it's the ultimate human rights/property rights violation
.....
Absolutely. The double-standard should be obvious.
Though appealing to the ethics and morality of such foreign policy and military decisions often appear to have minimal effect.
Maybe mocking the proponents of top-down violent regime change and other righteous intervention as Neo-Marxist in the Baran and Sweezy tradition might work?
Baran and Sweezy hypothesized that useless wealth-destroying policies helped to prevent capitalism from going into yet another crisis of over-production. It is nonsense theory but would give folks a chance to label both Democrats and Republicans as Neo-Marxists willing to destroy wealth, American workers (soldiers) and risk blow back against American citizens for.... for..... what purpose exactly?
The debate has to drift away from "Us versus them" to "What resource objectives are we fighting for exactly"? Why invade and occupy a country in the name of entitled cheap energy security when higher excise taxes on gasoline and diesel would accomplish the same thing, make the American state wealthier and make Americans healthier and more productive?
The USA is a great power because it has always been a great terrorist power. The USA and allies won WW II by deliberating targeting and fire-bombing civilians in both Japan and Germany. Both Japan and Germany poised existential threats.
Americans must enjoy killing civilians and be willing to pay for it with billions of dollars and a few dead Americans because it is hard to imagine how most US military initiatives over the past few decades make America more secure.
Bingo, we have a winnah! I agree and that is exactly my point. We must because we keep electing the same parties over and over that have one thing in common; constant military interventionism and meddling in other countries affairs. There are many of us who do not agree with this foolish philosophy, but we keep getting spurned by the masses who feel the "other" side is too evil to risk wasting a third party vote.
Let's say a chemical attack kills 100 innocents and aerial bombing kills 300 innocents.
Chemical weapons lead to people choking to death on their own vomit. Those who survive might suffer health effects for the rest of their lives.
The conventional aerial bombing leads to concussions deaths, the skin and flesh literally burning off people and lots of permanently maimed individuals. Which method of killing innocents is more morally and socially acceptable? Apparently the current big guy in the White House believes that aerial bombing of innocents is quite acceptable.
It's amazing how we have had this Republic (ha!) well over 200 years and he is the first President to ever bomb innocent civilians, remarkable how we have pulled that off until now.
The USA is a great power because it has always been a great terrorist power. The USA and allies won WW II by deliberating targeting and fire-bombing civilians in both Japan and Germany. Both Japan and Germany poised existential threats.
Americans must enjoy killing civilians and be willing to pay for it with billions of dollars and a few dead Americans because it is hard to imagine how most US military initiatives over the past few decades make America more secure.
Let's say a chemical attack kills 100 innocents and aerial bombing kills 300 innocents.
Chemical weapons lead to people choking to death on their own vomit. Â Those who survive might suffer health effects for the rest of their lives.
The conventional aerial bombing leads to concussions deaths, the skin and flesh literally burning off people and lots of permanently maimed individuals. Â Â Â Which method of killing innocents is more morally and socially acceptable? Â Apparently the current big guy in the White House believes that aerial bombing of innocents is quite acceptable.
Â
It's amazing how we have had this Republic (ha!) well over 200 years and he is the first President to ever bomb innocent civilians, remarkable how we have pulled that off until now.
Let's say a chemical attack kills 100 innocents and aerial bombing kills 300 innocents.
Chemical weapons lead to people choking to death on their own vomit. Those who survive might suffer health effects for the rest of their lives.
The conventional aerial bombing leads to concussions deaths, the skin and flesh literally burning off people and lots of permanently maimed individuals. Which method of killing innocents is more morally and socially acceptable? Apparently the current big guy in the White House believes that aerial bombing of innocents is quite acceptable.
He's not alone. We have treaties banning chemical weapons but not explosives. Yes, there are rules in war, silly as that sounds.
And I don't think you'll find anyone applauding bombing civilians, not since WW2 anyway.
Let's say a chemical attack kills 100 innocents and aerial bombing kills 300 innocents.
Chemical weapons lead to people choking to death on their own vomit. Those who survive might suffer health effects for the rest of their lives.
The conventional aerial bombing leads to concussions deaths, the skin and flesh literally burning off people and lots of permanently maimed individuals. Which method of killing innocents is more morally and socially acceptable? Apparently the current big guy in the White House believes that aerial bombing of innocents is quite acceptable.
