Phil: Rather, we need more visceral response, more revulsion
to the death and destruction, and more care for peace.
Instead of working out a plan that will ensure peace for
generations, the politicians should be working out a plan to
stop the shooting now.
My visceral response is to seek a complete rout of the Hez.
I'm not revolted by the destruction of Hezbollah's
facilities, infrastructure, and staff. Plus if Hez houses
civilians in military target areas, I am revolted by them,
rather than by Israeli missile strikes aimed at non-civilian
targets.
My visceral response is to seek peace for generations first,
while stopping the shooting as soon as advantageous.
If Hez is an infection ravaging a potentially healthy body,
i.e., Lebanon, then stopping shooting now would be
equivalent to stopping antibiotics to administer painkillers
because of a revulsion to the patient's groaning. The
patient will stop groaning, sure, but the infection will
spread and become intractable. Plus the patient will develop
a resistance to the painkillers, which will be needed later
as the infection spreads.
On the other hand, since our opinions hold little weight
with the way of the world, maybe it is better to have a
visceral revulsion to the death. Granted that makes us
puppets to the propaganda efforts of the Hez, but what does
that matter?
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
