Forget the Little People
One of the good things John Stuart Mill said:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." —John Stuart Mill, a British Philosopher
Debbie Daniel: Surrender at Ground Zero?
When you hear the anti-war rhetoric get shrill, when you hear Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangels, and all the other miserable little people get more and more idiotic in their power grabbing rhetoric, remember, history will remember them little, perhaps as those who created the adversity that allowed virtuous men and women to shine. Keep it up Dick and Charlie, you're making your enemies look good.
posted by Underground Logician @ 12:34 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
That's not Logic it's narrow minded thinking at best.
Underground,
I'll tell you this. When I was younger, much of the world's issues were in black and white to me. But I have always collected friends that are of vastly different backgrounds (it makes life more interesting). I enriched their life, and they enriched mine.
I sometimes influenced them to change their thinking, and there were times I grew to realize they were correct in a particular belief.
And sometimes, I realized that there was no way of knowing who was correct, or that I was correct under certain circumstances only.
So, I believe that John Stuart Mill was correct, and that he said it beautifully. However, there are sometimes things that we have to question.
In my case, I believe in fighting for many of the causes that our Founding Fathers believed in. But I also believe that it is now time to get out of Iraq, even though I also felt that we needed to go in initially. Time, altered evidence, and the accomplishment of our mission has now shown that we should leave.
...and Happy Father's Day!
If anything has run amuk is our country's vision and purpose in the war on terror. We are wondering how Iraq figures into the picture. I think the Bush administration is partly to blame for this, for their vision and message for the American people is not getting TO the people. And the main issue is: how does Iraq fit into the picture of national security?
Once this is settled, the next objective is defining the cost in human lives: is 1700 dead servicemen worth the cost of our security? How many lost lives are worth our security? 1500?, 1000? 20,000? How about 100,000? A half-million? How about a million? Are people willing to die for our security? If the American people are not willing to sacrifice, then second, this would be a problem of will in the American people.
In my opinion, I'm sure that if there was a clear and present threat to our security, a majority of Americans would step up. So the onus goes to the Bush administration to clarify the Iraq issue.
In light of this, there are forces at work in our government, whether they be in congress, or more significantly, in the State Dept. and CIA, FBI, etc., that are undermining our efforts in the war on terror, obfuscating the issue, undermining and destroying the credibility of this president. The obvious Media bias against the Bush admininistration is influencing a gullible public to question our presence in Iraq. I believe it is seditious, treasonous, and anti-American, and yes, Hillary Clinton, unpatriotic. This kind of activity was unheard of in past war scenarios except in Viet Nam, of which, the same tactics are being used now as they were used then.
Unless the Bush administration can communicate above the caucophony of fear and envy, I doubt that the war on terror will be successful. The envy and hatred toward this president is very pronounced, and it is, in my opinion, because of envy that this is happening.
9/11 offered a backdrop for the current sitting president to rise to greatness. Because of embarrassment due to Clinton's failure to get Osama Bin Ladin and because of Bush's defeat of Al Gore in 2000, a defeat that was determined in the courts, the democratic party LEADERSHIP is in full destroy mode of the Bush administration. If Bush is successful in the War on Terror, it could solidify Republican power for decades; this is a reprehensible thought for Dem party leadership. This is why we are experiencing this great confusion, it is a tactical measure to gain political power.
I agree with everything you say here, but I think that we probably have accomplished our goals in Iraq, and we should consider withdrawal now. If we stay longer, we validate the charges that we have a puppet gov't. in place.
Can't we leave the Iraqis to self-govern now, and if their government fails, return to clean it up once more? They now have their own police and military, who have been trained by our military.
Saur: The question is, are they ready? For, if they aren't, the result of the tremendous costs in American lives and dollars would be for nought. The issue is to stop the terrorist support network, beginning with government sanctions. All we need is the foreign terrorists fomenting the rebellion in Iraq to succeed and we have another Afganistan on our hands. This idea is repugnant to the objectives in the War on Terror.
What we need is very strong forceful rhetoric that spits at the false charges that come from our enemies, including our enemies within our borders. Who cares about the spineless twits who don't have the courage to face these bullies of the world. They don't have the moral clarity to see the solution, yet out of fear of the bullies, attack the one dealing with the bullies: the U.S. They have made themselves irrelevant to the security of our nation.
If the tenor of this response seems curt, I'm sorry, it is not against you. I am so very disturbed at the disinformation that is so superabundant, much from a potentially malicious press and politicos whose desires are for power than for the security of our nation.
Hi Mark!
Welcome aboard!
I hope you jump back on to clarify for me the "what" that is narrow thinking and why.
Thanks again!
Hi Underground,
Thank you for visiting my blog.
You say that the Democratic party leadership is in full destroy mode.
What is it you think is about to be destroyed that this administratin has not destroyed for us in this country?
Hi, thanks for dropping in!
The form of your question is designed to entrap, for it contains a conclusion to which any answer that I give will bring validation. I don't know you well enough to think that you intend to entrap me, yet I still will not answer the question. However, in order to lead us into dialogue, I will backtrack and clarify my statement. The leadership of the Democratic party, through their obstruction, through their fallacious comments, inflammatory rhetoric, through their vicious attacks, (e.g. Ted Kennedy saying GWB knew about 9/11 prior to it happening to give impetus to war, Kennedy, Harry Reid, etc., calling Bush a liar w/o substantiating evidence) are trying to destroy this presidency. They're attacking the man.
You have turned it to President Bush destroying...whatever.
So, I'm not going where you are leading. If you need me to give you more particulars, if you need a list of the litany of attacks and from whom, if you need further clarification, I'd be glad to elaborate. Then you can reform your question. Seems apparent if you are a news hound like myself of what's happening politically. I don't mind a dialogue, but if you try to pursue these entrapping questions, we'll not get anywhere. Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home