Yes, the correct answer to any social ill is to spread it as widely as possible.

I was being sarcastic and humorous, Bob. Well, trying to be any way. :-)

"and we deserve to have our own interests advanced as compensation for keeping the world safe."

ok mr. kipling

"What is the matter with you? You say so many true and poignant things, especially when criticizing, but then the shit you support sometimes... it boggles the mind. Let's all of us not forget that North Korea has a friend in Putin33."

Let's not forget Thucy is the guy who fell hook line and sinker for Kony 2012, and never met an intervention in Africa he didn't like. How he manages to get around Senegal without getting arrested for espionage is beyond me.

I notice you don't even bother to address the irregularities, intimidation, refugees & announcement of elections in Ouattara's HQ. You simply shout "North Korea" and hope that will work. If any other country did this you'd call it a rigged election that justly nullified.

And how is Cote Divoire doing under your pal Ouattara's regime? Wonderful, right? 1..2...3...NORTH KOREA

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/29/one-year-du-kou-massacre-belies-ouattara-government-s-promises-impartial-justice

Yo maybe you should re-check the forums. I was pretty critical of the kony thing, but since my position on it was nuanced and not black and white, you were unable to understand it and have now mischaracterized me.

And by the way Ouattara isn't a saint either.

This is what I mean about you being pretty credible when you criticize, but almost ALWAYS missing the mark when you choose someone to support.

You are uniquely capable at pointing out the very real and important flaws of your enemies and I applaud you and thank you for your continued smart work in this area.

Where you look like an ass is when you choose equally flawed (and usually more flawed) people to support and then pretend their own abuses don't exist, or are someone else's fault.

This is why I usually ask you to present ANY evidence that you are capable of nuance.

So I'll ask again that you answer at least one of the following requests:

1) Please provide an example of US foreign policy that you support, and explain.
2) Please provide an example of a serious flaw, crime, or abuse of power of a leader or government *which you support* that is entirely its own fault.

Remember that performing #2, does not, contrary to what you appear to think, suddenly render the person you were supporting unsupportable.

This is a world where every person and entity has negative aspects, it's about weighing them and choosing the lesser of two evils.

Which is why I could even see myself accepting your support of North Korea for instance as a legitimate (if wrong imo) position, IF you were able to provide qualifications that prove you are actually engaging in critical thinking.

This isn't a bait and switch here. By complying with my requests you won't be admitting defeat to me or something. You will actually be proving to me and many others that you deserve to be taken a lot more serious than we have been. I would welcome it, because I actually like the idea of a thoughtful and reasonable Putin much much (x1000) more than the idea of the Putin you present on these forums. I would actually like to get a drink with the former, but the latter is the type I would hide from my facebook feed.

Everything with you is a personality contest. It's never about the issue at hand, you have to dodge everything and make it about me. Not everybody abides by this notion that the Golden Mean is always the correct answer. The world is dialectical. There are sides in these conflicts. You may feel morally superior by never picking one, but you are in fact picking a side by remaining "neutral". I don't need to sit here and heap abuse on countries facing imperialist aggression. You and the rest of the forum do that aplenty.

What you fail to understand is the notion of democratic centralism. You criticize your friends internally, in a comradely way. Not in public for your enemies satisfaction. You want me to criticize allies publicly as if that gains me credibility. It does nothing of the sort. Politics is not about an individual's ego and self-worth. It's about who has power and who doesn't.

But anyway to answer your bait & switch, so you won't have an excuse to whine about it while ignoring everything of substance, as is your habit.

1 - I support US rapprochement with Russia under the current administration.
1A - I support, although am increasingly ill at ease with, US's alliance with Israel.
1B - I support containment of Iran generally, although I think US's position on this is chimeric.
1C - I support the stated policy of utterly destroying Al Qaeda. Similar to 1B, I don't think the US is very committed to this goal, if at all.

Is that sufficient?

As for #2 -

I am not at all pleased with Juche's replacement of Marxism-Leninism in the DPRK.
I totally reject the Communist Party of China's acceptance of businessmen as members of the party.
I am increasingly worried with the changes being made in Cuba under Raul Castro.
I am increasingly annoyed with Hugo Chavez's friendly relationship with the paramilitarist government in Colombia.
I deplore Omar Bashir's support for the Libyan rebels in the recent civil war.
I wish Assad was not so buddy buddy with the Iranian mullahs.
I think China & Russia have Libyan blood on their hands for their abstention on UN security council votes.

And in historical terms:

China's foreign policy from about 1972-onward was nearly as bad as the United States.
The Cultural Revolution was more negative than positive.
Stalin made a mistake in criticizing Tito so heavily in the late 1940s, early 1950s.
Why the hell Tito gave an award to Kurt Waldheim, I'll never know.

Oh, and Hoxha was a buffoon.

This is not politics, this is an internet forum where we exchange political ideas for fun and personal growth. Lol.

And thanks very much for taking me up on it, I indeed have gained respect for you and learned some things, like this:

"1B - I support containment of Iran generally, although I think US's position on this is chimeric."
"China's foreign policy from about 1972-onward was nearly as bad as the United States."

I didn't know that about you, care to elaborate?

Still though thanks, the fact that you can say "The Cultural Revolution was more negative than positive." Makes me take you a lot lot lot more seriously.

But I think I see your point from before - you perceive that the other side of the coin gets so much play that you need to put up a united front for the other side just to balance it out.

That position does make sense. I happen not to agree but it's good that I know that's what you're doing.

In terms your comments about me, I usually don't actually claim neutrality, but you are totally right that this too is a side, sometimes a side worth fighting for. Anyway, my main annoyance is that you often don't appear to appreciate the nuance in the positions I espouse. I admit that I kid when I say you literally don't understand. I think you do understand, you just don't care to acknowledge it since it's rhetorically easier to simplify an opponent's position.

No worries though. Peace made. I've got a veggie burger about done so I'mma eat that now, be seeing you

"I didn't know that about you, care to elaborate?"

On Iran:

The Islamic revolution was a terrible blow to the left in the middle east. It gave Islamism great credibility as an alternative to the secular nationalism which had been prevalent especially in the 60s and early 70s. Iran immediately began siege against secular progressive regimes in the region, most famously Iraq. They have their hands in a lot of cookie jars, and will use anti-imperialist rhetoric while intervening in the affairs of anybody they feel like.

Notice Iran's enthusiastic support for the CIA-instigated "Arab springs". They now have friendly relations with Libya & Tunisia, in addition to their client states in Iraq & Afghanistan. It's so odd that the US and Iran are publicly "enemies" since their interests align so much. I think this is where the Israel card comes into play. If the US was not allies with Israel Iran would be America's bff.

On China's foreign policy. They did a lot of terrible things in the name of fighting Soviet 'social imperialism'. They quickly recognized the Pinochet government in Chile. They backed UNITA in Angola and Renamo in Mozambique. They backed blatantly anti-communist groups in South Africa. They backed the Red Khmers in Kampuchea against the Vietnamese. Indeed, they even went to war with socialist Vietnam and the USSR. They aligned their foreign policy pretty much completely with the West, at the expense of national liberation movements everywhere.

"They now have friendly relations with Libya & Tunisia, in addition to their client states in Iraq & Afghanistan. It's so odd that the US and Iran are publicly "enemies" since their interests align so much."

Ever think that they are just luckier/craftier than us at taking advantage of the Arab Spring and our foolish wars? Kind of like an own goal. Seems more likely than some kind of secret collusion. When the choice is between idiocy and cunning, I think we all know what most governments tend toward.