Sociopath Community

I believe in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, US was the tyrant, and the world condemned the US with words, but condoned its actions with passivity. What may have been uttered as good intent in the beginning transformed into nothing short of genocide. Here the public bought lie after lie, ignorant of the wanton destruction, and appalled at the casualties of our soldiers, not realizing how many of those lives were mere "expendables" of a calculated imperialism.

And the genocide continues: Nearly 90 Percent Of People Killed In Recent Drone Strikes Were Not The Target.

"...the world condemned the US with words, but condoned its actions with passivity."

Yeah, that 7 foot tall bully needs a midget middlepower or 2 and a couple of frightened kitty cats to chew on its bootheels. That'll put those nuke loving Murricans right back in their place as... what was it? Undefeated World Champion? For like 60 years?

I know a few stodgy old Canucks who would love to pull out the cannons that won the War of 1812 for us and try to beat those Murricans back again. I'm so glad nobody takes them srsly, on account of their Alzheimers and all. xP

This is how Starfleet was formed and when First Contact rules developed.  Do not disobey the Prime Directive!  Wait...it's done ALL THE TIME.  In any case, on a tangent: Does anyone remember when Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden was alive and stuff?  Did anyone witness the military and other political entities denied that the primary mission was to go and change the culture out there.  They were supposedly only concerned with protecting assets and citizens, and whatnot, but no intention to change the government or enforce any kind of regime change.  Then, somewhere along the line, it became "Operation Iraqi Freedom" or whatever?  All of a sudden the U.S. was highly motivated to instill a democracy over there, ostensibly acting in the interest of the secret everyone knew: keep the oil.  Anyway, whatever...

And, hey, maybe we can throw in a few other despots and tyrants to takedown, even though they weren't necessarily a target and it was more like cleaning up a mess left to turn foul when it was convenient and/or wasn't possible to sway the public to agree with mopping up.  Blah blah blah.  Tying a little bow with the ribbon on a wonderful gift of approval to take care of loose ends.

Yeah, I'm probably ranting and raving and I'm tired and lost my train of thought...

(EDIT: When Afghanistan was alive?  I am truly fucking tired.  I'm leaving that ridiculousness.)

You're starting to sound like crystal_richardson. That's not how it works irl.

You're joking, right?

The US is not Sierra Leone or Burma or Chechnya. They won't back down. It'll be WW3.

What is her business? 

I was not calling on Laos to do something. I was talking about the US's major trade partners collectively willing to impose economic sanctions, lifted under the condition that the US complies with the views of the global community. The US backs down under threat of economic collapse, and the world returns to its "normal" afterward. Enabling attitudes are "how it is," but not "how it has to be." As I said, "I am left wondering: How many more times does tyranny need to take an imposing form before the world is willing to stop it?"

Flashing her pony at unsuspecting mentally challenged boys.

O.O

I like the new avi, luna.  :)

That's exactly my point. The richest nations won't stand up to US bc they're fat and greedy and happy with the status quo. The poorest nations won't stand up to the US bc they're starving and desperate and need the Americans.

A force of hundreds or thousands begins with one.

There is no one. Complacency (or desperation) prevent them from standing up, and that's just how it is.

"The US is not Sierra Leone or Burma or Chechnya. They won't back down. It'll be WW3."

The US can't fight the entire world, nor are oil fields and pipeline control worth being cut off from the international economic grid, or the reverberations of that. I am acutely aware that the reason this does not happen is because the world as it is now cannot stand unified on anything, that some nations stand to benefit from the aggressive actions, and that the UN is a near-weightless failure.

"You're starting to sound like crystal_richardson."

I assume you're referring to crystal's Amish paradise. Yes, there is a commonality in that her ideas of social values and my idea of global cooperation against tyranny are idealistic. Were not the tenets of democracy, communism, capitalism, NATO, the UN, the EU, your cherished feminism, etc., all derived from ideals, in whatever capacity they flourish?

"That's not how it works irl."

Clearly not. Should we never discuss potentialities that run against the current state of affairs because they run against the current state of affairs?

So besides sitting on your PC that was likely manufactured in a Chinese sweatshop, and paid for by you driving back& forth to work wearing your Procter & Gamble hygiene products (P&G also owns Boeing the biggest supplier of American war machines :P) in your car which was also extremely likely to have been manufactured by sweatshop labour and was almost certainly powered by gas that was supplied by this war machine you're griping about, and eating all that fast food that was more than likely served to you by underpaid Mexican immigrants... Besides sitting there in your ill-gotten 3rd world fed den of pleasure, smoking your Colombian green and your Afghani opiates, and griping about how other people should fix the problem...

Exactly what are you doing about it? You can't srsly think you're less of an enabler than I am, Mr. Voice-of-the-People.