It's also the basis for the foreign policy of every nation on earth. Even Obama, he is just doing it wrong.
Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work [, Piss Christ,] as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ":
If only...things were simple.
contre said:http://www.upworthy.com/we-saw-the-v...ove?g=2&c=ufb1
Look at these awful Muslims *tut tut*
JollyRoger said:*snip*
(dates of embassy attacks during the Bush Administration)
various sources said:About previous 'warnings'....
Hysterical hyperbole. Thy name seems to be lovett.I think that this view should be called out for what it is.
If you have intelligence that an attack on American missions is imminent within a specific time frame (if this report from The Independent is to be believed), why would you not ramp up security at American missions during that time? Too busy fundraising? Golfing?Ok. If Obama is blamed for his failure to act before the attack,
It's also the basis for the foreign policy of every nation on earth. Even Obama, he is just doing it wrong.
I think that this view should be called out for what it is.
It is a reprehensible view. It is a despicable and immoral view. It represents an utter lack of concern for one's fellow man. It represents an abrogation of the most basic of one's moral obligation and an abandonment of human decency. In short, it is a view which should be rejected with all possible force.
If we are to take Dino seriously, we should stand by in the face of genocide. We should do nothing whatever the human cost, as long as it is not in our interests to intervene. If we are to take Dino seriously we should aid and abet governments which kill their own people. We should support and succour such governments just as long as it helps us to do so. Indeed, if we are to take Dino seriously we might as well cut out the middle man; we should yield to restraints in neither war nor politics. If it is in our interests to poison children or massacre cities then are foreign policy should enact just that.
It is on this view, or one very much like it, arguments were made to ignore the genocide in Rwanda. Millions of people have died because people have held the view to which Dino ascribes. If this view had won the day Britain would have massacred Gandhi in 1928 and allied with Germany in 1940. If this view had won the day the US would never have given up the Philippines and there would have been no embargo against Apartheid South Africa. Thankfully, it did not.
Dino has said that there is absolutely no fashion in which foreign policy or military intervention should be governed by morality. That when engaging in such things we should care not a whit for our moral obligations. We should show none of the characteristic moral concern owed our fellow man. His view is like that of the unscrupulous murder, who when asked how he could possibly do the things that he did, wonders aloud how his interlocutor is so blinded by morality not to see the clear light of his own self-interest. In Dino's view nations should act like that; nations should not be blinded by the allure of morality but instead pursue the golden path of self-interest.
As I said, this view should be rejected with all possible force. Anybody with a shred of human decency should discard it as the reprehensible piece of drivel it is. Anyone with an ounce of moral sensibility should leave it, and its exponents, well enough alone.
It's also the basis for the foreign policy of every nation on earth. Even Obama, he is just doing it wrong.
A new voting block in Florida?but eventually a Castro replaces a Batista, and then what have we got?
A new voting block in Florida?
Then it's not morality, just a more nuanced self-interest.Morality should always be a consideration, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is in our best interest in the long run.
Then it's not morality, just a more nuanced self-interest.
(a protester said...) "I just want to say, how would the Americans feel if films insulting leading Christian figures like the pope or historical figures like Abraham Lincoln were produced?" -CNN coverage
Emphasis mine.Thats just how most foreign policy operates. Each nation is fighting for it's best interests in a Darwinist world. Instituitions like the UN are just ineffective tools used by the do gooders to change that.
I take it you didn't vote for GWB in 2004?If you have intelligence that an attack on American missions is imminent within a specific time frame (if this report from The Independent is to be believed), why would you not ramp up security at American missions during that time? Too busy fundraising? Golfing?