Replying now 'cause I'm still about 600 posts behind- > JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Deborah Harrell wrote:
> >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. > As others have pointed out, there is no reason why > any of the above should be true. As Nick (I think) noted already, a 'moral imperative' should be essentially unimpeachable, because it is a softer reason than, say, the other guy has missiles pointed at your capital. > For example, Deborah, you have suggested that the US > should be doing more > in Sudan. The rest of the world believes that the > US should *not* > intervene militarily to protect the Darfuris. If > Bush were to advocate > such an intervention, would the morality of this > intervention be based upon > the opinion of the rest of the world? As others have pointed out, he _is_ calling for action WRT Darfur, which is laudable. From what I've learned, it is not possible for the US alone to intervene there militarily, as our forces are stretched too far elsewhere. Getting ANC (?) countries to be major participants in such an intervention would probably be morally better than going it alone, as it shows respect for and confidence in their abillity to police their own continent. But because the Rwanda massecres (sp!!) happened so quickly, sole intervention then would have been justifiable to me. Debbi who hopes to catch up on her email this week...but won't be holding her breath! :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
