May 31, 2013

Choosing between Bad and Worse

     In politics we sometimes do not choose between good and worse, or between good and bad, but between bad and worse. Citizens frequently go through this situation when they participate in a democratic election and must choose among opportunistic and often criminal politicians which are available. At other occasions, a democratic country must choose between war and peace, the war obviously being the bad option, but peace often being worse. Great Britain chose peace with Hitler in 1938, and the prime minister Neville Chamberlain enthusiastically spoke about “a peace for our time” when returning from Munich where he signed the agreement with Hitler; the war followed within months. After WWII, Great Britain again chose peace, together with the U.S., when abandoning half of the world under the Stalin’s rule. The peaceful choices transformed the largest empire in history to a little England, which is too timid to celebrate Christmas lest it offend Muslims, in which the most popular name is Muhammad, and in whose streets barbarians decapitate English soldiers. When Israel chose war in 1967, it achieved decisive victory and acquired territories, when it chose peace in 1973, it lost the territories without any guaranties or assets.
     Now, the western countries choose between Assad and opposition fighters. Assad, who is supported by the most evil axis of Hezbullah and Iran and Russia, is indeed bad, but the opposition fighters, who slit children’s throats and eat liver from the dead enemies, seem to be worse[1].