Middle of the road

Well, there is war, and there is peace. As Barack and I did a bit of both, to be honest. Let us have a look at the whys and the hows.

First of all, the first thing that disappears in conflict is the ETHICAL perspective. Often we end up in a tit for tat situation, where one pun is exchanged for another.

Off cause this is not the case with obvious warfaring ideologies. But in most cases in the modern world, we are prone to end up in a vicious cycle of retribution.

Sometimes, you have to fight. Like in the fight with Islamic State. This organization was a threat to the Middle East and the world in general. So we fought them. I have also argued for an open conflict with China. We will end up fighting them anyway due to geostrategic developments that we cannot control.

But the Chinese are emerging as a world power, and they have fought us for four decades behind the scene and with Cold War methods.

As they are expanding to areas that we care about, not the least Hong Kong, war is inevitable.

So we need to stockpile weapons, get our economy in order and so on.

Point being, that war should be a clear choice, based on arguments that exclude the possibility for peace.

Islamic State never wanted peace, so we have to fight them. China has the ability to rein in their advance, but chooses not to.

So we will end up fighting them anyway.

This attitude is the middle road, and thoroughly based on ethics.

If not, then people suffer for no real reason.

I truly believe in that ‘middle of the road’ philosophy. I mean, sometimes you have to fight for your freedom. But most of the time, you should seek for peace, if at all possible.

That middle of the road ideology served us well in the Obama presidency. Hopefully it can continue to do so.

G-d bless the will to find peace, wherever possible.

Categories: Politics Tags:
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.