Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > "It is really a significant departure, not just from > > > the containment doctrine but from widely accepted > > > American principles such as: America will not strike > > > first," Buchanan said. "And to elevate it to the > > > status of a doctrine--without incorporating specific > > > examples of a clear and present danger--that's a > > > novelty. It's going to take a while to sell it to the > > > foreign policy establishment." > > > > That, in a nutshell, is why I think that what Bush > > is trying to do is a bad idea and a dangerous road > > to travel. We should not be in the business of > > determining another soveriegn country's government > > and leaders. Nobody should, for pretty much the > > same reason why we do not and should not perform > > assasinations of leaders we dislike. > > You made a universal statement, which makes me think > of the exception. What happens when an unelected > government is committing mass murder against its own > people, and the US has a chance to intervene. Are you > saying that it is always wrong to intervene? >
By "intervene," do you mean "protect those people who are being attacked" or "topple the existing regime and install one that does things your way"? I would support possbily sending troops to defend their villages and/or find places for them as refugees if it's too dangerous for them to stay. I would support sanctions and military actions designed to get the existing regime to behave properly. But I would not support imposing a regime upon the country. Let the locals do that if they're willing, it is their country, after all. Note that in this scenario, the "evil regime" has not attacked the U.S. or its allies, and the U.S. is not responding to any such attack. -- Matt _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
