Dan: >dland: <snip> > > Dan Wrote: > > > > >> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: > > >> > > >> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, > > >> > > >> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and > > >> therefore is in a position to "let" or "not let" > > >> nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps > > >> we might consider other nations as adults, instead > > >> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs > > >> to discipline. > > > > > > That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never > > > found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A > > > police force that looks the other way lets them > > > run a city.
The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa, and the US is not a police force. The US is just the strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations can be stronger than the US, but at present these nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder, this alliance might form, which might start another cold war. Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation. > > OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't > > find particularly useful, either, especially given > > this administration's disregard for international > > legal systems. > > OK, you don't like the analogy...the point is that > one often lets adults do things by not setting up > boundaries. But, given the track record of the > international legal system with regard to genocide... > in particular the fact that international law required > government to step aside in the Balkans, I'm not sure > that always abiding by it is called for. I asked an > unanswered question about the past and potential for > future genocide in Sudan. > > 1) Is the African violation of international law by > temporarily stopping the genocide in the Sudan wrong? > 2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called > upon? If the US against the international legal system, they should think about the reactions. Other nations might not trust the US to keep their treaties with them any more. And then the US people will wonder once again why the world hates them so much... If, on the other hand, the US could prove that they didn't do it for themselves but to stop a horrible genocide, and accidents with US troops killing civilans are rare, the US might even get a better reputation. (I don't believe for a second that starving Iraqi children were the main reason for the invasion. But I heard lots about WMD, which were not present, and Saddam being behind 9/11, which was not true.) Now for Sudan, if the African intervention, aided by NATO, actually benefits Sudan more than any of the intervening forces, I'd be impressed. I think true altruism is a good excuse for going against a legal system if that system is deadlocked by non-democratic nations. I have hoped for such altruistic interventions several times in recent years, but most of the time they either weren't altruistic or there was no intervention... -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates! www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
