----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:52 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
> On May 10, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > But, in fact, whether or not our forces were stretched > > thin, other countries won't really be helping much, > > because they don't have the military capacity to > > engage in a wholesale intervention. > > Or, apparently, the desire, for whatever political reasons might be > expedient at any given time in a given situation. > > > The complete > > collapse of deployable European/Japanese military > > capacity since the end of WW2 has been one of the > > untold, and most interesting, stories of international > > politics. > > That is an interesting thing to highlight. In some ways it can be seen > as good -- lots less risk of internecine warfare -- but obviously there > are situations where a European military presence might be desirable. > Any of this due to the old cold war era? (Japan and Germany are relics > of WWII, of course; I'm thinking more of nations that maybe didn't feel > a need to have a large military since their countries had US bases in > them.) > > > Anyways, yes, getting them to intervene is > > good, but their intervention has been illegal and > > unapproved by the UN. 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. You _cannot_ > > do both. They are fundamentally inconsistent > > positions. The French government, which has veto > > power in the UN, _aided_ in the Rwandan genocide and > > denies that there is a genocide happening in the > > Sudan. As long as they do that, UN approval is > > impossible, therefore legal intervention is > > impossible. You can either stand on international law > > or on the necessity of humanitarian intervention. You > > cannot do both. > I think I see where you're leading with this, but there's a big > difference between immediate pressing need -- genocide happening now -- > and something considerably more vague -- oh, maybe there's nastiness > afoot, we don't know, and oh by the way this guy did genocide, um, a > decade ago -- which makes it difficult to support a suggested parallel > between an illegal action in Rwanda and an illegal action in Iraq. It seems that you are arguing that situations like these need to be evaluated on a case to case basis. If so, I concur. If not, I won't agree or disagree until I figure out what you mean. :-) > There are too many extenuating circumstances to imply that supporting > *one* illegal action suggests that anyone should support *all* of them > or be a hypocrite. Agreed. But, I think a case can be made that "it's against international law" becomes a much weaker argument against a proposed action in light of the examples Gautam gave. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
