Who cares about all the people he'll hurt along the way amiright? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
180 points (93.7% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1675 readers
169 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Okay they're being stupid about it (Trump is a liberal? C'mon) but they're right. The ends do justify the means in this case, because Americans have repeatedly failed to get to these ends via any other means. If America won't stop being imperialist, I'll settle for them being incompetently imperialist thank you. I mean don't get me wrong the best scenario is still for an anti-imperialist government to take power in America, but that doesn't seem awfully likely.
It would seem 'incompetently imperialist' hurts more people.
I feel like people are forgetting fascist countries become problems for every country.
They're also forgetting whatever solidifies under trump will outlast him, so whatever grace the world thinks they have with Trump's "incompetence" will soon be replaced by competence. Doesn't matter if they can trick Americans into liking them, voting won't be a thing. World domination is one hundred percent the goal. Look at how much they're already influencing European fascist parties.
Who? As far as I know the only things Trump has done that appreciably hurt non-Americans and aren't American business as usual (so other than funding Israel and bombing Yemen) are cutting aid for Ukraine and tariffs, neither of which are imperialist actions (even if the former is vile and the latter is just fucking stupid).
Abolishing USAID, destroying long-standing defensive alliances with democratic countries, revoking funding for numerous scientific studies and projects (including medical and climate change projects which would have resulted in worldwide harm reduction from serious ongoing issues), starting a new arms race wherein not only have numerous countries signaled a desire to increase defense spending but also a widespread desire to acquire nuclear arms now that open imperialism is back in vogue, support for Israeli attacks in the West Bank (a line even the fucking Bush admin wouldn't cross), support of far-right parties and cultural movements in other countries (including fascists like the recently chastised Le Pen)...
And we're not even a third of the way through the first fucking year of this administration.
Fucking what? How the fuck is attempting to use economic power to extract concessions from smaller countries not imperialist? For that matter, how is attempting to assist the takeover of a sovereign country by an imperialist power in the name of some fuckwadded power politics interpretation of international affairs not imperialist?
We're sitting here with a projected death toll in the literal millions (yes, millions of non-Americans, as lowly American civilians don't matter) three fucking months into this administration, with further immediate and serious threats to multiple countries.
Maybe killing the American Empire through fucking fascism will not result in an ideal outcome for the world?
Just a fucking thought.
Okay that's fair. I still don't see any imperialist actions (words don't count) here.
Okay fair enough again. It doesn't seem to be all that effective, but it is imperialist.
I mean Trump's support for the far right in the democratic West is shaping up to be more of a hindrance than a benefit so with that view it's a win for anti-imperialism if anything.
So about the same as the war on terror then. Or, adjusted for population, the Vietnam war. I haven't looked at American intervention in South Africa, but it's probably similar. Also that massive death toll is mostly American aid being pulled so it shouldn't increase much until he starts a war somewhere. You also now have Israel (AKA America's unsinkable aircraft carrier) trying to restart the goddamn Syrian civil war. I don't disagree that fascism in America will do great amounts of harm to a lot of people, but you seem to be underestimating just how much harm America does already.
I mean yeah obviously. I said as much myself, but given how modern America seems intent on killing a few millions or so people every decade and otherwise oppressing tens or hundreds of millions, and how Americans don't seem to give enough of a shit to do anything about that when it's their team doing it... eh, worse trades have been made.
Funding doesn't count either, I guess imperialism is only when you bomb someone, and the more you bomb someone the more imperialist it is.
... this the same democratic West which is having unprecedented levels of support for far-right parties?
Yes, we're looking at a projected death toll, just from the starting three months of fascist fuckwit policies, as some of the longest and most impactful conflicts of the post-WW2 US. One with a particularly sharp eye might note that that is a very bad start to what is likely going to be a very long regime.
... what.
Does that not count as a war? Or the aforementioned support for Israel expanding their current phase of the genocide to the West Bank? Or the support for Israeli strikes against Lebanon and continued occupation?
Israel isn't the US's unsinkable aircraft carrier, because Israel is only cooperative insofar as it helps Israeli aims. Israel is a kingmaker for domestic US politics ever since the evangelicals got involved as a major force, and they've decided to put their weight behind a fascist king which will support them as they continue to murder US citizens and journalists and sell US military secrets to whoever the fuck they feel like it.
No, I'm really not. You're underestimating just how much harm the US will continue to do under a fascist regime. You're cheering for the US's international position to revert to what it was pre-WW2. Unfortunately for literally everyone, the US was still immensely imperialist before it had robust ties with other democratic states.
What you're cheering for is not "The US will do fewer horrible things!", it's "The US will continue to do horrible things, but what good we do will now be cancelled." Subsidizing the defence of democratic European states? Already fucking canceled. Supporting free journalism? Already cancelled. Humanitarian aid to literal millions of people? Already cancelled. Mutual economic agreements? Already cancelled. Contributions to technologies with applications for the public good? Already cancelled. And this is just the fucking start of it.
But if you think "Europe no longer likes us :(" will stop a fascist regime from bombing Iran or Syria or the Ivory Coast or fucking Peru, you've got another thing coming.
No, funding absolutely does, but your list didn't include funding anything.
Yes, exactly that democratic West. Trump is a hindrance for the European far-right, not a boon.
Again, that massive death toll is mostly American aid being pulled so it shouldn't increase much until he starts a war somewhere.
Yes, this is exactly the business as usual that America losing clout with the NATO-aligned West is going to reduce. Israel can only act with impunity because Europe won't challenge it, again because of American influence (otherwise Europe has literally nothing to gain out of supporting Israel). Remember that Israel's largest trading partner is the EU, not America.
As opposed to all other US administrations since Reagan who have materially opposed or punished Israel for murdering US citizens and journalists or selling US military secrets to whoever the fuck they feel like it? Again, this is business as usual.
Yes, but its imperialism in terms of area and impact exploded during and after the cold war.
"Europe no longer likes us :(" won't stop them, but European sanctions might.
You uh
you sure about that
That seems an extremely curious conclusion to reach considering the surge in support for the far-right since the start of this year. One might even suspect it of being motivated reasoning.
... do you think that the death toll won't increase until he starts a war?
It'll increase with whatever the next fascist fuckwit policy is, and the administration is far from finished. Like holy shit, c'mon. Three months is not the end of the fucking race. We have, at minimum, another 45 fucking months of new and exciting fascist policies which will kill people.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Oh yes, as we all know, there are no other genocidal hypermilitarized states in the world that Europe doesn't challenge. Europe, happily, is out there playing world police for any state that isn't protected by the US.
Europe also has nothing to gain out of supporting Russia, yet there remains significant demographics which are full-throated in their support for Russia.
Maybe reducing everything to materialist analysis is incredibly fucking blinkered?
Okay? So is Europe willing to hurt itself economically to punish Israel and the US? Europe's morals are, of course, super strong; that's why we go for an idealist analysis for Europe but a materialist analysis for everywhere else in the world? I'm sure European countries aren't struggling with far-right agitation on both cultural and economic grounds.
"and after the Cold War"
are you fucking stupid.
I love that I can demonstrate the Trump regime going above and beyond on Israel and your response is still a "It's business as usual!"
Whatever, man. If you're so fucking desperate to critically deepthroat fascism in the hopes that the American Empire will be the pure evil regime you so desire it to be (obviously, no one would side with a powerful and self-interested genocidal regime, like China or Russia or the Saudis, so when it happens to the US, everything will finally be okay in world politics 😊), far be it from me to stop you.
Yes? Your list included cutting funding, but I'm not seeing anyone being funded here other than Israel (business as usual). Well you also mention the European far-right, but while I don't know much about their relationship with MAGA other than that it exists I doubt National Rally or AfD are getting American tax money.
Huh? What surge? I could be missing something, but I've only heard of European far-right parties trying to distance themselves from Trump and the Trump rampage losing Canada's Conservatives a near-guaranteed majority.
Yeah probably, but how is he going to kill more on-Americans than he already did and is by cutting foreign aid? There's only so much you can do to kill people outside your country without going to war.
I can't think of any genocidal hypermilitarized state that Europe isn't at odds with other than Israel. However, even if there was, the Middle East is Europe's backyard and would be their sphere of influence if it wasn't already claimed by America, so they want it to be stable because when it's not stable refugees flood Europe. Well, more accurately Europe feels like it's being flooded with immigrants but that's neither here nor there.
Something something war on terror.
He goes above and beyond on Israel rhetoric, and frankly neither I nor anybody else give a shit about what the US government has to say about Israel. Call me when he actually does something more than what Biden already did.
I mean, plenty of people would side with a powerful and self-interested genocidal regime, but fortunately Trump has made it a point to actively antagonize his closest and most powerful allies so there's not much reason to worry about that possibility. No ally Trump can possibly make would make up for the hole left by Europe and Canada.
So if you cut funding to exercise imperialist aims, it's not imperialism. Great. Fucking fantastic. Only increasing funding counts. Like some sort of fucked up court of law insisting on some loophole.
Are you not paying attention at all
https://europeannewsroom.com/far-right-rise-what-does-the-extremist-surge-mean-for-the-eu
Jesus fucking Christ, do you have no conception of how powerful countries interact with others on the international stage? Starvation by sanctions, revocation of medical cooperation, blocking international orgs, financial sabotage, coups, intelligence sharing or restriction, propaganda and outright support of fascist factions in democratic nations, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
Funny how you have a full understanding of the myriad ways which America enables Israel, outside of just funding, and then completely fucking forget about it when considering what America could offer to other genocidal states. Jesus fucking Christ.
"At odds with"
You uh, wanna remind me what genocidal hypermilitarized state Europe is meaningfully challenging?
Oh, great, wherein even the supposed leftists are parroting great power politics. Jesus fucking Christ.
'Something something' is fucking right. If you think the war on terror compares to even a single decade of the Cold War, you're out of your fucking gourd.
"Rhetoric won't influence Israeli fascism, but European rhetoric will totally reduce the effect on American fascism!"
That being said, it's so fucking easy Jesus Christ
Welcome to month 3 of our 48 month fascism celebration.
Sure there is. Russia et co. The alignment is already moving that way.
I don't see how refusing to pay for something is imperialism. Retracting one's influence on other countries is literally the opposite of what the word means, whether it's a good thing or not.
I am, but how the heck does that have anything to do with the Trump admin? This is the continuation of a trend going back at least a decade.
I mean it's funding, weapons, military support and diplomatic support. What genocidal state do you think Trump will offer these things to other than Russia (which would require Trump to make an outright enemy out of the EU)?
I mean, Iraq? Afghanistan? Somalia? Yemen? Pakistan? The cold war was pretty bad, but so was the war on terror.
I don't care about European rhetoric either, but with their political stability and economic potential at stake they're likely to not stop at rhetoric. That's the whole point I'm trying to make.
Okay that is ever so slightly worse than just rhetoric.
Oh, I guess I was implicitly assuming Europe wouldn't turn far-right, which is completely unfounded. If that happens then I'll take back everything I said.
Imperialism is the use of one's power to exert unilateral control over other countries. Funding and defunding are both ways to unilaterally exert control over other countries. Defunding countries which are defending themselves from imperialism in the hopes of the imperialist aggressor achieving their aims is absolutely imperialism or support for imperialism.
The surge this year, then, being...?
... do you have any idea how many genocidal states are in existence right now?
You talk about "The Global South", but your focus on developed countries is... significant.
And Trump is already making an enemy of the EU. It's been three fucking months and our almost century-long alliance with Western Europe is in tatters.
Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia? Really? You could've at least picked Libya.
In any case, you can pick any decade of the Cold War you like and I can name half a dozen US-sponsored unjustified wars and coups which led to far greater death tolls than the entire ~15 year duration of the 'War on Terror'. As I said, any individual decade of the Cold War alone is worse than our conduct post-Cold War - and that, I may emphasize, is a low bar for the Cold War to limbo under. But it manages.
"The Imperial Power(tm) is more desperate and isolated" does not have the effect you think it does.
We've already got Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia, and Turkiye there, with the Netherlands, Italy, and Austria looking to radicalize, and the UK, France, Sweden, Belgium, and Germany all at risk.
The dominos are set, and cheering on the one falling isn't going to lead to the rest standing firm, in all likelihood.
This is the case for Ukraine and is imperialism because of the mineral deal stuff, but other foreign aid Trump cut seems to be more of a case of "fuck you I got mine" rather than trying to get exert control over anyone.
What surge? The article you linked doesn't list an out of the ordinary increase this year.
Plenty, but AFAIK America has little interest in most of them.
He's antagonizing them, but so far he hasn't done anything that would cause, say, EU sanctions on America.
The military intervention in Libya was separate from the war on terror to my knowledge, while the one in Somalia had the textbook war on terror motivation of "counterterrorism". It also, in typical war on terror fashion, restarted the civil war and destroyed any hope Somalia had for stability for a generation.
Okay bet. Do 1980-1989.
I wouldn't count Turkey there since their government isn't exactly far-right, but yeah fair enough
Rather than cheering I simply have very little faith in Americans' or Europeans' ability to resist the rise of the far-right, because, well, gestures broadly.
His administration is quite nakedly making demands of other countries as part of 'negotiating' tariffs.
I can think of very few countries that America has 'little interest' in, and much of our 'lack' of interest in genocidal states is because that was, in the post-Cold War environment, bad PR.
We now have a regime that doesn't care about PR. In fact, bad PR is a good thing to their power base, because it 'owns the libs'.
Certainly, the fact that I pointed out "can offer genocidal states" necessarily, for that matter, implies that the states I'm talking about do not currently receive full US support. Do you think there's anyone Trump wouldn't support to have another country's leader slobbering on his limp knob and calling him "Sir, Mr. Trump", with tears in his eyes?
And you think the War on Terror in Somalia compares to how bad the Cold War was... how? Morality or intensity, I'll accept either justification?
Since that is the context in which your list was made and which I expressed incredulity at Somalia's inclusion?
Are we talking about tariffs or foreign aid right now? The tariff-based negotiations are pretty nakedly imperialist, I'll concede that. Cutting non-Ukraine foreign aid is not.
That's... fair enough??? Part of me doesn't want to believe it'll go quite that easily, but you never know with these people.
I mean Ethiopia, backed by the US, went in and restarted an almost 20 years old civil war, causing the death of about a hundred thousand people and displacing a million (between 2006 and 2009, I can't find numbers for post-2009 but it can't be good). It doesn't obviously measure up to the cold war on its own, but it's another horrible thing caused by the war on terror.
Considering that the intention in both cases is to get other actors to lick Trump's boots, what's the difference?
Fighting had never stopped. The idea that Ethiopia restarted the civil war is not even vaguely close to what happened.
To be fair , we're only at the first phase of fascist takeover. Eventually they'll look outwards as they've already started signalling with Canada, Panama and Greenland.
That's true in the short term (or maybe not; they have enough internal "enemies" to last them for years), but in the medium to long term their ability to project power will be too degraded for them to amount to much on the world stage. Absolutely sucks for Canada and Greenland, but given the amount of evil America supports worldwide from their position as hegemonic superpower it's likely still a reduction in overall imperialism in the world.
I don't know. They could easily trigger WW3
I don't think so. Given how spineless modern Europe in general is they'll probably not fight the US over Greenland. I could see Europe supporting Canada like they are Ukraine in the case of a US-Canada war, but that's about it.
Liberalism isn't just as defined by USA.
I can't say yet the ends justify the means. That depends whether what rises from the ashes is better or worse for the entire planet.
You can only say "ends justify the means" if you can achieve the ends, otherwise you loose. The whole point of the saying is that the reaching the goal is the only important thing, how you get there does not matter. We'll have to wait and see if the destination will be reached.
Actually, the whole point of the saying is that the ends do not justify the means. Not in that way, at least. Machiavelli was a much cooler person than people give him credit.
The prince who reaches his ends does not become justified in the moral sense of being proven right or just. They are not a 'good' person because they achieved their ends, even if the ends were noble.
They become justified in the sense of being absolved by society and not being held to account for their crimes.
In other words, "The ends justify the means" does not mean "the end was worthy of the means."
It means whoever wins in the end will not be held accountable for the means they used to get there.
What he says is true though.
Morality is not a law of nature.
I'm not sure how what you said contradicts what I wrote.
Yes, thanks for rephrasing.
I don't know whether it'll be better or worse, but either way it'll be weaker. Assuming Trump has his way, it'll be a long time—if ever—before America can throw its way around the world like it does today. The web of alliances (read: army of accomplices) it uses to bully the Global South into submission is irreparably broken.
Holy shit.
You wanna fucking remind me what significantly weaker imperialist countries like Russia do around the world?
The USA's vast diplomatic power is the least fucking objectionable thing about our foreign policy, and that's what's being dismantled. You think the fucking massive intelligence apparatus and the world's largest military is going to fucking vanish into thin air? Our most horrific imperialist actions have been done unilaterally, or near-unilaterally. We didn't need fucking Poland to help us invade Iraq. We didn't need the Aussies to help us bomb Vietnam. You think the US becoming a pariah state is going to help further US policy on that front?
Fucking insanity.
Jesus fucking Christ.
What's Russian imperialism's death toll in the last two decades? How many people live under Russian-supported dictatorships? How many genocides has Russia funded? As shown by Russia, significantly weaker imperialist powers cause significantly less harm, just as I said.
The US's vast diplomatic and economic power helps gain global buy-in and coerce support for those objectionable things about your foreign policy.
They'd have been a lot less unilateral if Europe had raised a stink about yet another refugee crisis happening in their backyard. The diplomatic power you're talking about is exactly why America can trash the world and nobody that matters says a damn thing about it.
Literal millions. Holy fucking shit, do you not remember the Chechnyan wars? Syria? The war in fucking Ukraine?
Sudan, Syria until a few months ago, the Donbass, Belarus, Venezuela, CAR, Mali, Burkino Faso, parts of Chad...
Let's see, we've got Sudan, Syria, and Ukraine. So that's three at minimum.
How many has the US funded in the past 30 years? Israel's?
"An imperialist country a third of the size and much poorer does less harm than an imperialist country three times its size and significantly wealthier"
Wow, very insightful.
Yes, of course, that's why we roped in Europe to support our invasion of Iraq.
... really?
You fucking think that in the post-9/11 fury we would have given two shits if Europe (checks notes) objected slightly louder than they already did? And now you're looking at a fascist regime which explicitly opposes outside economic influence and saying "Wow! Now those other democratic states will have so much more leverage against US imperialist policy!"
Fuck's sake.
"and nobody that matters says a damn thing about it."
Jesus fucking Christ.
Yeah that's a few hundred thousand tops, not at all millions. Also, since you brought up Ukraine: Russia has been in post-2014 Ukraine (so excluding territory they occupied in 2014) for three years and counting, while America steamrolled the Iraqi government in less than three weeks. It's actually possible to resist weaker imperialist countries, but there's nothing a country can do when the US knocks on their door except acquiesce or perish.
Fair enough.
Given Europe's reaction to refugee crises in the Middle East (including, you know, calling them crises) I'd expect a bit more than objecting slightly louder. As MAGAt are about to find out, the relationship between Europe and America goes both ways. If Europe had threatened to impose economic punishments on America, or hell even just stop buying US weapons like they're doing right now, even Bush would've had to think twice.
Russia in the still-ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War:
Ukraine:
And that's only for the ones they've been directly involved in, as mentioned, there are plenty of brutal civil wars and dictatorships Russia maintains support for a la the US and Israel.
Okay, so now that we've cut ties with Europe, how would that reduction in diplomatic power, which we have established as the only meaningful reduction in 'imperial' capabilities resulting from going full fascist, have reduced our war-waging capabilities in Iraq?
Go ahead. I'm very interested in seeing this analysis of how a hollowed-out pariah state up against the foremost military power in the world is comparable to a rotted military a third of its size up against a country materially backed by the entirety of the West.
Bush would've had to think twice because, despite being an imperialist fuckwad, he wasn't an out and out fascist with total control over his own party, likewise compromised of fascists.
You're going beyond the 20 year cutoff but either way that's still less than half the US total in the same time period.
Iraq was a hollowed out pariah state in part because of Europe following the American position. Also like I said, a strong European response would've lowered the scale of the war, if not outright avoided it. And since we're talking about Iraq,
-Wikipedia
That's a quarter to half a million deaths in one country caused solely by American diplomatic and economic clout.
Trump has total control over his party, but he still has people he needs to appease—including the military-industrial complex. I can't tell you what will result from the inevitable conflict between Trump and the oligarchy, but it's not going to be good for Trump's regime.
... how the fuck so
Casualties for the entirety of the 'War On Terror', including seriously wounded (and including part of the period, likewise, 'beyond the 20 year cutoff'), usually hover around 1.5 million.
If we're counting indirect deaths, then we have a lot of 'fun' things we can add to Russia's list.
... yes, because Iraq definitely wasn't a hollowed-out pariah state following the Iran-Iraq War, and certainly not following their widely condemned invasion which led to the First Gulf War. If it wasn't for America, Iraq would've been enjoying the full fruits of international cooperation just like it did before.
How the fuck so? By your own admission, it was over in three weeks. If Europe had completely embargo'd the US, it still wouldn't have changed opinions inside of three weeks.
First you're in support of sanctions on aggressive hypermilitarized genocidal states, now in opposition because of the human cost of sanctions.
Great. Glad we're dealing with such a principled and consistent stance.
Fucking lol.
Absolutely not, but the sanctions were excessively brutal considering that "The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction (WMD)".
The only mention in the article of hunger as a goal comes from the US ("Those in the U.S. who supported sanctions believed that low agricultural production in Iraq (coupled with sanctions) would lead to "a hungry population", and "a hungry population was an unruly one"), who is also the Western country that cares the most about the Middle East in the first place. Now that I think about it "solely due to US diplomatic and economic clout" was an exaggeration, but America still bears a lot of responsibility for the humanitarian effects of these sanctions.
Public opinion wouldn't have needed to change, because just the threat of sanctions would've been enough to prevent Bush from lying to start the war in the first place.
I support sanctions only to the extent they can achieve the desired effect without causing large amounts of harm to unrelated people. The Iraq sanctions had multiple UN officials resigning specifically because they weren't that. There was no need to kill half a million children to prevent Iraq from rearming itself. This isn't exactly a controversial position.
I mean he literally backed down today (or was it yesterday in America?), so clearly he's not unafraid of the economic effects of his policies. Or this is all just a front for insider trading. Probably the latter.
Your own fucking source:
Would you like to remind me what 937,000 is lower than? Perhaps a number like... 1.5 million?
As I said, if you want to discuss indirect deaths, that's going to lead to significantly increased numbers for Russia as well.
Again, from your own fucking cited source:
Clearly it is, as your own fucking source notes that it's controversial, both in terms of child mortality and in terms of efficacy.
The latter. If Trump was 'afraid' of the economic effects of his policies, the entire tariff conversation would look nothing like... well, what it does.
By how much?
Wait what? Nobody's arguing that they weren't effective, but that they were too much. Also while there's controversy about the scale of child mortality specifically, there's none about the idea that widespread civilian harm was caused. I mean more than half the country lost access to clean drinking water because of that shit.
Also again, the UNSC mostly doesn't do general sanctions anymore specifically because the Iraq sanctions were such a shitshow. If they were only controversial you'd see more like them, but you don't because they were too much for what they were ostensibly trying to do.
The weird thing is you could probably describe the Republican party as liberal for most of their existence but not anymore certainly. Certainly not the last 10 years. Trump's what killed that.