Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
I have noticed since my return your shrill, vocal and rabid anti-American views. I must go back and search for your posts railing about Russia's breaches of Chechnya and Georgian sovereignty. Maybe you can direct me if you did?
There are two reasons for why you won't find much of it:

(1) Higher standards apply to allies of my country. Russia does not violate the North Atlantic Treaty and prove itself an unreliable ally by doing so, ever. It cannot, for it is no member.

(2) I don't participate in echo chambers. I'm fine with letting others write stuff; I myself focus on what others do not write. This way others don't learn about the many times I'm in agreement and I make my opinions/ideas look more unusual on average than they are.
Enough people mention that Russia violates Georgia's sovereignty. The Russians do indeed the same NATO did to Yugoslavia in Kosovo. Except that they didn't seal it as NATO/EU did.


I'm not anti-American. I dislike many American policies a lot, though.
The United States are a horrible ally, and I am fully justified to say so because I can back it up any time. Keep in mind how my country got into WWI: An overly aggressive allied great power went too far with its bullying of a small power based on fabricated allegations. Now which countries do such things nowadays? A German has to oppose certain American policies if he has learnt anything from WWI.
The Americans get what they deserve from me. Too many Americans don't understand the causality between their bad policies and the troubles they're generally in, though.
____________________________________

Back to topic:
It is always irritating to me how little regard especially the news organisations have for anything than the primary schoolyard-level emotions in the lead-up to wars.
Do those talking heads truly believe that it's legitimate to kill hundreds of people in order to not make a politician or his office look weak?
If true, I would rate them more morally bankrupt than medical doctors who kill human patients for experiments in order to cure something later.

The whole concept of war being the exception to the rule which requires really good justification seems to be largely lost in the news media. Even here in SWC, we don't argue from a principled default position of "no war", but begun to compare the costs and benefits to the potential aggressor only. The costs in Syria are being neglected. Air strikes could easily kill hundreds of humans (combatants or not - killing requires a good justification). I don't see equal heavyweights among the "pro" arguments.