to justify the inaction, America did not have a responsibility to jump in and help the situation in the first place. He didn't help the situation but he didn't condone it and he wasn't the person who made it happen. He is just one person, like many others at the time, who didn't step in to try and stop it. That doesn't make you "evil", nor does it make you a saint. Sometimes its just not possible to help others, as sad as that may be, and I trust a US president more than my second hand knowledge to make that call. In many cases it is good to have your self-interests at heart. If you lose your self as a result of your actions then what do you have left even if you win?
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    I don't know about the suppression-of-information claim made, but since you don't try to refute it I have to say actively suppressing information is not the same as doing nothing. I would say you have only made a case for the latter.
  - wz1000 10y ago
    The Clinton example was shows the hypocrisy in the stated goals of American foreign policy. Also, you miss the part where Clintons administration mislead international bodies even when it had clear evidence that what was going on in Rwanda was genocide >If you lose your self as a result of your actions then what do you have left even if you win? Intervention in Rwanda would have resulted in nothing near an existential threat for America. Just like Saddam and Iraq didn't pose anything near an existential threat to America. After it was clear that Iraq possessed no so called "WMDs", the narrative quickly shifted to "we did it for humanitarian reasons". What I wanted to make clear was that the US never does anything for "humanitarian" reasons, but only when it's personal interests are in favour of doing said thing. Also, you chose the weakest example of the lot, where US involvement was minimal. The rest of the examples make it clear that the US has no problem with evil of the highest order when it stands to gain.

It can extremely easily be more "evil" than it has been. If the USA instated a policy to wipe out all people of a certain race, that would be much more evil than anything it has done post-WWII right?

wz1000 10y ago

The US will tolerate and lend its support to almost any group, no matter how "evil", provided it benefits American aims and objectives. Take your example. While the US has not directly committed genocide, it has supported and aided many such groups responsible for genocide. Open declaration of genocidal policies by the US will face widespread international opposition and impact American business interests, and hence the US would never do so as long as this holds A few examples of the US being supportive of genocide: Anti-communist Indonesia was considered a valuable ally to the US in SE Asia, especially because Indonesia controlled deep water straits of vital strategic importance. Ford and Kissinger explicitly granted Indonesia approval to invade East Timor and supplied Indonesia with arms to those ends. Kissinger urged Suharto, the Indonesian premier at the time, to quickly take care of his "business", so that international scrutiny on the American-made arms involved could be avoided. The US sent millions of dollars as military aid to Indonesia at the height of the East Timor genocide, which claimed almost 200,000 lives. There are even many credible reports of American mercenaries and American pilots being involved at the height of the violence. A former US Ambassador to the UN has admitted to being charged with making sure whatever resolution the UN passed condemning Indonesian actions be completely ineffectual in whatever measures it took. During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, when it was clear to Pakistan that it was going to lose, Pakistan pursued a scorched earth policy of destruction and genocide. In the words of a US official under Nixon, "It is the most incredible, calculated thing since the days of the Nazis in Poland". However, Pakistan was a valuable American ally and was backed by the US in this war, so Nixon and Kissinger actively worked to suppress evidence of genocide, even though it was made clear to them by US officials on the scene that this was exactly what was happening. After widespread outcry in the US about Pakistani actions, Nixon continued to secretly shuttle funds and arms to Pakistan. After the war, the US initially refused to recognize Bangladesh as a country and establish trade relations with it because Bangladesh wanted to prosecute Pakistani generals responsible for genocide, which claimed an estimated 2.5-3 million lives. Clinton himself admitted fault for the '94 Rwandan genocide, responsible for an estimated 800,000 deaths. Clintons adminstration was aware of the plans to "eliminate all Tutsis", but didn't want to take action as it was not beneficial to US interests at the time, and so actively worked to suppress evidence of genocide presented to international forums in order to justify US inaction. The US continued to back Guatemalan forces after evidence of genocide and massacres committed by them had become amply clear. These were committed under a US backed government installed after the US had staged a coup at the behest of the United Fruit Company to get rid of the previous, democratically elected, socialist President.

arethuza 10y ago
"The US will tolerate and lend its support to almost any group, no matter how "evil", provided it benefits American aims and objectives." I read a biography of Allen Dulles recently and was pretty shocked to the extent the CIA recruited committed Nazi's after WW2 - they knew they could be relied on to help fight the Soviets.
haydenlee 10y ago
I don't have time to go through point by point, but lets take your example of Clinton admitting fault for Rwanda. While he may personally feel guilt for suppressing information to justify the inaction, America did not have a responsibility to jump in and help the situation in the first place. He didn't help the situation but he didn't condone it and he wasn't the person who made it happen. He is just one person, like many others at the time, who didn't step in to try and stop it. That doesn't make you "evil", nor does it make you a saint. Sometimes its just not possible to help others, as sad as that may be, and I trust a US president more than my second hand knowledge to make that call. In many cases it is good to have your self-interests at heart. If you lose your self as a result of your actions then what do you have left even if you win?
- Noseshine 10y ago
  I don't know about the suppression-of-information claim made, but since you don't try to refute it I have to say actively suppressing information is not the same as doing nothing. I would say you have only made a case for the latter.
- wz1000 10y ago
  The Clinton example was shows the hypocrisy in the stated goals of American foreign policy. Also, you miss the part where Clintons administration mislead international bodies even when it had clear evidence that what was going on in Rwanda was genocide >If you lose your self as a result of your actions then what do you have left even if you win? Intervention in Rwanda would have resulted in nothing near an existential threat for America. Just like Saddam and Iraq didn't pose anything near an existential threat to America. After it was clear that Iraq possessed no so called "WMDs", the narrative quickly shifted to "we did it for humanitarian reasons". What I wanted to make clear was that the US never does anything for "humanitarian" reasons, but only when it's personal interests are in favour of doing said thing. Also, you chose the weakest example of the lot, where US involvement was minimal. The rest of the examples make it clear that the US has no problem with evil of the highest order when it stands to gain.