CIVILIAN deaths are UP 60% in 2017. And I argue that civilian casualties are
likely underreported. So-called
“collateral damage” (read the loss of
human life) is evil. You cannot argue another position. Would Americans tolerate drones dropping
bombs in America for the purpose of eliminating evil threats if it necessarily
resulted in death of innocent human beings?
“Of course, these civilian deaths are disregarded
as “collateral damage”: unfortunate, but necessary to protecting America’s
foreign interests. But good luck defining what these interests are, because it
seems that the term itself has been used more as an excuse for interventionism
rather than carry any substantial meaning.”
If a “crime” was committed but nobody else was harmed, is it
a crime? Answer: NO! This is why the act of taking drugs itself
cannot be a crime. Perhaps the things people
do on drugs are crimes, but this is not justification for limiting the intake
of them in the first place. Legalization
of drugs would reduce the prison population by 50%, and the DEA budget. The drug
cartels would go out of business immediately, and the blood and carnage
associated with this system of allocation would essentially be eradicated. Our world gets better the instant we legalize
all drugs.
Jury nullification is vital.
Juries must stand up to the egregious overstepping of power by the
government. And they must do it in every
single case other than those that aggressed on another human being.
“I saw the heart of the state’s logic laid bare before my eyes. If the state authority says something is illegal, who are we to
say no? It is shocking, in the eyes of ordinary citizens, for a person to
say, ‘No, if a law outlaws blue pens, I will not lock someone inside a human
cage to punish their disobedience.’”
More proof the US government is culpable in killing of
innocents. US urged the killing of
500,000 Indonesian thought-to-be communists in the 1960’s.
“The Donald's Treasury Department has borrowed an average of million
dollars per hour on a 24/7 basis ever since inauguration day!”
A nice piece considering the inverse of mutually assured destruction. Trump claims the US ICBM intercepting capable
is 97% effective. This claim is not
true. And dangerous. US strikes on N.
Korea become much more plausible once its citizens believe an ICBM intercept is
almost assured.
“The dangerous overconfidence being
demonstrated by the White House over the ability to intercept a North Korean
missile attack might indeed be in some part a bluff, designed to convince
Pyongyang that it if initiates a shooting war it will be destroyed while the
U.S. remains untouched. But somehow, with a president who doesn’t do subtle
very well, I would doubt that to be the case. And the North Koreans, able to
build a nuclear weapon and an ICBM, would surely understand the flaws in
missile defense as well as anyone.”
No comments:
Post a Comment