Okay. Article finished, but now I'm going for a walk before checking the latest news and if needed revising accordingly.
(I think I'm still waiting/hoping for one big change in particular.)
As with the last on this war, it'll be big picture. Histories and approaches to international law that should completely disrupt how we think about our (in)ability to respond effectively and ethically to atrocity.
But as with the last, the news is still unfolding.
So a walk first, then class.
Then I post.
@MLClark Sometimes atrocities are committed by supposed "benevolent" nations. The European colonists considered themselves benevolent, forcing their religions and cultures on the "heathens" while they looted natural resource. The U.S. thought it was in the right when it invaded Iraq in 2003. And, of course, Vietnam ... (2/x)
@MLClark I don't see a solution. The grievances and grudges have been around for centuries.
Besides, certain sovereign nations are more than happy to use terrorists and extremist groups as proxies in their larger chess game. Iran won't spill its own blood, but it's sure happy to have Hamas attack Israel to distract us, which makes their ally Russia happy for reasons you know.
I don't see a "Wings over the World" in future, and I'm not sure we should have one.
Humanity sucks, amirite? <shrug>
@MLClark #StarTrek posited that WW3 finally cause humanity to mature. #TheOrville posited that the invention of the replicator made money and therefore poverty irrelevant, because people could make whatever they needed. (Yeah, but who decides who has access to a replicator?) (3/x)