Ann Coulter Is the Idiotic One
http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/08/ann-coulter-idiotic-one/
The author makes a number of germane and solid points. Ann Coulter talks liberty, but only for "true blue Americans" -- and not always those. She is also heartless, short-sighted, and a real turn-off as far as trying to persuade others of the values of conservatism goes. She has gone way too far with her unbelievably cruel view of the value of fighting Ebola in Africa versus sticking to what she considers to be a far more valuable career course in America. Ann is a Christian -- of one or another stripe. Okay, lady, one thing Jesus was known for is healing the sick. He wasn't indifferent to suffering -- he did what he could to alleviating it, and never treated sick Romans and other non-Jews any differently than sick or injured Jews. He'd ask Ann a question much like the one God asked of Cain: "Ann, what of your brothers and sisters in Christ in Africa?" Ann: "Oh, they don't matter -- they're not Americans." I wonder what mark He would make on Ann, to let the world know what she has done.
I do disagree with the author on one thing: In war, people get killed, and many of them inevitably will be civilians. But if you have a good reason for taking part in that war -- like, having been threatened or attacked by a dangerous enemy -- your best shot at it is to wage it to win and then, having won, get out of there. And winning as quickly as possible is always brutal -- ask General Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. But doing so also results in the fewest casualties on both sides, both military and civilian. If we'd done that in Vietnam, we'd've been out in a matter of a few months, with less than 1% of the casualties on both sides than actually was the case. So waging a brutal but effective campaign is actually the most merciful of options, with the lowest body-count, if you decide to go to war. (Of course, if nukes get brought into it, it's a different story entirely, but that's not the case here.) But I do agree with the author that using drones on innocent civilians is flatly evil. The fact that the victims are "foreigners" doesn't change that. Ann, how could you?
The author makes a number of germane and solid points. Ann Coulter talks liberty, but only for "true blue Americans" -- and not always those. She is also heartless, short-sighted, and a real turn-off as far as trying to persuade others of the values of conservatism goes. She has gone way too far with her unbelievably cruel view of the value of fighting Ebola in Africa versus sticking to what she considers to be a far more valuable career course in America. Ann is a Christian -- of one or another stripe. Okay, lady, one thing Jesus was known for is healing the sick. He wasn't indifferent to suffering -- he did what he could to alleviating it, and never treated sick Romans and other non-Jews any differently than sick or injured Jews. He'd ask Ann a question much like the one God asked of Cain: "Ann, what of your brothers and sisters in Christ in Africa?" Ann: "Oh, they don't matter -- they're not Americans." I wonder what mark He would make on Ann, to let the world know what she has done.
I do disagree with the author on one thing: In war, people get killed, and many of them inevitably will be civilians. But if you have a good reason for taking part in that war -- like, having been threatened or attacked by a dangerous enemy -- your best shot at it is to wage it to win and then, having won, get out of there. And winning as quickly as possible is always brutal -- ask General Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. But doing so also results in the fewest casualties on both sides, both military and civilian. If we'd done that in Vietnam, we'd've been out in a matter of a few months, with less than 1% of the casualties on both sides than actually was the case. So waging a brutal but effective campaign is actually the most merciful of options, with the lowest body-count, if you decide to go to war. (Of course, if nukes get brought into it, it's a different story entirely, but that's not the case here.) But I do agree with the author that using drones on innocent civilians is flatly evil. The fact that the victims are "foreigners" doesn't change that. Ann, how could you?