--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The statements that followed this seemed to say that > Democrats backed > the peace movement and tended to vote against war. > In my mind, those > don't equate to "weaker on defense." Successful > peacemakers are > stronger on defense than the most successful > warriors, since they defend > us not just from our enemies, but from having to > wage war. Not that > that's always possible; it seems clear to me that we > have a great need > to defend our borders today.
But _failed_ peacemakers are much weaker on defense, and the worst of all types is the one who can't tell the difference between people you _can_ make peace with and people you can't. Making peace with Hitler? Not an option. Making peace with Bin Laden? Not an option. The problem is when an obsession with peace (as opposed to, for example, justice) as not just a virtue, but the only virtue, leaves you prey to people who are less relative in their judgments. > > Conversely, eagerness to make war on enemies -- the > stated policy of the > current administration -- is hardly what I'd > consider being strong on > defense. > > Nick Really? So, say, FDR wasn't strong on defense? I'm going to keep hammering this point until you acknowledge it, Nick. Just sitting around and saying peace is better than war is gibberish. It's actually immoral. War is better than some peaces. If you're not willing to make that judgment, then you're basically just relying on other people who _are_ willing to make that judgment to defend your freedom, because you aren't. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
