3 ms·
in Afghanistan for how long? now Taliban control more territory then they did before US came in... Libya? way way worse, i mean its a place you can buy slaves
by emkoemko 5y ago
in Afghanistan for how long? now Taliban control more territory then they did before US came in...
Libya? way way worse, i mean its a place you can buy slaves in open markets now after US intervention...
list is huge, some places they would take out democracy to put in puppet dictatorships all in the interest of the US, they will work with Saudi Arabia and in last 5 years starve 80,000 kids to death in Yemen under 5 years.
i can only list a few countries that US intervention ended actually helping both the US and the country.
so yes USA will claim to come in to give "democracy" or what ever humanitarian excuse but its never for those reasons, its always for the interest of US and US corporations, i mean didn't the US take a country just because corporations wanted it for growing Bananas? and still to this day they are messing with them ?
- throwaway894345 5y agoIt’s like you didn’t even read my post...
- pydry 5y agoI read it. As far as I could tell you were saying that intervention was sometimes worthwhile because the Soviets are evil? I'm not sure I got it either. As an argument for interventionism it was poor.
- throwaway894345 5y agoI don't know how you got any of that from my comment. I'm quite explicitly not arguing in favor of interventionism, nor am I arguing that Soviets were evil. I'm making a metaargument that criticisms of US interventionism must compare US interventionism with Soviet interventionism; it's insufficient to say that US interventionism is worse than no interventionism because the latter wasn't a plausible option. So yeah, it's a shitty argument for interventionism because it's not an argument for interventionism. ;)