Hi Jacob, that's very well said, what you said. A perfect tempting argument concerning Foreign Policy which I, as a Libertarian, have not always been in disagreement with(Libertarian doctrine to "defend our borders only" does lead some Libertarians to believe Iraq AND Afghanistan were not appropriate actions to take. "Peace" surely may be a powerful force).
I think what you say, i.e. "This(making peace with those who are angry with us) tells us all we need to know, for a successful foreign policy," presupposes either that there are none among those who hate us who simply will kill us given opportunity, or that you truly are preaching literal pacifism.
Now with the forgoing two options available to me, I have the problem of either believing you are naively dismissive of the notion that any among those who dislike us will absolutely kill us and are irredeemable, or you accept pacifism as the right path to take in the face of killing force. I find that there is no evidence to support your belief given current reality, which would also assure Americans that they won't suffer a lot more deaths, if they were to follow your advice.
Of course, I'm not one to support your "hunt down and kill everyone who hates you" allusion, nor do I think Bush and Zell Miller Democrats would. I'd like to hunt down and kill only those who will with reasonable certainty continue to actively practice murderous behaviours directed against others(and it ain't us exhibiting the truly murderous behaviour, which is something hoards of common Afghans and Iraqis and Iranians alike, actually understand well enough).
I think History shows that military action does indeed "work,(to the bad OR to the good)" which you seem to doubt, I can't understand why. Facing an enemy of the nature of Al Qaeda, it had better.
In the end you see,
Freedom Works(not a controlling religious dogma in sight - now that's "peace").
Dan B. |
