[lit-ideas] Re: well, it's heating up....

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:02:55 -0800

Ursula, 

 

There is no universal principle that says one attack is just like another.
The forces of Adolph Hitler and the forces of the Allies were not just like
each other except in the sense that everyone had guns, tanks, planes, etc.
We believed that the Allies had right on our side.  Sure the Germans
believed right was on their side, but that made no difference.  We knew it
was on our side.  Perhaps this sounds specious to you, but unless you can
make up your mind about which side you are on; then you are going to remain
on a fence not able to decide whether you think America or Iran is the side
you want to support.  Get away from moral equivalence and move over to self
defense.

 

I suspect our society has had it soft for far too long.  We don't know how
to recognize, let alone deal with an enemy.  In older simpler times one
could say, "Quick, hon, get the kids into the wagon, they're shooting at us
- and toss out my rifle."  But now the shots are so remote and not quite at
us and who knows maybe the people being shot at were doing something wrong
way off there in New York City.  Perhaps they deserved it.

 

We (including New York City despite its weirdness) do not deserve to be
attacked.  We are a nation with a right to self-defense and we are engaged
in exercising that right as we speak.  We aren't bound by a U.N. that did
the best it could right after World War II and knew nothing about asymmetric
warfare.  We have the right to defend ourselves and if it makes sense to
preempt a nation's nuclear capability before he gets a chance to use it on
us or our allies; then we ought to do it.  

 

Lawrence

 

  

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ursula Stange
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 1:04 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: well, it's heating up....

 

Lawrence Helm wrote:

 

 > Ursula,

 > Your argument is the moral equivalence argument. It implies there is 

no moral difference between the Islamists and us. Do you really believe 

that?

 

Ursula answers:

 

Lawrence. No it isn't. It was an observation about how the tactics work 

the same over there as they do over here. Human nature being what it is 

and all that...

 

And, you really must stop equating non-support for toppling the Iraqi 

regime with supporting it. Those are not the only two choices. It's a 

sophomoric trick.

 

I did not support Saddam Hussein's regime. I do not support the Iranian 

regime. But there are conflicting issues here.

We have a responsibility to oppose evil.

We have a responsibility to let other countries be masters in their own 

house.

Since these two moral directives are often in conflict, we have to make 

a case by case decision.

 

Are we so sure we know the last word about evil? If we are sure, do we 

then have the right to topple their regimes? Certain Islamists think 

they know the last word about evil. If they are sure, do they then have 

the right to topple our western regimes? What if France knows for sure 

that we are being manipulated by an evil regime. Do they have the right 

to come and topple our government? The UN charter says 'no' to all these 

scenarios. For good reason.

 

Ursula

 

Lawrence also wrote...

 

> You might be interested in Paul Berman's /Terror and Liberalism. 

> /Berman is a Liberal who was appalled at the Liberals who, in effect, 

> supported Saddam Hussein during the war with his regime. He didn't 

> agree with Bush's reasons for fighting against Saddam. He preferred 

> purer reasons. He thought we should overthrow Saddam's regime because 

> it was the right thing to do. Liberals should stand for good against 

> evil. There was no excuse for arguing that Saddam's regime should be 

> left alone. Saddam's regime was a blight upon humanity, an offense to 

> Liberals everywhere and should be overthrown. Liberals should have 

> supported that overthrow rather than opposed it.

> 

> And if you now, in effect, support the equally evil regime in Tehran, 

> you fall under the same criticism Berman leveled against his political 

> compatriots back in 2003 when he wrote his book.

> 

> What does Liberalism stand for? If it stands for defending Saddam 

> Hussein's regime and the present regime in Tehran, then where is its 

> moral compass?

> 

> iginal Message-----

> On Behalf Of Ursula Stange

> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:45 PM

> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: well, it's heating up....

> 

> Eric, read carefully what you've written. 2+2=4 over here. 2+2=4 over

> 

> there. They threaten, we crouch behind our leaders. We threaten, they 

> crouch

> 

> behind their leaders. Venal leaders on all sides. Stupid followers on 

> all sides.

> 

> 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,

digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2006