If by your own admission you are as clueless about modern history as a brain dead pond life, why challenge someone who isn't? Come now my sweet, leave it to your betters.
The Kosovo conflict isn't the totality of modern history.
The US did not act ignorantly. It supplied him the WMDs with which he gassed the Kurds and Iranians (about which not much is said for obvious reasons) in the full knowledge that he was a gangster who slaughtered opponents with the enthusiasm of Crusaders sacking Jerusalem. A million people were killed by the Iran-Iraq war which Saddam fought at the behest of Freedom's Land. If you think the United States suddenly had a fit of conscience after their favourite gangster killed just a few thousand Kurds you can do something I cannot.
lol. You don't get it. I didn't say that the US is some altruistic moral being whose every action is dictated by human rights. I said that human rights are a mediator in the US's affairs but not a central aspect. In that sense, yes I hold to the conclusion that the US did create a space for the Kurds of the north to return from starvation based on * gasp* humanitarian motives. This isn't to say that the US's role in Iraq as been strictly humanitarian, in every sense this is not true, but there has been humanitarian motives lurking somewhere in there.
I asked why the United States funneled weapons to Suharto in his genocidal campaign against East Timor if it's animated by humanitarianism. This happened at the same time as the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo about which it feigned concern. Kindly answer my question.
Did I ever say that is was animated by humanitarianism? I bet I didn't. The US did intervene but only after Muslims who were supported by the US started committing genocide against the Christians.
It should have terminated its own role by forbidding US companies to do business with mass killers and done precisely what it does when oil is involved and bombed the belligerents who compiled a death toll of four million souls. Not a few thousand like Gaddafi (if that), but four million. But this assumes that the Pentagon is the armed wing of Amnesty International. The Pentagon is the armed wing of American corporations.
Really? That is cute. MAB going to terminate a whole industry, well multiple industries with multiple ties to various industries. Fine by me. That still doesn't resolve the conflict of how the US would have solved the Congo crisis, and I imagine you don't have a solution only moral bitching about the US and how it shouldn't take part in blood stained industries. Conceded. Let the Chinese deal with the moral quandaries that MAB doesn't want to deal with.
Topic: Intervention in Libya?