tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post5401097366762815267..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Obama’s War on AmericaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-67044454026669293252009-12-18T10:48:17.822-05:002009-12-18T10:48:17.822-05:00The notion that we can only defend ourselves with ...The notion that we can only defend ourselves with “proportionate” force is asinine. Such a notion would mean that the only moral response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would have been for the U.S. to stage a single, similar attack on some Japanese military installation. Or it would mean that the only moral response to an attack like 9/11 would be for the U.S. to destroy a similar number of buildings and kill a similar number of people in whatever foreign nation we deemed to have supported the attack.<br /><br />Equally asinine -- as Ed points out -- is the notion that “violence never settles social problems” and “only brings more problems“. To Ed’s list of counter-examples, let me add one more that should shame into silence every Martin Luther King supporter: violence sure as hell solved the “social problem” of chattel slavery in America. <br /><br />The “proportionality” argument and the “violence is impractical” argument are both intended to achieve a single goal: to take the possibility of victory off the table and place it out of the question. The effect of both doctrines is to limit us to a stalemate that leaves our enemies intact and insure that we’ll eventually tire of the fight and give up.<br /><br />If the Republicans were smart, they’d skewer Obama endlessly every time he regurgitates this tripe. It certainly isn’t hard to do in terms that the average person can easily understand. But it won’t be done by those who are ethically neutered by altruism -- which pretty much rules out all Republicans these days.Michael Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03385208071107592989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-74381158488519143822009-12-14T19:38:23.357-05:002009-12-14T19:38:23.357-05:00foreign aid= global altruism. should be called dea...foreign aid= global altruism. should be called dead aid.mike250https://www.blogger.com/profile/13771261746381180701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-9301461216938195812009-12-14T14:22:22.469-05:002009-12-14T14:22:22.469-05:00Thank you, Sarah. It has been corrected.
EdThank you, Sarah. It has been corrected.<br /><br />EdEdward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11137609409286630058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-68481281109570500712009-12-14T12:09:22.206-05:002009-12-14T12:09:22.206-05:00Hi Ed,
Well said as usual. I'd just like to ...Hi Ed, <br /><br />Well said as usual. I'd just like to point out a formatting error in which the paragraph that begins:<br /><br />And that's why helping farmers feed their own people... <br /><br />I think this paragraph was meant to be indented to indicate it's part of Obama's speech and not your analysis of it. <br /><br />Thanks!<br />SarahG<br />sarah (dot) gelberg (at) att (dot) netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com