4 ms·

Nor the hundreds of thousands murder by Israel in a genocide, which is why his strategic analysis doesn't see the gulf states are at risk of collapse if they en

Nor the hundreds of thousands murder by Israel in a genocide, which is why his strategic analysis doesn't see the gulf states are at risk of collapse if they engage Iran on what is perceived to be on Israel's behalf.

littlecranky67 7mo ago
So the US can't help stop a slaughter because they don't help stop all slaughters in the world, is that your logic?
- aa-jv 7mo ago
  The US doesn't stop a slaughter unless it is strategically relevant to the US' special interests - and it does promote slaughters if they are strategically relevant to the US' special interest.
  - littlecranky67 7mo ago
    Is the motivation to stop a slaughter really important if that stops it?
    - aa-jv 7mo ago
      The motivation to be known as the nation that stops slaughters should not occlude the truth that in fact, the nation only stops slaughters that serve its own interests. That the USA allowed Gaza to happen has put an end to the idea that Americans are the good guys and only do things that are good. The rest of the world sees this, even if heavily propagandized American citizens cannot, for whatever justifications they give. And the USA's inability to reign its security partners in when they commit genocide has put an end to the idea that the USA has any actual weight in its diplomatic efforts. The world is moving on from American hegemony - we will have to look to others for help in stopping America and its partners' slaughtering.
    - manyaoman 7mo ago
      If the strikes really stop protesters from being killed I'd give them credit, but is there any evidence they've made a difference?
    - Herring 7mo ago
      Yeah that’s called karma, the force of your intentions. It matters a lot. You can do good things with evil in your heart, and they come out evil. Like giving a nice gift, with strings attached.
- C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 7mo ago
  Selective enforcement of rules absolutely does discredit the enforcer and nullifies their "enforcement license". Let's look at a scenario. I'm a local policeman who jails everyone in my neighborhood who steals from others, except one person that I allow to steal anything they want, whenever they want. When a victim of their theft tries to take their property back from the thief, I stop the victim and jail them for theft, because they tried to take what is now the property of the original thief. Some people say that I had no right to jail the victim for trying to take back what was originally theirs from the thief. Other people cite that it is technically theft and that someone else constantly getting away with theft does not mean that the policeman shouldn't stop this current case of "theft". Whenever the victims tried to do it the proper way and report the thefts to me, I did nothing. Should the society trust me to continue doing law enforcement? Of course not. They should immediately replace me, and if that's not possible, they should exile me and organize themselves into a militia and enforce the rule of law on their own. Going back to the real topic, USA has no moral right to intervene on the basis of punishing "slaughter" when they themselves are in the business of slaughtering people worldwide if it's in the business interest of its elite, and supports other countries slaughtering if it's somehow to the perceived benefit of the USA's leaders. The rest of the world should never allow it given USA's historical record, even a recent one.

littlecranky67 7mo ago

So the US can't help stop a slaughter because they don't help stop all slaughters in the world, is that your logic?

aa-jv 7mo ago
The US doesn't stop a slaughter unless it is strategically relevant to the US' special interests - and it does promote slaughters if they are strategically relevant to the US' special interest.
- littlecranky67 7mo ago
  Is the motivation to stop a slaughter really important if that stops it?
  - aa-jv 7mo ago
    The motivation to be known as the nation that stops slaughters should not occlude the truth that in fact, the nation only stops slaughters that serve its own interests. That the USA allowed Gaza to happen has put an end to the idea that Americans are the good guys and only do things that are good. The rest of the world sees this, even if heavily propagandized American citizens cannot, for whatever justifications they give. And the USA's inability to reign its security partners in when they commit genocide has put an end to the idea that the USA has any actual weight in its diplomatic efforts. The world is moving on from American hegemony - we will have to look to others for help in stopping America and its partners' slaughtering.
  - manyaoman 7mo ago
    If the strikes really stop protesters from being killed I'd give them credit, but is there any evidence they've made a difference?
  - Herring 7mo ago
    Yeah that’s called karma, the force of your intentions. It matters a lot. You can do good things with evil in your heart, and they come out evil. Like giving a nice gift, with strings attached.
C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 7mo ago
Selective enforcement of rules absolutely does discredit the enforcer and nullifies their "enforcement license". Let's look at a scenario. I'm a local policeman who jails everyone in my neighborhood who steals from others, except one person that I allow to steal anything they want, whenever they want. When a victim of their theft tries to take their property back from the thief, I stop the victim and jail them for theft, because they tried to take what is now the property of the original thief. Some people say that I had no right to jail the victim for trying to take back what was originally theirs from the thief. Other people cite that it is technically theft and that someone else constantly getting away with theft does not mean that the policeman shouldn't stop this current case of "theft". Whenever the victims tried to do it the proper way and report the thefts to me, I did nothing. Should the society trust me to continue doing law enforcement? Of course not. They should immediately replace me, and if that's not possible, they should exile me and organize themselves into a militia and enforce the rule of law on their own. Going back to the real topic, USA has no moral right to intervene on the basis of punishing "slaughter" when they themselves are in the business of slaughtering people worldwide if it's in the business interest of its elite, and supports other countries slaughtering if it's somehow to the perceived benefit of the USA's leaders. The rest of the world should never allow it given USA's historical record, even a recent one.