Indus
Lifer
- May 11, 2002
- 15,719
- 10,912
- 136
Look at the performance of Western Democracies VS Eastern Autocracy.
Their funneling of resources to Russia VS our feckless "don't anger them" strategy. Losing ground every day. Handing key resources, vital to the future, to our opponent.
Until the day we win, I will adamantly demand we do more. And I am not so sure we are going to win.
Sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire. A Democracy is derived from the consent of the governed. If any one party withdraws their consent to be governed, there can no longer be a Democracy. We don't have to lift a finger for Republicans to end America. They just have to declare that our civil Union is over and act accordingly. Surely it is a misunderstanding of this fact that drives a fear that, in our response we would be the ones to end it. Ours would be a response to them already ending it. Thus we cannot be the ones who did so.
At this point it is sort of like an arms race. Are we guilty if we skip ahead and take the lead. Take command of the situation and try to exert a measure of control?
The particulars would determine the morality of our fight. However, like any good plan, it does fall apart once it meets the opponent. Before long it becomes fighting for the sake of fighting. To avenge what came before. At that point it would be hard to tell the difference. You would have a point then and there. However, at that point, what difference does it make? Any real conflict will remove our limits out of sheer necessity. Any conflict will stain the hands of the innocent red.
- Ask yourself why we feel the need to do this. Is it justified?
- Ask yourself what our goal is. What do we hope to achieve by such acts?
Do not be so quick to judge those pressed to fight. Go back to the two question. Why, and for what end?
The answers will not be black and white, but they can make sense. They can be justifiable in the face of conflict.
Sometimes he's such an idealist he doesn't realize how his positions give a massive advantage to his enemies by being so rigid.
After all the other side is so dedicated to rules for thee but no rules for me.
I'd not be surprised if a load of rich folk have a plan for the next 50 years that protects themselves and their own. Hard times are coming eventually.
Imo we'll have to address the combo of less hospitable lands, dangers to food and water and too many people. To fix overpopulation, the fascist governments could give grants for becoming infertile to the darkies, or volunteered euthanasia at a certain age so they don't drain resources (social security/ medicare/ medicaid). Lots of things we've seen in sci-fi could soon be on the table.
But people don't like being cornered so I think the only answer will be revolution, war and famine and disease and meantime those with the most wealth will be safe from the worst.
And what better to keep them in power than a death to democracy to keep them isolated from us the masses!
P.S. I made a long post about revolution and timing and success a while ago and that still applies, but it seems people are just apathetic at the moment.