Bombadil
21hr ago
America has bombed another sovereign nation. This is literally starting a war with a country that was not a military threat to the US, and (at least to my knowledge) were not at all at risk of going to war themselves. Even if it turns out to be short-lived, this starts a war that would have not otherwise occurred. The literal opposite of peace. I would suggest that people who support this are not anti-war at all. They are anti-losing, anti-spending-lots-of-money-on-prolonged-conflicts, pro-US-can-do-whatever-it-wants, and they clearly do not care about the sovereignty of other countries.
You argue that this intervention was needed but do not explain why. Until I gain a satisfying explanation of why this attack was necessary and worthwhile, I will be forced to believe in the above.
I am curious: Trump campaigned on being anti-war, and has attempted to brand himself as a peacemaker this past year. Will starting a war be what drives his supporters away from him? Or will this be considered largely justified?
I could see a world where it is spun as being the best way to spend American resources in the interest of the people, in some roundabout way furthering "America First". But would the voters really buy that?
I grew up being taught the ideals of a rules-based world where the US stood for international law based on western values. Besides, conservatives tend to use the sovereignty of nations as an argument against globalism. I assumed the argument against foreign aid programs was one of sovereignty. Each country is responsible for their own people. Perhaps most importantly, I was under the impression that being anti-war was a really important part of Trump's campaign. I genuinely believed that was a big reason for people to vote for him.
It seems my desire to be charitable may have led me to wrong conclusions, which have now been corrected. At least until further evidence presents itself.
More options
Context Copy link