I very much enjoyed the exchange between Geof and Don. Though their views seem antithetical but their aims are the same. The elimination of oppression with the lowest possible cost/sacrifice and the greatest freedom for souls enslaved by brutality.
I cannot disagree that SH is an evil menace we need to deal with, so is Kim Jung Il, so was Augusto Pinochet, and countless other past and present brutal evil thugs. I worry, that we also support other such regimes, not likely as brutal as SH but likely of the same ilk. Here is my question. What is the threshold for action? And how much hypocrasy do we accept in holding our nose about oppression as long as it is served up by our allies?
One of my problems with the current war is not the cause but the timing, the hypocrasy and the consequences. If our motive is liberating the oppressed, we should have acted long ago. The just cause argument rationalizes the action but not the timing. Also, if we are to be the world's moral policeman because the U.N. is inept (which it is), why should we limit ourselves to the "Axis of evil" and make a complete list and just go on a world moral cleaning spree? I don't like war, but I despise oppression and can see that inaction can feed oppression.
On the other hand, if our motive is strictly our own national security and eliminating terrorist threats, I think this is the wrong front and the wrong strategy. It will create more problems (in terms of terrorism) than it solves.
I don't think being isolationist is reasonalbe, nor do I think we have the ability or right to be the world's policeman. But as the worlds only superpower, what is the right balance?
Sadam has been evil for decades so has Kim Jung Ill and his father. Numerous regimes in Africa have and still do commit outrageous atrocities. On the sliding scale of Evil to Horrible where do we stop.
BTW - My thoughts were triggered by reading Pat Buchanon's predictably isolationist arguements.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-buchanan23feb23,1,598172.story
I cannot disagree that SH is an evil menace we need to deal with, so is Kim Jung Il, so was Augusto Pinochet, and countless other past and present brutal evil thugs. I worry, that we also support other such regimes, not likely as brutal as SH but likely of the same ilk. Here is my question. What is the threshold for action? And how much hypocrasy do we accept in holding our nose about oppression as long as it is served up by our allies?
One of my problems with the current war is not the cause but the timing, the hypocrasy and the consequences. If our motive is liberating the oppressed, we should have acted long ago. The just cause argument rationalizes the action but not the timing. Also, if we are to be the world's moral policeman because the U.N. is inept (which it is), why should we limit ourselves to the "Axis of evil" and make a complete list and just go on a world moral cleaning spree? I don't like war, but I despise oppression and can see that inaction can feed oppression.
On the other hand, if our motive is strictly our own national security and eliminating terrorist threats, I think this is the wrong front and the wrong strategy. It will create more problems (in terms of terrorism) than it solves.
I don't think being isolationist is reasonalbe, nor do I think we have the ability or right to be the world's policeman. But as the worlds only superpower, what is the right balance?
Sadam has been evil for decades so has Kim Jung Ill and his father. Numerous regimes in Africa have and still do commit outrageous atrocities. On the sliding scale of Evil to Horrible where do we stop.
BTW - My thoughts were triggered by reading Pat Buchanon's predictably isolationist arguements.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-buchanan23feb23,1,598172.story
