> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan Minette > Sent: 2002��9��24�� 2:20 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: US Releases National Security Policy Statement > > > > 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? In general, arbitrary intervention is not a good idea, but most would agree that there are circumstances in which intervention is necessary, or morally justifiable, or both.
This reminds me a bit of the debate whether outsiders should be allowed to interfere with the way a married couple bring up their kids. In most circumstances, it's entirely up to the parents, and in-laws (let alone government officials) are not routinely asked for suggestions. On the other hand, if there are allegations of child abuse, there are 24-hour phone lines and special, multidisciplinary teams ready to rush to the site, plus clear and universal rules on what to do in case the allegations are proved, and arrangements to take care of the children while investigations are being made. The system of international relations is hopelessly primitive. Historically, however, there has been a positive tendency towards greater transparency, accountability and rule of law. The UN, with all its imperfections, is an embodiment of these ideals. So is the international criminal court, which the US tends to see as a threat to its national sovereignty. So the issue is one of what rules, if any, there should be to regulate international affairs. Since I've been on and off this list since 1996, I can't say that I don't know what John Giorgis thinks about this issue. :-) However, I believe that most of the world's unease at some of US president Bush's recent decisions and actions could be smoothed out easily if the US would do as much as pay lip service to the rest of the world, and simply acknowledge this aspiration. It is a good aspiration, a healthy one, one that could be brought to good use. And it may be the one form of idealism that is peculiarly American, but I for one tend to be suspicious of benevolent kings that just know what is good for me. Thank you very much, let's take a vote. Carlo _________________________________________________________________ �����������ѽ��н�������ʹ�� MSN Messenger: http://messenger.microsoft.com/cn _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
