|Teresa, here is your comment:|
"More basically, politicians like to fight wars, because they really believe in altruism."
Speaking out against murder isn't altruism, Mark.
My comment, in quotes above, doesn't mention "speaking out", does it? It only references fighting wars.
You seem to attach great moral weight to the President's "speaking out" for us all, at least on this particular issue. But I do not think of the President as national spokesman on politics-ethics. Why should I?
If you want to speak out, or form a crusade on behalf of Iranians, then perhaps you should do so. There's nothing wrong with helping others fight their battles, provided you don't waste disproportionate effort on a project that is of marginal importance, compared with trying to defend our own freedom.
Jay, I thought you wrote something about rising complexity bringing new foreign threats to bear against the US. If I misread your comment, sorry.
It seems to me that the increased volume of information available today includes much analysis that was previously suppressed by the establishment's media. I think that's a large net benefit.
John, I wrote that politicians will always speak about ethics, because politics is about ethics. However, since most politicians today are corrupt, I'd rather they just get on with stealing and extorting, and skip the rhetoric.
I don't care if some politician announces that taxation is theft, or that taxation is the necessary price of civilization. But it ought to be understood that he is speaking as a private citizen, not issuing ethical proclamations on behalf of "the people".
I have the impression that those on this site who demand that the President speak out against Iranian atrocities, see him as National Moral Spokesman on their favorite issue. But why would any sensible person want another to assume such a role? I also get the impression that some of those favoring this Presidential role tend to see his speech making as a warning to Iran--a prelude to possible subsequent US action. But I think that is improper policy.
Come to think of it, no one has answered the questions I posted. That's interesting.
Finally, John, I have the impression that you misunderstand the point I was trying to make about moral priorities. I was not objecting to the existence of this thread or to any of us spending time posting about this subject. (Who would I be to cast stones here?)
I was warning against promoting American wars of foreign liberation. I've noticed that this subject is a pet cause, on this site and on talk radio. My point is that this infatuation with making "good" wars is incongruent with the primary cause of defending our own vanishing liberty here, today, in the US. I raised this point on this thread because I think the cry for the President to "speak out" is often issued, especially by hawks, as the "first step" by our government to "righting Iranian wrongs". Since I object to non-defensive wars, this makes me even more leery of Presidential Ethical Proclamations.