The difference is simply morality and common sense. Americans are free, tolerant, humane, and right. Our Islamist enemies are the exact opposite.
Moral relativism is highly illogical. Some things are just right, and others plain wrong. I don't let the two confuse me. From: ma ni Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 5:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Libertarian] Stop the War FOR Terror 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. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
