I am puzzled how it is OK to kill people of other countries, but not your own.
US, China and Russia have all indulged in wanton mass killing of people. So that's an even keel for me.
The nuking of civilians and the abuse of supremacy post cold war show that the US cannot trusted to act morally and ethically in the absence of comparable adversaries. Possession of nukes by Russia and China clearly kept the US military adventures somewhat in check.
If it was liberal minded people like Deng as leader of China and Gorbachev as leader of Russia I would care a lot less and may even be in favor of open source despite their autocratic system. They'd be trending towards another Singapore at that point. Although I'd still be uneasy about it.
But I'm looking at the present moment and see too many similarities with the fascist dictatorships of the past. The nationalism, militarism, unreasonable border disputes and territorial claims and irredentist attitudes. The US just isn't that, despite their history.
> I am puzzled how it is OK to kill people of other countries, but not your own.
The former is rather universally regarded as regrettable, but sometims necessary: It's called "war". The latter, pretty much never.
Also, there are separate terms for slaying members of your own family, presumably because patri-, matri-, fratri- and infanticide are seen as even more egregious than "regular" homicide. Same concept, only expanded from person to populations -- from people to peoples -- seems to pretty much demand that killing your own population is seen as "less OK" than others.
The nuking of civilians and the abuse of supremacy post cold war show that the US cannot trusted to act morally and ethically in the absence of comparable adversaries. Possession of nukes by Russia and China clearly kept the US military adventures somewhat in check.