[Platt] "Nationalistic blindness" or "national defense" are debatable viewpoints.
[Arlo] Another fine example of the moronic rhetoric this thread began by condemning. Your rhetorical association between "nationalistic blindness" and "national defense", as if the two are merely two viewpoints on one approach, is not only outrageous, but when said in response to everything I had written shows only the blatant distortion wielded by those who attempt to use social-level talk-radio rhetoric to attack and break down any reasonable dialogue. "National defense", the use of force, as I had said, is a legitimate response to aggressive force. And should be deployed not out of nationalistic pride, but out of the reasoned knowledge that such force is the best option to meet the threat at hand. Alongside this moral use of force, however, must be the continuing understanding of how this threat originated, and what other options, in addition to moral force, may be required to not only stop the present threat but minimize the potential for similar future threats. So long as our only approach is "kill em like germs", while we keep contributing to the foundation for more and more germs, we will always have nothing but a unwinnable, reactionary position. As I said, it is not enough to meet future Hitler's with aggressive force, we must see our role in Hitler's rise, admit to it, learn from it, and move forward with different actions than we have in the past. We can take great pride in our defeat of Hitler, but until we recognize and admit that Henry Ford is emblematic of the historical foundation that created Hitler's power in the first place our victory is only partial. While intellect alone may not solve all our problems, neither will an approach that denies intellect altogether. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
