4 ms·

Criticizing the man who is responsible for the deaths of thousands is not any more ethically dubious then your position of apathy until you "fully understand th

by MH15 6y ago

Criticizing the man who is responsible for the deaths of thousands is not any more ethically dubious then your position of apathy until you "fully understand the consequences". Rumsfeld's advent of HDTV doesn't really offset his core role in the unjust invasion of Iraq.

robomartin 6y ago
Please provide detailed proof, including historical analysis and the geopolitical context that demonstrates that (a) he was personally responsible for thousands of deaths, (b) his actions did not save many more lives and, (c) the lack of such action would not have resulted in massive loss of life through other means immediately or years later. Of course, I don't expect you to answer any of this. This simple challenge is to demonstrate just how ignorant you are, how ignorant I am and how ignorant we all are about such things. You played precisely into what I described in my prior comment: The reduction of a person or a group from a complex multidimensional entity with context and an entire universe of intertwined realities to a single point in space fully defined by "responsible for the death of thousands". I am NOT defending Rumsfeld, precisely because I am as ignorant as you are. The only people who possibly had the requisite context sat in a single conference room as these decisions were being made. None of us has any idea. We are all ignorant. All Mexicans entering the US are criminals and are responsible for the enslavement of tens of thousands of women into sex trade in the US. This is the kind of statement you are making. It is preposterous when it comes to Mexicans and it is equally preposterous when it comes to most high-level politics. Do not reduce a person or a group of people to a single point devoid of context. The conclusions you will reach as as that reduction.
- robomartin 6y ago
  That should read: The conclusions you will reach are as invalid as that reduction.

by MH15 6y ago

robomartin 6y ago

Please provide detailed proof, including historical analysis and the geopolitical context that demonstrates that (a) he was personally responsible for thousands of deaths, (b) his actions did not save many more lives and, (c) the lack of such action would not have resulted in massive loss of life through other means immediately or years later. Of course, I don't expect you to answer any of this. This simple challenge is to demonstrate just how ignorant you are, how ignorant I am and how ignorant we all are about such things. You played precisely into what I described in my prior comment: The reduction of a person or a group from a complex multidimensional entity with context and an entire universe of intertwined realities to a single point in space fully defined by "responsible for the death of thousands". I am NOT defending Rumsfeld, precisely because I am as ignorant as you are. The only people who possibly had the requisite context sat in a single conference room as these decisions were being made. None of us has any idea. We are all ignorant. All Mexicans entering the US are criminals and are responsible for the enslavement of tens of thousands of women into sex trade in the US. This is the kind of statement you are making. It is preposterous when it comes to Mexicans and it is equally preposterous when it comes to most high-level politics. Do not reduce a person or a group of people to a single point devoid of context. The conclusions you will reach as as that reduction.

robomartin 6y ago
That should read: The conclusions you will reach are as invalid as that reduction.