RE:this is not a morally consistent stand

Submitted by WeAreAllDanes! (United States), Mar 3, 2006 at 02:05

"Back when the Holocaust happened, the world stood by. Sure, millions of lives could be saved by intervention, but national priorities took precedence. Most of the world thought "Well, the Nazis are busy killing Jews, cripples, and others. So they won't get to us today."

Merely from a historical perspectice, this isn't quite true. While we did stand by during the buildup to the Holocaust - even turning away refugees to our eternal shame - *during* the genocide there was this thing called "World War II" going on. Just how could one "intervene" in that circumstance? Trade sanctions? Invasion? While the Allies did not destroy Germany to stop the Holocaust, destroying Germany did, in fact, stop the Holocaust. There was no greater "intervention" possible beyond the best efforts of the military forces of the free world.

If only we still had that clarity of purpose.

"What are we planning on doing with the treasure that will make us happier than at least trying to save life?"

That's not a sound or Constitutional line of reasoning. It'll never end.

"Executing every suspected Al Queda member and suspected Iranian spy would be a good start. After all, killing a few hundred now might save millions later."

Now, this is an idea we should get behind.... Starting with that creature caught yesterday who had beheaded 116 hostages....

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".