Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > > This is why I, like Spike, advocate the use of overwhelming force in
> > > war: the enemy needs to KNOW, all the way down to his gonads, that his
> > > way is utterly wrong and ours is utterly right before he will accept the
> > > sort of surrender we need to ensure that we don't have to fight them all
> > > over again a few decades later.
> > Do you actually believe that might makes right?
> > - samantha
> When you /are/ right (for other reasons), it's nice to have some
> might to protect yourself from those who are wrong. And even, as
> in this case, when you're only slightly less wrong than the other
> guy. Sure, we've done some wrong things, but nothing even
> remotely close to unthinkable horrors of Pearl Harbor or WTC.
See what we did in Nicaragua and Chile. See the hundreds of
thousands dying and dead in Iraq from our actions during and
sense Desert Storm. See spreading cluster bombs all over parts
of Southeast Asia we were officially not at war with and claimed
we were not involved in. See the bloody thugs we supported for
decades in Haiti who killed more hundreds of thousands. See
bombin whoever we feel like whenever we feel threatened
regardless of international niceties. In terms of lives lost,
dreams destroyed, unilateral nastiness I don't think we come out
so obviously good in comparison as we would like to believe. I
wish I thought otherwise but I honestly do not.
> Evil exists. Some people, nations, and cultures are evil and wrong
> and dangerous. Denial of this simple fact won't make it go away.
> A couple of well-placed nukes 50 years ago did make some of it go
> away for a long time, and Mike is just pointing that out. That
> particular method won't work in Afghanistan or against Al-Qaeda, but
> let's hope we can find a method that does.
I see. And when branded "evil", rightly or wrongly, by a
sufficiently powerful group, everything goes and everything is
justified heh? What a wonderful world. A short glance back in
history will show many groups and nations being branded as evil
and decimated by strong opponents. Some of them history
exonerates. Others are the worst monsters on record. Just
perhaps, branding someone or some nation as utterly evil, is not
the sanest and best way to proceed. When the "other" is "evil"
the temptation is to believe that one's own group must be the
"good" and that any who point out where that just isn't so are
themselves "evil". Both sides are dehumanized by this
process. Truth is the first casualty of war.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT