29
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 524:
Line 524: + +
Talk:Ronald Wilson Reagan (view source)
Revision as of 04:20, January 1, 2011
, 04:20, January 1, 2011no edit summary
::And there is nothing wrong with blocking communist regimes like Cuba from spreading to vulnerable neighbors like Grenada. Esmith, would you think it wrong for someone to intervene to stop a bully who is picking on someone else?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 31 December 2010 (EST)
::And there is nothing wrong with blocking communist regimes like Cuba from spreading to vulnerable neighbors like Grenada. Esmith, would you think it wrong for someone to intervene to stop a bully who is picking on someone else?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 31 December 2010 (EST)
How many lives does it take for us to look back and question our actions. Apparently, hundreds of thousands is not enough. Would you condemn the action had it cost a million lives? Ten million? The reason that we are better than communist regimes is that we do not accept that the ends justify the means. Mao once said that "if the worst came to the worst and one-half dies, there will still be one-half left, but imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist." That is an abhorrent thing to say. However, if we imagine that Reagan had said that, and the word "imperialism" were replaced with "communism", and the word "socialist" were to be replaced with "democratic", would Reagan still be a hero? Just to be clear, Reagan did not say anything of the sort (to my knowledge), but we cannot excuse the deaths of 10,00 people because of an attempted spread of western government. I would not think it wrong for someone to stop a bully, but I would think it wrong if in the process of stopping that bully, thousands of people are killed. Further, regardless of what motives Reagan had, whether you think them good or bad, why is there no mention on Conservapedia of this?