At 01:05 PM 5/26/01 +1200 K.Feete wrote:
>I still question why, if the Americans were really trying to help people
>find their freedom, they didn't move in while some of the countries were
>colonies struggling for freedom- why did they have to wait until the USSR
>got involved?
America is a work in progress. For starters, we had very limited
resources, and could not commit to freeing everyone. Moreover, it took us
until just a few years ago to finally declare that we could openly interven
in another country in defence of human rights.
> Darryl's explaination- that the intent was only to contain
>the Soviet Union and that the welfare of the countries themselves was a
>secondary consideration to the welfare of the world as a whole, if I read
>it correctly- makes sense, but it's not exactly the high-and-mighty
>moralistic reasons that others have claimed for the US, and that the US
>itself seems to claim these days.
Looking after the welfare of the world is not a high and mighty moralistic
reason? What, do tell, do you consider to be a "high and mighty
moralistic reason" if the welfare of the world does not qualify?
I should point out, that since UK and France were joining us in our fight
against the Soviet Union - it would have been terribly difficult to justify
fighting a war against them in Africa and Asia over colonialism.
Instead, we founded the United Nations, which declared that colonialism was
unacceptable, and obligated all members states, through the UN Trusteeship
Council, to achieve self-determination for all colonies through peaceful
diplomatic means.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"The point of living in a Republic after all, is that we do not live by
majority rule. We live by laws and a variety of institutions designed
to check each other." -Andrew Sullivan 01/29/01
