3 ms·

About 3... so you're saying that foreign aggression based on lies is morally equivalent to a local revolution as long as both ostensibly have some similarities

• mpyne 13y ago
  You if you can claim with a straight face that you'd trade 40,000 lives and a despot for a democracy, then what would your reasoning be to quibble about whether the results were achieved by local revolution or foreign aggression? Do you think every Libyan who died was either for the regime or for the revolution? Many just wanted to live their lives and neither side spoke for them. What does a "local revolution" even mean in a place like Iraq with sectarian tension all across the country? Most of the Iraqis who died were killed by other Iraqis, not by the U.S. So even if a local revolution had started the conflict in Iraq, do you think that local revolution would have been able to speak for every group with an interest in the stakes?
  • mercurial 13y ago
    I don't know, what about the American Revolution? Was it morally wrong as well? You certainly have a point wrt to how many people's interest is represented in the Arab Spring. It looked like the Egyptian revolution was mostly due to urban population, for instance. But, well, you can't expect everybody to agree with a revolution, you will always find plenty of people who want to keep the old regime because it is (or they think it is) more closely aligned with their interests, and other people who won't take sides. That's still "local revolutions". That's not a conflict originally triggered by the mistakes of a third party, in order to further its own selfish interests.
• ameister14 13y ago
  Since unless a revolution succeeds it's morally wrong, yes, they can be morally equivalent.