4 ms·

> It assumes moral absolutism: that certain killing is bad and certain is good, but good or bad for whom? The CIA tried to kill Castro multiple times, but he's

by chroma 8y ago

> It assumes moral absolutism: that certain killing is bad and certain is good, but good or bad for whom? The CIA tried to kill Castro multiple times, but he's a hero to the people of Cuba. I'm sure people in the USA would've applauded this, but Latin America would've mourned and been furious. Considering the horrific things Castro did to the Cuban people[1] and how he almost started nuclear armageddon[2], the world would have been better off if he had been overthrown (and possibly killed) as early as possible. > Is the US government the best judge to decide who lives and who dies? No, and nobody in this thread is arguing that. The US military is an extremely flawed organization, and any military is a blunt tool. Even when the US goes into a country with the best intentions (a rare occurrence), lots of innocent people will be killed. It's good that we continually raise the standards we hold our military to. It wasn't that long ago that people were fine with carpet bombing population centers. Now we recognize that such acts are abhorrent. The same is not true for other governments and leaders. So to answer your question: I don't think the US government is the best judge, but it's a lot better than the alternatives (such as the PRC or Russia). It's also a better judge than the people it tries to kill, such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba 2. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/opinion/how-castro-held-the-world-hostage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/opinion/how-castro-held-t...

dnomad 8y ago
> I don't think the US government is the best judge, but it's a lot better than the alternatives (such as the PRC or Russia). It's also a better judge than the people it tries to kill, such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri. And there it is: the blind ideology that drives this madness. Any rational analysis of the last 50 years would show the US is far, far more dangerous than China, Russia and terrorism combined. The US has slaughtered millions of innocent people across the globe in the last twenty years. China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty in that time. The real lesson here of course is that true evil is absolutely convinced of its own righteousness and totally ignorant of real world facts. That evil is something many are all too happy to join.
aylmao 8y ago
> Considering the horrific things Castro did to the Cuban people[1] and how he almost started nuclear armageddon[2], the world would have been better off if he had been overthrown (and possibly killed) as early as possible. Considering the horrific things US presidents have done to the American people [1] and how they invented nuclear armageddon[2], the world would have been better off if they had been overthrown (and possibly killed) as early as possible. (In fact, if we're going into the territory of human rights-- the US has not a page, but a whole category in Wikipedia [1] on violations). > I don't think the US government is the best judge, but it's a lot better than the alternatives (such as the PRC or Russia). It's also a better judge than the people it tries to kill, such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri. From your point of you, an American, sure. From the point of view of Chileans, I doubt the murder of democratically elected Salvador Allende aided by the CIA was good judgment, or that American judgement was better than his. From the point of view of Guatemalans I doubt the US's involvement in the coup against democratically elected Jacobo Árbenz was good judgement. The list goes on. As someone who is not American I can assure you the US government is not a better judge than the PRC or Russia, is equally as bad and in some cases, from my point of view, worse. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_rights_abuses_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_rights_abuses_i... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...
- shawn 8y ago
  The US may have invented nuclear armageddon, but are you sure it would have been better if someone else had?
  - GordonS 8y ago
    I frequently see this argument used to justify everything from ever creeping surveillance of civilians, to sanctions that primarily affect civilians, to the bombing, killing and maiming of civilians. Surely we should aim for better than "yeah, but they'd be even more terrible than us"?

by chroma 8y ago

dnomad 8y ago

> I don't think the US government is the best judge, but it's a lot better than the alternatives (such as the PRC or Russia). It's also a better judge than the people it tries to kill, such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri. And there it is: the blind ideology that drives this madness. Any rational analysis of the last 50 years would show the US is far, far more dangerous than China, Russia and terrorism combined. The US has slaughtered millions of innocent people across the globe in the last twenty years. China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty in that time. The real lesson here of course is that true evil is absolutely convinced of its own righteousness and totally ignorant of real world facts. That evil is something many are all too happy to join.

aylmao 8y ago

> Considering the horrific things Castro did to the Cuban people[1] and how he almost started nuclear armageddon[2], the world would have been better off if he had been overthrown (and possibly killed) as early as possible. Considering the horrific things US presidents have done to the American people [1] and how they invented nuclear armageddon[2], the world would have been better off if they had been overthrown (and possibly killed) as early as possible. (In fact, if we're going into the territory of human rights-- the US has not a page, but a whole category in Wikipedia [1] on violations). > I don't think the US government is the best judge, but it's a lot better than the alternatives (such as the PRC or Russia). It's also a better judge than the people it tries to kill, such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri. From your point of you, an American, sure. From the point of view of Chileans, I doubt the murder of democratically elected Salvador Allende aided by the CIA was good judgment, or that American judgement was better than his. From the point of view of Guatemalans I doubt the US's involvement in the coup against democratically elected Jacobo Árbenz was good judgement. The list goes on. As someone who is not American I can assure you the US government is not a better judge than the PRC or Russia, is equally as bad and in some cases, from my point of view, worse. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_rights_abuses_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_rights_abuses_i... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...

shawn 8y ago
The US may have invented nuclear armageddon, but are you sure it would have been better if someone else had?
- GordonS 8y ago
  I frequently see this argument used to justify everything from ever creeping surveillance of civilians, to sanctions that primarily affect civilians, to the bombing, killing and maiming of civilians. Surely we should aim for better than "yeah, but they'd be even more terrible than us"?