feelings
Ever wondered how and where leftists get their moral compass to figure out what's right and what's wrong? (Make that "right" and "wrong.")
The answer is, of course, feelings. Feelings of love. Feelings of compassion. Feelings of horror and despair that come when you can put yourself in the other guy's shoes.
"Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that "War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost every great evil has been solved by war -- from slavery in America to the Holocaust in Europe. Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe."
Read the rest. Please.
The answer is, of course, feelings. Feelings of love. Feelings of compassion. Feelings of horror and despair that come when you can put yourself in the other guy's shoes.
"Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that "War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost every great evil has been solved by war -- from slavery in America to the Holocaust in Europe. Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe."
Read the rest. Please.
posted by patrickhenry at 12:05 PM
4 Comments:
Like you. I have little patience for the these so-called bleeding heart liberals, but consider the Devil's Advocate argument:
1. The American Civil War was not fought with the goal to end slavery, it was fought with the goal to divide the nation.
2. WWII was not fought with the goal to end the holocaust, it was fought to end the military occupation of Germany.
3. The Iraq War was not started to end the mass killings by SD, it started because Bush assured us that Iraq was a threat to our nation, since SD was harboring chemical and biological weapons.
The fact that slavery ended, the holocaust ended, and Iraq is now a Democracy (with its own serving of mass murders having ended), these are all very beneficial side effects to the question of war, but are they reason enough to go to war? At least with these three examples, we cannot look at history as a guide for why war is necessary. Can we?
I think you make some excellent points. Let me think about them.
2% of the population of America died in the Civil War. In retrospect, if the north had offered the south, say, a 40 year phaseout of slavery in return for their agreement to stay in the union would that have been a good deal? Taking it would require to agreeing to hold people in bondage but would have saved many lives.
In Iraq, I was asked in Britain by a cameraman somewhat incredulously how on earth I could have supported the Iraq War. I said it was a gamble, but it seems to be paying off and that if I could go back and get the lives lost in the war back but have Saddam on the throne conitnuing his nuclear program I wouldn't go back. Had Saddam nuked or gassed our invading troops I would have conceded that I was a mistake. So you don't really look to history to decide if war is right. It's a gamble - you're betting that the price of war will ultimately be lower than the price of "peace". The Revolutionary War, Spanish-American War, World War II, Korea, Gulf War and Iraq (so far) were worth it. The Mexican War, the Civil War, World War I and Vietnam were not.
-- Baney
But would you have a bumper sticker on your car that says WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER? Does that mean war is NOT ALWAYS the answer? (true) Or that war is NEVER the answer? (false) I think I'd also include the Civil War in the ones that were ultimately worth it.
Post a Comment
<< Home