Zeitgeist - 2/4/2005 8:36 PM
We're a rogue nation that snubs international rules and obligations, and not to mention goes around attacking, invading and occupying formerly sovereign nations without provocation. We can no longer claim the right to stand in judgement of who is and who isn't an appropriate arbiter of international justice. Mr ill is a wackjob tyrant, Bush is a wackjob imperialist--what's the diff? Our moral authority blew away in the winds of the Iraqi desert. I say bring em on...
The fundamental premise is this: "We're a rogue nation...". I disagree with that and so the remainder is not proven.
Stripped bare of moralisms, we may stand in judgement on this premise alone: Our self-interest. We can make it stand because we have the power and will to enforce it.
Now if you need some moral imperative to justify whatever position you believe is right, true, and good, then I applaud your efforts. Truly I do. However, I don't think it is a presumption on my part to assume that you and I may differ to some degree on this or that moral imperative. If you and I disagree, how can we expect an entire community to agree on a single paradigm, much less a course of action?
The answer is that no two people, no matter how well-intentioned nor closely related can ever fully agree (else they would be perfectly indistinguishable, a trait perhaps possible in theory but I have never seen in fact). So what are we to do, frail, stupid, and incomplete bags of protein that we are? How would you suggest that we decide the communal will?