3 ms·

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 suppres

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.

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.