I think we're still in total agreement here and I'm actually really glad you made the last statement, bold and all, and not me. I always have and always will hold the opinion that the large failures of the world, be they violent conflicts, environmental problems, labor problems, or what have you, are collective failures. When I tend to have these kinds of conversations with people though, it's often a concept I kind of have to allude to here and there and not directly state, because for some reason, it's an unpopular opinion. A good analogy I've heard is that a chess game would never get started if the pawns refuse to move. As a silver lining though, I think we're starting to get to the point where people as a collective whole will be more open to that very idea. We're seeing this attitude in other areas of life, where people are concerned about how their consumption affects the environment, workers rights, the economy, animal rights, etc. Everyday the conversations seem to be more frequent, more common, and more in depth. Going back to Vietnam as an example, I think part of the reason is our ability to share information easier and easier with each other. It's kind of why concepts like internet censorship keep me up at night. With war itself though, there seems to be an extra barrier that we have to overcome, and it's really hard to figure out what it is. It might be the US vs. Them mentality that international conflicts bring about or it might be that the idea that we as individuals halfway across the world share a bit in the guilt of ruined lives might be too big of a pill to swallow. Attitudes are shifting though and I think in the right direction. For example, Europe has taken millions of refugees and I think if America's political environment wasn't so messed up, we'd have been willing to take on more than we have. I woke up today to a heartening news story. Jack Ma of Alibaba is openly criticizing the US for spending so much on our military that could be better spent elsewhere. Chinese citizen or no, this isn't a conversation I tend to hear from influential people and I hope it's something that catches the ears of more influential men and plants seeds in their mind. To be fair, I don't think Syria is Obama's fault, nor Putins, nor Assad's. Like I said before, these issues are a sea of mud and laying blame can be a hard thing to do. When it comes to something like using a private army to change a government for business reasons though? I think it becomes a little easier to point fingers and say "There are the assholes over there."We agree, but we disagree. Your argument is that idealism and demanding purity keeps us focusing on the laudable goal of peace. My argument is that idealism and demanding purity allows us to scapegoat our leaders without facing the complexity that we're all culpable in war.
And sure. We don't want to. We weren't asked. These are undeclared wars, clandestine combatants. But the democratic process led us to 26,000 bombs dropped, every single step of the way, and insisting it's his fault and not yours is having your cake and eating it too.