that's actually pretty much what I believe except for the moral part. Governments are not moral, people are.
If NATO is not moral, as you agreed, what makes you think that they're at all trying to do anything significantly unpragmatic, like legitimately keeping world peace?
So what your saying is you don't like America intervening unless you think we should.....interesting
What I'm saying is, America doesn't do the right thing - it does the strategic, pragmatic thing, like saving its big base and petrolier in Iraq, also known as Kuwait. Otherwise, these wars would definitely have priority - Rwandan genocide, Eritrean-Ethiopian border war, giving food.
But I'm not saying that America should be in more wars, I'm saying that the wars that it's in are not for anything other than pragmatism.
Yeah great policy, too bad it was just as expensive in human lives as actual fighting might have been.
Nonresistance will rarely kill more than resistance. Abstract example#1: A wants to kill B. A kills B, if B does not retaliate. -1 life there.
Abstract example#2: A tries to kill B, but B retaliates. They both deathly wound each other. -2 life. Or maybe B kills A without any problems, but it's still no better than example#1, the outcome's the same.
You might say example#3: B retaliates and kills A, saving the lives that otherwise A would have killed as well. But you never know that, and in the grand scheme of things, folk aren't sociopaths. In the Second World War, originally, Himmler had his soldiers play executioner role as well, and shoot folk that they found in Russia - Jews/Yids, boroughkings, random killings, and others. But this proved a great psychologic toll on it, some folk cracked. Shell shock. Mutinies. And so the gassing lorries were serviced, so that they wouldn't see the faces, and the horror of what they were doing so much.
In supplement, you almost never know that you will be saving more lives if you kill someone, especially in polit.
First off, not very nice. I am an intelligent human being who has made my opinion based off of years of study and thought.
Ok, I'm sorry, but you really seem to have a thought that polit is like in Warlight diplomacies - that alliances are always honoured, that countries try to do the right thing, that declaring war for land will always be seen as heinous. That's not what real national governments care about.
THERE IS A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE between dropping some bombs and fighting a war.
Not really. Dropping some bombs is generally safer for one side, kills more civilians as a proportion, that's pretty much it. Both needlessly kill folk.
I did support the bombing campaign, that does not contradict my disapproval of ground forces intervention.
You can't call yourself anti-war and then be for-war. You can at most, say that you're mostly anti-war.
Al-Qaeda in the middle east has drastically been reduced because of that invasion.
No...that wasn't even America's goal, you're probably thinking about the Taliban. And now there's other Islamic extremist groups there, don't worry, though, and now trying to hurt or bend Middle Asia and Russia to its will through heroin fabrication in bulk, and sending "Kerry breadbaskets".
In fact, we pulled out way too quickly and that is what created the vacuum.
I think you've been mixed up with Libya, anyhow, I doubt that more American hellraising for the sake of hellraising would stabilise things.
Same with Iraq.
No, America is still in Iraq.
Just because you support an action that involves sacrifice of an entity does not mean you condon it.
It fully does. Your examples:
*If you eat meat, you condone the slaughter of cows.
*Vegetarians do not generally eat dead plants, but fruits and vegetables. Obviously, more plants dying would mean less food for them.
