Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Joe Bauers
I assume, therefore, that you would have just as dispassionate an attitude toward another country "claiming the right" against us--say, North Korea, by way of a nuclear attack?
|
Of course I wouldn't, because then we'd be talking about
my homeland
But if North Korea had the power and the motive to take us out, well, there wouldn't be much I could say to stop it!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Joe Bauers
Is there no room for idealism in this country any longer? Because we can, therefore we do--is that our only abiding value?
|
This is why I added that caveat that I'm not arguing morality or rightness, I'm just answering that question of'who gave you the right?'
In any case, I think there is room for idealism in this country, but that it should not be dictated or even swayed by what everyone else in the world thinks we as a country should do. Our decisionmaking isn't happening in a democracy in which every other nation out there has a vote. Internally, I think we've become so tied up with partisan bickering and finger-pointing that we have for the moment forgotten about even the possibility of developing some sort of national consensus or moral code that we can use to guide our decisions, and that is unfortunate.
Leaving aside the fact that morality is unlikely to ever be a major consideration when it comes to career politicians making international-policy decisions (see? my internal cynic simply
will not shut up!), I'd like to see people and politicians discuss the circumstances under which waging war is acceptable to us. Genocide? Political oppression? Murder of dissidents? Our own financial interests? Defense against violent actions? Defense against the threat of violent actions? Defense against the capability of another nation to threaten violent actions? Which causes suffice, and which do not?
My internal cynic asks, if this conversation hasn't been had by now, why and how would it happen now?