> There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.
The problem is that you can justify almost any conflict as ultimately meeting these criteria. If you let someone else become too powerful isn't that a de facto threat to your home? If you don't defend rights abroad, don't you threaten the extinction of rights at home?
That's why we do rely on the morality of our leaders. Which seems to be ropey at best.
No, it isn't and that's typical USA thinking pattern - we have to be the best and control everything, then we're "safe" (oh and we'll earn some might good ol' $ too).
I am not advocating, only describing. I think his argument is a problem because it can easily be undermined by specious arguments such as I have outlined. Hence the need to believe in the moral judgement of leaders not to be drawn in by such.
The problem is that you can justify almost any conflict as ultimately meeting these criteria. If you let someone else become too powerful isn't that a de facto threat to your home? If you don't defend rights abroad, don't you threaten the extinction of rights at home?
That's why we do rely on the morality of our leaders. Which seems to be ropey at best.