3 ms·
By defending people. This doesn't mean murdering people remotely with robots. I get that's the most efficient way of doing it. The US is looking at backlash an
by zxcmx 9y ago
By defending people. This doesn't mean murdering people remotely with robots. I get that's the most efficient way of doing it.
The US is looking at backlash and wondering why: it's because you lost the moral fscking high ground. That's always how the war was won and missiles from the sky dont achieve that mission.
Or by not giving a sh$t and just arming them which is the usual crappy way this game is played.
- mistermann 9y ago> it's because you lost the moral fscking high ground. Exactly. Considering the current and projected supply of oil in the world, I'd like someone to explain why we are still over meddling in their affairs at all. Or has this now become a "humanitarian" mission? Declare victory and withdraw I say.
- cinquemb 9y ago>That's always how the war was won and missiles from the sky dont achieve that mission. Well, outside of total war à la scorched-earth, which to your point, this is not, though I suspect some wish it were the case (though the profiteers like the keep arming them game since that provides profits into perpetuity).