4 ms·

War was give a chance and the North won, with of course China threatening to move in on the action as well as the Soviet Union. UN forces continuing to fight in

War was give a chance and the North won, with of course China threatening to move in on the action as well as the Soviet Union. UN forces continuing to fight in that region over the long debunked "domino theory" would have led to WWWIII, perhaps even a nuclear holocaust for what? Some peninsula? Same with Vietnam which the US lost? Its not worth it. Revising that was decades later would have been political impossible, ethically evil, and set off the same China/SU hostility chain that leads to WWIII. We are constantly giving war a chance. The problem is we rarely give peace a chance. Imagine if instead of blowing up children and women in Afghanistan for two decades we asked the Taliban to the parliamentary table and built a government with them? They'd be the most powerful party, but it would have saved tens of thousands of innocent civilians lives and literally everything would be better off today there. but instead we listened to people like you, fought a foolish war, put in a "democracy" that, of course, failed within weeks. The same way it would have in NK, assuming a second NK conflict wouldn't lead to WWIII, which it most likely would. Remember when you say go to war, you're asking the West to murder hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. America is happy to do that and calls its "democracy" but they are simply crimes against humanity writ large. The war on terror has at least 380,000 innocent civilians killed. Stop killing people. Stop making war the default goto. Give peace chance. Its not your job to be the world police or tell China or NK what to do. You're just a bloodthirsty keyboard commando who wants to contribute to crimes against humanity. If I was you I'd reflect on what you've written today and think about why you're carrying water for the mass murder and human rights violation machine we call the US military.

coryrc 5y ago
Is it better for 5 people to die and 5 people to have all of the UN Human Rights, or for 5 to be slaves and 5 to be subjects of a despot? There's no wholly good answer here. There's a valid argument for both; you're making the latter, if I may be so presumptuous.
- bllguo 5y ago
  what a false dichotomy. 1. why does the US get to make this choice for others, and 2. the actual outcomes are nothing like this, name the countries the US destabilized that are now bastions of human rights. the track record is horrendous and the only reason we have not been rightfully forbidden from meddling is brute force.
  - coryrc 5y ago
    For a while, women in Afghanistan could be educated and visible in public again, like 70 years ago. If you choose not to intervene, you have still made a choice. "Never Again", yet Rwandan genocide, Serbian massacre, Uyghurs in camps, Darfur, Syria, Daesh, Qatari slaves... whether you intervene or not people will suffer.

coryrc 5y ago

Is it better for 5 people to die and 5 people to have all of the UN Human Rights, or for 5 to be slaves and 5 to be subjects of a despot? There's no wholly good answer here. There's a valid argument for both; you're making the latter, if I may be so presumptuous.

bllguo 5y ago
what a false dichotomy. 1. why does the US get to make this choice for others, and 2. the actual outcomes are nothing like this, name the countries the US destabilized that are now bastions of human rights. the track record is horrendous and the only reason we have not been rightfully forbidden from meddling is brute force.
- coryrc 5y ago
  For a while, women in Afghanistan could be educated and visible in public again, like 70 years ago. If you choose not to intervene, you have still made a choice. "Never Again", yet Rwandan genocide, Serbian massacre, Uyghurs in camps, Darfur, Syria, Daesh, Qatari slaves... whether you intervene or not people will suffer.