The moralists are havin' a field day... and the conspiracy freaks, as are those "special" people that think they are demonstrating mental superiority by being more suspicious than the next person.
Anybody who thinks that the cycle of escalating violence that we call "war" is "moral" should think again.
What "moral dimension" do readers ascribe to war? Who was "morally right" in the Punic Wars? Would somebody like to describe the "morality" of the Trojan Wars? The Thirty Years War?
Do not think that, in a thousand years, this war will have some unique quality of "righteousness" that distinguishes it from all others.
In 1,000 years, one thing, and one thing alone will be noted: who won, and who lost. This war will be just one more in the sad and vicious history of humanity.
_____________________________
War is immoral. Period. War is also paradoxical. Even the law has never reconciled the paradox of the justifiable use of force, in self-defense. And if you have any two groups whose way of existence is felt to prejudice the other's, then you have the preconditions for war - and both sides may justifiably claim the right of self-defense.
When human beings array with weapons on both sides of an ideological, political, theistic, or commercial line, the air is thick with self-justification and rationales for murder. People die savage, brutal deaths, face down in a mud puddle, thousands of miles from their homes and beds: and on their lips are the words that proclaim the righteousness of their cause.
Is it good that human beings can attach themselves so strongly to intellectual concepts, and then die, by the millions , as a result of defending that belief? Perhaps. Perhaps, through time, the trumph of ideas can only be maintained by force: without the strength to manifest and propagate those ideas, any intellectual concept is just words on a page.
The historical test of any concept is its expression and propagation, through time. If an idea (and ideologies, religions, nationalities, and commercial systems are concepts: methodologies) is not widely held, not widely propagated, and not maintained, it will die.
The view of history is directly related to the strength, influence, pervasiveness, and fitness of any given conceptual framework to govern human affairs. Thus, major lessons are drawn from the long-enduring strength of the Roman Empire.
Mankind will, under certain circumstances, align under a widely-held set of rules: a "system". But even in the presence of a thousand-year civilization, some kind of human intellectual entropy is at work, which finds the seeds of something new in the deay of the old, and begins to grow.
Nothing lasts forever: just as surely as the Aztecs or Athenians grew, flourished, and faded, the pervasive influence of western industrialized and capitalistic society will be challenged, and something new will replace it.
The change may happen quickly, or it may happen slowly, but happen, it will.
So perhaps the consequence of the immorality we call "war" is that it tests the strength of a new conceptualization by measuring its ability to manifest itself, especially in combat.
And perhaps, in that manifestation, we see a reversion to our animal past.
____________________________________
I have to laugh at the moral pretension of those on this thread who decry the mistakes, the lies, and the corruptions of American leaders. Do they imagine that previous systems were without error, without mistakes, without corruption?
There is no such thing as a perfect system: the venal and the corrupt (not to mention the mistaken, the foolish, and the confused) are an inescapable element of human existence.
The question is the extent to which venality and corruption pervade any given system. An effective, functioning system has at its basis the concept of The Honest Transaction. Something that is what it is.
My reading of America is that the concept of the honest transaction is alive and well. A good thing, too: without it, capitalism would not survive.
It is good to hold one's country, and one's politicians, to a standard. It is unrealistic to hold them to a standard that they always be right, never make mistakes, and never stray from the path of ideological or theistic righteousness.
Usually, you can spot such moralizers: the soapbox on which they stand is wobbling under their feet. This politician is a liar. That one is a fool. That policy was wrong.
These people are always right. Believing themselves to be superior in thought and conduct to others, they ridicule their leaders, assail their politicians and quibble endlessly over the microscopic concerns of their outraged "morality".
Armed with the insights from their latest book, ot a quote from someone who agrees with them, they confuse reading with knowledge, and parroting someone else's view, with thought.
They trump any serious discussion by being a little more paranoid and morally superior to everyone else. Not for a minute have they understood, ever, that the ideas they parrot only have meaning in their expression. America has at its foundation a set of core beliefs: but most nations do.
The fact of the matter is, as any student of history knows, that nations have interests. Pursuit of these interests can cause divergence from the core beliefs.
As Michael Corleone said, "We're all part of the same hypocrisy."
Churchill allied with Russia and Stalin, saying, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
The moralists have little regard for The Politics of the Lesser Evil. They have given little thought (which is perhaps as much thought as they can give) to the realities of transmuting grand moralistic concepts and philosophical discourse into reality.
When you ask them, "Well, what is your alternative?" they fall silent. When you ask them to evaluate the known facts they postulate an unprovable theory, usually a conspiracy of some type.
At their heart, they are dishonest: at least, intellectually dishonest. They pretend an intellectual superiority, a moral sovereignity over all those politicians (and their voters) they call stupid, wrong, immoral and corrupt.
They are, at heart, unstudied children: the kind of brats you see in the schoolyards, tears running from their eyes, crying "I'm gonna tell!"
Their pontification represents government by gossip, and put-down; they have no more understanding of the morass into which we place our politicians than a goldfish's comprehension of nuclear fusion.
It's all so simple, and America, and her - elected! -leaders are always grist for their mill. They're just a little bit better than the rest of us.
_________________________________
I posted previously that any group is free to try to establish A New World Order. Time will wash away questions of morality: what will be recorded is who won, and who lost. What will be remembered is the nature of, the duration of, and the vitality of, our western industrialized society: of which America is indisputably the leader.
In the future, the world will embrace a new way of doing things.
But after reading page after page of posts decrying America's conduct, her leaders, her mistakes, and her supposed corruption, I offer the opinion that America has done a fine job (often unwillingly) of leadership, and has offered a policy that has been understandable and consistent since her ascendance.
Where America has gone wrong, she has not suffered for lack of criticism; nor should she.
But we should not let the glib flash of pretentious, self-righteous and intellectually dishonest chatline stars blind us to how much has been done right, and done well, by America.
The generosity and strength of America is admired and envied the world over. America's time will pass, but those who inhabit the present can take pride in America's accomplishments: mistakes, warts, and all.
Regards,
Jim |
