- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
>There's nothing to explain, Den, and no convincing to do, because cherry picking history is a waste of time. I'm sure those who know better could match each of Sharon's criminal incidents with one of valor and duty.
That's sort of a telling admission Jeffrey. "Those who know better..." suggests that you are arguing from a position of factual ignorance as well as moral blindness. Your sole defense of Sharon rests in the fact that you can't be bothered to inform yourself. He's innocent because... he 'must' be innocent?
In another respect, there's an awkwardness to your pragmatism. It seems that in your view, evil is redeemed by some balancing act. Rape and murder a woman for kicks, all is forgiven if you kiss enough babies and pat enough dogs heads.
>By your own standards Nelson Mandela was a criminal,
I'm sorry, did Nelson Mandela go out and massacre a village in a foreign country? I don't think so. But then, I'll bet you don't know Mandela's career any better than Sharon's. You equivocate them out of ignorance.
>as was George Washington,
How many prisoners of war did George Washington execute?
>and since Lincoln subverted the constitution, he should be hauled to the dock as well.
Indeed yes. Lincoln deserves legitimate criticism for suspending Habeas Corpus and jailing opponents and critics. Ta. On the other hand, Lincoln's offences fall far short of being war crimes and atrocities. And yet, Lincoln's career is stained with his wrongdoings. I cannot understand why we should have a balanced perspective on Lincoln, and yet you work so hard to whitewash Sharon.
>I don't deny the horror and the violence you refer to,
But you're happy to excuse them.
>but I say soldiers and leaders do horrible and violent things and we often benefit from those actions even if the cold hard truth about our myths are tarnished and stained.
This then is your moral standpoint. You're perfectly willing to justify murder and atrocity so long as you benefit from it. A little mayhem is okay, as long as you make out from it. That's not a moral standpoint at all.
>Den, I live in a country so soaked in blood (USA) that the murder of 49 Egyptian POWs or the destruction of some village in the overall context of the endless Holy Land struggle just doesn't raise my bile as it does yours.
And yet, for all the sins of America, for all its many failures, Americans have never ceased to strive for something better. Americans have never accepted that its sins and failures are a way of life. America accepted slavery, and then fought to free those slaves. America stole its land from the Indians, and even now, is engaged in making restitutions for those thefts. America is a country struggling to redeem its moral balance sheet, and I respect that. The struggle isn't constant, and it isn't easy, and sometimes not successful. But Americans realized Hitler had to be fought, Americans embraced Civil Rights, Women's rights, Gay rights.
Your cavalier attitude tells us far more of your own moral and ethical bankruptcy than it does America's. Your facile cynicism, your selfishness, your dishonest and your easy tolerance of evil tells on you.
>If you can honestly judge Sharon as one of history's great monsters, then judgment is hereby passed.
On you as well, my friend. Accept my regrets. I can only wish that you have it in you to someday become a better person.
