In reply to:
Ranjeet kushwaha
@iranjeevdsBJP
·
210d
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
210d
The statement critiques the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, suggesting it was based on false intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction. It implies that U.S. Congress members had access to information that contradicted the public narrative, thus contributing to a significant historical and political debate.
- The statement does not directly harm others but critiques past actions, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement aims to promote understanding by highlighting the importance of accurate intelligence and decision-making, aligning with promoting understanding and empathy. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism of past U.S. actions without personal attacks, aligning with the principle of constructive dialogue. [+1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- By addressing a significant historical issue, the statement uses influence to potentially better society by encouraging learning from past mistakes. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech by responsibly critiquing past governmental actions, aligning with using the platform responsibly. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.