Posted by
Doctor Demex on Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:54:44 PM
Many liberals and leftists see world politics as a game, either
underestimating what's really at stake or, in the case of leftists who
know exactly what they're doing, wishing the defeat of American
interests. In a contest between two contenders, political enemies
and self-styled liberal "supporters" of the stronger contender are
effectively on the same side: They try to "make the game fairer
and more interesting" by making the stronger power fight with one hand
tied behind its back.
Rooting for the underdog is an American tradition, but handicapping our
own nation as it fights for survival is suicidal. Perhaps the
sports-obsessed public who prefer superficial contests with nothing at
stake but bragging rights are so spoiled that they want all contests to
follow that pattern, where no one really gets hurt.
The Geneva Convention is not followed by our Islamic foes, and even if
it were, our civilian-garbed Gitmo prisoners would not fall under the
Geneva Convention anyway. Even without the protections of the
Geneva Convention, the standard of living of the average Middle Eastern
Muslim probably improves when he comes to Gitmo.
It is patently unjust, not to mention absurd, for American courts to hold that people who cheat, i.e.,
who do not play by the rules, should be treated the same as those who
don't. We see examples where higher levels of cheating have
become tolerated in our own society, from academia to marriages.
Nothing good has come from this except to make the cheaters feel less
stigmatized for the sake of—what? Politlcal correctness? As though that
were an end in itself?
In warfare, where the stakes are higher than in sports, tolerating
cheaters, as though they were children who change the rules whenever
they are losing, is suicidal.
Underdogs are underdogs for a reason, and whether one roots for them or not, they don't always deserve to win.