Fighting WWII: The US declared war on Japan in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor, it did not declare war on Germany; Germany declared war on the US three days after the US declared war on Japan. The US was blatantly looking after its own interests rather than a genuine commitment to destroying Nazism (a movement they themselves inspired [1] [2]). Not a good example.
Supplying Ukraine: Surprisingly Nazi proxy wars are bad and so is funding Ukrainian war crimes.
Obviously Nazism is evil, but the US isn’t ideologically opposed to Nazism (quite the opposite), so their rise to power is just the rise of one Nazi power at the expense of another (allowing the US as a world power emerging from WWII to massacre millions across the world). Besides, OP said intentionally good, this was incidental insofar as it aided in undoing Nazi ethnic cleaning (as well as “don’t include the times it was repairing damage it did”, as encompassed in the US inspiring Nazism).
That makes the definition very broad indeed. In that case I’d have a hard time seeing any country satisfy it. Since everything impacts everything else in some way, and since an entire nation never have completely spotless intentions, no country ever would fit these criteria as you’ve expanded them.
Name me a time when [a country] was intentionally and objectively good and don’t include times it was repairing damage it did.
The DPRK’s support for Algerian independence under the NLF and recognition of the Algerian state as a sign of internationalist progressive policy; DPRK’s support for the national liberation struggle of the Mozambican people; the USSR’s aid to Korea in gaining independence from Japan and the PRC’s deployment of troops to wage war against the occupying U.S. imperialists in the Korean Peninsula; the USSR’s support for the Cuban struggle against U.S. imperialism; the PLA’s liberation of Tibet from feudal theocracy with the support of the toiling masses of Tibet; the USSR’s support for the Nicaraguan Sandinistas against the reactionary U.S.-backed “guerilla” Contras; these are a few examples.
Having a government in power that you backed is beneficial to you, therefore it isn’t altruistic. So it isn’t fully objectively good as someone above objected.
Now you’re changing the definition of good to exclude anything that benefits you. Hugging your mother isn’t objectively good. And for no other reason than in this narrow context in an argument it helps you save face.
At what point do you cool off? You’ve been shown to be shamefully ignorant on pretty much every topic you’ve engaged with in this thread. When do you stop acting like you’re right about literally fucking everything and just give up on some arguments? Why do you have to go 12 rounds on pedantic bullshit like this? When if ever do you just chill the fuck out and start acting like you have things to learn about the world?
And no. The person you’re referring to did not say that the US joining WW2 wasn’t objectively good because it lacked altruism. They said it was because their intentions were entirely selfish. There’s a distinction.
Fighting WWII: The US declared war on Japan in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor, it did not declare war on Germany; Germany declared war on the US three days after the US declared war on Japan. The US was blatantly looking after its own interests rather than a genuine commitment to destroying Nazism (a movement they themselves inspired [1] [2]). Not a good example.
Supplying Ukraine: Surprisingly Nazi proxy wars are bad and so is funding Ukrainian war crimes.
But was it bad they joined? Even if it was self interested, it’s still a good thing.
Obviously Nazism is evil, but the US isn’t ideologically opposed to Nazism (quite the opposite), so their rise to power is just the rise of one Nazi power at the expense of another (allowing the US as a world power emerging from WWII to massacre millions across the world). Besides, OP said intentionally good, this was incidental insofar as it aided in undoing Nazi ethnic cleaning (as well as “don’t include the times it was repairing damage it did”, as encompassed in the US inspiring Nazism).
That makes the definition very broad indeed. In that case I’d have a hard time seeing any country satisfy it. Since everything impacts everything else in some way, and since an entire nation never have completely spotless intentions, no country ever would fit these criteria as you’ve expanded them.
The DPRK’s support for Algerian independence under the NLF and recognition of the Algerian state as a sign of internationalist progressive policy; DPRK’s support for the national liberation struggle of the Mozambican people; the USSR’s aid to Korea in gaining independence from Japan and the PRC’s deployment of troops to wage war against the occupying U.S. imperialists in the Korean Peninsula; the USSR’s support for the Cuban struggle against U.S. imperialism; the PLA’s liberation of Tibet from feudal theocracy with the support of the toiling masses of Tibet; the USSR’s support for the Nicaraguan Sandinistas against the reactionary U.S.-backed “guerilla” Contras; these are a few examples.
Having a government in power that you backed is beneficial to you, therefore it isn’t altruistic. So it isn’t fully objectively good as someone above objected.
Now you’re changing the definition of good to exclude anything that benefits you. Hugging your mother isn’t objectively good. And for no other reason than in this narrow context in an argument it helps you save face.
My mom is a nice lady, and I love and respect her, so hugging her is good.
No, someone above was arguing that the US joining WWII wasn’t good because it wasn’t altruistic. I was applying the same logic.
Edit: see here
At what point do you cool off? You’ve been shown to be shamefully ignorant on pretty much every topic you’ve engaged with in this thread. When do you stop acting like you’re right about literally fucking everything and just give up on some arguments? Why do you have to go 12 rounds on pedantic bullshit like this? When if ever do you just chill the fuck out and start acting like you have things to learn about the world?
And no. The person you’re referring to did not say that the US joining WW2 wasn’t objectively good because it lacked altruism. They said it was because their intentions were entirely selfish. There’s a distinction.
See my other Ukraine comment