• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      74 months ago

      The first example was Zaire, so if you don’t even know what you are linking I’m not going to go through it line by line.

      https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/18/jimmy-carters-blood-drenched-legacy/

      William Blum writes in Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II that Carter, who had been in office for only two months, was reluctant to involve his administration in a far-reaching intervention whose scope and length could not be easily anticipated.

      However, Carter did provide “non-lethal” aid, while he did not protest as European countries offered military aid, and Morocco sent several thousand of its US-trained military forces to aid Mobutu.

      “President Carter asserted on more than one occasion that the Zaire crisis was an African problem, best solved by Africans, yet he apparently saw no contradiction to this thesis in his own policy, nor did he offer any criticism of France or Belgium, or of China, which sent Mobutu a substantial amount of military equipment,” writes Blum. [1]

      He didn’t criticize, what an absolute bloodthirsty monster!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          54 months ago

          Oh look, you edited your first post with a snide remark!

          What are you talking about? Please be specific. All I’m getting are vague “nuh-uh” answers. If you want to actually convince anyone that you have a point, you need to make it.

          The first charge (edit: it was the third charge, I do apologise for expecting anyone to read more than a few paragraphs),

          Then you offer an ‘apology’ for getting a detail wrong…

          I apologise for getting a minor detail wrong about the order of items in the list, I underestimated how critically important the order of items in that list was to you.

          I do not accept your apology.