Date Posted:20:52:58 03/29/03 Sat Author: SurveyGuy Author Host/IP: pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net / 68.81.153.209 Subject: Looking for moral authority . . .
I have visited the "news" page http://www.catholicnexus.com/ where they have an article that calls the war in Iraq an "immoral war." I then wondered, what is a moral war? Others call it an "illegal war." What then is a "legal war?"
Then I read the separate page on articles about the "crisis in the church" and asked myself, how do these people have the chutzpah to even speak about morality when all around them for decades morality and decency have been not only ignored, but covered up?
I have heard no outcries about the atrocities in Iraq over the past decade. I heard little concern of the 1000s who died in New York and Washington D.C. -- just some lip service. I guess Iraqis are less important than those killed by Milosevic's cronies. Or is it because of the (illegal) trading relationships with Iraq? Maybe what we had was really an immoral peace as well as an illegal peace. (Why not?)
Where was the indignation during Operation Desert Fox when Clinton bombed Iraq? There was none. I wonder why.
So tell me ... (1) What is a moral war and (2) What is a legal war? If a war is moral, does it have to be leagl? If it is legal, need it be moral as well?
Then the big question that I never seem to hear answered, if not this solution, then what alternative?
Has anyone seen any viable alternatives ofered that are legal and moral? The only one I heard was to send an assassination squad. A moral act? A legal one?
Just questions that bounce around in the space not otherwise occupied between my ears. I don't expect that I will ever have a satisifactory answer, but somehow having the feeling that something is being done is more satisfying than more worthless chatter and false civility. Now we can see the anti-semitism in France and Germany that is still alive. We can see the extent of anti-Americanism within our own country. It is an awakening experience.
What ios troubling are the fascist actions in the private sector, like the saleman who was fired because he sent an email (to his sales group) listing French companies if anyone wanted to boycott. While a repremand for using company email for private correspondance would be in order, firing their #1 sales person seemed a bit extreme.
In France they attack a MacDonalds. It is just a brand. The location is run and franchised by a French citizen who hires French workers. They just hurt Frenchmen in the name of symbolism. Protesting must make people stupid. Maybe carrying those signs cuts off the circulation somewhat. They also attacked an 8-ft replica of the Statue of Liberty and a 9-11 memorial to those who died.
Some restaurants won't serve Coca-Cola. Now there's a moral choice . . . or is it that they really wish to sell more wine since we won't be buying it. I say let our State Stores stock French wines and let the market determine. Heck, they're only 1.5% of all the wines sold here in PA anyway and their sales have increased last quarter more than other wines. So be it. Boycotts should come from the grass roots and not forced on people. It would then be interesting to see what happens this next quarter.
In the meantime all we can do is stay informed and question when reported "facts" seem to not jibe with common sense.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ] [ Edit | View ] [> [>
We agree, but it does make people who want to respond feel better. I decry boycotts by governments or organizations and leave it to the people. I also decryed the institutional boycotts of South Africa investments years ago. To me, grass roots boycotts serve to create awareness of the interdependence. Still French wines come only from France and I prefer New World style wines anyway. I still buy good German and Alsace wines. Your local boycott was of a brand, not a product. Again -- ignorance. They just need to rename it BurgerSheik. -- SG, 10:04:56 03/31/03 Mon(pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.81.153.209)
