Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (37716)	8/14/2002 4:51:53 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Wonderful point It seemed valid to me. I've yet to see any reaction from any of the hawks; not sure what to make of that. It seems to me that even a completely successful war against Iraq would not significantly reduce Al Qaeda's ability to attack us. Given that that whole point of the war on terror is to protect ourselves from attack, I have to wonder why it is receiving such priority. On another recently discussed point, it amuses me that so many people seem to think that "moral clarity" and a conviction that what we believe to be right and wrong are actually "Right" and "Wrong" in some absolute sense are somehow antidotes to evildoing. It seems to me that evildoing was alive and well long before postmodernism was ever so much as a glimmer in the philosophical eye, and that far more dirty work has been done in the name of moral absolutism than has ever been done in the name of moral ambiguity. How the notions of "evil" and "moral clarity" ever entered this picture is still beyond me. We are acting in self defense, not to restore what Neocon likes to call the "moral balance of the universe". If a dog bites people, you kill the dog. No moral judgement is necessary; you defend yourself and those around you. The moral talk does not clarify anything and obscures a good deal.