Are preemptive strikes an acceptable means of defense? Can you define ‘defense’ as ‘striking first’? Or are preemptive strikes somewhere in the family of paranoia? I don’t know any of these answers. Seldom are my opinions black and white, usually more a form of grey. Seldom, the questions I ask myself yield answers, usually only more questions.
George W. by no means invented the concept. For example back in WWII there was the highly controversial Fire-bombing of Dresden. Just prior to the bombings, Dresden was regarded as a beautiful city and cultural center with no direct military presence.Near the end of the war, after the Allies bombed all the German cities full of bad guys, they got to thinking “What are all the bad guys going to do, now that we blew up all their cities?” The conclusion was “… they will probably move to a city we haven’t blown up yet.” The debate I have with myself: Can you blow up cities that DON’T have bad guys in them, but you think MIGHT eventually be used by the bad guys. To me, that has some parallels to firefighters using ‘controlled burns’ to limit the impact of forest fires.
What am I really rambling talking about?
Ingrid and I have broken up.
Check here for the short ‘n sweet version. Keep reading for the more incoherent one.
When is it time to call it quits on a relationship? Should the captains go down with ship? … futilely trying to salvage what they can, only to drowned in vain? Or should there be intervention? … which would prevent a worst-case scenario but result in a suboptimal (nonetheless livable) outcome?
Ingrid’s and my relationship has entered a new stage … a very transitional one. About the only thing that IS clear is that we no longer have the titles boyfriend/girlfriend. What our relationship will stabilize to be is still very uncertain. Despite the pains, confusion and frustrations that all moments like these bring, I still hold Ingrid in the highest regard. I truly hope our relationship continues long into the future.
1 comment:
Of course preemptive strikes are immoral. But America is a land where special interests have sway in Washington and the will of the people is determined by the propaganda they hear. The discussion of the morality of preemptive strikes does not come up in the American press because the owners of the press do not want it to. Germany had this same problem under Hitler. There is no powerful special interest group dedicated to the truth. There never will be. The ability to resist propaganda should be taught in schools but it won't be because propaganda is the is only effective way to control the masses, since the invention of the rifled barrel. People won't shoot the leaders if they can be convinced either that A:"our leaders are doing the best they can under the circumstances" or B:"I chose these people to lead and therefore the fault is my own" (Offering people lousy choices is a fabulous control technique)
Post a Comment