5 ms·
Think about the core idea that you’re defending: that nations do not have freedom of association if the choose to be friendly with regimes the United States doe
by swearwolf 4y ago
Think about the core idea that you’re defending: that nations do not have freedom of association if the choose to be friendly with regimes the United States doesn’t like, and it’s fine for the US to use it’s cultural and economic hegemonic power to crush those states for making the wrong friends or choosing the wrong ideology. Does that not strike you as an immoral thing for the US to do?
- yyyk 4y ago>it’s fine for the US to use it’s cultural and economic hegemonic power to crush those states for making the wrong friends or choosing the wrong ideology There's making different choices and there's 'being friendly to the Soviets which were also very much into overthrowing the US' or 'Driving double digit percentage of your own population out to the point you're a foreign policy problem' or 'undermining neighbouring states due to your 'wrong' ideology'.
- fragmede 4y agoIn the abstract, that sounds kind of right, but concretely, how about when that ideology is being actual Nazis? As in WWII and the Axis powers? Is the US wrong for lumping Italy along with Germany?
- krainboltgreene 4y agoNothing happened to the US after Paperclip.
- swearwolf 4y agoNo policy is going to be correct all the time, just as no policy is going to be incorrect all the time. Choosing to apply economic and military pressure against Italy was the right thing to do in that specific set of circumstances. Just because it was the right thing to do in that circumstance doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do in every other circumstance. I would posit that broadly, this kind of guilty-by-association economic harm is the wrong choice more often than not.