If the US has set a precedent of deposing or killing leaders of sovereign nations because they are "bad people," why could some decent-minded force elsewhere in the world not see the opening to depose the current head of the US because he's awful?
-
If the US has set a precedent of deposing or killing leaders of sovereign nations because they are "bad people," why could some decent-minded force elsewhere in the world not see the opening to depose the current head of the US because he's awful? Where's the line?
@jeffjarvis Then this force would be as unethical and criminal against international right as that rogue state USA.
-
If the US has set a precedent of deposing or killing leaders of sovereign nations because they are "bad people," why could some decent-minded force elsewhere in the world not see the opening to depose the current head of the US because he's awful? Where's the line?
@jeffjarvis that is the right question.
And how can USA leaders play judges of the world while the US are not even accepting an international court...? -
This "administration" does not think ahead to precedent. Forcing a former president to testify before Congress is a precedent for forcing the current (soon, not soon enough former) president to testify. Fuck around and be fucked with is the lesson they cannot learn.
For that matter, if the current president tells the people of Iran to rise up and replace their duly installed government, what does that say to the populace of any other nation, including his own? Is he legitimizing revolution?
-
If the US has set a precedent of deposing or killing leaders of sovereign nations because they are "bad people," why could some decent-minded force elsewhere in the world not see the opening to depose the current head of the US because he's awful? Where's the line?
@jeffjarvis ...could they?
Please?
-
For that matter, if the current president tells the people of Iran to rise up and replace their duly installed government, what does that say to the populace of any other nation, including his own? Is he legitimizing revolution?
Trump believes neither precedent nor law, norm nor ethic applies to him. ('Why can't I appeal the decision of the court of last resort?' he mewls.) He thinks he can get away with anything--and why not, for so far, every American and international institution has allowed him to.
-
Trump believes neither precedent nor law, norm nor ethic applies to him. ('Why can't I appeal the decision of the court of last resort?' he mewls.) He thinks he can get away with anything--and why not, for so far, every American and international institution has allowed him to.
The one lesson from what Trump says that we should take seriously is: The rest is up to us. Until and unless he is stopped by the force of public voice and institutional power, he and his henchmen will continue to destroy. Shout at every turn. Demand institutional support.
-
For that matter, if the current president tells the people of Iran to rise up and replace their duly installed government, what does that say to the populace of any other nation, including his own? Is he legitimizing revolution?
@jeffjarvis He already told American people to rise up against their government leading up to January 6th.
-
@introversion @jeffjarvis
Traditional Democratic Party passivity also plays a role. It's assumed that soft-core Democrats won't use similar aggressive tactics . -
This "administration" does not think ahead to precedent. Forcing a former president to testify before Congress is a precedent for forcing the current (soon, not soon enough former) president to testify. Fuck around and be fucked with is the lesson they cannot learn.
@jeffjarvis apres moi, le deluge
-
If the US has set a precedent of deposing or killing leaders of sovereign nations because they are "bad people," why could some decent-minded force elsewhere in the world not see the opening to depose the current head of the US because he's awful? Where's the line?
@jeffjarvis Sorry, but Trump killing foreign leaders and meddling with their electoral sovereignty is not a precedent. It is deplorable, but it is far from the first time the US has done it.
-
If the US has set a precedent of deposing or killing leaders of sovereign nations because they are "bad people," why could some decent-minded force elsewhere in the world not see the opening to depose the current head of the US because he's awful? Where's the line?
@jeffjarvis@mastodon.social
It's seems the rest of the world doesn't have a psychopath for a leader! -
This "administration" does not think ahead to precedent. Forcing a former president to testify before Congress is a precedent for forcing the current (soon, not soon enough former) president to testify. Fuck around and be fucked with is the lesson they cannot learn.
@jeffjarvis@mastodon.social
Wouldn't it be looking back to a precedent? -
@jeffjarvis Sorry, but Trump killing foreign leaders and meddling with their electoral sovereignty is not a precedent. It is deplorable, but it is far from the first time the US has done it.
-
If the US has set a precedent of deposing or killing leaders of sovereign nations because they are "bad people," why could some decent-minded force elsewhere in the world not see the opening to depose the current head of the US because he's awful? Where's the line?
@jeffjarvis That was exactly what I thought when I woke up at 6 a.m. to this stupidity...3 hours after the attack began apparently.
-
If the US has set a precedent of deposing or killing leaders of sovereign nations because they are "bad people," why could some decent-minded force elsewhere in the world not see the opening to depose the current head of the US because he's awful? Where's the line?
@jeffjarvis The line is, evidently, wherever the current junta says it is.
-
If the US has set a precedent of deposing or killing leaders of sovereign nations because they are "bad people," why could some decent-minded force elsewhere in the world not see the opening to depose the current head of the US because he's awful? Where's the line?
As a joke it works.
As a serious proposal, the thing is power. What country in the world could surround the US with war ships and launch an attack without fearing the consequences?
None.
-
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
