Thursday, May 12, 2005

Was World War II Worth It? by Patrick J. Buchanan

I am truly at a loss for words.


Urbanpink said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Urbanpink said...

In this purist worldview paternalism can exist (do what I tell you to do), but cooperation (let's find a solution with our opposition) is not valued, imagined, or necessary. That is how Buchanan can "purely" rationalize that since we did not stop Stalin, we didn't need to stop Hitler. That's insane--we won what we could and there is never, ever, a perfect war. To frame FDR and Churchill's reformist policy attempts as a sell out (Stalin was the one who reneged on the liberation agreements) is unfairly judgmental of those great leaders (especially compared to today's dishonest leaders--and I think it's a bad sign when our "leaders" swat at the really important legacies of past leaders) and robs every difficult negotiation of any merit. Bush has shown us that to use this kind of argument as a justification for paternalism with other countries has simply increased the number of countries with nuclear warheads. Conservatives appear to have no patience with diplomacy until they are sure they'll lose a fight. And that's usually too late because they've started several fights that are lose/lose with their paternalistic we win/you lose threats. Most Americans would agree to fight only just wars that we can win--just like WWII--and not to pick them, but that involves using diplomacy (imperfect cooperation) a hell of a lot more than war.