This leads to a dangerous path.
If you are not willing to engage with or understand the other side of the debate you will have no capacity to understand or debate the modern day Kissingers who are currently in government.
If you are not willing to engage with or understand the other side of the debate you will have no capacity to understand or debate the modern day Kissingers who are currently in government.
I refuse to give this any more headspace. This sage-like almost apathetical both-sidesing is more dangerous to me than taking a stand.
No. That you understand how it happened.
> That I have sympathy for this man?
That’s fine. Stay away from geopolitical decision making. Most people shouldn’t have to weigh moral systems.
People here should really stop pretending that reading "both sides" of everything is some form of enlightenment. It is delusional
Nobody is doing that. They’re distinguish immoral and even illegal acts from the violation of a particular statute.
> imperialism
Another word you don’t understand. Hint: spoils. Iraq was imperialist. Laos was not.
Nuance and unbiased conversation would actually allowed for conclusion that someone could do a lot more harm then good. If you insist that powerful people needs to be always talked about in good terms and discussion of bad stuff needs to contain "balancing" good stuff, you are neither unbiased nor nuanced.