--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Gautam > Mukunda wrote > > > Yeah, but his argument didn't make any sense, > because > > it was just a wholesale abrogation of moral > judgment > > to other people - people who have an interest in > > acting in an immoral fashion. > > Oh, baloney. Your generalization deserves no more > intelligent refutation than > that.
Well, the next time you supplied one would be the first time, so okay. > > > 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. Do we have so > little imagination that > these are the only choices? 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. NGOs have real difficulties when people with guns line up and shoot them if you try to deliver food. It takes an army to do something in that situation. When you found a company, do you just assert "I have a billion dollars in my bank account" and expect to be able to withdraw it at an ATM? This is the exact equivalent. This is the way the world works. There are people in the world with guns who want to kill other people. Other people with guns can choose to stop them. Or they can choose not to stop them. You're one of the people who choose not to stop them, you just not honest enough to admit it. As _always_ you say "Can't we come up with other solutions?" Well, you're constantly telling us how brilliant and accomplished you are, Nick, suggest something that's even vaguely plausible. Just once. No airy, castles in the sky, I'm so much better than everyone else calls for arm-waving. No statements that God will save us all if we just ask him to. Tell me something that would stop a genocide that _doesn't_ involve force. > > How about if we use this list to brainstorm new > approaches, since the old > choices are both failing? How about closing our eyes, holding hands, and singing kumbaya? > > What could private businesses do? What NGOs could > we support that would > alleviate some of the trouble? How about a > faith-based initiative! What other > ways are there to intervene? That don't involve men with guns? To first order, none. > > 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. > > Nick Again with the ideological arguments. It's amazing - apparently when you commit or support genocide you're not a bad person, you're just pursing a different ideology. Apparently including Milosevic and Hussein judging by your support for Ramsay Clark. In this case, however, the UN isn't hobbled by ideological arguments. The UN is hobbled because France has been bought off and Russia and China want to preserve their right to commit genocide in the future, should it ever become something they decide to do again. That isn't exactly an ideological argument. It's not anything. You want to stop genocide with something that doesn't involve force? Suggest something. Don't say someone should come up with something. That's just evading responsibility (again!). Suggest something. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
