[aniforprez]

Why is the default response that I haven't "engaged or understood" the "other side of this debate"? What's the "other side" here? That I have sympathy for this man? Where is this whole thing going? Is doing research on what he's done and perpetrated and quotes by his own voice not enough? And how does that lead to me not understanding modern day Kissingers?

I refuse to give this any more headspace. This sage-like almost apathetical both-sidesing is more dangerous to me than taking a stand.

[JumpCrisscross]

> That I have sympathy for this man?

No. That you understand how it happened.

> That I have sympathy for this man?

That’s fine. Stay away from geopolitical decision making. Most people shouldn’t have to weigh moral systems.

[aniforprez]

Please ask the people of Laos to "understand how it happened". A country where thousands have died after they were bombed to hell and back because of the unexploded bombs which still makes farming unviable. I don't need to understand the "how" because there is no "how" beyond imperialism which I understand perfectly well enough. There's no complex morality here

People here should really stop pretending that reading "both sides" of everything is some form of enlightenment. It is delusional

[JumpCrisscross]

> stop pretending that reading "both sides" of everything

Nobody is doing that. They’re distinguish immoral and even illegal acts from the violation of a particular statute.

> imperialism

Another word you don’t understand. Hint: spoils. Iraq was imperialist. Laos was not.