But if they cannot protect themselves from the roving predators, we are left with deciding which sacrifice to make: More of our own people, or throw them to the wolves
And people "see" that choice in many differing ways and to different degrees. Some people see zero value to 'us' in the "more of our people" option, and others do see value to 'us' in the "more of our people" option. Still others emphasize the 'value to them' in the "more of our people" and find that to be morally adequate such as to mandate some involvement in select conflicts, if we can.
I know this might be seen as an over-used, obsolete, "it'll probably never happen again" cliché, but always remember the major wars of history.
A substantial number of them (but perhaps not the Vietnam, Somalia, etc that everyone likes to talk about now) meant getting involved in a foreign & distant country in order to stop an evil that may well have continued to grow until it threatened the world - and us.
The Nazi phenomenon seems to have taken the world by surprise as a relatively quick rise. Radical Islam may be a slower one, but we shouldn't be lulled by that slowness into a false sense of security, or that it doesn't matter since they've been largely unsuccessful in crossing certain geographic sections of the world ... Where there's a will, there's a way, even though it takes time. And in that group, there is a very strong will. I would say, stronger than the Nazi will was, as religious motivations are generally the most relentless and persistent the world ever sees.
I'm a firm believer in King's "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". Although I do realize that limitations on resources mean limitations on what makes sense to get involved in.
@AccessBlaster ... great quote, hadn't heard it...
www.yahoo.com
