[vimacs2]

"The US does have some moral authority in that it sometimes stands up for what's right rather than what's in their best interests. For example, bans on buying conflict minerals."

Yes, it makes sense for them to ban buying conflict minerals since they want to hold a monopoly over that ability themselves. Bolivia is one of the top suppliers of lithium to the US and has suffered dictatorships, election interference, and ongoing far-right paramilitaries financed and trained by the US and it's allies.

The US has NEVER done something to "stand up for what's right", every action they do is calculated to help themselves. If they are condemning or condoning anything, it is for their own self interest. This is how they can simultaneously call out the ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs by the CCP while simultaneously not being able to even condemn the killing of Palestinian children on record when being asked repeatedly by journalists. That's because China is a rival but Israel is an Ally.

They'e only recently publicly recognised the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Empire because relationships between the US and Turkey have grown increasingly strained. If they had any moral authority, they wouldn't coddle their friend's war crimes and hold them to the same standards as their enemies.

[eloff]

You have a very extreme, no nuances opinion. Categorically, whenever you have an opinion like that you're almost surely wrong.

With something like the foreign policy history of the United States - that's a very rich area that doesn't permit a simple black and white position like yours. I want to downvote your comment twice. We could use less of that kind of thinking in the world.

[vimacs2]

Is the rather obvious (or I would think) observation that empires tend to make decisions for pragmatic reasons of self-interest as opposed to ideology a "very extreme, no nuances opinion". You cannot just dismiss all criticism by the intellectual hand wave that is things not being "black or white" - as if people who disagree with your smug sycophantry really view the world that way.

No, it's not that we don't lack naunce, it's just that we don't flinch away from ugly reality by labelling it as a "very rich area" just because it concerns an empire we are a part of as opposed to the enemy.

For all of your indignation on the fact that I refuse to play apologetics for your favourite hegemony, you have not made one real counterargument for why my view of the US and their role in the wider world is incorrect.

I'm very proud frankly to hold the "extreme, no nuances opinion" that imperialism is bad and for that matter ethnic cleansing and the intentional bombing of civilians. You apparently disagree, seeing as in an earlier comment you dismissed such charges against Israel and Saudi Arabia as if they are wild accusations as opposed to a matter of public record for the wider international community and the UN.

I'll let everybody else decide which of the two modes of thinking we could do less of in the world.

[eloff]

You're wrong. If your view point permitted some leeway I might spend time arguing with you.

But I think conversion with you is a waste of time, so let's drop it.

[vimacs2]

Feel free to not respond as the thought is mutual but it's not my "view point". It is a matter of fact that Saudi Arabia and Israel have violated nearly every human rights charter in the UN and I'm sorry that my recognition of that fact does not give you any "leeway" to weasel your way out of acknowledging their crimes against humanity - or the US's complicity in all of this by continuing to supply them with arms.

[eloff]

An opinion is a view point. And we're talking about whether the US ever did something because it was the right thing and not the best thing for the US. Stop redefining things.

About your Israel rant, I've said elsewhere, Israel was fully within its rights to fight back against Hamas. If drug cartels in Mexico started firing rockets into Texas, there would be a full scale invasion. There are two sides to this conflict and of the two Israel tries hard to avoid civilian casualties while Hamas tries hard to cause them. It's obvious to me which side has the moral high ground.

[vimacs2]

"If drug cartels in Mexico started firing rockets into Texas"

Imagine if the US were taking more and more territory from Mexico while illegally evicting and assaulting Mexicans to make room for US settlers. Let's say that they then made it impossible for Mexicans to leave or enter a narrow strip of land and denied them medical treatment and severely restricted food and water access. That and prior to the attack of the cartels, let's say 6 years ago, the US launched strikes against the Mexicans where a later report by the UN found that 80% of the dead were civilians.

Imagine then if that drug cartel itself was originally placed into power by the US to avoid the formation of rival organisations that the Mexicans could choose between.