> Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nooo, but if it's said that we had a moral
> > imperative
> > to go into Iraq, the same exists in Sudan (and did
> > for
> > Rwanda too) -- the difference as I see it at least
> > partially involves oil or economic importance to
> >the US.
> Yes, that's right. The purpose of foreign policy is
> to serve our national interests. Global meliorism
> is something to be done with your life at the end of
> the
> day, not other people's. If we can, in the process
> of serving our interests, also help other people,
> that's
> _great_. We should ensure, as much as possible,
that
> serving the national interest does not _harm_ other
> people.
I agree.
> But the use of force in foreign policy is
> not, in fact, morally justified in inverse
> proportion
> to the extent to which doing so is good for the
> United
> States. I have said this over and over and over
> again. There is no more clear way to say it. You
> may
> disagree. If you feel that the United States should
> not look after its own interests in the world, fine.
Not at all; frex, invading Afghanistan was justified
in my mind because that government had knowingly
harbored a group which attacked the US. Getting rid
of that safe haven for terrorists was in US interests;
trying to set up a fledgling democracy with improved
rights for women and religious minorities was a
beneficial side effect.
> I think that's a ridiculous position, but it is, in
> fact, a position. But if you're saying "oil or
> economic interests" as if it was an accusation.
> It's not.
Ah, I was not being clear: if one states that those
*are* the reasons for going to war, at least one is
being honest; my problem with this admin is that they
cloak such concrete reasons in 'do-gooder' morality.
[Not that I'm against doing good, 'cause I'm not.
What's more, I am nastily pragmatic in the sense that
I'd have supported assassinating SH, an illegal
action. (I know that some say he couldn't have been,
but I did hear a report (second-hand) that a Special
Forces sniper had him in-sights, and was not given the
go-ahead. As I wrote before, I don't know if that was
in GWI or since then, but there was no reason for the
SFer to impress the person who told me.)]
>Killing and dying is too important to do it
> because it makes people feel good. If you can do
> good
> in the world, you should. But it's not the first or
> most important thing that a state does in foreign
> policy.
Agreed, but if one is going to claim _moral_
justification in pursuing war, one had better ensure
that citizens and foreign states will agree with one's
assertions. Otherwise, they will eventually discover
that such claims were, at best, misreprentation of the
actual situation. And that destroys the credibility
of that government.
Debbi
who will be 'packing' for her trip to the wilds of
Nevada, and is trying to reassure concerned friends
who think that using a roadside rest-stop is too
dangerous (like I'm going to drive for 11 hours and
not need one inbetween gas-ups!)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
