3 ms·
the US is not remotely a 'golden boy of good' Ah, but it is in the context I stated. Quote: Not to mention, if you compare the US, its citizen's intentions,
by b112 2y ago
the US is not remotely a 'golden boy of good'
Ah, but it is in the context I stated.
Quote:
Not to mention, if you compare the US, its citizen's intentions, and its government's intentions, and yes the DnD's intentions to all but a tiny handful of countries, the US is a golden boy of good.
Note the conditionals. "intentions" and "compared to all but a tiny handful of countries".
Also note the context where I was careful to say "Compare today's US".
In these contexts, the history of the US is meaningless, and only today counts. And I was referencing "colonial powers", which are historical, to us actions today.
I know all the US has done. I also know all the British Empire did. I also know how Russia, China, Iran, and various tiny dictatorships around the world act.
Yes, the US is very much a "golden boy of good" in reference to, and comparison to these things.
Anything and anyone can be made a monster taken out of context.
- smatija 2y agoJust look at atrocities USA is commiting in Yemen today. Or in Palestine proxied through Israel.
- MediocreSysEgnr 2y agoSincere question: Is the second half of your assertion that U.S. government is directing/coordinating the conduct of the Israeli military or that their lack of action makes them makes them equally culpable/complicit in said actions?
- Symbiote 2y agoA common view is the USA is partly responsible through their continued supply of weapons to Israel.
- b112 2y agoAh, the backwards world view, where people defending themselves from relentless aggressors, including ones that call for an end to their existence, are somehow wrong to end those endless attacks. Israel would be nuts to leave even a wisp of Hamas in power in Palestine, and yes attacking innocent ships gets a defensive response. Next up! Man attacked by machete wielding lunatic punches him in defense, how dare he!
- Symbiote 2y agoI initially read your comment with the opposite meaning to what you intended, since it's so well known that Israel has been relentlessly attacking and settling Palestine for over 70 years.
- b112 2y agoA little bit revisionist there. Certainly not one sided. And if one is going to play the historical game, Jews have had statehood there for thousands of years, until it was stolen, yes?
- Symbiote 2y agoYou surely see there's a difference between returning to pre-630AD borders and pre-1967 borders. But HN isn't the place for this discussion. I refer you to the UN decisions on the subject.
- b112 2y agoThat both are just random dates? That borders shifted continuously for thousands and thousands of years, and were called different things? How do you arbitrarily pick a point in time, and say "Oh, this is the point land was stolen!". It's absurd. The same thing is true in every single country on the planet. There are people there, that took the land from other people! I have some Scottish blood. The English took my land, 500 years ago. My ancestors were kicked to the curb, or killed in battle. Do I blame them? Or is that OK? What about the fact that the current English took land from the Romans? And endless waves of invaders between? Or war after war fought? Or the Romans from people before both? Where does it end? It's the same in every country on the planet! Does all this mean that if Israel stands with static borders for .. what, 100 years, then no one can complain, ever, even once? Or is it 200 years? How long? What's the official time when the latest guy is the bad guy, but everyone else is pure and perfect? The problem here is we're both unsure, but you're pointing at the UN. I'm throwing my hands up and saying, that no country on the planet can stand if the metric is "They took my land".