He mentions two specific examples of evil, Islamic terrorism, and communism, and you stated above that you would have to question his defintion of evil. He points out that the left has a problem in facing evil. It would seem that you might fit into that category with your questioning his definition of evil.
You said his question to howard zinn about the world being worse off without the United States was a borderline stupid question. Zinn had no answer and you seem to agree with Zinn.
Well, while we'd agree that Islamic terrorism is "evil,"ut I don't know that "fighting evil" is a higher good than "doing good for your fellow man."
I don't know that "communism" or "socialism" are "evil." Israel certainly doesn't think so, and neither do a few other countries. I don't know that it's possible for a simple political/philosophical ideology to be "evil" without outright embracing of "evil."
The Cultural Revolution and state-sanctioned cannibalism in China?
Evil.
"Communism?" Not so much...in fact, it's most prominent examples of U.S. enmity mostly faded away as communist states: the Soviet Union is no more, and China is approaching the status of capitalist superpower, as well as demographically and culturally defeating it's bankrupt political ideologies.
And it
was a borderline stupid question: how in the name of Zeus' balls is Zinn supposed to know what the world would be like without the United States? Without the United States we all might still be British, and have defeated Germany once and for all in 1918. The world could be a British Empire, and we could be driving Russian cars to go with our Japanese ones. It might have been a peaceful paradise since WWI-one without nuclear weapons, concentration camps of
any kind, the Holocaust
or the state of Israel (much more interesting question: would the world be a better place without the socialist paradise of
Israel?) or Islamo-terrorism.
Of course, that's not the answer he was looking for, but it's just as possible as the dark place he was envisioning. In the meantime, I'm an American: I love the U.S. and I love being from here-but
I don't know is an honest, intelligent answer to a question that doesn't really have an answer.
where do you fall on the World war 2, korea, vietnam and islamic terrorism questions elder. Were they worthy noble undertakings and are communism and islamic terrorism evil? Have to sleep, talk to you later.
WWII? Sure-a worthy undertaking. Don't know that I'd call it "noble," but we might not have the same definition there, either. After all, the U.S.'s reasons for entering the war can't be seen as entirely altruistic-that sneaky Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor notwithstanding.
Korea? A fair response to what was, for the time,reasonable to view as a legitimate threat. Worthy undertaking? Sure. Noble? See above.
Vietnam? History shows that except for the economic benefits to the U.S. while it was taking place, it was an almost complete waste of time, spent in support of a corrupt and cowardly regime that was no more interested in "winning" than we ever were.
No, communism isn't "evil"-a few of the governments that have called themselves "communist" have had some evil practices, just as
all governments-including (some would say
especially)ours-have. It's also debatable for many just how "communist" the Soviet Union actually was (heck, many Communists from Trotsky on said that the Soviet Union was a "degenerated worker's state"), or China and North Korea actually are. In any case, Plato and Thomas More both espoused the central themes that communism defines itself by:a
classless society with common ownership of production, free access to products and no wage labor or private property-all things that neither the old Soviet Union or China have achieved, but hunter-gatherer societies and various
Christian movements from the 13th centrury on did, in keeping with the Acts of the Apostles:
"all things held in common."
"A
classless society with common ownership of production, free access to products and no wage labor or private property." What's "evil" about that? It isn't how
I want to live, but it's certainly not "evil." It just doesn't work for larger, diverse societies like ours, or Soviet Russia and its various satellite states, apparently.
I've already said that yes, the
actions of "islamic terrorism" are "evil"-so, how is Prager talking about me, exactly?
........clearly a little confused about how this country is supposed to work. :lol:
