.@MazMHussain of @theintercept feels "bitter" that costly US wars "have killed hundreds of thousands of people while failing to achieve any clear political or strategic benefit."
What right does US have to kill "hundreds of thousands" for a "political or strategic benefit"?
What right does US have to kill "hundreds of thousands" for a "political or strategic benefit"?
It has no such right of course, unless you're an apologist for US aggression. On that note, @MazMHussain shouldn't feel "bitter" -- the wars he championed in Libya & Syria had major strategic benefit for their neocon planners: they decimated the disobedient target states. 👍🏼
On foreign policy, @TheIntercept frequently exemplifies what Chomsky has called out since Vietnam: acceptable dissent on US aggression is confined to "strategic" critiques -- was the cost worth it to us? -- not questioning the underlying act. See also:
