The Only Way To Avoid War Is To Remove The President From Office
If you consider this well-reasoned rationale to be an unprecedented call to action for the sake of the country, then you should ask yourself if the presidency of Donald Trump in and of itself be considered unprecedented as well.
Much of what we are witnessing by the Trump administration in all its criminality and belligerence doesn’t simply just defy logic, it defies moral construction. To ignore the newly impeached president or simply go along with his agenda is to consider that there is no right or wrong relatively speaking. Apparently only Trump can make the attempt at what is right and wrong in his egomaniacally narcissistic and ideologically supremacist mind.
The indefatigable petulance of this commander-in-chief with his latest salvo to avoid the inevitable reckoning of his own making can be added as an impeachable offence. After killing a top general of the Iran’s military, Mr. Trump’s irreverent posturing and bellicose tone from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida continues to dumbfound and embarrass a strong majority of the American people.
Trump projected a wartime posture as he wrapped up his holiday vacation here, reiterating that if Iran took military action against the United States he may order attacks on Iranian cultural sites, which could constitute a war crime under international law. He vowed on Twitter to “quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner.” ¹
Wanting to destroy the cultural artifacts and sites of the Iranian people can only be seen as haughtily depraved. This brazenly open and demonic act of mean-spiritedness towards the people of Iran and their heritage should and would be used against him as an act against human civilization. All of which is inordinate to the criminal acts alleged to have been orchestrated by the slain Iranian military leader.
[…]the Geneva Convention Protocol I, signed in 1949 and amended in 1977, renders unlawful “any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.”
Federal law in the United States says that violating these international conventions would constitute a war crime. Anyone who violates them could be imprisoned or, if death results from their actions, be sentenced to death. Members of the Trump administration should be on notice that they can be held liable under these provisions.
Opinion: Destroying cultural heritage sites is a war crime
President Trump threatened to destroy 52 Iranian sites - "some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian…
“Fastest way to unify Iranians of all walks of life against you is to threaten to destroy their cultural heritage.”
Iranians Flood Twitter With Photos of Favorite Cultural Sites as Trump Threatens Them With…
Ordinary Iranians on Saturday responded to U.S. President Donald Trump's monstrous threat to strike sites "important to…
This demonstrably reprehensible behavior by our president has me wondering what ever happened to the concept of practical reason as a mode of exhibitng and thereby promoting goodness. And what sort of differential reinforcement are we presenting as a precedent to morally bad behavior coming from a president like this.
Differential Reinforcement is the implementation of reinforcing only the appropriate response (or behavior you wish to increase) and applying extinction to all other responses. Extinction is the discontinuing of a reinforcement of a previously reinforced behavior.
A basic principle of differential reinforcement is the concept of discrimination. Discrimination is developed through differential reinforcement by determining when reinforcement is and is not received. An example of differential reinforcement is rewarding a child for brushing their teeth before bedtime and withholding the reward when the child does not brush their teeth before bedtime.
Differential Reinforcement - Special Learning Article
Differential Reinforcement is the implementation of reinforcing only the appropriate response (or behavior you wish to…
Why should we sit back or stand down and allow this president to preside in a way that we would not prescribe for let’s say a Hillary Clinton or another Barack Obama? Why are we simply enhancing the immoral behavior of this president in particular? And to what means will nevertheless be a disastrous end.
What sort of ethical calculus do you suppose will be the result of this executive action taken by Mr. Trump?
Trump threatened Iraq as well. He countered the Iraqi parliament’s move Sunday to try to expel foreign troops, including U.S. forces, by telling reporters that he would respond by imposing “very big sanctions” on the nation and demanding that Iraq reimburse the United States for the billions of dollars it had invested in a major air base there.
Should Iraq force out the Americans, Trump said, “We will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before, ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.” ¹
Mr Trump treats our democracy with the same callousness in that those who have a difference in opinion or whom would like to debate the strategy and its consequences that may not contribute to his self-aggrandized ego.
Trump also flouted protocols at home, making a mockery of his necessity to advise Congress of military action by writing on Twitter that his tweets would serve as official notification of strikes.¹
As long as most of us recognize our interdependence, our interrelatedness, and our humanity, we will not all be lumped together and seen as enemies by those who despise America’s imperial shortcomings.