3 ms·
Point taken. It's a difficult issue indeed. A few more: - If both US political parties agree on it, it's probably a bad idea. - Any time we are told that a f
by resters 3y ago
Point taken. It's a difficult issue indeed.
A few more:
- If both US political parties agree on it, it's probably a bad idea.
- Any time we are told that a foreign leader is insane or unstable, it's propaganda intended to dehumanize and discredit democratic forces in that country (even if the country is not a strict democracy).
- Logically, asymmetric conflict is going to necessitate different tactics. Don't fall for the idea that smart bombs are civilized but stones thrown are barbaric.
- Don't assume the US or its allies are the good guy. Countries make mistakes and rarely course-correct.
- The humanitarian justifications for war/conflict/killing are rarely the real story. Often there is a national interest-driven motivation, but but making it about a hard-to-disagree-with moral cause the debate about what is actually the national interest is suppressed.
- If someone tells you that it is disrespectful to question your own country or political leaders' competence or motivations, subtract several points. Democracy is a consensus mechanism, not a guarantee of consensus. Dissent is part of the recipe.
Please add more!
- mrguyorama 3y ago>If both US political parties agree on it, it's probably a bad idea. This is just such a childish take.
- resters 3y ago> This is just such a childish take. It certainly lacks eloquence compared to a tactic such as name calling...