That's not what he was stating. He was saying that your ideology goes two ways, and doesn't fit for every situation.
So ... you have no idea what those words mean. Fantastic. What's wrong with some moral absolutism? Why can't all sides be immoral?
Let me take a different approach. I don't like war. I don't want there to be another one, but it is inevitable. My fervent hope is that one day humanity will evolve further. We are NOT there yet, by any objective measure. I am saddened by this agreement. It is a skin lesion on the bum of a warthog. Celebrating with "Death to America" and a tweet of President Obama pointing a gun at his own cranium is telling. Imagine if any Republican politician had sent that tweet. He or she would be banished for eternity in a heartbeat. Many millions of civilians died during WW2. Almost none from nukes dropped on Japan. We have the luxury of splitting hairs.
Also almost none died from 9/11 by that standard, and people still go apeshit about it. And no, this agreement is not one leading to war. It would mean that everyone but the Iranians is incompetent and everyone including the Iranians terribly irrational.
The only way humans will stop warring with each other is if there is a larger threat to unify us like an alien invasion or a global crisis of some kind (sorry lefties but global warming doesn't cut it). If one country becomes big enough to subdue the others then it effectively becomes the unifying 'global crisis'. What would you rather have? 1. Equally powerful countries all warring with each other like feudal lords. 2. The USA dominating and keeping that kind of aggression in check. 3. Some other country filling that role. ( note the UN can't fill that role. )
Ya know. When you read up on Hydra's ideology it's not terrible. Lots of flaws, but a solid central idea. (Humanity is stupid. If we control everything, at the very least there'll be no war. No risk of another country nuking another, ect....) Captain America 2 got me thinking.
i'm not entirely convinced of that, ragic- one of the constants throughout history is that countries have problems maintaining too large a structure, and will therefore fall apart. then some new invention or innovation (or idea, if we're splitting those off) comes along and the administration and structuring of a country becomes easier. we're currently in the midst of a massive wave of tech ups. governments (if the US is anything to base off of) pick up slowly for a lot of administrative things (in terms of keeping up with technology), focusing much more on military matters. what i'm getting at is that with the advances to communications tech that seem to be flowing in all the time, it's only a matter of time before the modern states can manage much more than what they have, and another redivision of land probably ends up happening.
like the roman 'empire'? There you had centralized power keeping order. That model scales up as long as you can effectively project your power. The only reason Texas hasn't annexed the states surrounding it is because a federal government would project it's power to prevent it. The ability to project power is the only thing that defines order. A law you can't enforce is no law. And since lethal violence is the ultimate conflict resolution, that centralized governing power is the one with the biggest army, most nukes, whatever. And don't be fooled by the protection promised by mutual destruction. As long as it's an option it will happen sooner or later. Tbh I'd rather China or Russia ruled the world with an iron fist than have every country equally armed with nukes.
I cannot imagine a better world with any of the other current realistic "superpower" options. While I am beyond cynical of the last 100 years of "progressive" rise to power in Murica, the current status quo seems relatively benign. So as America weakens in every metric worth metric-ing, I feel less and less hopeful. My prediction: a true fundamental transformation of blood and horror will reset the proverbial playing field. Best of luck to all soldiers, commanders, and civilians. We gonna need some divine intervention level action so as NOT to fight WW4 with sticks and stones. Just my 22,000 centavos.
The Iranian had leadership stated that they wanted them in the past? Whether they currently pursue such weaponry doesn't change the fact that arms proliferation did spark off a "race" at least in terms of acquisition. Though honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they already had some, there are enough "missing" US and Russian nukes out there it would be relatively easy to at least get a couple. Though they would probably want more than a couple to have a proper deterrent force.
If you are only giving those options I'll pick 3. Of course the options are not really limited to that ... that would be a false trichtomy!
Well I left out the option where mankind learns how to live without borders in peace and harmony. I also left out the second coming of Jesus and any other fantasy solutions.
So you think cooperation is impossible? I guess stances like yours are what makes cooperation as hard as it is and keeps causing war, genocide, terrorism, famine and all sorts of wasteful conflict. Congratulations.
