[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I DO think many things our government has done are wrong. However there is no way to judge such things in a vacuum; hence relative morality must be applied. We live in an imperfect world at best, and the only moral judgements that matter are usually relative ones; unfortunately, the real-world choice usually comes down to: which is LESS BAD, not which is IDEAL



[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean by this that there is no way to combat terrorism without using some unacceptable methods, if not US will lose? (I personally think that is the way Donald and many other Bushies think)

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not what I meant but I would not entirely disageree with it. I don't agree with it fully though.

What I meant was that some things which would be condemnable in a vacuum, or in an ideal utopian world, are considerably less condemnable in the real-world, because complexities and conflicting interests generally make it impossible for countries to always act 100% ethically or morally. It's just a fact of life.

For instance, countering the USSR during the Cold War involved some nasty activities, some of which were condemnable even given the circumstances, but others of which would only have been truly condemnable in a vacuum--not so much so in the real world.

Unfortunately, the pressures and conflicting interests present in the real world often force some moral or ethical concessions in the form of less-than-ideal behaviors or activities. And the grander the scale, the more this is generally so.

Therefore, in matters of grand scale which often involve complex and conflicting interests, I believe that relative comparisons are more meaningful than absolute evaluations.