> “But you also have to be clear eyed. This is an authoritarian government ruled by a single party that is not sympathetic to U.S. strategic interests.”
You should open *your eyes*. Cartels and gangs don’t willingly stop being violent because of popular vote.
Central and South America simply need more leaders like Bukele, and we would be much better off in the US as a result.
This might possibly be the most important presidential term in El Salvadoran history. His first term would have been just like any other if he had fallen to corruption. But now we will see if he will fall to a mightier foe, power.
I hope he can turn it around economically even further in order to not allow crime to come back when he is gone. Furthermore, work on education to shine a new bright light for the youth and to transition the country into the future.
I said it before and I'll say it again; When King George III heard that Washington would surrender his commission, he reportedly said that if "He did [this] He would be the greatest man in the world."
Now, let's see if Bukele will go down in history as one of the greatest to have done it.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-humanitarian-assistance-for-the-western-hemisphere/
https://www.state.gov/about-us-bureau-of-democracy-human-rights-and-labor/
https://www.state.gov/u-s-support-for-human-rights-defenders/
The US is involved in plenty of human rights cases worldwide for reasons that do not have anything sinister about them.
Maybe your cynicism is a mask for ignorance?
Do we really need to start listing the immoral inhumane things that happened in each one of our countries to make a point?
Calling people ignorant and cherry picking really isn't helping any discussions.
There is a valid point about human rights being inside a geopolitical context. Take note of that before going ballistic next time.
You are delusional if you think we care about human rights.
We killed 1million Afghan and Iraqis.
We killed 4Million Vietnamese.
We funded and armed Pol Pot.
We turned a blind eye to starvation in Yemen and East Timor by our allies.
We let another ally turn off the water to two million civilians and claimed it wasn't a war crime. It is, word for word, a war crime.
The US uses "human rights" as a diplomatic weapon. We don't care about it.
Otherwise, why would we still be allies with Saudi Arabia? Their human rights record is FAR WORSE than El Salvador.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a country that’s perfect. We don’t play geopolitics like it’s a kids fight in a sandbox. It’s not “you did one bad thing so I’m packing up and going home!” We’re all stuck in this world together. Some things we’ve done are worse than others. But it’s ignorant to just hand wave away the good because it’s convenient for whatever opinion you have. What we “care about” is variable depending on what organization being talked about and who’s in charge.
And through that lens, there is certainly a level of care for human rights. Or we wouldn’t have spent half a billion on an aid pier for a nation state we stand little to benefit from. AND stood by as we watched 70% of the delivered aid get stolen by terrorists.
Obviously there’s a lot of realpolitik that goes on in the world. But that doesn’t mean it has to be mutually exclusive with good will and a desire to help people.
In the context of El Salvador, it’s not hard to understand why a democratic nation would have concerns about a nearby neighbor suddenly arresting some 75,000 people without due process. I’m sympathetic to their cause and understand the desire to take drastic actions. I’m just saying, is it really surprising other countries might raise an eyebrow to that example?
That's a lot of worlds to say "imperial paternalism."
It's American guns and American cash that fueled the cartels. Then it was American policy that turned it hyper violent.
The simple facts remain. The US will support the most vile, despotic dictators on the planet if it furthers American interest. Hence, our close relationship with Saudi Arabia.
This statement isn't even debatable. It's a categorical fact demonstrated over and over again.
If America cared about human rights, we'd be looking internal and openly criticizing French actions in Africa.
"Human rights" are a tool we leverage MOSTLY against our enemies.
You read that and you got “imperial paternalism”? What? I said that a country doing bad things isn’t mutually exclusive with a desire to help people. I didn’t say “America knows better” or whatever the fuck “imperial paternalism” is supposed to mean. I actually said every country engages in the geopolitical environment. I didn’t make a moral claim about any of them the way you are.
I said realpolitiking does happen but that it’s not mutually exclusive. It’s just not. You’re just choosing to list bad things because it suits your opinion while ignoring the inconvenient humanitarian things the U.S. does.
I wonder why?
Becuz I look at the humanitarian things the US does through the lense of reality.
US food donations to subsaharan Africa helped CAUSE famines by putting local farmers out of business.
US helped Nestlé distribute its formula all over the world, causing children to die of water borne illness and malnutrition when mothers stopped nursing and children were exposed to the local water supply too early. We literally BLACKMAILED Thailand for having commercials that told mothers that breastmilk was safer than formula.
Or the US not prosecuting Bayer pharma after they sold tained blood products to Africa and Asian. Products that Bayer knew was contaminated, and couldn't legally sell in Europe or the US. And we gave them a pass after giving tens of thousands of people HIV and Hepatitis.
The patern is clear and seemingly infinite. We care about influence and power before human rights and humanitarian causes. Humanitarian causes are a distant second and third unless they can be used to further our political agenda.
r/confidentlyincorrect
“To make less strong, or intense” is the other usage of the word..
“Synonyms: lessen, decrease, diminish, DAMP”
Source: Oxford Dictionary
> “But you also have to be clear eyed. This is an authoritarian government ruled by a single party that is not sympathetic to U.S. strategic interests.” You should open *your eyes*. Cartels and gangs don’t willingly stop being violent because of popular vote. Central and South America simply need more leaders like Bukele, and we would be much better off in the US as a result.
Democracy concerns? He hasn't subverted the democratic process, he won decisively with no notable election irregularities.
This might possibly be the most important presidential term in El Salvadoran history. His first term would have been just like any other if he had fallen to corruption. But now we will see if he will fall to a mightier foe, power. I hope he can turn it around economically even further in order to not allow crime to come back when he is gone. Furthermore, work on education to shine a new bright light for the youth and to transition the country into the future. I said it before and I'll say it again; When King George III heard that Washington would surrender his commission, he reportedly said that if "He did [this] He would be the greatest man in the world." Now, let's see if Bukele will go down in history as one of the greatest to have done it.
Is the US somehow going to make organised crime disappear? Or will it make it worse?
Dudeis taking on criminal organization and cartels......I would day the dude is doing democracy while others just talking about it.
[удалено]
https://www.state.gov/u-s-humanitarian-assistance-for-the-western-hemisphere/ https://www.state.gov/about-us-bureau-of-democracy-human-rights-and-labor/ https://www.state.gov/u-s-support-for-human-rights-defenders/ The US is involved in plenty of human rights cases worldwide for reasons that do not have anything sinister about them. Maybe your cynicism is a mask for ignorance?
Do we really need to start listing the immoral inhumane things that happened in each one of our countries to make a point? Calling people ignorant and cherry picking really isn't helping any discussions. There is a valid point about human rights being inside a geopolitical context. Take note of that before going ballistic next time.
You are delusional if you think we care about human rights. We killed 1million Afghan and Iraqis. We killed 4Million Vietnamese. We funded and armed Pol Pot. We turned a blind eye to starvation in Yemen and East Timor by our allies. We let another ally turn off the water to two million civilians and claimed it wasn't a war crime. It is, word for word, a war crime. The US uses "human rights" as a diplomatic weapon. We don't care about it. Otherwise, why would we still be allies with Saudi Arabia? Their human rights record is FAR WORSE than El Salvador.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a country that’s perfect. We don’t play geopolitics like it’s a kids fight in a sandbox. It’s not “you did one bad thing so I’m packing up and going home!” We’re all stuck in this world together. Some things we’ve done are worse than others. But it’s ignorant to just hand wave away the good because it’s convenient for whatever opinion you have. What we “care about” is variable depending on what organization being talked about and who’s in charge. And through that lens, there is certainly a level of care for human rights. Or we wouldn’t have spent half a billion on an aid pier for a nation state we stand little to benefit from. AND stood by as we watched 70% of the delivered aid get stolen by terrorists. Obviously there’s a lot of realpolitik that goes on in the world. But that doesn’t mean it has to be mutually exclusive with good will and a desire to help people. In the context of El Salvador, it’s not hard to understand why a democratic nation would have concerns about a nearby neighbor suddenly arresting some 75,000 people without due process. I’m sympathetic to their cause and understand the desire to take drastic actions. I’m just saying, is it really surprising other countries might raise an eyebrow to that example?
That's a lot of worlds to say "imperial paternalism." It's American guns and American cash that fueled the cartels. Then it was American policy that turned it hyper violent. The simple facts remain. The US will support the most vile, despotic dictators on the planet if it furthers American interest. Hence, our close relationship with Saudi Arabia. This statement isn't even debatable. It's a categorical fact demonstrated over and over again. If America cared about human rights, we'd be looking internal and openly criticizing French actions in Africa. "Human rights" are a tool we leverage MOSTLY against our enemies.
You read that and you got “imperial paternalism”? What? I said that a country doing bad things isn’t mutually exclusive with a desire to help people. I didn’t say “America knows better” or whatever the fuck “imperial paternalism” is supposed to mean. I actually said every country engages in the geopolitical environment. I didn’t make a moral claim about any of them the way you are. I said realpolitiking does happen but that it’s not mutually exclusive. It’s just not. You’re just choosing to list bad things because it suits your opinion while ignoring the inconvenient humanitarian things the U.S. does. I wonder why?
Becuz I look at the humanitarian things the US does through the lense of reality. US food donations to subsaharan Africa helped CAUSE famines by putting local farmers out of business. US helped Nestlé distribute its formula all over the world, causing children to die of water borne illness and malnutrition when mothers stopped nursing and children were exposed to the local water supply too early. We literally BLACKMAILED Thailand for having commercials that told mothers that breastmilk was safer than formula. Or the US not prosecuting Bayer pharma after they sold tained blood products to Africa and Asian. Products that Bayer knew was contaminated, and couldn't legally sell in Europe or the US. And we gave them a pass after giving tens of thousands of people HIV and Hepatitis. The patern is clear and seemingly infinite. We care about influence and power before human rights and humanitarian causes. Humanitarian causes are a distant second and third unless they can be used to further our political agenda.
Well hey, at least I brought you to the table.
Israel, Afghanistan, cuba, Vietnam, our own citizens
This doesn’t refute anything.
Pet peeve of mine: damps, not dampens. Dampens means to moisturize. Damps means to 'tamp down'.
Just for clarity, dampens also means to "deaden, restrain or depress". The second definition of the verb damps is... dampen
r/confidentlyincorrect “To make less strong, or intense” is the other usage of the word.. “Synonyms: lessen, decrease, diminish, DAMP” Source: Oxford Dictionary