Got nothin’ to disagree with you on this one.

June 30th, 2009
12:11 pm
—————–
Paul you are right about Afganistan and President Obama needs to end it successfully. The only way that will happen is if/when we get Bin Laden. As a poster said earlier, that is not a conventional military matter, it is an intellegence and S.O.G. matter.
If we get him, the rest of the terrorist organizations are going to know we mean business…finally. They will we fearful of us again.
Bin Laden is the key…

And they are paying the price for it…
———–
Brother, if I have my way, they will pay the price for a long, long time.

Yes, you’ve been pretty darn consistent these many months. And you haven’t cut the go-along Dems any slack.

Unlike many who make all sorts of excuses for them.

Now, if they’ll just ask the same questions of this administration about Afg they asked of Bush about Iraq…………

You know I hold those Democratic go-alongers-for-expediency as culpable as their more bellicose and even less rational GOP colleagues.

But the irrefutable fact is that this is, was and will always be a REPUBLICAN WAR.

They wanted it. They wailed for it. They lied to get it.

And they are paying the price for it…

Considering the US currently pays 22% of the UN’s general costs and 26% of the UN “peacekeeping” budget all that idea would do is guarantee that the US would have to handle everything and we’d be paying ourselves to do it. Brilliant! /sarc

Off to the forest. Enjoy!

Then why share it with any other country?

[[All of these men have functioning core principles they can stick to. None of them are required to make “special case” exceptions.]]

There goes that absolute ‘none’ again. I’ll offer, and I’d be surprised if some ex-soldiers here would disagree, that “I will not kill my fellow man except in defense of myself or of my country” does not involve special case exceptions.

Maybe you mean anything a soldier does in war is covered. I don’t think you do. But soldiers, I understand, have all sorts of laws and rules and requirements that are written around ‘special case’ exceptions.

I noticed the pacifist principle was absolute. The soldier used the word ‘except.’ The doctor I didn’t get. Maybe it didn’t come out as you intended, but ‘preserve life “whenever it can relieve end or reduce suffering” maybe should have been “preserve life, but I will make a special exception if it will reduce suffering?”

And I will offer, in the case of the pacifist, if it’s a mother who’s out with her daughter and they get assaulted and her daughter begins to get killed while the mother has means at her disposal to permanently stop the criminal…well, you get the point. I’d have a hard time viewing that mother as a real moral person.

Your next to the last paragraph took it to an extreme. I don’t recall saying ‘whatever it takes.’ In fact, I said exceptions would be pretty darn rare. Just like with the soldier. Just like with the doctor. Maybe even with the pacifist mother.

@@

Thank you for the link – I have it open in another tab