(Page 13 of 13)
“Grass comes to this conclusion not out of any lingering sympathy for the Nazi era but out of something more banal: an unreflective pacifism and an inability to make relevant moral distinctions, between aggression and retaliation, between tyranny and freedom, between fantasy and reality.”
I believe the author has characterized Guenther Grass correctly in general terms. However, Grass is totally correct if he does NOT distinguish between crimes committed against humanity by the aggressor or the retaliating party. Such crimes committed by either party are officially, equally condemned by international laws governing the human conduct of war by all nations.
It is a sad fact that only the U.S. is actively trying to avoid collateral losses amongst civilians since WW II and that since that war it also punishes U.S. soldiers involved in atrocities against civilians. Same cannot be said about our enemies.p>Grass has lost all moral authority by his vulgar and wrong-headed attempt to paint all Germans with a broad brush of collective guilt for Nazi atrocities during WW II. His admission and excuses for having kept his own sins under cover for 60 years shows him to be nothing more but a cheap political opportunist who “flowed with the trend of the times.” br> — Peter P. Haase br> Boca Raton, Florida /p>
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?