etc. what else can you do? People like Hitler and Stalin don't exactly
respond to moral persuasion.
Are you telling me that we should not have liberated the occupied areas of
Europe because of a few black marketers? There will always be those negative
side effects, you cannot help it, it may be a very fundamental part of
humanity. I personally do not think that it invalidates what had to be done.
My father participated in the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen concentration
camp system. Because of the violence and the killing that was involved in
that, did that invalidate the cause?
There are wars that are morally justifiable, and wars that are not. I think
that it would be very good if those who make the decisions about going to
war visit those who have paid the costs, the wounded soldiers, the grave
sites etc., before making that decision. But if necessary go to war to
protect not for aggression.
larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 2:06 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: The return of the Draft in the US.
>
>
> At 13:51 5/28/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> >What about the Second World War, was stopping Hitler conscionable?
> >
> >larry
> Yes, stopping Hitler was conscionable.
> Yes, I found World War 2 unconscionable.
>
> The idea of having to kill someone to save lives, I find
> unconscionable. And while the reasons to go to war are often
> virtuous, I find the actually
> war itself very unconscionable.
> War also has the unpleasant side effect of encouraging
> unscrupulous side
> activities - IE carpet baggers, arms dealers etc etc.
>
> That said, I think war is a necessary part of life. And
> those that engage
> in it aren't monsters. Soldiers aren't unconscionable
> killers. Heck, I think they are being good, brave, and loyal
> citizens. All good
> virtues.
>
>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
