"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Remember embedded journalists? Remember "Mission Accomplished"? Remember people being accused of "supporting Saddam"?
I'm not excusing ISIS, they are responsible for what they do. It's "just" that plenty others, still welcome in polite company, are responsible, too. Without that war of aggression built on lies, there would be no ISIS, not at this scale. That is how ISIS came to produce a "cruel arsenal", as opposed to, say, a generous arsenal of peace and nation-building, like drones with which to kill "fun-sized terrorists" ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-dron... )
It is dark to wonder how many of these failures that perpetuate evil in the world may have been intended? When Eisenhower warned of the creeping power of the military and its network, was that what led to these circumstances today? Like the War on Poverty has shown, bureaucratic inertia is a more powerful force than the good nature of people. Crazy world. We've inherited technology capable of solving the scarcity problem of food, housing and basic needs but still find a way to create more BS and misery in the world.
I hate the modern idea that "doing that which is in your best interest is acceptable. That was very true of the average war-age male during Nazi Germany. The radical ideology, as was mentioned above of ISIS's origins, likewise probably played a secondary supporting role to the economics.
It is dark to wonder how many of these failures that perpetuate evil in the world may have been intended?
One person's intention is another's incentive, so in-between that, I don't think it's dark at all. "Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYa_3oh1-s4 )
You might say "Cheney's buddies" profited from destroying and murdering, they also profited from "rebuilding", and then the very people who helped create the mess get even more air time to give their expert opinion, as seen in the Daily Show's "Now That's What I Call Being Completely Fking Wrong About Iraq" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqzzWr32srk ).
Hitchens can call comparisons between Haliburton and Islamism "purely frivolous" and outright orders one to "drop it", like in video linked in the sibling comment, but such a bald assertion can quite easily be countered with "no, it's not" and "make me". I prefer to remember the Hitchens that still had spine and priorities (namely the priority of the actions of oneself and one's allies being more important than those of people we don't support or even oppose), as seen for example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3nAoTev-RE&t=1h20m00s .. the whole thing is interesting, and quite a stark contrast; he used to advocate for putting out fires with water, later he started cheerleading for pouring oil on them. I like the man too much to let him get away with that.
Comments
That's still way too tame.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp#common
Remember embedded journalists? Remember "Mission Accomplished"? Remember people being accused of "supporting Saddam"?
I'm not excusing ISIS, they are responsible for what they do. It's "just" that plenty others, still welcome in polite company, are responsible, too. Without that war of aggression built on lies, there would be no ISIS, not at this scale. That is how ISIS came to produce a "cruel arsenal", as opposed to, say, a generous arsenal of peace and nation-building, like drones with which to kill "fun-sized terrorists" ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-dron... )
It is dark to wonder how many of these failures that perpetuate evil in the world may have been intended? When Eisenhower warned of the creeping power of the military and its network, was that what led to these circumstances today? Like the War on Poverty has shown, bureaucratic inertia is a more powerful force than the good nature of people. Crazy world. We've inherited technology capable of solving the scarcity problem of food, housing and basic needs but still find a way to create more BS and misery in the world.
I hate the modern idea that "doing that which is in your best interest is acceptable. That was very true of the average war-age male during Nazi Germany. The radical ideology, as was mentioned above of ISIS's origins, likewise probably played a secondary supporting role to the economics.
Killing people for profit is not OK: https://theintercept.com/2016/09/09/wolf-blitzer-is-worried-...
One person's intention is another's incentive, so in-between that, I don't think it's dark at all. "Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYa_3oh1-s4 )
You might say "Cheney's buddies" profited from destroying and murdering, they also profited from "rebuilding", and then the very people who helped create the mess get even more air time to give their expert opinion, as seen in the Daily Show's "Now That's What I Call Being Completely Fking Wrong About Iraq" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqzzWr32srk ).
Hitchens can call comparisons between Haliburton and Islamism "purely frivolous" and outright orders one to "drop it", like in video linked in the sibling comment, but such a bald assertion can quite easily be countered with "no, it's not" and "make me". I prefer to remember the Hitchens that still had spine and priorities (namely the priority of the actions of oneself and one's allies being more important than those of people we don't support or even oppose), as seen for example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3nAoTev-RE&t=1h20m00s .. the whole thing is interesting, and quite a stark contrast; he used to advocate for putting out fires with water, later he started cheerleading for pouring oil on them. I like the man too much to let him get away with that.