----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:43 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > > You can be in favor of > > intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_ > > you can say that intervention on moral principles is > > contingent on international consensus. > > And myriad possibilities in between, as well as assistance to NGOs, economic > intervention by businesses and much more. Reducing such issues to either-or > choices doesn't feed hungry people. Nick, everything I know from Africa indicates that getting the food to Africa to feed hungry people is relatively easy. It's getting the food past the guys with guns who see benefit in people starving to death that's the problem. I've seen interviews with the heads of relief efforts in Africa talking about their frustration with this. Neli's best friend is a niece of one of the leaders of the people in Danfur...the ones being attacked. Would you consider her references authorative, or would you still insist that the guys with the guns are not the main problem? > Do we have so little imagination that these are the only choices? Imagination is fine, but by itself it does not create energy, it does not feed people. All things are not possible for humans. >We end up distracting ourselves from the real issues of poor and oppressed people with ideological >arguments, trying to settle whether or not a "conservative" or "liberal" strategy is right. The > problem is the argument is wrong. How about if we use this list to brainstorm new approaches, since the >old choices are both failing? I see an approach that has worked before, but I know a number of countries are against it because it's opposed to their ecconomic self interests. It is clear to me that the next step for us is to provide any support the African peacekeepers need to do their work. We should ask other countries for their support, but we should not withold the help if others are opposed to it. If the peacekeepers are attacked or theatened. , we need to defend them. That seems fairly straightfoward to me. Waiting for other creative solutions, as we did for years. As far as a long term solution goes, Neli and I have had a running conversation on that. She plans on being part of the solution, and we're doing what we can to be supportive. But, we know that we need to address immediate needs like Danfer and Rwanda with immediate action, not more discussions. > I don't have any problem ignoring the UN if it is paralyzed by ideological > arguments. But that doesn't automatically mean we go it alone. It depends on the power France has within NATO. If they can prevail, NATO won't help. A "coalition of the willing" is the most that could be expected then. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
