Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I don't believe in foolish consistency. I may be a fool, but I'm not consistent.

Ron Paul and friends are consistent on this, but so are most of my progressive/leftist/socialist/left-liberal friends. I can actually envision an alliance in the U.S. on 'defense', 'homeland security', and foreign intervention - and a few other issues - between these supposed poles.

Yes, in this particular case I do prefer consistency, therefore principle. There is no case for offensive war, moral or otherwise. As pointed out in other comments in this thread, for starters, we can't even trust the 'leaders' or the political commentariat to give us valid information or reasonable analysis. Then there's the matter of 'collateral damage', plus cost (human and material), karma, etc.

Self-defense is another matter, and that can be invoked on a personal, community, or national basis. As stated above, I'm no pacifist, either. And it's not a threat to say that I am dangerous (and so are my friends).

Retaliation, though, is self-defeating. For one thing, the referee always sees the second foul. So the solution there is eternal vigilance, plus a reasonable amount of preparation. And that's why I am dangerous.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Fri Sep 2nd, 2011 at 06:44:02 PM EST
I don't believe in foolish consistency

I do believe in consistency but on a side of "evil".

Talking about reality...

we can't even trust the 'leaders' or the political commentariat to give us valid information or reasonable analysis. Then there's the matter of 'collateral damage', plus cost (human and material), karma, etc.

This is exactly what makes me suspicious...

I'm no pacifist, either.

Me either, but wish I could be...

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Fri Sep 2nd, 2011 at 08:13:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series