Convenience vs. Toughness

DJ Drummond:

Another lesson I learned from RISK, is that sometimes a player is far too strong to oppose. When this happens, the only smart move is to be his buddy, so he has less reason to go after you. I wonder how long it will take for the real world to learn that particular lesson.

For most of the countries in the world, the choice boils down to:
A. Diplomatically disagree with the US and hence be neutral in WWIV.
B. Militarily oppose the Islamists and thus be a member of the Coalition of the Willing.

The countries that pick A. think they're being safe and "enlightened." They correctly assume that the fallout from the US will not be deadly. Though, they naively think that not opposing Islamists buys them harmony, as though Islamists are in the business of only retaliation. Their position is in no way moral. To sit back and not use rhetoric and military might against the evil of our age is shameful.

These nations have turned their backs on the principled strong to, de facto, side with the wretched weak. Through the relentless march of time, they'll one day see their moral high ground for what it truly is: a blood-soaked illusion.

Comments

[slickdpdx]

"as though Islamists are in the business of only retaliation" First of a series of quotables. Great post.

[Isaac Schrödinger]

Thanks.