Correction:
"Even under YOUR own ... rationale"

------------

Even under YOUR own libertarian-foreign-policy (or "law
enforcement") rational, there is no genuine ethic to stop any
country from using the Iraq War as justification for bombing the
hell out of America "in the name of liberty"? 


--------------------------------

You weren't specific, but let me guess the moral crimes of which
you speak:  recreational drug use, public nudity, holy day sales.
Are there others that concern you?  That short list applies to
pretty much every culture and government of the world, be they
dominated by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists,
atheists, secularists, etc.  Can you specify any moral crimes
that are specifically due to American Christians?

As for your second paragraph, I see that related to the
difference between law enforcement and war.  Within our own
government and system of laws, we can pursue a harmful act
through the police and courts.  There's a similar situation when
the US is dealing with other free and civilized nations, with
which the US government can use diplomacy and treaty provisions
to settle differences.  (They say no two countries with a
McDonald's have ever gone to war.)  But when dealing with threats
from uncivilized and corrupt governments, it often takes military
action to solve the problem.  That Muslim nations tend to be
uncivilized and corrupt is not my fault.  I didn't make them that
way.  Indeed, my tax dollars are being used in Afghanistan, Iraq,
the West Bank, and Gaza in attempts to help them form civilized
systems of government.  I wonder if it's hopeless.

As for evidence, there is plenty to indict the former leaders of
Afghanistan and Iraq.  I tend to favor Ayn Rand's philosophy that
free nations are morally justified in discretionary use of
military action against non-free nations, as long as the outcome
intends to improve the situation for liberty.  There is
undoubtedly far greater freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq today
than prior to US military intervention.  If you worship ZAP, then
we will just have to agree to disagree.  I see ZAP as a potential
threat to liberty, which I won't have for very long without
military protection.



Reply via email to