Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I had an experience when I was a child, I overheard my mother talking to a friend who was in an abusive relationship. At one point my mother (a person of impecable character) asked her friend "what are you willing to do to protect your children and get out of the situation"? My mother's friend was crying and said she did not know. then my mother angrily said - "if you are not willing to lie cheat, steal and fight for you children to protect your children, you don't deserve to be a mother". Those words resonate in my mind every day. My mothers friend did get out of the relationship. So when I think of national defense issues - I think in terms of doing what need to be done. When I think of economic issues - I think in terms of each individual needing to take control of their situation. This is the conservative view point I have. If it is wrong, so be it. It is the view I will take to my grave.
|
The rational response to a superpower who will "lie cheat and steal" on a whim is to build nuclear weapons, aim them at the superpower, and say "do you feel lucky, punk?"
The rational response to a superpower who acts in a predictable, rule-of-law, justified manner is to engage in dialog and economic exchange.
Which of these two worlds would you rather live in? The one where the rational response is to ally with the USA, or the one where the rational response is to aim nukes at the USA?
Enlightened self-interest argues that behaving honourably is in your own best interest, above and beyond the moral reasons to behave honourably.
Responding to an attack that is nearly completely based on Fear with "lie, cheat and steal" tactics is not just morally repugnant, but politicaly
stupid. The USA is
not in serious danger from any terrorist tactic -- if a 9/11 sized event happened every single year, the cost of life and economic damage from
automobile accidents would still be greater by an order of magnitude.
Terror is not an existential threat to the USA -- the response to Terror is.
And, btw, the rule is "
the ends do not always justify the means". Not "the ends do not justify the means" or "the ends justify the means" -- both of those two positions are equally morally bankrupt.
It is morally defendable to be willing to "lie, cheat and steal" to protect the very life of your children (you missed kill) -- but if you break into a school in order to change your child's mark from an A- to an A... One must wonder if your behaviour might be a sign of stupidity.
When you see someone holding a gun to a loved one's head, shooting them in the head (the means) are justified by the ends (saving your loved one).