The following strikes me as a fairly clear instance of a false dichotomy:<\/p>\n
\nFor those who see no moral principle underlying American foreign
\npolicy, the Holocaust Declaration is no business of ours. But for those
\nwho believe that America stands for something in the world — that the
\nnation that has liberated more peoples than any other has even the most
\nminimal moral vocation — there can be no more pressing cause than
\npreventing the nuclear annihilation of an allied democracy, the last
\nrefuge and hope of an ancient people openly threatened with the final
\nFinal Solution. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nSo, to recap: you either (1) have no moral principles; or (2) agree with Charles’ Krauthammer’s<\/a> "Holocaust Declaration": here’s the Holocaust Declaration:<\/p>\n
\n"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack
\nupon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on
\nthe United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran."<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nThere are many reasons to regard such a policy is foolish and immoral. That simple fact alone means Krauthammer cannot claim that even the most "minimal moral vocation" means we must adopt it. Even granting (which we shouldn’t, by the way) that some form of deterrence (of Iran’s as of yet non-existent nuclear capability) is the only available option, there many different ways to achieve that goal than by apocalyptic threats. Adopting those approaches does not mean that one abandons the (dubious to some) claim that America stands for something in the world. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The following strikes me as a fairly clear instance of a false dichotomy: For those who see no moral principle underlying American foreign policy, the Holocaust Declaration is no business of ours. But for those who believe that America stands for something in the world — that the nation that has liberated more peoples than … Continue reading Or against us<\/span>