2 ms·
I don't understand people who say this, I really don't. If I were to say "the US is capable of nuking Iraq and killing most of their civilians", that would jus
by edanm 3y ago
I don't understand people who say this, I really don't.
If I were to say "the US is capable of nuking Iraq and killing most of their civilians", that would just be a true statement of the capabilities of the US. That they chose not to do so during the Iraq war is proof of something about the US's intentions.
It's proof of the value that the US places on human lives, despite it sometimes costing the US dearly.
Of course I think nuking Iraq would've been unconscionable, for many reasons. For the same reasons that the US chose not to do it, obviously. But pointing that out is just plain old logic.
Acting otherwise doesn't add anything to the conversation.
- johnnyworker 3y agoThe US not nuking Iraq in a war of aggression is proof that "the US" places a high value on human life? It would have started WW3 and there would have been no more US. Even the worst sociopath in the world wouldn't have done it just for that reason. It's still a war of aggression, with hundreds of thousands of civilians murdered. > If we act strategically correctly, there will be immigration and we will live in the Gaza Strip. We will not allow a situation where 2 million people live there. If there are 100-200 thousand Arabs in Gaza, all the talk about the day after will be different. https://twitter.com/GLZRadio/status/1741347524693127398 https://twitter.com/GLZRadio/status/1741347524693127398 That is the intention of those I stand against. https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1742199071761142056 https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1742199071761142056 These are the values of those I criticize. To say "we could have murdered more" and think one can be in any sort related or even adjacent to the tradition of enlightenment and human rights at the same time is preposterous.