A 2016 study published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution analyzing US military interventions in the period 1981–2005 found that the US "is likely to engage in military campaigns for humanitarian reasons that focus on human rights protection 1/2
Bad papers get published all the time. As for the inconsistencies, I feel I've already pointed them out: the article's authors can't claim that HR is the only constant in govt intentions when they are not privy to those intentions.
-
-
I just replied on the above. I do agree that ascribing intentions is a vague territory but accepting that an HR is a constant remains reality.
-
This is precisely my issue. I'm fine with them saying that the stated aims of most interventions are HR, but not that they are the actual aims. This debate is similar to the Chomsky-Harris one. I normally prefer Harris, but on this one I side with Chomsky. https://samharris.org/the-limits-of-discourse/ …
- 6 more replies
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.