President Trump recently got in trouble for saying that the USA has its own share of murderers and other evil doers, while answering a question on Russia. My question is simply: Was he wrong? Pinochet. The former Shah of Iran. The sad list only goess on and on. And now Secretary of State Tiller says we will no longer use human rights as diplomatic bargaining issue. More war crimes! But of course I could be wrong. Am I?
Are you saying we have or have had murderers and people who desired to do nothing but evil in the U.S. government? Name a couple.
A couple? OK. Henry Kissinger supported the evil General Pinochet in Chile. (France for one thinks he should be prosecuted for war crimes even.) President Jimmy Carter supported the genocidal Shah of Iran. Iranians were so disgusted with him, they didn't even release the hostages until Reagan took office. Neither was pure evil. But no one ever is (even Hitler was for animal rights). So I think that illustrates my point. And if you want even more, consider some of the things Presidents Johnson and Nixon were doing in SE Asia. Oh, and President Bush 1 was once director of the CIA. I am sure he has many colorful stories to tell (just ask Noriega).
Those aren't murders or pure evil. Granted the U.S has done some nasty stuff, but the good far out ways the bad. Should we disband our government?
The timing of the hostage release may have had more to do with arms-for-hostages deal than the Iranian's feelings about Carter
In history there are many strands, a multitude of shades, it can often be too easy just to go ‘evil’ when what is need is sombre reflection over why the ‘evil’ was done oh and you would first need to explain what you mean by ‘evil’. Sometimes people in power make bad decisions sometimes those decisions are made for what they think are ‘good’ reasons but that turn out to have bad consequences. Can ‘bad’ things be done for what are seen as ‘good’ reasons? To take the things you mention the fear (almost verging on paranoia) of communism in the US resulted in many bad decisions (such as Pinochet, Shah of Iran etc etc) but many Americans supported such action for what they saw as the ‘good’ reason of stopping the spread of communism (and some used that to push their own agendas, such as the United Fruit Company and the right wing opponents of left wingers around the world such as Mohammed Mosaddeq and Allende). I’m not defending ‘evil’ but I would say that people need to think about the things they support and ask questions about it, put it under critical analysis and think about the consequences. * For further reading if people are interested - All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer Red Heat: Consiracy, murder and the cold war in the Caribbean by Alex Von Tunzelmann
A lot of the history of political though has been about trying to lessen the possibility of rulers making ‘bad’ decisions that adversely affect the ruled. If a ruler has absolute power then the possibly of them taking action that might advantage them (or done on a whim or out of madness) but adversely affect the ruled is a lot more likely that if rulers are hemmed in by check and balances. You can see this in the US political system but it isn’t perfect (and more worryingly for the future there seems like desire to perfect it). When ideology backed by economic interests can take over a system then it can overwhelm the check and balances which can become corrupted to the doctrine. Lies and deceit can become more important than facts and refection. Many bad decisions were made in the name of anti-communism and in defence of capitalism and capitalist interests by numerous people in the US government and by multiple administrations. When the Soviet Union fell the anti-communism took a back seat to the promotion of a US style of capitalism and its capitalist interests (neoliberalism) and the corruption of the system continued. I’m not sure this can be seen as ‘evil’ but it isn’t very good. The US has been and could be a great force for good in the world but to me it has lost its way. To the point where the system is allowed to deny Climate Change where a US President with the unchecked and absolute power to do so can threaten nuclear war.
After all he said what everyone already knows. It is widely recognized that madmen are often stunningly outspoken and tend to despise social norms.
It's a logical fallacy. Appeal to hypocrisy. Because the US has committed many bad actions in the past, does not mean that it should condone bad actions by a foreign power. Trump's argument is effectively Russia is rubber and we are glue. Furthermore the question was posed to Trump im regards to his close business and political ties to Russia and the Russian government in light of a Russian effort to attack our election on multiple fronts. So the whole premise is fundamentally a distraction even if it's accurate on it's face.
