Quote:

Eurostar said:
Quote:

Pariah said:
They're anti-China, a country that's quintessentially anti-American. That's Western enough.



Does the name Saddam Hussein and even Osama Bin Laden ring a bell?
They too were good western allies, being the enemies of anti-American countries (Iran and URSS respectively).



I respectfully disagree, Eurostar.

It can be spun that any nation on earth is an "ally" of the United States, or of any other nation one wants to condemn.

The United States supplied re-armament to Hitler's Germany. Does that make the United States an "ally" of Nazi Germany ?

Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact in 1939.
Does that make Russia an "ally" of Nazi Germany ?





Similarly, the United States was condemned for not intervening on the side of the Bosnians in the early 1990's, because the U.S. had the power to intervene, and "because there was nothing in it for the U.S." the U.S. did not intervene for many years ( until the the Bosnian conflict threatened to widen into Greece, Turkey, and other islamic and European nations ).
Those bastards !

And conversely, the U.S. was scorned for taking action and rallying for police action in Bosnia, as militaristic and seeking easy answers with a military solution, sticking their noses in others' business.
Those bastards !


So.. damned if we do, and damned if we don't.







If we ban trade with China ( or Iraq, or Cuba, or whoever) then we contribute to the suffering of their people, and allow their tyranny to continue.

If we continue trade with China ( or Iraq, or Cuba, or whoever) then we contribute to the suffering of their people, and allow their tyranny to continue.

It can always be spun to condemn the United States.






I believe the U.S. has done more good and less evil than any nation in the world.
Warts and all.

The U.S. gives billions in foreign aid, and has done bailouts in countries that often will never be repaid (Mexico, Indonesia...) , has overthrown corrupt governments in impoverished nations to bring democracy and an end to violence to people that will never be able to offer anything in return to the U.S. ( Liberia, Haiti, Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia...) , and the U.S. has rushed humanitarian assistance and medical care to even our worst enemies in the wake of natural disaster (Iran, North Korea...)

And the U.S., in the wake of a devastating world war, in great generosity to two nations who would surely not have done the same if the U.S. had lost, rebuilt those two war-torn axis powers into its two largest economic rivals, second in the world only to the United States economically (Germany and Japan).



I think it's fair to challenge specific actions of the United States. No nation is above scrutiny.
But I expect equal fairness in evaluating WHY the U.S. traded and was parters with certain nations, and more fairly weighing whether that was evil and greed on the part of the U.S., or whether it was oversight and error while the U.S. was juggling several global crises at once.
And whether the U.S. truly had any better alternative options at the given focal point in history cited.
Or whether , in truth, it was truly one of several bad options that the U.S. had.

I also expect fairness from the global media when labelling the U.S. as greedy, imperialist and evil based on relatively few transgressions, while ignoring the greater good and sacrifice that the U.S. has made for global stability, human relief, and police-action intervention on the part of impoverished peoples who had nothing to offer in return for U.S. intervention.
View of any clear U.S. transgressions should more fairly be evaluated in contrast to this consistent greater good.




The cases you cite of the U.S. co-operating with Saddam's Iraq and Osama Bin Laden briefly in the 1980's are ones that arose from several bad options :
  • Expanding fundamentalsm from a radicalized (post-1979 ) Iran.
    .
  • A war already existing between Iraq and Iran (1980-1988), where the U.S. provided aid that basically supported a war of attrition between Iraq and Iran, that served to prevent both from expanding their tyranny and fanaticism elsewhere in the Islamic world.
    .
  • And the Soviet Union/Russia ( over the decades from 1948-present ) offering tanks, guns, fighter jets and other aid to Iraq, Iran and other oil-producing nations, that would have poised Russia to sieze the world's oil supply, if the U.S. had not taken (arguably questionable, but perhaps simply necessary) action, and offers of planes, tanks and foreign aid to middle east regimes, to balance Soviet Russian expansions into the Arab region.


American actions that can be criticized now in the retrospective of history, utilizing facts that in many cases were not available in the time these U.S. decisions were made.