this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
157 points (93.4% liked)
World News
32137 readers
1350 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
“When I came to this bureau ... I knew it was not without its moral complexity and moral compromises, and I made myself a promise that I would stay for as long as I felt … the harm I might do could be outweighed by the good I could do,” Paul wrote on LinkedIn. “In my 11 years I have made more moral compromises than I can recall, each heavily, but each with my promise to myself in mind, and intact. I am leaving today because I believe that in our current course with regards to the continued – indeed, expanded and expedited – provision of lethal arms to Israel – I have reached the end of that bargain.”
Gutty. Well thanks for trying to change things from the inside, it's a shame things are set up the way they are. Not to mention having the strength to stick to your morals and leave when you realize there's no more good you can do.
I dunno. It sounds like he was a state-sponsored arms dealer. Was he really "doing good?"
It does sound a bit weird. On the other hand, if he can influence the choices positively, he does have a point. If not him, someone else would take the job. I would have drawn the line somewhere else but I can understand where he is coming from.
And the fact that he resigned means that he has and likely had some moral compass guiding him.
I want to add, that arms are still needed in this day-and-age, even to uphold peace. So many things are not as black and white as they seem.
I am quite happy NATO (to name one) can deter bad actors from attacking it, or in worst case use them to protect its member states. But, yes, ideally weapons would be history.
Absolutely! Unfortunately, we are talking about the US. The article even says explicitly:
"Various U.S. presidents considered and approved billions of dollars in arms sales to controversial nations during his tenure — for instance, to Saudi Arabia in its ongoing war in Yemen."
So it's not the first time he's about to make a very questionable choice. Though I guess he knows some details that blur the lines.
Of course, I neither wanted to portray arms sales as just something good. Unsurprisingly, states manage to have these twisted deals in the name of national interests.
That's nothing new. Everything is used for politics nowadays and if there is some chance to portray a decision as bad (no matter if you need to leave out details) then someone will try to do it.
We have the constant discussion in Germany about "how the spineless Green party campaigned on reducing arms exports and instantly reversed their stance once in government". That the arms deals they wanted to reduce went to countries like Qatar oder Egypt while the increase now is going to NATO allies and Ukraine is of course never mentioned as gray areas and details have no place in the populistic bullshit political discussion has become.
The American people have more than enough arms in their own homes to defend against a Canadian or Mexican invasion. We don’t need a military in the least; maybe keep the National Guard, but that’s it.