It's not a real drop it's just less profit than before, all markets fluctuate.
Makes for good headlines I guess but hardly a drastic plummet that will send buyers rushing to the stores to make a quick killing.
May be they should shift their parliament to Chiang Mai and have parliamentary session conducted during the burning season with all the shutters of the building open so that those policy makers can really enjoy the benefit of PM 2.5
To be truthful, neither did you argue that the ends do not justify the means.
Perhaps Kissinger never explicitly argued that the ends justify the means publicly. But unless one poured over each and every one of his public statements we can't say for sure. His actions, however, do not betray his beliefs. What's the old adage, "actions speak louder than words." Quite simply, one can never act opposite of one's beliefs. Therefore you can know a man through his actions though his words may deceive. Kissinger's actions confirm his belief that the ends justify the means, else he would have never indiscriminately carpet bombed innocent people. One doesn't need to hear it from his lips, you see.
The issue of the taking of innocent lives, even on a massive scale, is not a lofty one? Philosophical reflection is not needed here? If not here then when and where ever is it? Or is the truth rather that philosophical reflection on this subject matter is inconvenient for what it might expose or bring into question?
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Not even foreign policy. There is a spiritual connection, or call it a philosophical connection, to everything. It's true that that realization has not dawned on everyone yet.
Were they unjustly blamed in your view? Well, they were running the show, weren't they? Or is that arguable? So if there were to be blame laid wouldn't they be deserving of the lion's share? Whenever the policy revolves around the ends justifying the means one can be assured that the "policies were not ideal." Doesn't that go without saying?
To say that Dr. Kissinger "made some mistakes" strikes me as an attempt to lessen the impact of the atrocities he committed. To soften it, diminish it, minimize it, downplay it, or even trivialize it. Is committing atrocities ever in the realm of questionable? Or perhaps one could term it "unfortunate." Now when I use the term "atrocities" I assume we would both agree that the indiscriminate taking of innocent lives via carpet bombing would fit that definition? I'd be very curious to know whether or not you would disagree.
Yes, it is rather unfortunate that international diplomacy is anything but ethical and that one must sometimes accept an erosion of principles in order to maintain peace. Doesn't that conclusion imply a certain inevitability? As if there were no other choices available? No other paths possible? And since it's an inevitability that crimes must be committed then any policy incorporating criminal activity can be then justified?
How is it that one can be led to believe that unethical behaviour and erosions of principles as a means of countering unethical behaviour and erosions of principles are able to produce "good" outcomes? Is not the fallacious Christian ethos "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" operative here? They gouge our eyes out and we gouge theirs and we all then be blind then. Does that not seem to be a marvelous and sane solution? Promoted by men of great stature, such as Kissinger?
Anyway, lots of food for thought for you here, Vigo. If you still remain adamant that all of your views are correct and beyond reconsidering then I'll leave you with this humourous pearl of wisdom penned by a very astute American, one Samuel Clemens:
It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
What I view as the primary cause of most human troubles is the avoidance to examine one's beliefs as to their true validity. Do you question your beliefs, Vigo?