So are you are you violent and unstable or not? I'm getting mixed messages here.

You may never know just how truly insignificant you are. But don't worry, I do.

You're not worth my time.

It's an interesting argument, but I still feel it's in bad faith. You can't cite the UN's office of the high commissioner for human rights, when my argument is that the UN is pushing an agenda. I mean, just look at the title of that office. Surely you see how self-important they think themselves.

The 933% increase is an interesting statistic, but I was hoping you could explain what the axis is there. I genuinely don't understand. Regardless though, have you looked at the countries that the US currently has sanctions concerning? I'm sure there are a few you might disagree with, but can you really say that we shouldn't be limiting the resources given to most of those governments? Maybe there is a better way, but the world is most likely a better place with them, than without. I know that's just a guess on my part, but the fact of the matter is that with dictatorial governments, citizen quality of life goes down with government resources (can't find my source online, but I know what book it's in. I'll grab it tomorrow). This is the best I can find now, how the Venezuelan government is using it's resources to keep humanitarian aid from political dissidents. https://br.usembassy.gov/29672/

When you mention the US's actions in the 60s, you have to realize that was a lifetime ago. We did not have the technology nor interconnectedness we have now. I'm not saying what the US did in South America was right, but I'm sure to the policy makers, it seemed right, and the damage was only perceived later. Things are not perfect now either, but I hope you agree, better the US making mistakes than a Ceaușescu.

Finally, why are you bringing up the IMF, that's another UN agency. We can agree that the UN doesn't actually have anyone's well being as their top priority.