Fighting Evil

[Sgt. Boomer]

It ain\'t done till it’s locked

No Ev, my point wasn’t that unrestrained force is the best way, my point was that it’s the easiest way, because it is effective. By the same token doing nothing is just as easy. But in the words of Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Either extreme could be considered evil. “Good” lies somewhere in the middle, and it takes concerted effort, wisdom, and debate to find it.

It’s like the point I was making about Israel – if they really did behave like Nazis, as so many of their critics have said, the problem would be settled because the Palestinians would have been “wiped off the map” by now.

And extremism in the debates (globally I mean- not talking about you guys) – Bushitler, Israel a Nazi state, etc – while tempting, and easier, doesn’t help much either.

Which brings me to Joe. I hope that was sarcasm. Saddam used poison gas against thousands of civilians, spent billions on palaces while his people starved, his secret police tortured people by gouging out the eyes of their children in front of them, and executed dissidents by putting them feet first through a cardboard shredder. Abu Ghraib was the work of a few rogue soldiers, and so out of character for America that it was front page news for months.

I do believe in recent history the West has erred on the side of doing to little- particularly in the area of crime and punishment (more on that later). Positive reinforcement may be the best way, but when two-thirds of violent crime is committed by repeat offenders, it’s obvious that love isn’t all we need. Though I think indiscriminate nuking of civilians in the middle-east is going way too far the other way.

=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD Wrote:What kind of book is it that you two (Boom + Pun) have read, all this pompous talk about nature "being the biggest force". Nietzsche or some such thing? Never mix heavy philosophy concerning good and evil (and beyond) with world politics. It always get ugly.

Nietzsche huh? Cute. I almost got whiplash doing a double take as it first went over my head, but I got it.

No, it is a reference to Aquinas and Natural Law, though vague enough to be taken in the context of Kant, Hume, and Darwin if you absolutely must.

Every law is based on someone’s ideas of right and wrong – and I much prefer a more time-honored Natural Law approach than the post-modern moral relativism of the day.