An incredibly troubling part of mainstream American political discourse is the assumption that the US military can kill anyone, anywhere, even civilians ("casualties/broken eggs for the omelette"), and it is simply unacceptable for anyone to fight back to try to not be killed.
While the people who believe this probably also think that they are "supporting the troops", in reality they're dooming them to be sent off to perpetual war.
If the military industrial complex can kill whenever they want, they will, and it's the troops they send off to do it.
If the military industrial complex can kill whenever they want, they will, and it's the troops they send off to do it.
Example of this sentiment:
"I don't support our involvement in this war, but we should be aggressive against anyone who fights our troops there."
If our troops shouldn't be there, why should the people who live there simply allow themselves to be killed and not fight back?
"I don't support our involvement in this war, but we should be aggressive against anyone who fights our troops there."
If our troops shouldn't be there, why should the people who live there simply allow themselves to be killed and not fight back?
Supporting the troops means demanding that they not be sent off as fodder to prop up military contractors, central bankers and foreign dictators.
And demanding that means recognizing that they shouldn't be there in the first place.
And demanding that means recognizing that they shouldn't be there in the first place.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
