But I certainly did approve of the Clinton administration's use of NATO in Kosovo, including the bombing campaign, to stop ethnic cleansing. And would have approved of much the same in Bosnia. So I do think there is a need, sometimes, for violence to stop violence.
How about you?
I haven't thought about this very deeply.
I was against the war in Vietnam, but I was for Gulf War I. Wrt the Clinton Administration, at the time, I thought killing bad people would be a good idea and we should have done more of it - not that I thought that much about it.
But, times change. I am getting older, I have learned a lot over the years, and I am getting wiser.
After seeing what George W. Bush has done, I now think completely differently.
There is a reason why there is a commandment against killing people. There is a reason why, since the 10 commandments were laid out, there have been people very much against going to war and having people killed. There ae people who have given this stuff a lot of thought and have come out against killing for any reason. That seems so counter intuitive.
If bad people are going around killing people and they just will not stop doing it no matter what you say to them, then why not just kill them?
That seems so obvious.
But thanks to George W. Bush, I can now see why.
You will always have a George W. Bush type person be in control of things. There is term limits for this George W. Bush, but that is not going to stop the next George W. Bush.
With a George W. Bush type in control, they could always make the case for killing and torturing people. There will always be a good reason for it.
Now I understand why there should be a prohibition against killing people even for the best of reasons. |
