Obama permits off-shore oil drilling

although I am still concerned about the danger behind that envy.

Who isn't? That is why we are sacrificing blood and treasure in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Aren't we allowing our lifestyle to choose our enemies?

I don't know what that means. But if you mean that because we are a democratic country we choose Islamic fascists as enemies, that is false. If anything, the Islamic fascists chose us to be their enemies. Just as did the Nazis. Of course, we ought to be enemies of all fascists including the Islamic fascists.

What I mean is that, if by my actions I cause some one to hate me shouldn't I reconsider my actions.

Are you saying we don't choose our enemies?

Not at all. Why should I reconsider my actions when who hates me for what I do and think is a evil person; An Islamic fascist, for instance? Of course we don't always choose our enemies. What makes you believe we do? A Jew, for instance, may walk down the street in traditional Jewish garb, and an anti-Semite might find this infuriating. Did the Jew then choose the anti-Semite as his enemy? Of course not. The anti-Semite chose the Jew to be his enemy. The Jew had nothing whatever to do with it.

We always have the power to choose our enemies.
Just because someone chooses to see me as an enemy doesn't mean I have to be that enemy.
That's what politics and negotiation are all about.
Unreasonable people do exist, but they don't have to be my enemy.
I can defend myself without malice.

So the Jew chose the anti-Semite to be his (the Jew's) enemy? How did he do that? You think it is up to the Jew whether he will be the enemy of the anti-Semite? If someone you don't know, strides up to you and hits you on the head because he does not like the way you wear your hair, that is your fault. To quote the late Senator Kennedy, "What planet do you come from?"

. Having an enemy presupposes malice.

No, I don't see at all. Whose malice does it presuppose? The victim's? What makes you think that the victim of an person's malice is, himself, malicious? What planet did you say?

The guy hit me on the head, thats not my fault.
I retaliate in anger, that's my fault.
I face the threat with reason and absence of malice, that's called courage.
Peace requires sacrifice.
The Hatfields and Mcoys practice a different principle.

But I did not say you retaliated at all. So where did that come from? I simply said that he hit you on the head. It was not your fault. He chose you to be his enemy. You did not choose him to be yours. What is debatable about that. You are the one who wants to engage, and not argue. But, at least, you shouldn't create an argument where there is none. You can, if sincere about it, at least not do that.

Is the oil-spil now going to change USA policy ? Or do you not have any options left ? I wish a world without 800.000 tons or barrels or even liters spilling in international waters. The oil company should pay up the damage done; but not to US government since they are faulty as well. Donation to Haiti instead ?

Pepijn

Good 4 employment in Loisiana; or USA counts on volunteers ? Spanish people have done it in Gallicia.

Of course the point you have been making is true and realistic.
I am trying to present a philosophical principle which ,although it may be impracticle, is a solid principle for which men have died.

I would rather support a true and realistic principle than an impractical philosophical principle. And, unless is it is true, how can it be "solid"? Come to think of it, what is a "solid" principle anyway. Do you think that philosophical principles (or any principles, for that matter) are worth anything unless they are true however "solid" they may be. (The inverted commas around the word solid indicates I don't know what you mean by the word, especially since you don't think solid principles have to be either true or practical. No one gets a free pass to talk nonsense just because he is philosophizing. It is not as if you can say to someone, "What you say does not make sense, but that's all right. You are just philosophizing. Philosophers don't have to be sensible". I admit, though, that some people who philosophize seem to think that is the attitude of others.

Is the oil-spil now going to change USA policy ? Or do you not have any options left ? I wish a world without 800.000 tons or barrels or even liters spilling in international waters. The oil company should pay up the damage done; but not to US government since they are faulty as well. Donation to Haiti instead ?

Pepijn