Just for the record, if South Korea attacked North Korea, @Solomonsatoshi would be taking North Korea's side. This is not a serious person. Your vision of what kind of society is worth defending is absolute Hell.
I’m sorry but according to non-aggression principle IF South Korea started bombing and attacking NK, any “serious person” should condemn and attempt to restrain South Korea.
If the so called “moral country” breaks fundamental moral principle and attacks another country- they cannot be justified by any moral or practical measure.
That's absolutely not how it works. If a pedophile is holding defenseless kids hostage in a basement, the next door neighbor is completely justified in going in to kill the guy and free the kids. You can't appeal to the non-agression principle when you've repeatedly expressed zero interest in actually adhering to it yourself. You put yourself outside the NAP's jurisdiction when you violate it. You can't expect the victims to enforce it themselves, so why would there be an issue with someone else resisting the agression?
You can't just put "moral" in scare quotes when one of the countries is foundationally structured around incomparably extreme agression towards civilians. At that point calling for "peace" (don't take away my slaves) is just passive agression. It's a typical disingenuous, manipulative tactic from agressive individuals and regimes alike to guilt-trip third parties into letting them violate the NAP.
So you make a moral judgement against someone in another country and that gives you the right to authorize overwhelming military force against the people living in that country without any justified self-defense reason or proportional response. Got it. You are a psychopath.
Don't be a God damned pacifist. If the governor of New York secedes and declares it illegal for Muslims to convert to Christianity, what do expect us to do, litigate it with the UN? Even if they do it democratically without attacking Pennsylvania, that doesn't mean everyone else has to put up with living next to their cultural pollution. Yes, if 5% of the population asks to be liberated, the rest of the world has a God-given right to eliminate the 95% who support the regime.
You have moral permission to set red lines and bomb the shit out of people that cross them, especially when they're in the way of straits that are critical to global trade (that means you @Solomonsatoshi). That's how you deter the psychopaths that are worse than me.
Apparently Israel is also strictly limiting flights out of the country, and artificially limiting the number of people who can be on each flight. Just to prevent mass exodus.
Just for the record, if South Korea attacked North Korea, @Solomonsatoshi would be taking North Korea's side. This is not a serious person. Your vision of what kind of society is worth defending is absolute Hell.
I’m sorry but according to non-aggression principle IF South Korea started bombing and attacking NK, any “serious person” should condemn and attempt to restrain South Korea.
If the so called “moral country” breaks fundamental moral principle and attacks another country- they cannot be justified by any moral or practical measure.
That's absolutely not how it works. If a pedophile is holding defenseless kids hostage in a basement, the next door neighbor is completely justified in going in to kill the guy and free the kids. You can't appeal to the non-agression principle when you've repeatedly expressed zero interest in actually adhering to it yourself. You put yourself outside the NAP's jurisdiction when you violate it. You can't expect the victims to enforce it themselves, so why would there be an issue with someone else resisting the agression?
You can't just put "moral" in scare quotes when one of the countries is foundationally structured around incomparably extreme agression towards civilians. At that point calling for "peace" (don't take away my slaves) is just passive agression. It's a typical disingenuous, manipulative tactic from agressive individuals and regimes alike to guilt-trip third parties into letting them violate the NAP.
So you make a moral judgement against someone in another country and that gives you the right to authorize overwhelming military force against the people living in that country without any justified self-defense reason or proportional response. Got it. You are a psychopath.
It depends on the country. It's not random. We know how these regimes are.
“Iranian people want us to keep bombing” -you
Don't be a God damned pacifist. If the governor of New York secedes and declares it illegal for Muslims to convert to Christianity, what do expect us to do, litigate it with the UN? Even if they do it democratically without attacking Pennsylvania, that doesn't mean everyone else has to put up with living next to their cultural pollution. Yes, if 5% of the population asks to be liberated, the rest of the world has a God-given right to eliminate the 95% who support the regime.
You have moral permission to set red lines and bomb the shit out of people that cross them, especially when they're in the way of straits that are critical to global trade (that means you @Solomonsatoshi). That's how you deter the psychopaths that are worse than me.
There is no moral permission to bomb innocent people.
Free trade and remove all sanctions globally and the world will be much more peaceful.
Lol do you even know who Colonel Douglas MacGregor is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Macgregor
No I'm unfamiliar with Bureaucrat #981.
Zoom out.
peak midwit
Apparently Israel is also strictly limiting flights out of the country, and artificially limiting the number of people who can be on each flight. Just to prevent mass exodus.
P