Isn't this just saying taxation should be optional? Should paying for the military, police or roads be optional? Or are you suggesting the amount you have to pay is fixed and then you get a choice to allocate it to different budget areas you favor.
Pretty sure this is just a PR exercise for the very gullible. Anyone who has seen a real operating theater and had experience of being outside will know this is nonsense. That tent is simply not big enough for one thing.
Yes, of course, and the US has made other kinds of mistakes and will continue to.
But mistakes and even directly supporing bad leaders are not inconsistent with the motivation for world order, because better alternatives are not always possible.
It'd have been much easier to support Saddam than to thwart him, right?
The US could overhtrow House of Saud, and see what happens?
There are no perfectly good options.
The firts rule of the inrenational order is 'order'. Stability generally comes before most things, because withouut it, there will be pain, and probably worse outcomes.
Saudi Arabia has bad internal politics, but, they are actually a pretty good actor on the international scene. They are a 'positive player'. Moreover, internally, they are ultra Orthodox, but not completely lunatic and finally, they are making progress.
Pinochet was not a nice man, but yes, 'look at history' he was the better choice given the alternative Allende who was going to bring crypto-Communism (and an authoritarian one) to Chile. And we didn't know he'd be such a jerk either. And of course, he was a jerk, but not completely Tyrannical. Certainly not as bad as Fidel or Vladimir.
Saddam was tolerable until he invaded Kuwait, and then went completley insane.
Even Gaddafi was eventually pushed to reform; The West started to accept him and his thuggery so long as he was not being an international nutjob, but that went out the window when he threatened genocide.
There is no magical way to install democracy in most places obviously, and the system is fairly messy, but it's far, far more noble to be on the 'free and open' side, than the totalitarian major powers such as China and Russia, particularly as of late.
It really takes a special kind of delusion to not get this.
The delusion is not new. Long after Stalin mass murdered millions of his own people, he was still hugely influential among Communists worldwide. Becuase in WW2 they were an 'Allied' state, we didn't push the propaganda against him, and he had many supporters even literally among the Scientists on the Manhatten project, which is ultimately how the Russians got the bomb so quickly: leaks by American scientist supporters of a global mass murderer, hypnotized by his ideology and glorification of 'the other way'.
Many in academia supported Stalin, much the way people still like to wax on about moral relatavism today, using straw man arguments such as the assumption of moral absolutism (aka somehow the West is superior in every way, which nobody is suggesting), or that there are not cultural nuances, which there are.
80 years after WW2, the US is still the pillar, which is probably not so good frankly Europe, Japan and S. Korea (and others) really need to step up to the plate, but it is what it is.
Go ahead and read the CCP document in the article, it's frightening. Nobody could legimately support it. It's a nakedly blatant statement of Orwellian total power.
This should be a reminder that the U.S. cares nothing for human rights violations and whenever it voices such complaints it does so for other selfish Geopolitical reasons that are maybe not revealed. This goes for any of the other Geopolitical powers as well. Let's not be useful idiots.
A better way to look at this is to recognize that geopolitics involve a multitude of political, economic, cultural, etc aspects. It's not that the US cares nothing for human rights violations, it's that we often prioritize different aspects. Caring does not imply a specific action.
Absolutely not trying to justify the relationship between the US and UAE. However, a maximalist position rarely leads to a positive change when so many parties and interests are involved.
The US is not monolitic. People who characterize it thusly do so do not capture the intentional-by-design unstable nature of the system. It remains, nonetheless, up to to 'us' to be not useful idiots.
>Presumably, if the CCP wanted to do so, they could put an end to the groups shipping this deadly substance into the United States.
Presumably, if the United States wanted to do so, they could put an end to the groups shipping this deadly substance from the China.
Just changed the wording a little to show the bias in this sentence. Why do think China would be more successful than the U.S. in prohibiting illegal drugs?
This is assuming manufacturing is being done by large groups... but it usually is. Manufacturing tiny amounts is much much harder than importing tiny amounts.
Guns in a home actually lead to greater dangers especially for women. Most people are actually murdered by someone they know, quite often a close relative of friend. It may not feel that way but you are actually safer not owning a gun.
No, you are actually safer not having an irresponsible person in your home. If everyone in your home is a responsible person, you might well be safer owning a gun. At worst it will be neutral as far as your safety goes (if you live in an area that is safe anyway). The fact that irresponsible people will use guns to do irresponsible things is not a valid reason to blame the guns. The blame lies with the irresponsible people.
> Gun violence solved: Just don't have an irresponsible person in your home.
Doing that doesn't just "solve" gun violence. Focusing on the guns as though they're the root problem when irresponsible people are involved is like painting over the rust on your car and thinking it "solves" the problem.
> once responsible, always responsible
I made no such claim. Obviously the responsible/irresponsible judgment is not one you just make one time and then it never changes. Any reasonable person will understand that making such judgments is an ongoing process.
>Focusing on the guns as though they're the root problem when irresponsible people are involved is like painting over the rust on your car and thinking it "solves" the problem.
Guns aren't the root problem but their accessibility is an enabler -- a multiplying force for opportunistic carnage.
>Any reasonable person will understand that making such judgments is an ongoing process.
This goes against what we've seen with mass killers and the third parties involved: Average, every-day people convince themselves that their loved one / friend will get over whatever they're dealing with. We also know that many of these mass killers are sociopaths and have no difficulties in acting normal and hiding their motives.
> Guns aren't the root problem but their accessibility is an enabler -- a multiplying force for opportunistic carnage.
That still doesn't justify taking away guns from people who aren't going to commit opportunistic carnage. The root problem is the people, not the guns.
> Average, every-day people convince themselves that their loved one / friend will get over whatever they're dealing with.
I get that this happens. But the average, every-day people still have to understand that, if there is a gun in the house, "convincing yourself" is not enough. Unless you are sure, i.e., sure enough to bet your own life on it (because you are) that the person is not going to misuse the gun, you cannot allow them access to it. That is perfectly compatible with still believing that they will get over it in time.
> We also know that many of these mass killers are sociopaths and have no difficulties in acting normal and hiding their motives.
If you are not sure that someone is not a sociopath, then don't allow them access to your gun.
I simply don't see any of these things as valid reasons to take away guns from people who are responsible adults. If your definition of "responsible adult" actually does not include making judgments like the above, and being able to separate your emotional desire for a loved one to "heal" from your rational, practical need to not give them access to guns until you're sure they are healed, then your definition of "responsible adult" is wrong. And if our society has deteriorated to the point where the definition of "responsible adult" I am giving--which to a person of, say, my parents' generation would have seemed so obvious as to not even be worth stating--is something "average, every-day people" do not think they can live up to, then we have a much, much bigger problem with our society than gun violence. Our society has adult problems that require adult solutions. That requires adult citizens. If we don't have adult citizens, our society is doomed.
But the U.S. accepts other things that are regulated, a couple of examples:
Speed limits: Speed doesn't cause accidents just people who go faster than their ability to control the vehicle. Many people are sensible and wouldn't do this.
Drugs: Many people can take drugs and enjoy them and not descend into anti-social and criminal behavior.
