[bhamlaxy]

True, but that's not what we went in on. Those were attempts to justify the war after the initial reasons were revealed to be wrong. Had it turned out that Iraq was making wmds, and supporting al qaeda, we would have been fully justified and wouldn't need those additional excuses.

All I'm saying is the other justifications prove the US doesn't give a rats ass about sovereignty, your justification as to why we aren't stopping the genocide in Sudan.

The problem with that arguement is there are political reasons not related to the economy for all those too. You can't say they were solely made based on economic considerations. Let's not forget that most of those "countless other examples" you mention in passing were against regimes the Soviet Union created and supported. Capitalism and communism seem to have very little impact on the decision making process for a nation to sell weapons to people who probably shouldn't have them as long as it's in their short term interest.

Political reasons? Taiwan has a huge industry that would probably be severely harmed during a Chinese invasion, and Venezuela's current regime is extremely stingy and insecure on oil.

And how do the other examples have to do with the Soviet Union? Give some specifics. And who cares who created them, you are straying fro
m the point at hand. The US values life based on whether or not it can further our economic interests. Regardless of who created regimes who were hesitant to participate in US capitalism or whatever, the US still interferes with sovereignty with economic justification, but not when these people can't provide us with economic benefits.

Arms sales are absolutely linked to capitalism. Sure the Soviet Union sold arms, but that was after Stalin fell, when the country strayed away from the true socialist ideals towards capitalism. So yes, the capitalist US has contributed to extreme violence in the name of profit, and the socialist USSR with a huge dash of capitalism also contributed. True socialism doesn't put such a drive on profit that contributing to conflict is worth it.

I'm saying that capitalism isn't responsible for that, and there are plenty of examples of communist nations enacting similar policies.

List them. I want you to point to a strictly socialist country whose private companies sold mass amounts of arms in the name of profit to poor countries.

Further communism gives too much control to the central governemnt and invites abuses. Capitalism spreads things around, which helps prevent widespread abuses. Sure you may get an Enron every now and then under capitalism, but at least they didn't have control over the entire economy. Under socialism that's a very real possibility.

Capitalism functionally gives the same amount of control to the government, except only the rich get control. A huge portion of congress and past presidents are millionaires, and huge individual and PAC contributions are what influence politics. Money is influence in the government, which leads to the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor. Historically, countries whose political campaigns use private financing (the US) have lower rates of welfare and policies to help the poor than those that use public funding (set amount of money from the government).

No, it hasn't gotten anywhere because thanks to the fuck up of the Iraq war, the US doesn't have the international clout to take action.

Rwanda proves that even when we aren't involved in a huge war, we don't intervene. And screw international clout, we can do whatever we want, as proven by the Iraq war. I'm sure the world wouldn't nuke us for sending a few hundred troops to protect villages in Darfur.

If we were to send troops unilaterally, it would be portrayed as yet another example of american imperialism by the very people who are currently critizing the US for not taking action.

So all the liberals who are clamoring for intervention would see the US intervening and stopping the genocide, then say "YOU IMPERIALIST PIGS! LET THE GENOCIDE CONTINUE AND GET OUT!" People who believe intervention into Sudan would be a good thing think so because it would be justified for something that is actually a good thing, not economic interests or the war on terror. Why would they criticize the US for not taking action and campaign for intervention, only to protest intervention when it actually happens?

Besides, it is not our responsibility to solve all of the world's problems.

Unless they involve our economic interests.

Let's not forget the US contributes more in foriegn aid than any other nation.

Actually we are at the BOTTOM of the developed countries when it comes to foreign aid, based on per capita aid and % of the nations wealth. So yea, we give the most, but thats because we have the most money. We don't give nearly the most %. An index of foreign contributions puts the US at 19th out of 21 developed countries.

Which they'd be doing anyway, since they'd need the oil regardless of their economic system. Besides, if there's oil there, under your arguement, shouldn't the US take action to save those people as an excuse to secure the oil supplies?

Socialist countries don't have gigantic oil lobbyists who, through millions of dollars of donations and millions spent on lobbyists and attorneys who give heavy influence to the government, controlling many aspects of energy.

And the oil supplies are already developed by China. If there were huge undeveloped oil reserves sitting in Sudan, god damn right we would have intervened years ago.

The problem is they won't even if the US, EU, and AU pledge to support them logisticly.

The whole China argument goes away at the point where we both agree they are a mixed economy.

The soviets provided arms to communist groups in Africa for most of the cold war. In addition, the varients produced in other countries were for the most part authorized by the soviets. AK varients make up the majority or arms you'll see in africa. They most certainly did not come from the US, as you'd be seeing more M-16 varients if that were the case.

Most of that in the form of higher end weapon systems like planes and tanks. In terms of small arms, you can trace them directly back to the soviets. Unless you want to argue that the AK-47 and rpg-7 are of US manufacture.

First, the soviet union started leaning more towards capitalism after Stalin was in, so their actions are irrelevant. If you can prove Stalin gave huge amounts of arms to Africa, then this argument would go away, since both a predominately socialist and predominately capitalist country sell lots of arms. In my research, I can't find too much about Stalin and Africa. All I have found is a partial article that you have to buy or something, titled "Soviet Arms Trade with the Noncommunist Third World" and the only part I can read is "In the immediate post- Stalin period, Soviet leaders expressed interest in the revolutionary potential of the Third World." I can't get any more details, but this indicates that intervention and interaction with African countries after Stalin, when his more socialist policies were integrated with capitalism.

You keep saying how capitalism is bad and did all these things, while ignoring the same things done by communism. Let's not forget about things like the Khmer Rouge, where Pol Pot tried to enforce pure communism, resulting in the deaths of millions.

Oh come on, these slimy attacks should be below you. The way you phrase it is so illogical it hurts. Pol Pot tried to enforce pure communism AND extremely harsh political policies that led to the execution of people who were connected with the previous government or foreign governments, homosexuals, and educated people. It is so stupid to even try and blame political policies and EXTREME applications of socialism for all the deaths. Marx never preached the destruction of everyone educated. Just because a dictator bastardized socialism doesn't mean all socialism is bad.

Specifically, your statement that "Pol Pot tried to enforce pure communism, resulting in the deaths of millions." is so oversimplified it makes me want to bang my head on my desk. If I use your logic, I am justified in saying "Hitler tried to enforce capitalism, resulting in the deaths of millions."

Pure socialism has NOTHING to do with mass murder.