It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I've got one word to say about all this - Rwanda.
But wait - those were brown people, and poor people.
But wait - those were brown people, and poor people.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I am not a Trump supporter and I don't watch Tucker Carlson or Fox News commentary.Odd, considering the only reason many (fortunately not all) republicans appear to be pro-russia is because Trump licked Putin's boots, or because of cockamamie conspiracy theories regurgitated by Cucker "The Green M&M ****er" Tarlson.
I can see plenty of perfectly valid reasons to distrust and oppose much of American foreign policy, especially historically, and I wouldn't blame someone from most of the developing and third world for being strongly against or at least distrustful of the US government. Where I completely disagree and feel repulsed is around some people's usage of legitimate concerns and historical abuses as a justification to defend other instances of hostility and abuse, such as those from Russia and China.
I'll admit that it can sometimes be challenging to side with the US—as well as certain European powers—when I feel so much skepticism toward it and recall its extensive record of atrocities and disruption in other countries. I know that this distrustful feeling by itself is definitely not a solid basis to form opinions on individual issues that have their own context, though, such as the Ukraine War where, in my opinion, the approach the US is currently taking by helping Ukraine is the best and most humane one possible.
I think everyone should strive not to let their general opinion of a country, whether positive or negative, or their emotional reaction to it cloud their judgment on individual issues where said country could be doing the right or wrong thing. That could be challenging, as I said, but I also think it's the morally and intellectually responsible thing to do.
I don't see how one has anything to do with the other. If someone advocates that their own country take a more peaceful, non-aggressive approach to geopolitics, how does that translate to "defending" hostility or abuse of other countries?
I've asked others here to connect the dots between the two positions and explain the logic underlying their conclusion that they amount to the same thing. All I've seen in response is deflection and counter-punching, but no real answers.
I recall similar arguments raised during the Vietnam War, except it was the right-wing chiding and condemning the left for aiding and abetting atrocities, aggression, and abuses. The same arguments and the same rhetorical tactics. It's because of this kind of rhetoric that the American masses are emotionally manipulated and more likely to support the kinds of American foreign policies which you and many others have expressed profound distaste for.
The thing is, those who might be saying that the US should stay out of it, that we have no business involving ourselves in other nations' wars or advocating favoritism among foreign nations, they're also taking a position which sides with the U.S. That's a strictly "pro-American" position, whether the interventionist warmongers wish to admit it or not.
I don't think everyone who opposes American aid to Ukraine is a Putin apologist. I see two kinds of opposition to said aid: one based in support for Putin or justification of his motives and another based in isolationism or a hands-off approach to foreign conflicts insofar as not providing aid to any party in a foreign conflict. Would it be correct to say that your position is in the latter category?
I'm not an isolationist, and I don't always oppose aiding one side in a foreign conflict. I think the economy and travel are especially global today for isolationism to be defensible, for one thing, and that's before taking into account the major ethical issues it raises. I suppose one could argue that withholding aid from Ukraine is not isolationist as long as the US still condemns the war, but mere condemnation changes little to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Without military and financial aid, Ukraine could be annexed, and Poland, Moldova, and others may well be next in line. I think allowing an imperialist aggressor free rein to do that would severely worsen the international political and economic climate. It could also embolden other imperialist plans in the future.
My problem with American foreign policy isn't the very notion of interventionism per se; it's the fact that the vast majority of American interventionism has historically been abusive, unnecessarily disruptive, and focused on American geopolitical interests even if they directly conflict with the interests and self-determination of local populations. You'll notice that I rarely bring up Libya as an example of abusive foreign policy by the US or the West in general. This is because, while the execution of the NATO strikes on Gaddafi's forces could have been handled in a better way, the idea itself would have helped to remove a murderous tyrant from power per Libyans' own will and put an end to his crimes. It was a far cry from something like the Bay of Pigs invasion or the American intervention in Chile to install a puppet dictatorship.
Regarding Vietnam, this is also a different situation, from what I see, because the US is not invading as it did back then. I remember when the US and UK tried to authorize military action in Syria following Assad's chemical attack. They both couldn't gain the authorization, and public surveys showed that most people were against direct military action. On paper, someone might argue that people were letting a dictator carry out crimes against humanity while they were watching from the sidelines, but this would be a superficial argument because it would ignore the historical context of military actions with similar official reasons such as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many people understandably no longer trusted the American and British governments with authorization of military force even though many of those same people recognized Assad's crimes and saw him as a murderer. A lot of people knew there was a problem and wanted to help, but they disagreed that direct military action was wise.
This is another reason I'm in favor of the aid to Ukraine. It's the best way to approach the war without a full-scale invasion that would trigger a third world war, possibly a nuclear one, and further harm Ukrainians (and everyone else) or a full hands-off approach that would write Putin a blank check to fulfill his imperialist ambitions. If my own country got invaded by a hostile imperialist regime, I would hope its allies would provide aid to help it fend off the invasion. There's a fine line between heavy-handed interventionism and necessary aid, and it's far from an easy balance to strike.
Letting Putin have his way wouldn't be peaceful; it would just kick the can down the road.
As I clarified above, I don't think interventionism is always bad, although most American interventionism has historically been the hostile and immorally self-serving kind, like its Soviet counterpart was. I have no problem expressing favoritism toward a nation fending off an imperialist invasion where the invading forces have committed war crimes and mass murder of civilians. I also express the same support for fellow developing and third-world countries against Western imperialism and believe my country should stand by our allies against such. This doesn't have to entail sending military forces elsewhere, which should always be an absolute last resort. It just means I wouldn't be against providing aid to other countries against such aggression when possible.
The irony here is that the thugs in Washington DC are no better, no different, than the thugs in Moscow or the thugs in Ukraine, all of them thugs and lunatics. Tens of billions of dollars are being syphoned off of tax pools to support barbarity rather than engage in peace talks, of course peace talks aren't as profitable for the war profiteers so here we are. Some are getting extremely rich while most of us hope our money stops devaluing even further, and some of us hope that these hostilities do not escalate into a nuclear holocaust.
I have long thought that the UN should have a military force under their authority that is like the French Foreign Legion, made up of volunteers from member nations. They have pacekeepers much like this but they are seldom, if ever, allowed to use force. Such a force would be highly trained and used in crisis situations where there is threats of small conflicts growing into civil war or regional war.I don't see how one has anything to do with the other. If someone advocates that their own country take a more peaceful, non-aggressive approach to geopolitics, how does that translate to "defending" hostility or abuse of other countries?