----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
> 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. But, AFAIK the African intervention is illegal, because it is not approved by the UN. Three veto powers have a sigificant financial involvement with the genocidal government, so it is _very_ unlikely that any UN intervention will be approved. NATO has been asked to help with logistics, and France is arguing against saying yes....as one might expect. If France can stop NATO from helping, the US will have to go alone in providing help. As far as needed other countries because the US is stretched thin, my understanding is that the main non-African country that could help would be Great Britain. As far as I can tell, the Africans are sort of a trip wire, but would be hard pressed to fight the government of Sudan straight up. With logistical help, that may be enough. If not, the only chance they have might be a credible threat from the US. In short, it seems to me that moral arguments have, to first order, zero weight at the UN, and little weight with some traditional allies, such as France. Persuading other countries that action is morally required doesn't appear to be effective in this type of environment. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
