Typical slippery slope. "The problem comes in because military force is never the complete solution in and of itself outside of something like <insert any use of army>"
Typical slippery slope. "The problem comes in because military force is never the complete solution in and of itself outside of something like <insert any use of army>"
Who gets what land? What happens to the people whose houses are destroyed? What happens to those whose farms are litered with landmines?
This is the posters point. The military can execute on a lot of things effectively but in order to go from 80% to 100% you need more than just them.
What alternatives would be more fair, from your perspective?
Unless you think the resources of the clearly guilty are limitless, this sounds like Versailles-type collective punishment that may be satisfying, and maybe even moral, but is counter-productive long-term.
What do you call African Americans and Asians? Just curious.
That being said, we're not the orcs this time, so your point is tangential at best.
I do love the smell of racism and hypocrisy in the morning.
It would be more fair for the Americans to first return to Europe and only then voice their valuable opinions about fairness.
Whatabout
Whatabout
What about taking arguments of this quality back to Reddit, where they belong?
Novorossiya is the name for the southern mainland of The Ukraine. The name dates back to the late 18th century, there’s nothing really “new” about it. Do you consider the name America to be old? Novorossiya is as old.
I suggest you find out how these lands were merged into The Ukraine during the Soviet era.
Ie, the US identifies very strongly with three wars (revolutionary, civil, and ww2) where military force was a necessary but not sufficient condition. Ie, the US lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan despite having a far more favorable balance of military forces because they could never find a political solution. If you were taught that wars are won by force alone, you were miseducated.