SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
So what your saying is that the actions of a previous administration have an affect on current and future administrations. Guess that means you agree me on the point about the Bush administrations focus on Iraq and neglect of Afghanistan. Giving the Taliban the breathing room to reconstitute itself and therefore giving us the problems we have now ober there.
Bush and Obama are one and the same. Empire building interventionists. A "premptive strike" used to be known as aggression. They were the wars of Hitler and hs type, not that of a Liberty loving nation.Now they are our wars.
Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.
Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative.
The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.
This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.