Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, November 13, 2008 08:51 AM

  @Trainman -- End Justifying the Means

  What I meant is that the world is not black and white. Not all situations can be resolved in an hour (with commercials). Sometimes hard decisions must be made-- for instance, to send a man in your command to do a job you know for certain will get him killed. Sometimes a morality decision must be made-- do you do "X" which is illegal or immoral (or both) in order to achieve "Y", which in your honest, most deeply-felt, wisdomed opinion _MUST_ be done for the greater good?

  If the answer is "yes" AND if you are a TRUE patriot, then you must ALSO stand to account for your actions when the time is right.

  I am not saying particularly that the "end justifies the means" but rather that there are times when foul deeds must be done to protect the nation. But, I am ALSO saying-- and don't quote one part of my article without also quoting this side-- that IF you make that sort of decision AND you purport to be a patriot-- ie. doing your "patriotic duty", it is ALSO your duty to stand to account for your deeds and actions.

  You may very well go to prison or be hung by the neck until dead for doing exactly the "right" and "patriotic" thing. And your country should be both grateful for your sacrifice yet and satisfied by your punishment. Just because you "do what needs to be done" does not obviate your culpability or complicity, even though in the greatness of time you are proven to be "right" and a "patriot".

  Consider any moment of conflict between two opposing nations, both sides may consist of people who truly believe that they are acting on the side of what's right. And yet, at the same time, most moral standard prohibit the killing of human beings. Thus in a time of war, both sides are "doing what must be done" (committing foul deeds) in the name of the "greater good". Both individually and from a national standpoint, the prevailing moral codes are being "set aside" to achieve the aims and directs of the nation. The people who enact these deeds most often believe themselves to be "patriots" and acting "in the name of their countries".

  Are they patriots? Which side is right? Who are the true patriots? The winners? If that's the case, then "might makes right", right?

  What if the United States had taken out Saddam Hussein and his sons with hidden snipers and then quickly and quietly assisted some other group into power to stabilize and govern the country? Fewer people would have died. Which is more "right" or "wrong", to kill three (or a few) people, or tens of thousands (maybe even hundreds of thousands) and to throw the country into nearly a decade of civil unrest, ethnic cleansing, economic uncertainty, and ruining its culture and national infrastructure? To say nothing of the American boys and girls that would NOT have had to die in a senseless war whose objectives were never clearly stated and put forth ..?

  Which would have been the more "right" thing to do?

  Whatever your answer, not all people-- not all nations-- would agree with you.

  Is there such a thing as an Iraqi "Patriot" ? How about one with a Suicide Vest?

  When is a Patriot a terrorist and vice versa?

  —Mr E Read Mr E's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel