Had a very interesting hypothetical discussion today about imperial aggression.  The conversants different perspectives highlighted how your personal values and beliefs – formed from your cultural upbringing,  strongly inflence your interpretation of the facts.

Who is Right?

Was America the agressor in Iraq or just reasonably defending themselves from weapons of mass destruction.  Given they are still present in Iraq, and the “WMD” myth has long been settled, this is a fair question?

How about the Syrian rebels, is their unknown source of funding (weapons, food and fuel) justified in supporting them.  There was even a suggestion this source of funding was from Israel in support of the empire building objectives ( destabilize, then attack).

And of course the Russians are supporting Assad, is this right, is it fair or is it just in support of Russia’s hidden empire building objectives.

So Many Questions/So Many Answers

For me, the  most interesting observation was the multiple good but very different answers to these questions, each with powerful fact based supporting rationale.

So again, who is right?

If a thief broke into your home and was clearly identified on camera, which alternative actions are justified:

• you break into the thiefs home and steal everything back.

• you report to the police and they arrest the thief.
  •  In court the thief the thief is convicted and goes to jail
  • In court the thief is cleared on a technicality

• You beat the thief up in anger and he reports you to the police for attacking him, you go to jail or maybe get off.

• the thief sends his cousins to retaliate, they beat you up

Unfortunately all of these are viable outcomes of the theft and I have learned from experience there will be a variety of views as to which action is best, fairest and justifiable.

And so it is with world affairs, not so easy to figure out right and wrong, although your own cultural background, upbringing and geographic loyalties will probably influence your decision.