- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Messages
- 81,814
- Reaction score
- 20,427
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
- That is what the UN is for, to prevent unilateral action by one country against another for reasons of human rights violations.
- There are lots of nations where the government commits atrocities. We seem to pick and choose where we will intervene.
- Most of the governments we install commit crimes against their citizens that are equal to, if not worse, than their predecessors.
Where were we when Rwanda descended into chaos? Sudan?
And we had successfully repelled that invasion. By that logic, we should've invaded Russia recently, and should also be considering similar action with Morocco for their continued occupancy of Western Sahara.
Just for starters.
I'm not saying that the countries would've been great had we not intervened. I'm just saying that our presence didn't improve things as dramatically as most Americans would like to admit. And that it isn't necessarily our job to continue replacing governments around the world.
Noriega was an American assisted dictator.
That was us cleaning up our own mess.
The UN has proven largely ineffectual. When you've got countries like Cuba and Saudi Arabia on human rights panels......
Obviously we can't intervene everywhere without vastly over stretching ourselves and hearing screeches of "imperialism" from the far left and "world police" from the far right.
Please inform me of the crimes that new Afghan government(to pick just one example) has committed that were as bad as what the Taliban did. Or things the German or Japanese governments had done which were as bad as the Nazis or Imperial Japanese's crimes.
And if Russia attacks a NATO country, we will. In theory, anyway. Whether the Donald pulls the trigger is another story.