Always assumed that was because no one could accept the political costs of rationally minimizing blood loss, and/or forego political gains of irrational euphoria around displays of force
-
-
-
Like, once you acknowledge that a military action means some number of people involved on our side will die, then everybody personalizes that loss and declares the whole thing unacceptable
-
(Don’t mind me, I’m reading Sontag on suffering and a dozen other people on empathy in general)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.