4 ms·
It still is. It is not necessary for world peace to help the Pentagon to build better killing machines.
by sigi45 9y ago
It still is. It is not necessary for world peace to help the Pentagon to build better killing machines.
- airstrike 9y agoCitation needed
- rhizome 9y agoSure, I'll bite. Just falsify it: the Pentagon's killing machines have never brought about world peace, and world peace has never occurred while the Pentagon received killing machines.
- airstrike 9y agoYou say that as if “world peace” was an attainable goal in any realistic timeframe. War doesn’t exist because people “hate peace”.
- rhizome 9y agoI didn't bring world peace into the thread, but at any rate there's also the saying that "All war represents a failure of diplomacy," which I tend to agree with. I also think "are indifferent toward" should replace "hate" there.
- BookmarkSaver 9y agoYou are blatantly embedding a false premise here; that the goal is or should be world peace. That is an absolutely inane stance to take. How about instead of the obviously unattainable and unrealistic goal of "world peace", we just go for "more peace", or "less violent death" or similar goals. It is very hard to argue that American hegemony has not significantly reduced conflicts around the world. Not all of them, not equitably, and generally in pursuit of economic rather than ideological interests, but there is basically nothing to be gained by opening up the US to actually being threatened by competing powers.
- raverbashing 9y agoUnless you're the one getting shot
- walshemj 9y agoYou'd rather they had "worse" killing machines
- Const-me 9y agoPentagon and their killing machines is the #1 reason why there’s now peace here in Balkans, for 18 years and counting. I don’t think people of ex-Yugoslavia would stop killing each other without being forced to.
- sigi45 9y ago'build better killing machines'. They are able to kill people well enough already.