rather than for its own security interests such as democracy promotion or terrorism reduction." 2/2http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002714560350 …
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/ …
-
-
I understand and I can definitely accept this claim on both accounts ascribing malice or benevolence. However, I align with the Harris claim here only for the fact that we do have an HR constant here which changes the formula of war. WW2 is a good example.
-
The US didn't necessarily act on benevolence towards their allies, however, standing on the right side of history matters more than your initial or even throughout intentions. So it isn't a blank good or bad, it's also which side are you on.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
To illustrate with an example, the correlation between HR abuses and US govt intervention might not be because the US govt cares about HR; it might be because the US govt sees HR violations as an excuse to invade and further US foreign policy.
-
How does one further a US foreign policy?
- 3 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.