Comment on Headlines

• Excrubulent@slrpnk.net ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  There isn’t a single US president in living history without a litany of war crimes on their head.

  counterpunch.org/…/jimmy-carters-blood-drenched-l…

  counterpunch.org/…/jimmy-carters-blood-drenched-l…

  source

  • Hobo@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If those are the worst examples you can come up with yhe man was basically a saint. What a bullshit hit piece. I am now dumber for having read it.

    source

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      “Basically a saint” because he only sent aid to juntas and brutal genocidal regimes as opposed to what, exactly? Ordering the bombs dropped himself?

      Also, if you think he was “basically a saint” even though his administration still backed genocide, then I think you’re kind of accepting my premise that “That’s what happens when you volunteer to supervise the war crimes factory.”

      source
  • snooggums@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    So he has blood on his hands for not getting involved and for getting involved when both sides are likely to commit atrocities.

    What a ridiculous bar to set.

    source

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      What are you talking about? Please be specific. All I’m getting are vague “nuh-uh” answers. If you want to actually convince anyone that you have a point, you need to make it.

      The first one was Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor. That’s not a “both sides” kind of issue. It’s an invasion and ensuing genocide. It’s not hard to judge what the right thing to do is there.

      So like… what are you talking about? Please be specific.

      source

      • snooggums@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        The first example was Zaire, so if you don’t even know what you are linking I’m not going to go through it line by line.

        counterpunch.org/…/jimmy-carters-blood-drenched-l…

        William Blum writes in Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II that Carter, who had been in office for only two months, was reluctant to involve his administration in a far-reaching intervention whose scope and length could not be easily anticipated.

        However, Carter did provide “non-lethal” aid, while he did not protest as European countries offered military aid, and Morocco sent several thousand of its US-trained military forces to aid Mobutu.

        “President Carter asserted on more than one occasion that the Zaire crisis was an African problem, best solved by Africans, yet he apparently saw no contradiction to this thesis in his own policy, nor did he offer any criticism of France or Belgium, or of China, which sent Mobutu a substantial amount of military equipment,” writes Blum. [1]

        He didn’t criticize, what an absolute bloodthirsty monster!

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Yup. One of the very few who had the capability and likely didn’t use it.

  source

  • snooggums@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Which of course led to him being single term because he wasn’t ruthless enough for a voting public that would rather have a former actor run the country into the ground while paying loveable grandpa to hide the evil.

    But that wasn’t because he couldn’t lead the country, just that the public loves to fall for confident blowhards that tell them what they want to hear.

    source